JOINT REVIEW PANEL FOR THE ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT · joint review panel for the enbridge...

JOINT REVIEW PANEL FOR THE ENBRIDGE

NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT

COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT DU PROJET

ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY

Hearing Order OH-4-2011

Ordonnance d’audience OH-4-2011

Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc.

Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

Application of 27 May 2010

Demande de Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc.

du 27 mai 2010 relative au projet

Enbridge Northern Gateway

VOLUME 103

Hearing held at

Audience tenue à

Ramada Prince George

444 George Street

Prince George, British Columbia

November 7, 2012

Le 7 novembre 2012

International Reporting Inc.

Ottawa, Ontario

(613) 748-6043

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2012

as represented by the Minister of the Environment

and the National Energy Board

© Sa Majesté du Chef du Canada 2012

représentée par le Ministre de l’Environnement et

l’Office national de l’énergie

This publication is the recorded verbatim transcript

and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the

official languages, depending on the languages

spoken by the participant at the public hearing.

Cette publication est un compte rendu textuel des

délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée et

transcrite dans l’une ou l’autre des deux langues

officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le

participant à l’audience publique.

Printed in Canada Imprimé au Canada

Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011

HEARING /AUDIENCE

OH-4-2011

IN THE MATTER OF an application filed by the Northern Gateway Pipelines

Limited Partnership for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

pursuant to section 52 of the National Energy Board Act, for authorization

to construct and operate the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

HEARING LOCATION/LIEU DE L'AUDIENCE

Hearing held in Prince George (British Columbia), Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Audience tenue à Prince George (Colombie-Britannique), mercredi, le 7 novembre 2012

JOINT REVIEW PANEL/LA COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT

S. Leggett Chairperson/Présidente

K. Bateman Member/Membre

H. Matthews Member/Membre


APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS (i)

APPLICANT/DEMANDEUR Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. - Mr. Richard A. Neufeld, Q.C. - Mr. Ken MacDonald - Mr. Bernie Roth - Ms. Laura Estep - Ms. Kathleen Shannon - Mr. Dennis Langen - Mr. Douglas Crowther INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS Alberta Federation of Labour - Ms. Leanne Chahley Alberta Lands Ltd. - Mr. Darryl Carter Alexander First Nation - Ms. Caroline O’Driscoll BC Nature and Nature Canada - Mr. Chris Tollefson - Mr. Anthony Ho Doug Beckett Province of British Columbia - Ms. Elizabeth Graff - Mr. Christopher R. Jones Nathan Cullen C.J. Peter Associates Engineering - Mr. Chris Peter Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) - Mr. Keith Bergner - Mr. Lewis L. Manning Cenovus Energy Inc., Nexen Inc., Suncor Energy Marketing Inc., Total E&P Canada Ltd. - Mr. Don Davies Coastal First Nations - Ms. Brenda Gaertner Council of the Haida Nation - Ms. G.L. Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson


APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS (Continued/Suite)

(ii) INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS Daiya-Matess Keyoh - Mr. Kenny Sam - Mr. Jim Monroe Douglas Channel Watch - Mr. Murray Minchin - Ms. Cheryl Brown - Mr. Kelly Marsh - Mr. Manny Arruda Driftpile Cree Nation - Mr. Amyn F. Lalji Enoch Cree Nation, Ermineskin Cree Nation and Samson Cree Nation - Mr. G. Rangi Jeerakathil - Mr. Sean Fairhust - Mr. Brock Roe ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation - “The Coalition” - Mr. Barry Robinson - Mr. Tim Leadem, Q.C. - Ms. Sasha Russell - Ms. Karen Campbell Fort St. James, District of - Mr. Kevin Crook Fort St. James Sustainability Group - Mr. Lawrence Shute - Ms. Brenda Gouglas - Ms. Candace Kerr Friends of Morice-Bulkley - Ms. Dawn Remington Gitxaala Nation - Ms. Rosanne M. Kyle - Mr. Robert Janes Government of Alberta - Mr. Ron Kruhlak Government of Canada - Mr. Kirk Lambrecht


APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS (Continued/Suite)

(iii) INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS Haisla Nation - Ms. Jennifer Griffith - Ms. Hana Boye - Mr. Jesse McCormick - Mr. Allan Donovan Kelly Izzard Kitimat Valley Naturalists - Mr. Walter Thorne - Mr. Dennis Horwood - Ms. April MacLeod MEG Energy Corp. - Mr. Loyola Keough - Mr. David A. McGillivray Northwest Institute of Bioregional Research - Ms. Patricia Moss Office of the Wet'suwet'en - Mr. Mike Ridsdale Swan River First Nation - Mr. Jay Nelson - Ms. Dominique Nouvet United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union - Ms. Joy Thorkelson - Mr. Hugh Kerr Terry Vulcano Josette Wier National Energy Board/Office national de l’énergie - Mr. Andrew Hudson - Ms. Carol Hales - Ms. Rebecca Brown - Mr. Asad Chaudhary


ERRATA

(i)

Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - Volume 102

Paragraph No.: Should read:

26443:

“…(Rangeifer terandus caribou)…” “…(Rangeifer tarandus caribou)…”

26465:

“So a moderate reliability qualifier is that:

‘The assessment for that particular species is based on available information from other studies,

reports or expertise on species habitat relationships that are generally within British Columbia

or nearby areas. Some of that information from ecosystems in the study area is mostly

extrapolated from similar ecosystems and that there is no direct validation of that information

through other field studies.’”

Should read:

“So a moderate reliability qualifier is that: The assessment for that particular species is based on

available information from other studies, reports or expertise on species habitat relationships that

are generally within British Columbia or nearby areas. Some of that information from

ecosystems in the study area is mostly extrapolated from similar ecosystems and that there is no

direct validation of that information through other field studies.”

26472:

“…technical grey literature and government “… technical and grey literature and

report information on species/habitat government report information on species –

relationships…” habitat relationships…”

26569:

“…other environmental assessments where “...other environmental assessments.

not only…” Not only...”

26594:

“…workbooks included the early form…” “…workbooks included an early form…”

26642:

“…Ranges herd are all…” “…Ranges herds are all…”

26644:

“…northern caribou eco-type.” “…northern caribou ecotype.”


ERRATA

(ii)



26669:

“…the eco region that this work addresses “…the ecoregion that this work addresses

and the Telkwa herd’s outside…” and the Telkwa herd is outside…”

26674:

“…from current disturbance remotely “…from current disturbance remotely

sent sources…” sensed sources…”

26675:

“…undertaking work on wolves. In this “…undertaking work on wolves in this

particular area, I do know in…” particular area. I do know…”

26782:

“MR. RAY DOERING: ...” “MR. PAUL ANDERSON: ...”

26991:

“…is engaged with a large Aboriginal “…is engaged with a large number of

groups…” Aboriginal groups…”

27075:

“…the various attributes that go in to an “…the various attributes that go into an

environmental assessment…” environmental assessment…”

27091:

“A single attribute…” “That’s a single attribute…”

27111:

“Volume 6A is the effects of what we “Volume 6A is the effects assessment of

referred to as the routine… things as a what we referred to as the routine…things in

relation… pipeline anyways of Volume relation… pipeline assessment in Volume

7B…” 7B…”

27124:

“…very specifically. It was a very long “…very specifically -- it was a very long

document;…” document;…”


ERRATA

(iii)



27135:

“Then we talk about certainty of the effect “Then we talk about certainty of the effects

prediction…” prediction…”

27206:

“…cumulative effects on potential impacts.” “…cumulative effects of potential impacts.”

27227:

“…as a result of that we do not… ” “...as a result, we do not…”

27263:

“…and spiritual sites. As well as…” “…and spiritual sites, as well as…”

27266:

“That’s correct. The pipeline route we “That’s correct. For the pipeline route we

also…” also…”

27311:

“…proximity of the right-of-way…” “…proximity to the right-of-way…”

27386:

“…the key in all of this using… ” “…the key in all of this is using...”

27412:

“…which is the JRP IR Number 88… ” “…which is the JRP IR Number 8.8…”

27413:

“…there will be a coordination… ” “...there will be coordination...”

27414:

“…exception of the six months of pipeline, “…exception of the six months of pipeline

the work…” construction, the work…”

27518:

“…camp model that are being used is …” “…camp model that is being used is...”

27518:

“…then leaving home… ” “…then leaving for home...”


ERRATA

(iv)



27576:

“…predicted that the effects… ” “…predicted the effects… ”

27594:

“MR. TOM FIDDLER: ...” “MR. JOHN THOMPSON: ...”

27601:

“…on-site construction. But as well, “…on-site construction but, as well, if

if you…” you…”

27608:

“…plans that the – Northern Gateway… “…plans – that Northern Gateway…

You know, whose going to…” You know, which is going to…”

27609:

“...reliance on -- certainly medical “…reliance on medical facilities…”

facilities…”

27621:

“…construction and execution plans…” “…construction execution plans…”


TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES

(i)

Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe

Opening remarks by the Chairperson 27675

Preliminary matters brought forward by Ms. Nouvet 27679

Preliminary matters brought forward by Ms. Griffith 27695

Enbridge Northern Gateway Panel 4

Mr. Paul Anderson

Ms. Colleen Bryden

Dr. Colin Buchanan

Mr. Ray Doering

Mr. Tom Fiddler

Mr. Jeffrey Green

Mr. David Reid

Mr. Gord Rozon

Mr. John Thompson

Mr. Michael Preston

- Examination by Mr. McCormick 27716

- Examination by Ms. Griffith 28652

- Examination by Ms. Nouvet 28735


LIST OF EXHIBITS/LISTE DES PIÈCES

(i)

No. Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe


RULINGS/DÉCISIONS

(i)

Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe


UNDERTAKINGS/ENGAGEMENTS

No. Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe

Preliminary matters


--- Upon commencing at 8:28 a.m./L’audience débute à 8h28

27675. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everyone.

27676. I believe that Swan River First Nation would like to raise a preliminary

matter. Is it Ms. Nouvet on the line?

27677. MS. NOUVET: Yes, Madam Chair.

27678. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. My name is Sheila Leggett and

I’m -- you’re right, I am the Chair. Would you please go ahead and raise your

preliminary matter with us.

27679. MS. NOUVET: Swan River is asking to speak at three o’clock today

for its half hour cross-examination. That would put us -- in the schedule we are to

appear after Haisla has completed its cross-examination and also after the

Wet’suwet’en Office have done so. But I do have their agreement to proceed at

three o’clock, if that suits the Panel, and this is due to some unavoidable work

commitments on my end on Thursday and Friday.

27680. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just to confirm, Ms. Nouvet, that would be

three o’clock Mountain Standard -- Pacific Standard time; correct?

27681. MS. NOUVET: Correct.

27682. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much

for having checked with the parties who would be affected by your proposed

change.

27683. Having heard no other comments on this -- I’m just stopping for a

pause to make sure nobody wants to jump up to the mic -- the Panel thanks you

for having checked with everybody and for the flexibility of the parties to

continue to accommodate each other so that questioning can proceed in an orderly

way.

27684. So we’ll plan to break from the Haisla questions at three o’clock. And

will you be joining us by telephone?

27685. MS. NOUVET: Yes, and hopefully also by videoconference or

whatever the term is for that technology that I’ve never used before to do a cross-

Preliminary matters


examination.

27686. THE CHAIRPERSON: By WebEx. That’s terrific. And you can

work with our staff to make sure that everything’s working ahead of time for you

and that it all will work well for you so that you’ll have the advantage of seeing

what’s displayed in the room ---

27687. MS. NOUVET: Yes.

27688. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- and seeing the people.

27689. MS. NOUVET: Yes, great.

27690. THE CHAIRPERSON: So thank you very much, Ms. Nouvet, we’ll

look forward to hearing your questions later today.

27691. MS. NOUVET: Thanks. Bye.

27692. THE CHAIRPERSON: Bye-bye.

27693. Are there any other preliminary matters that parties wish to raise?

27694. Ms. Griffith?

27695. MS. GRIFFITH: Good morning, Madam Chair.

27696. I do have a preliminary matter and it relates to the Haisla witnesses.

It’s become apparent, as this panel has been marching forward, that it’s likely that

Northern Gateway will start questioning intervenor witnesses on November 22nd

and 23rd

.

27697. This creates problems with availability for our witnesses. They are

both Americans and that coincides with the U.S. Thanksgiving vacation. So

we’re therefore asking that the Haisla witnesses could be scheduled to appear on

the morning of the 27th to accommodate that American holiday and travel

difficulties associated with that.

27698. Taking this approach would likely require that federal government

witnesses stand down in order to accommodate this, and so our proposal would be

to schedule the Haisla witnesses on the morning, at the very beginning of that day,

Preliminary matters


on the 27th, so that it dovetails with the break that would happen anyway from one

day to the next. Ms. Rathje would be appearing by webcast and Mr. Malhotra

would be appearing in person.

27699. I’ve discussed this matter with Mr. Neufeld and he does not have any

objections. I’ve raised the matter with counsel for the federal government

witnesses but I haven’t heard back. When I last spoke to counsel they were

seeking instructions.

27700. So I thought I’d raise this as a preliminary matter today just to deal

with some of these logistical hurdles as early as possible.

27701. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Griffith.

27702. MS. ANDERSON: Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of

the Panel. My name is Dayna Anderson. I appear on behalf of the federal

government participants.

27703. We have no objection to Ms. Griffith’s proposal.

27704. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Anderson.

--- (A short pause/Courte pause)

27705. THE CHAIRPERSON: I see that Mr. Neufeld isn’t here. I

remember that he gave us an update of the time for questioning. And, I was just

wondering -- I don’t believe we understood how many hours were going to be

required for questioning of the Haisla witnesses.

27706. MR. NEUFELD: I apologize, Madam Chair, I was attending to

something in the back.

27707. I believe the estimate that we had was approximately two hours

between the two of them. With one of them appearing by WebEx, that may be

reduced, Madam Chair.

27708. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for the information, Mr. Neufeld.

27709. MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.


Examination by Mr. McCormick


27710. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Griffith, thank you for bringing this

preliminary matter to our attention. We will get back to all parties on this matter

at a future date. Thank you.

27711. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

27712. THE CHAIRPERSON: Any other preliminary matters this morning?

--- (No response/Aucune réponse)

27713. THE CHAIRPERSON: If not, it looks like Mr. McCormick, you’re

getting ready for the microphone so you must be leading off with the Haisla

questions of this witness panel. Please proceed when you’re ready.

27714. MR. McCORMICK: Good morning, Madame Chair and Members

of the Panel.

27715. Good morning members of the witness panel, and Northern Gateway

staff, and all of the other intervenors, as well as the staff from the Joint Review

Panel. It’s a pleasure to be back here again for further questioning.

PAUL ANDERSON: Resumed

COLLEEN BRYDEN: Resumed

COLIN BUCHANAN: Resumed

RAY DOERING: Resumed

TOM FIDDLER: Resumed

JEFFREY GREEN: Resumed

DAVID REID: Resumed

GORD ROZON: Resumed

JOHN THOMPSON: Resumed

MICHAEL PRESTON: Resumed

--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MR. McCORMICK:

27716. MR. McCORMICK: For the benefit of the witness panel, my name

is Jesse McCormick, and I’m legal counsel to the Haisla Nation, and I am joined

by Jennifer Griffith, immediately beside me, she is also legal counsel to the Haisla

Nation, and we are joined by Michael Gordon and Gillian Bakker, who are both

consultants to the Haisla Nation.




27717. I will commence the questioning and after I have completed my lines

of questions we will look to Ms. Griffith for some further questioning.

27718. The topic I would like to begin with is blasting -- some of the blasting

that’ll be associated with the construction of the project. And my first question is,

am I correct in my understanding that blasting will be required for the

construction of the pipeline, access road, and at the tank terminal?

27719. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yes, that’s correct.

27720. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Mr. Fiddler.

27721. And I also understand that Northern Gateway has assumed that

approximately 400 blasting events will be required over 24 months for the

terminal development. Is that right?

27722. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Subject to check, we acknowledge that.

27723. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly. And Northern Gateway will also

engage in extensive blasting in order to construct the two 6.5 kilometre Hoult and

Clore Tunnels, each of those being approximately 5 metres in diameter. Is that

correct?

27724. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The exact technologies in terms of equipment

tunnel boring equipment haven’t been defined but certainly the preparation of the

tunnel access and egress points will include blasting.

27725. MR. McCORMICK: And does Northern Gateway know at this time

how many kilometres of the pipeline right-of-way will require blasting for

grading purposes?

27726. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Subject to detailed centerline routing and

verification of geotechnical assessment of the rock, we’re currently carrying in

our in classified estimate for the project 140 kilometres of rock ditch.

27727. Now, that may be rock that can be broke with hydraulic hammers on

hose in contrast to blasting. So that remains to be work completed through the

course of centreline delineation.





27729. And does Northern Gateway know at this time how many kilometres

of access road will require blasting?


27730. MR. RAY DOERING: Mr. McCormick, those quantities haven’t

been defined just yet.

27731. You may recall that we are going to be using extensively existing

resource roads. Some of those may require upgrades.

27732. There are a few new roads required for access for construction

purposes and for operations purposes. In some cases, such as the road that we

would require to the east portal of what we call the “Clore Tunnel”, may require

blasting to be able to build that road but we may also be able to utilize a road that

will be constructed for the PTP pipeline project in that very area.

27733. So, subject to timing, much of that road may already exist when

Northern Gateway is preparing to construct.

27734. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Mr. Doering.

27735. And just to touch again on something that Mr. Fiddler raised, my

understanding is that you noted that there would be approximately 140 kilometres

of blasting for the pipeline ditch?

27736. Am I correct in my understanding?

27737. MR. TOM FIDDLER: No, I didn’t indicate it would all be blasted.

27738. Some of that rock, subject to geotechnical assessment, may be well

able to be broke with Traco equipment and the like.


27740. And how many kilometres of the pipeline right-of-way will be

required for grading purposes?




27741. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Can you clarify your definition of “grade

purposes” or “grading purposes”?

27742. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Mr. Fiddler, just one moment.


27743. MR. McCORMICK: In terms of grading, what we refer to is

preparing the land to achieve a degree of flatness for the laying of the pipeline.

27744. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Again, a aspect of our centreline definition

and survey will be the actual grade planning of the right-of-way and, with that,

we’ll determine where there will be cuts and where there will be fill.

27745. Ultimately the contouring and re-contouring of the right-of-way is a --

is a plan that will be discussed with stakeholders as inclusive of the environmental

regulatory folks that -- that is work at this stage that required the right-of-way

ultimately to be cleared to really be finalized.

27746. MR. McCORMICK: So, at the moment, Northern Gateway does not

have an exact number as to the amount of grading that will be requiring blasting

for the project?

27747. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The -- the grading generally occurs, first of

all -- and let me back up and see if I can help here.

27748. The grading includes a pre-activity of stripping all organics and

salvaging organics and then the grading really results from dealing with the

contouring of the land or adjusting the pipe to fit the contour of the land by use of

planning of bends in the pipeline and/or the planning of cuts as you might

describe to level land filling the pipe.

27749. And, very much, it’s driven by safety requirements and protocols to

protect the workers from risks related to steep slopes.


27751. So what I’m understanding is that, although Northern Gateway is

aware that extensive blasting will be required, it has not fully assessed exactly

where and how much blasting will need to be undertaken to complete the




construction of the project.

27752. MR. TOM FIDDLER: That's correct.

27753. And I’d add to that that, as part of our Environmental Protection

Management Plan, we will file a detailed blast management plan as part of our

activities.


27755. And you briefly -- no, I believe it was Mr. Doering who mentioned

that there may be an opportunity to rely on potential road construction by -- in

relation to the PTP pipeline.

27756. Has that construction been considered in the Cumulative Impact

Assessment?

27757. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Yes, the Pacific Trails Pipeline was

included as -- in our project inclusion list for the Cumulative Effects Assessment.

27758. MR. McCORMICK: And I understand from your answer, Mr.

Anderson, that specifically that road will have been included as well?


27759. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: We included the road as part of facilities

that would be required for our construction but, of course, if there is a road there

we would use it.

27760. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

27761. And am I correct in my understanding that blasting can cause sensory

disturbances which may adversely affect habitat use by wildlife?

27762. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Depending on the timing and location of

that blasting, if it was in a sensitive area at a sensitive time, it certainly could, yes.

27763. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you.

27764. And do the studies and assessments contained in the record at this




point represent the full scope of studies and research that Northern Gateway

intends to complete in relation to the impacts of blasting on terrestrial wildlife or

are additional studies and research anticipated?

27765. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: No, Northern Gateway plans to -- to do

centreline surveys to get more information regarding the use of habit of wildlife

along our centreline and in the vicinity of our pipeline.

27766. And, as Mr. Fiddler has also mentioned, we do plan to file a Blast

Management plan that would include the mitigation measures that we would

propose to use during blasting during construction. It would also include such

things as setbacks and timing restrictions for the protection of wildlife. And it

would also identify the guidelines such as DFO’s guidelines for industry and

blasting and other guidelines or requirements that would be met.


27768. And I’d like to gain a better understanding from the witness panel of

what the effects of blasting may be on terrestrial wildlife. For instance, am I

correct in my understanding that habitat effectiveness for mammals will be

reduced through sensory disturbance associated with blasting?


27769. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Blasting does have the potential to

affect wildlife behaviour and activity in the vicinity of the disturbance.

27770. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: But I think it’s fair to say, as I’ve

mentioned already, it depends on the timing and location of that blasting and if

it’s -- there’s not sensitive species there, if there’s not receptors there at the time,

there would be no effect.

27771. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Ms. Bryden, Mr. Anderson.

27772. And just to touch upon the answer supplied by -- or provided by Ms.

Bryden, will the impacts on wildlife include reduction in habitat effectiveness for

mammals?





27773. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Blasting would be one component of the

sensory disturbance associated with construction.

27774. It’s obviously not a continuous disturbance. It’s point in time but it

would be part of the general consideration with respect to construction.

27775. MR. McCORMICK: And am I understanding that to be a

confirmation that habitat effectiveness will be affected?


27776. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Yes, sensory disturbance associated

with construction, including blasting, does have the potential to reduce habitat

suitability adjacent to the activity.


27778. And, similarly, increased levels of sensory disturbance from drilling

and blasting will have indirect effects on mountain goats, including displacement

of mountain goats from blasting areas to secondary or less desirable habitats; is

that correct?

27779. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: There is the potential for blasting to

affect mountain goats and Northern Gateway has committed to working with the

Skeena region, the provincial government, with respect to timing and setbacks

related to construction disturbance.

27780. And that’s outlined in B.C Government I.R 2.25.

27781. MR. McCORMICK: And just so I walk away with a full

understanding of your answer, Ms. Bryden, the effects you mentioned, those

include displacement of mountain goats from blasting areas to secondary or less

desirable habitats?

27782. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Sorry, that’s one potential effect.


27784. And I also understand that blasting may have sensory disturbance

impacts on grizzly bears.




27785. Is that right?

27786. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: As noted, blasting and construction has

a potential to have an effect on wildlife in general, including grizzly bears.

27787. MR. McCORMICK: Madame Clerk, if we could please see Exhibit

B3-7, page 98, please?

27788. And if you could please scroll down? There.

27789. And the first paragraph under the table, we note that it reads:

“In addition to this direct habitat reduction, there is also the

potential for grizzly bears to be indirectly affected through

sensory disturbances near construction activities.

Construction activities can affect individual bears by causing

strong, energetically expensive reactions that disrupt normal

behaviour and displace bears from habitats that are otherwise

usable near construction activities ...”

27790. The sensory disturbances referenced in this paragraph, would they

include blasting activities?


27791. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Construction activities that potentially

could affect bears would include a range of activities including blasting.


27793. I’ve not had occasion to personally to witness the effects of blasting on

grizzly bears, could you please explain the nature of the reactions described as:

“strong, energetically expensive reactions” described in this paragraph?

27794. How do grizzly bears react to blasting in terms of their behaviour?


27795. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: So the reaction response of wildlife to




sensory disturbances ranging from road traffic to blasting vary with species,

habitat, time of day, age and sex class, season.

27796. So it’s variable. Not one affect can be ascribed to one situation. So

it’s true for grizzly bears as well. There’s variation within the species and to how

they would respond to a sensory disturbance; so it depends on circumstances.


27798. And understanding that it does depend on circumstance and various

variables, would you be able to provide some examples of potential “strong,

energetically expensive reactions” to blasting by grizzly bears?


27799. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: So a “strong, energetically expensive”

reaction for any wildlife species would be fleeing.

27800. For example, running a certain distance away from a disturbance.


27802. And has Northern Gateway ever conducted any field observations of

grizzlies or other wildlife reactions to blasting?

27803. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Northern Gateway has not conducted

such studies.

27804. MR. McCORMICK: And am I correct in my understanding that the

potential for sensory disturbance from blasting is present for all forms of

construction activity involving blasting, including pipeline construction as well as

blasting for construction of access road and terminal development?


27805. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Sorry, could you repeat the question,

please?

MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Ms. Bryden.




27806. And the potential for sensory disturbance from blasting is present for

all forms of construction activity involving blasting, including pipeline

construction as well blasting for construction of access road and terminal

development.


27808. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: As I indicated, we applied a sensory

disturbance buffer to all components of the project for the construction phase; so

all construction activities would be encompassed by that buffer.

27809. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Mr. McCormick, if I could add, please?

27810. It’s important to note that one of the mitigation measures relative to

the pipeline construction and rock ditch is actually a design depth of cover of 0.6

metres. And with that, the intent would be then to road shot rock over top of the

pipeline and that may assist us with contouring relative to spill event mitigation as

well.

27811. But it’s important to note that, with that depth of cover, we can largely

manage and, certainly, subject to that geotechnical investigation work that we

have to do, we can manage the extent and the volume of explosive used and,

therefore, the risks relative to sensory impacts.


27813. And as I believe it was yourself that confirmed earlier, Northern

Gateway does not yet know exactly how much blasting it will require in order to

complete construction.

27814. In the absence of that information, would you agree that it is not

possible for Northern Gateway to accurately assess, at this point, the potential

scope of adverse effects of blasting on wildlife without knowing what the full

scope and location of blasting will be?

27815. MS. COLLEEN. BRYDEN: Well, as I indicated with respect to the

wildlife assessment, we buffered the footprint of the project where construction

will occur by a sensory disturbance buffer that accounts for all construction

activities.




27816. So the whole footprint was buffered the same way; so presuming the

same level of activity would occur everywhere along the route.

27817. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’ll add to that.

27818. So if we look at how we assess the effects of construction on various

wildlife species, as Ms. Bryden said, the sensory disturbance buffers employed in

the habitat suitability analysis would address those types of effects.

27819. So we’re essentially saying, in the case of construction, that we have a

buffer area where habitat suitability is reduced, meaning that wildlife are moving

away from that area.

27820. I think it’s also important to take into consideration the duration of the

activity. At any particular point in the construction of the pipeline these types of

effects, blasting or construction, are going to be short-term -- days to perhaps

weeks -- and probably not more. I would say one to two weeks on the pipeline.

27821. And, as Ms. Bryden has indicated earlier, we will be -- there will be a

wildlife protection plan. It’s outlined in Volume 7A. There’s, first of all, timing

windows. You’re not going to do these types of activities in the vicinity of

sensitive habitat for grizzly bears, things like denning sites. There’s avoidance of

those areas as well, so we can route around them.

27822. And, during the actual construction, one of the jobs of the

environmental inspector is to be alert to the presence of wildlife, and there will be

multiple people employed in that area. If wildlife is observed in the vicinity of

the construction area, then appropriate measures are going to be taken so that we

-- this is an effect that I think is quite manageable.

27823. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Mr. Green.

27824. And noting Mr. Fiddler’s comments earlier regarding the anticipated

decisions to be made in relation to the construction of the tunnels, based on the

information that Northern Gateway currently has available, how long does

Northern Gateway anticipate blasting will be required to undertake construction

of each tunnel?





27825. MR.TOM FIDDLER: Just give us a moment, Mr. McCormick,

there’s been some recent investigative work at the site, and I just want to get

awareness of it.


27826. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Apologies, I was just confirming the scope of

recent work that’s gone under -- been completed at the sites of the tunnel. It’s

been surfacial work by geotechnical folks assessing rock samples. So there was

no additional drilling at this stage.

27827. But, certainly, indications still, based on past drilling programs, are the

tunnels themselves will be largely completed by tunnel boring machines. And so,

again, it’s the portals where we’ll develop individual blast management plans and

that work remains to be completed as part of detailed design.

27828. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: If I could add?

27829. I think what might be useful is to describe how the environmental

assessment team addressed this issue of the tunnels, because it is quite a unique

aspect of this project.

27830. And in discussions with the engineering team, they did present there

was two options -- there was blasting and boring -- and from the information they

gave to us, blasting appeared to be the more noisy or disruptive activity of the

two.

27831. So the assumption made was that blasting would occur to create the

portals into the tunnels and there are four portals, east and west on the two

tunnels. And once inside the mountain, the advice were given is that the noise

levels would be significantly reduced, or substantially reduced because of being

inside the mountain, and that you don’t have the same noise effect as you would

when you’re blasting externally. That’s the approach we used for the various

VECs in the environmental assessment.

27832. And I think it might be useful for -- one of the concerns around the

tunnels, of course, is mountain goats and we have had discussions with BCMOE

on that particular matter.

27833. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: And I could expand on that a bit.




27834. I referred to our response to the Province of B.C. with respect to goats

in this region and we’ll -- they’ve asked us to continue to work with them with

respect to timing windows and setbacks.

27835. There is an identified least risk period for mountain goats in that

region, I believe it’s June 15th to October 31

st, is the least risk timing window for

goats and the intent would be to limit or to work within that timing window

because it’s the least risk window for goats. But we’ll continue to work with the

Province as they themselves continue to work on refining information about goat

winter range, for example.


27837. And just to confirm, boring as well as blasting presents a potential

cause of sensory disturbance; is that correct?

27838. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That’s correct.

27839. And the assumption in the environmental assessment that, given that

blasting could create a larger noise disturbance during the actual creation of the

portals or a longer duration of disturbance, that the assumption was that blasting

was the technique, not boring.


27841. I’d like to follow up on some points that were raised by most -- both

Ms. Bryden and yourself.

27842. Madame Clerk, if we could please display on the screen Exhibit B3-

19, page 29, please? And under subsection 6.1.4, thank you.

27843. Displayed on the screen you will see Section 6 of the Construction

Environmental Monitoring Plan, and it states under subheading 6.1.4, “Timing

Constraints”:

“Environmental timing constraints will be identified by

Northern Gateway. If the construction schedule cannot change

to accommodate the timing constraint, the mitigation measures

will be discussed and resolved by both the project team and the




appropriate authority, taking into account existing provincial

and federal regulations, licences and necessary approvals.”

27844. And I believe I’m correct, from the earlier statements of Mr. Green,

that Northern Gateway is of the view that some of the adverse effects associated

with construction may be addressed through the application of environmental

timing constraints; is that correct?

27845. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That’s correct.

27846. MR. McCORMICK: And could you, please, provide an example of

an adverse environmental effect that could be addressed through an environmental

timing constraint?

27847. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: A good example would be pre-clearing for

migratory birds.

27848. That clearing will be done outside of the critical windows that will be

established through consultation with Canadian Wildlife Service and additional

surveys that have been committed to by Northern Gateway.

27849. MR. McCORMICK: And building upon that, am I correct that, when

the construction schedule cannot change to accommodate an environmental

timing constraint, there is a higher likelihood of an adverse environmental effect

than when a timing constraint can be implemented?

27850. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I would say that’s not typically -- that’s

not necessarily a valid assumption because, if one can’t use a timing window as a

primary mechanism, you would look to other measures.

27851. It could be a timing adjustment within the day, it could be an alternate

micro-routing around a site. As an example, raptor nest sites, you would not want

to be clearing during active use of the nest but -- and you likely would not want to

clear the nest, but you may micro-route around it. So there are different options

available.

27852. And I think we’d have to take a specific example and say: Okay well,

if we can’t -- if we can’t use this timing window then what are the other options

for mitigation?





27854. And perhaps an example would be useful.

27855. You mentioned the clearing of space in relation to migratory birds as a

potential source of avoiding some environmental adverse impacts through the use

of a timing constraint.

27856. If, in a particular instance, you could not modify the route of the

pipeline and it was going to be crossing an area used by migratory birds and a

timing constraint could not be implemented, would there be a higher likelihood of

an adverse environmental impact due to the failure to implement a timing

constraint in those circumstances?

27857. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Theoretically, the answer is ‘yes’.

27858. But I can’t imagine, in this particular example, that that would ever be

the case. Timing windows for migratory birds are typically followed for any

clearing.

27859. A good example is: PTP is clearing, probably as we speak and has

been for several weeks, and the reason that we do it -- that type clearing in the fall

-- or PTP has been doing the clearing in the fall -- and we’ll be clearing in the fall

-- is to avoid the peak nesting period for migratory birds.


27861. And when will the time -- environmental timing constraints be

identified and incorporated into the construction schedule?

27862. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: That’s a considerable part of a detailed

design on the environmental side.

27863. Timing constraints would be identified and would be recognized as

notations on constructional alignment sheets as well as, generally, the

environmental protection -- the environmental protection and management plan.

27864. MR. McCORMICK: And will this information be shared with third-

party stakeholders?




27865. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: In terms of the information that would be

provided to the National Energy Board, certainly, that information would be

available to anyone that wanted to see it.

27866. MR. McCORMICK: And just so I understand clearly the scope of

the information that will be provided to the National Energy Board, will that

include all environmental timing constraints anticipated within the construction

schedule?


27867. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’ll respond by saying that, first of all,

typically in a project of this scale you’ll have some very specific plans for either

individual species or groups of species.

27868. And so an example would be that we anticipate developing the -- as

we’ve mentioned yesterday -- a caribou protection plan, a grizzly bear protection

plan. There will very much be a fisheries protection plan, a migratory bird

protection plan.

27869. And then, the general wildlife plan that’s referred to in Volume 7A,

which we have before us on the screen, would address generalities and the intent

there is to address the broad suite of timing windows.

27870. In addition to that, the alignment sheets that will be generated

following the centreline surveys will notate geo-specifically -- so to a very

specific segment of the pipeline -- what those timing windows are.

27871. And in the area of the world in which the Haisla’s traditional territory

exists, we have a species called the “Coastal Tail Frog”, as an example, which is

quite sensitive. It has similar needs as a number of fish in relation to clean water.

27872. That might be an example of wherem within the range of that species,

-- and it’s quite limited -- the alignment sheets would actually pick out that

species and identify the needs for that species.


27874. We see displayed in 6.1.4, timing constraints on the screen, that there

certain times when construction schedule cannot change to accommodate the




timing constraint.

27875. How does Northern Gateway decide when the construction schedule

cannot be changed to accommodate an environmental timing constraint?


27876. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I’m sure as you can appreciate the project

of this size will have significant timing requirements.

27877. There’s certain tasks that are critical -- critical path items that cannot

change in terms of -- in terms of timing in order to meet either the construction

timelines or the in-service date or other requirements of the project.

27878. And there’s also -- you know, just the number of pieces of equipment

and things like that are -- that will constrain the overall timelines of the project.

27879. So there may be cases where project timing does allow for a sensitive

timing window to be met and that’s areas where we would work with provincial

authorities to figure out the mitigation that would be appropriate.

27880. In some cases -- I could use the example of a watercourse crossing -- if

we can’t meet a timing -- in-stream timing constraint, we may need to do a

trenchless crossing method at that location, as an example.

27881. There may be other examples where the timing window is quite

conservative in terms of its length and getting site-specific detail on this specific

species at that location, might allow us to have a more appropriate timing

constraint for that species that year.


27883. And I believe my understanding of your answer was that there will be

times when construction schedules will not permit environmental timing

constraints and that there may be adjustments in planned construction methods.

27884. However, I’m not clear on how Northern Gateway will make the

determination in a particular circumstance that the construction schedule cannot

change to accommodate the timing constraint.




27885. What criteria, what factors will be considered? How will that decision

be undertaken?


27886. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Previously in these proceedings, Mr.

Fiddler has explained that the project will be undergoing a detailed project

execution planning exercise in the coming months and year going forward.

27887. Part of that process is determining site-specific timing of construction

along the entire route of the pipeline. The project execution team consists of

construction personnel, it includes engineering, environmental and basically all of

the various disciplines that are involved in the project.

27888. It’s through that exercise that we would identify where -- what the

requirements of the project are and all of the various timing constraints, some of

which are wildlife and some of which are others.

27889. A planning tool that is often used is some called a “March Chart” and

it identifies timing of construction through an area versus the timing constraints

that are -- that exist in those locations.

27890. And it’s through exercises like that where we identify timing pinch

points or areas where we may be challenged in order to meet those timelines, and

that's when the consultation process begins with the agencies, with the provincial

and the federal governments, and with other parties that may be affected.


27892. So my understanding from your response is that there will be a

detailed project planning exercise undertaken in the coming months, and at that

point there will some discussion of what the timing constraints will be and there

will be various mechanisms, such as a march chart, used to determine, or I

understand display the timing constraints.

27893. Has Northern Gateway a set of criteria that will be used to determine

when a timing constraint will be implemented and when it will not be

implemented or is that something that will be determined during detailed project

planning?




27894. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: That really is a case-by-case situation

where you're working very closely with the project team. There are many things

that a project can do in order to meet timing constraints. You can add equipment,

add crews, you can do workarounds, there's many different things that can be

done to accommodate timing constraints.

27895. There may be situations where we can't, but we're first of all going to

exhaust those other opportunities before we look to modify timing constraints or

not meet timing constraints, and as I've mentioned before, there's also other

mitigations that can be done to make those timing constraints not applicable.


27897. And just to confirm, the detailed project planning exercise in the

march charts that have been described, will those be available for the Joint

Review Panel prior to making a decision on this project?

27898. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: That's definitely part of project execution.

It's a very detailed process that will take a long time to develop, and so they will

unlikely be available prior to a certificate, should it be granted.


27900. And just to touch again on the anticipated detailed project planning

exercise and the decision to make -- or the decision -- the choice whether or not a

particular environmental timing constraint will be implemented. Who within the

Northern Gateway chain of command will have the authority to make the

determination as to whether or not an environmental timing constraint will be

accommodated?


27901. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Within the project, there wouldn't be an

individual that would have authority to unilaterally determine whether a timing

constraint would be met. That is an exercise; as I've mentioned before, it's a

group exercise to determine where pinch points might be, and it's ultimately the

provincial authorities that are responsible for the application of these timing

constraints.

27902. And so it's -- it really will be a negotiation, or sorry, a consultation and




discussion with those regulatory agencies to determine where it makes sense and

where it doesn't with respect to timing constraints.


27904. And will Northern Gateway involve any third-party stakeholders or

Aboriginal groups when the decision is made not to accommodate sensitive

environmental timing for particular construction activities?


27905. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I think it's unlikely that we'd have

changes to environmental timing constraints in areas of high environmental

sensitivity. These would be more in areas where there's general timing constraints

and -- that we may have difficulty meeting. In areas where timing constraints

may be -- need to be modified, we would certainly always welcome input and we

would continue our consultation process throughout construction and through

operation and the life of the project.

27906. We've had very good relationships with many of the communities

along the way and we've had -- we do have open consultation around many

matters, including the mitigation that we would apply and the compensation

strategies that we employ. So we would definitely welcome that input.


27908. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I might just interject. I just had an

example given to me and it's a good one. It's around one of the communities that

we're working with, the Kitselas, who are helping us identify specific areas of

concern with respect to grizzly bear and helping us identify timing constraints in

those areas. So I think that's a real on the ground example of how we are doing

that engagement with participating Aboriginal communities.


27910. And does Northern Gateway have a process to ensure that such input is

actively solicited in relation to particular construction timing issues?

27911. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Could you repeat the question, please?




27912. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Mr. Anderson. You've informed us

that there will be the opportunity for stakeholders and Aboriginal groups to have

input on these decisions, and I'm wondering Northern Gateway has a process in

place to ensure active solicitation of that information from third-party

stakeholders and Aboriginal groups in relation to particular construction activities

and environmental timing constraints?

27913. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I think there's several things that I'd like

to point you to in terms of process. One would be around Northern Gateway's

processes going forward. Such things as centerline surveys in order to identify

constraints; we've made the commitment that local Aboriginal communities

would participate in those surveys and would help to identify both the species of

concerns, sensitive habitats and associated timing constraints.

27914. I can also point to a process, which is the National Energy Board

process. Typically, we would see a condition in the certificate, it's usually the

first certificate condition, that says that the Proponent will build as per the

commitments and designs that have been put forward, and if modifications are

required for those -- from any of those specific commitments or designs, then it

needs to be approved by the Board. And often consultation is a requirement as

part of that and showing adequate consultation and appropriate consultation with

respect to any changes that are proposed.


27916. And I've noted that the witness panel has listed various examples of

where environmental timing constraints might serve to protect wildlife. Can

Northern Gateway confirm that the protection of wildlife will take priority over

meeting Northern Gateway's construction schedule and plan date for

commencement of operations?

27917. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: With so many things with respect to

project planning, decisions have to be made on a balance of all things considered.

Environmental constraints, safety of workers, and other requirements of the

project, whether they be related to construction or related to the communities in

which we traverse, all of those things are -- have to be decided on a balance.

27918. So environment cannot take priority in all cases. It is definitely a

priority, but in some cases -- and I could use the example of safety. Sometimes

the situation may -- it may be appropriate to have safety have a higher priority




than environment. So I cannot make the commitment that it would always be the

number one priority.

27919. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’d like to add to what Mr. Anderson said,

is that we’re not implying here that it’s an option of doing something and not

doing anything if a timing window can’t be met. And I want to go back to the

statement that it’s not uncommon in any industrial project, especially during the

clearing phase when the initial disturbance occurs, which is usually the greatest

disturbance associated with a project, that anomalies do come up.

27920. And as an example, you know, my colleagues here were just giving me

an example of if a bird nest was found during the centerline surveys and during

the proceed -- the clearing, what -- a typical measure has been you’re clearing in

the timing window but for some reason there’s nesting here, is that you will --

you’ll flag the area, you’ll establish a setback, the clearing will proceed up to the

one edge of the setback, skip over the area and go onto the next.

27921. Now, will we do that for every nest, perhaps not, but for important

species yes, you would do those sorts of things. And I think wildlife biologists

have been quite creative in a number of industrial projects finding solutions where

those sorts of conflicts occur. And the objective is to reduce the affects to these

species as much as we possibly can, not to just go ahead and say it doesn’t matter.


27923. I’d like to switch topics and discuss some of the socio-economic

assessment work that has been completed by Northern Gateway. Northern

Gateway’s collected baseline information about the existing social and economic

characteristics of the communities near the proposed pipeline; is that correct?

27924. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: That’s correct.

27925. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you. And Northern Gateway has used

that baseline information to assess the effects of the project on people and their

communities; is that right?

27926. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: That information was used to assess the

socio-economic effects of pipeline construction and operation on local people.





27928. Madam Clerk, could we please see -- or please display Exhibit B10-6,

page 24 of 308. If you could please scroll down a bit. Thank you.

27929. This is section 2 of the technical data report on socio-economic

conditions in the human environment. It describes the methods applied. I’d like

to draw your attention to the second paragraph under the table. It notes:

“The six regions collectively include 68 reserves from 49

Aboriginal groups with interests in the study area. However,

only 31 of these reserves contain Aboriginal communities for

which Statistics Canada provides at least partial census data.

In developing the regional profiles, the study team assumed

that reserves for which 2006 census data are incomplete have

characteristics similar to other reserves in the same

geographic area.”

27930. First of all, I note that three different terms have been used to describe

Aboriginal populations, reserves, groups and communities. Could you please

clarify what is meant by Northern Gateway when these terms are employed?

27931. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: The way that socio-economic

information is provided from data sources is probably structured differently from

what you’d really like. Stats Canada, which is the main source of information,

reports information on what are called “census subdivisions” since the

subdivisions are usually identified in terms of reserves.

27932. We know though that that is sort of only a partial accounting; we know

that there are lots of other reserves associated with First Nations. We’ve looked

at the information available from the various other sources and so -- and probably

again is you’ve got reserves identified but with no population or other

information. So it’s a little bit incomplete.

27933. But what we’ve done is we’ve based on our information, to the best we

can, based on the available information from Stats Canada, which uses “reserve”

as the key definition. So there are many reserves, not all are populated, and some

communities coincide with reserves.





27935. So -- just so I walk away with a clear understanding, when Northern

Gateway uses the term “group” and they use the term “communities” do they

mean the same thing or do they mean different things?

27936. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: Could you repeat the question, please?

27937. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly. I’ve just noted that Northern

Gateway has used reserves, groups, and communities as terms to describe

Aboriginal populations. And I’m hoping to gain a better understanding of what

those three terms mean.

27938. You’ve described briefly what reserves are, however, I am still unsure

as to what Northern Gateway means when it uses the terms groups and

communities. Do the terms groups and communities signify the same information

or are they distinct?

27939. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: Okay. There’s sort of a hierarchy here.

And so what you would have is a group would typically consist of a First Nation.

A First Nation may have many reserves, however only one or two of those may be

populated, so that would be the community. So a community, in essence, is a

populated reserve tied to a specific First Nation.

27940. MR. McCORMICK: And based on what I see here, am I correct in

my understanding that there’s a fairly large gap in the information concerning

Aboriginal populations available from Statistics Canada for the 2006 census?

27941. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: For the most part, the census information

for 2006 is pretty complete. There are problems though. One is that for small

populations, be it Aboriginal or otherwise, Statistics Canada will not release

detailed information because of concerns about confidentiality. So what you tend

to get for those communities is population counts and not much else.

27942. You do get situations though where some First Nations or

communities there is simply no information. And if you look for 2006 there was

no information for the Kitimaat 2 Reserve, which is essentially Kitimaat Village.

There was population counts, there was a little bit of information on age

distribution, but there was no other census data reported for that community.

27943. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you. And speaking broadly of the

census coverage for 2006, for on reserve populations, am I correct in my




understanding that for coastal British Columbia region there was only

approximately a 47 percent coverage?

27944. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: I’m not sure what you mean by 47

percent coverage.

27945. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly.

27946. Madam Clerk, if we could please see Exhibit B10-6, page 37? And if

you could please scroll down to the bottom of the page.

27947. I’m looking at the last paragraph on the page, the one commencing

with Table 2-5. In the third sentence I believe, it states:

“Similarly, census coverage for the on-reserve population in

the Coastal British Columbia region was only 47%, with ---”

27948. As you’ve mentioned, Mr. Thompson.

“--- no detailed information available for the Kitimaat 2

reserve.”

27949. So am I correct in my understanding that, based on the 2006 Statistics

Canada census, on-reserve population data for the coastal British Columbia region

was only 47 percent?

27950. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: Yeah, that’s correct, and as I said before,

the big hole is that there were no census data for Kitimaat Village for 2006.

27951. MR. McCORMICK: If we could please scroll up to the table on the

same page, Madame Clerk. Thank you.

27952. What we’re looking at is Table 2-4, Population -- excuse me,

“Population Composition by Region, 2006”.

27953. On the screen we see that the source of the table -- the source of the

data in the table is Statistics Canada 2007 internet site. Am I correct in my

understanding that the data displayed in this table would be subject to the data

gaps that we have just discussed for Aboriginal populations?




27954. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: In this case, what you have is the count

of the number of people that were on -- Aboriginal people living on reserves in

the coastal B.C. region. As I mentioned previously, the information for the

Kitimaat Village did have the counts. So this is a -- I think a fairly accurate

representation of the total number of Aboriginal people living on reserves.

27955. The problem is we couldn’t go any further in characterizing socio-

economic conditions because there were no other census data available for the

Kitimaat 2 Reserve.

27956. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

27957. In my understanding, the ESA concluded that the routine activities

during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the project would not

result in significant adverse effects on the terrestrial environment; is that correct?

27958. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: Yes, it is.

27959. MR. McCORMICK: Madame Clerk, could we please see Exhibit

B39-3, page 58. And scrolling to the middle of the page, the paragraph beginning

with the word “given”. Thank you very much.

27960. This is the Northern Gateway’s response to Haisla Nation Information

Request Number 1. I’d like to draw your attention to the middle of the page

where it reads:

“Given these conclusions for routine activities, as no

significant adverse environmental effects are [predicated for –

excuse me, are] predicted for terrestrial or marine biota or the

ecosystems on which they depend, the Project is also not

expected to result in any significant adverse effects on the

abundance, distribution or diversity of resources harvested by

Aboriginal people or the land which supports these resources.”

27961. Am I correct in my understanding that this paragraph indicates that the

conclusions of the Northern -- of Northern Gateway concerning the significance

of any adverse effects on the abundance, distribution or diversity of resources

harvested by Aboriginal people are premised upon the conclusions of the ESA

pertaining to effects on the terrestrial environment?





27962. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Effects on Aboriginal groups associated

with the project were assessed based on two major types of information; one is

related to the assessment of the effects on the resources that we know or assume

to be used by Aboriginal people for their traditional use; the other is from

information received from Aboriginal groups regarding their traditional use

studies, comments on issues and concerns that they’ve raised, input on mitigation,

project design and monitoring of follow-up programs.

27963. So I think it’s in concert with these two pieces that the project has

come to the conclusion that there won’t -- wouldn’t be significant adverse effects

on traditional uses of these resources.


27965. So based on what you’ve said, would it be accurate to say that the

degree to which any of those conclusions in the ESA pertaining to effects on the

terrestrial environment are incorrect? That the conclusions relating to the

significance of the adverse effects on the abundance, distribution or diversity of

resources harvested by Aboriginal people, based on those conclusions would also

be incorrect?

27966. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Not necessarily so. We’ve made the

assumption that these resources were being harvested for use by Aboriginal

communities. If they were not harvesting those resources then there would not

necessarily be an impact on traditional use.

27967. MR. McCORMICK: Would you then be of the view that the

statement we’ve just discussed, that which indicates on the screen, that because

there were no significant environmental effects identified in the ESA that

correspondingly there was also no significant adverse effects on the abundance,

distribution or diversity of resources harvested by Aboriginal people or the land

which supports these resources, that that statement would then be incorrect in

relation to what you’ve just said?

27968. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I’m sorry, you lost me.

27969. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Mr. Green, that was a -- we see

within the response to the Haisla Nation Information Request Number 1, a




correlation in Northern Gateway’s conclusions between the finding or conclusion

in the ESA that no significant adverse environmental effects are predicted for

terrestrial or marine biota.

27970. And based on that, in my understanding, Northern Gateway has come

to the conclusion that there will not be any significant adverse effects on the

abundance, distribution or diversity of resources harvested by Aboriginal people

or the land which supports these resources.

27971. And I’d asked whether the -- if there was incorrect information in the

ESA that it would also correspond to incorrect conclusions relating to the

significant adverse effects in the abundance, distribution or diversity of resources

harvested by Aboriginal peoples. And what my understanding of your responses

is is that that’s not necessarily true.

27972. So given that that is what is stated in Haisla Nation -- the response to

Haisla Nation Information Request Number 1, I’m wondering whether it is the

information we see on the screen that is correct or the information that you’ve

provided in your response that is correct?

27973. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I don’t believe that the statement that I

made is different in any way than the statement that’s on the screen that you

referred us to but I may just be missing your point.

27974. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Mr. Anderson, I wouldn’t want to

mischaracterize what you’ve stated. And perhaps just to confirm for me, that if

there were to be a significant impact or significant adverse environmental effect

on terrestrial or marine biota it would follow that Northern Gateway would

understand that there would be significant adverse effects on the abundance,

distribution or diversity of resources harvested by Aboriginal peoples.

27975. Is that correct?

27976. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: So let’s say for a moment that there were

significant adverse effects on the environment as a result of the project. That may

affect the abundance, distribution of the VEC or a key indicator that we are

speaking about.

27977. It doesn’t necessarily follow that there would be an impact on the

traditional use of the land or on the harvestability or the number of harvested




species because those species may not be harvested by the community or may not

be harvested by a species in that area. So I hope that clarifies what I’m saying.



27979. And following on what you’ve mentioned, am I correct in my

understanding that although there may be impacts, you cannot assure us that there

won’t be impacts?

27980. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: The conclusion of the environmental

assessment is that there would be no significant adverse effects on the

environment. That’s -- that’s the conclusion of the assessment. It doesn’t say

there would not be any impacts whatsoever.

27981. With any industrial type activity that has an inherent footprint, there

will be some residual impact on the environment and it’s the -- looking at all of

those of that -- sorry, looking at that residual impact on the environment to

determine if that impact is significant or not and again the conclusion of the ESA

was that it was not significant.


27983. And I would just like to confirm something that I believe I heard from

Mr. Green yesterday that the witness panel could not speak to spiritual or cultural

values of terrestrial wildlife for Aboriginal peoples; is that correct?

27984. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I think it would be inappropriate for

Northern Gateway to comment on whether changes to the environment, resulting

from the project, could affect the aesthetic or cultural or spiritual aspects of

harvesting or land use that are important to Aboriginal people.

27985. MR. McCORMICK: And also that no residual analysis was

completed specifically for Aboriginal use in the ESA; is that correct?

27986. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I actually responded to an identical

question yesterday and I’ll try to give a similar answer. And the very short

answer is that we did look at residual effects on all of the valued environmental

components that represent both environmental quality and biota, and as a result of




that, I think you could say that residual effects on the use of these lands by

Aboriginal people and these resources by Aboriginal people has been considered

indirectly.

27987. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I guess I would just add that under --

under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act there is a requirement to -- to

look at the current use of the land for traditional purposes by Aboriginal people.

And so -- and as part of the guidance for the JRP, was for us to look at potential

impacts on Aboriginal interests, so I believe we have done that.

27988. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I will also direct you to an exhibit that Mr.

Anderson referred to yesterday, which is B74-5, which is the most recent update

on the Aboriginal traditional knowledge studies. And one could also say here that

we talk about the issue that various groups who have completed an ATK study

have raised, the mitigation they’ve recommended, the type of mitigation that

Northern Gateway has recommended, and then we talk about the status of the

specific concern as to whether or not we feel we have addressed the concern

adequately.

27989. And I would say that that is another analysis of a residual effect

because what a residual effect is is you take the unmitigated effect, you apply

your mitigation and that’s your residual effect.

27990. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Mr. Green. And I don’t mean to

trouble you with the same questions from yesterday. I just want to make sure I’m

advancing on a correct understanding of what your answers were. So my

apologies if I’ve put you to the same -- same position.

27991. One last one just to confirm that I’m advancing with -- with correct

understanding of what you had put forward yesterday. During questioning by the

Enoch Cree, I believe you stated that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

specifies what Northern Gateway must do when completing its assessment of the

significance of any effects of the project. Is that correct?

27992. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That's correct in that any Proponent that’s

subject to the -- or any Proponent or project that is subject to the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act has to meet the requirements of the Act.

27993. MR. McCORMICK: And the position of Northern Gateway that no

significant adverse environmental effects are predicated -- are predicted for




terrestrial or marine biota, that conclusion is premised upon the framework for

assessing significance derived from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Is that right?

27994. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No, I think I made it very clear yesterday

that that is a document that’s a guidance document. It’s somewhat dated. We

have interpreted all of the guidance documents provided by the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Agency, as well as the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act. And I’ll stress it’s the old Canadian Environmental Assessment

Act that we were working under when we supplied or provided this -- this

application.

27995. And that’s documented in Volume 6a, section 3, and I believe our

methodology is very clear as to how we addressed the various issues related to the

environmental assessment.


27997. And in the opinion of Northern Gateway, is it possible that affected

Aboriginal communities will have an understanding of the significance of a

particular adverse environmental effect that is not derived from the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act?

27998. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: The Act is quite specific as to how we

address aspects related to Aboriginal people and I don’t have it right in front of

me but I believe it’s the current use of lands and resources is how the Act refers to

traditional use.


28000. And I won’t test your memory on the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act. What I’m simply hoping to confirm is that although the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does lay out a framework for

determining significance in impacts, it is possible that affected Aboriginal

communities will have an understanding of the significance of the adverse

environmental effects which is not derived from that particular framework or

policy?





28001. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So several points in response to your

question. So the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not actually direct

us how to determine significance and even the guidance document that was

referred to yesterday is -- provides some -- some suggestions but it’s not -- it’s not

prescriptive.

28002. And so in section 3 we’ve described how we determine significance

and in each of the sections -- I’m sorry, in each of the sections for the valued

environmental components, we also described more specifically how we

characterized effects and how we determined significance.

28003. As to your specific question about perceptions of effects by Aboriginal

people, I believe that’s also addressed in the same document I referred to earlier,

which is B74-5, where we actually do talk about perceptions of effects by various

people who have completed traditional knowledge studies. Similarly, in the

consultation record or the Aboriginal engagement record rather, we will -- we also

noted where Aboriginal people had concerns.

28004. In the environmental assessment we did try to identify, to the best of

our ability, where it was appropriate. And I would say in wildlife and vegetation

and fisheries, that was where we used the traditional knowledge information the

most.

28005. My last statement is that I think it’s reasonable to assume that

Aboriginal people will have different perceptions in some cases than perhaps

what’s been spoken to in the environmental assessment. And that really is the

purpose of the process we’re dealing with, is to allow people to express their

opinions on the determinations that we’ve made.

28006. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I would just follow-up with Mr. Green’s

comments and say that we try to make a distinction between importance and

significance. We define significance as it is a requirement under CEAA to

determine how you define significance. That isn’t necessarily the same as

importance.

28007. We recognize that there would be resources that could be disturbed by

the project that are important to Aboriginal communities. And that’s the real

reason why we seek input from communities to find out what is important or of

interest to them, both as a requirement of the environmental assessment, but also

because it’s just good project planning to try to incorporate all of the interests of




people in which the communities in which we pass.


28009. And just to touch upon what you stated. Understanding that Northern

Gateway addresses and assesses both significance and importance and recognizes

that they are two distinct things, is Northern Gateway committing to ensuring

equal levels of protection for both significant and important elements of the

effected environment?

28010. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Our mitigation program focuses on

protecting resources. And those resources can be resources, key indicators that

have come up through our -- the environmental process as well as the consultation

process. There are many examples and we’ve noted some yesterday of areas

where we’ve applied mitigation or applied route changes to accommodate

interests that have come to us from Aboriginal communities.

28011. So they are definitely considered at the same level within the same

project planning as are things such as landowner concerns on private lands and

many other aspects associated with the project. And again, I’ll stress that that

centerline survey work that we’re going to do will consider all of these aspects in

the final detailed routing of the project.


28012. MR. McCORMICK: Sure. And looking strictly at the ESA, am I

correct in my understanding that the significance of the effects contained therein

are premised upon the legislative framework and do not identify or assess the

significance of any potential effects from the Aboriginal perspective?


28013. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: It’s true that our determination of

significance and the overall EIA process or ESA process follow the guidance and

requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It also followed

the Terms of Reference that were specific to this project and the scope of factors

to be considered that were provided specific to this project.

28014. It also considered the guidelines that Mr. Green has identified in

preparation of an environmental assessment pursuant to the Canadian




Environmental Assessment Act but it also did include consultation. We scoped

the project based on some of the consultation that we have had at that time. We

identified key indicators that -- based on -- in some levels, the consultation that

had been conducted both with interested parties, Aboriginal communities, and

regulatory authorities.

28015. I’d also identify that there are two volumes in the application that are

specific to Aboriginal communities, and Volumes 5a and 5b identify the issues

and concerns that were raised and the mitigation that we proposed at that point

and that is an evolving and continuing process.

28016. And then, whether there were issues that were identified through the

environmental assessment or through consultation and in Volumes 5a and b, those

were incorporated into our mitigation, in our ECMP Volume 7a, and best

management practices applied, whether they were environmentally derived or

derived through consultation.


28018. If it pleases the Panel, I think this would be an appropriate time to take

a morning break.

28019. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. McCormick.

28020. We’ll come back at 10:20.

--- Upon recessing at 10:07 a.m./L’audience est suspendue à 10h07

--- Upon resuming at 10:23 a.m./L’audience est reprise à 10h23

28021. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Langen, did you have a matter to raise?

28022. Mr. Neufeld?

28023. MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, Madam Chair, back again.

28024. I did have a discussion with Mr. Hudson over the break and he asked

that we be more specific in terms of the breakdown of projected time for

questioning of intervenors and so I’ll put that onto the record.

28025. Our estimates remain the same in respect of BC Nature which would




be approximately an hour. ForestEthics Advocacy, about two hours is our

estimate; Northwest Institute, an hour; Raincoast Coalition, I believe I’d indicated

an hour or so.

28026. And previously we’d indicated setting aside a couple of hours for the

two Haisla witnesses that Ms. Griffiths talked about earlier today.

28027. I can also say that we’ve just received a letter from the Office of the

Wet'suwet'en, which has been filed with the Panel concerning their questioning

that’s coming up. It’s a bit of a mixture of an information request style of

questioning that they’re intending to undertake, as well as presenting as an aid to

cross a new report, or proposing to do so, concerning oil trajectory modelling

issues in the context of potential spills and the statement of qualifications of the

author of that report, which obviously is not the purpose of an aid to cross.

28028. I think that what we will need to do is have a look at the proposed

questions from the Office of the Wet'suwet'en.

28029. I would expect that process advisor will want to have a chat as well

with them concerning the aid to cross process that's to be used and provide some

assistance there, and also the purpose of the Panel that's up for questioning at this

time as opposed to the Panel that's been discharged and released in respect of oil

spill trajectory modelling issues and that sort of thing.

28030. I only raise that now because, I guess, depending where that goes, we

may have some time for the Wet'suwet'en as well or need to have them presented.

But again, the plan currently is they needn't be produced for us. If they are

produced for others, I suppose we may have some questions or if things go in a

different direction, we may still need some time there.

28031. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for the update, Mr. Neufeld.

28032. MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

28033. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McCormick, please continue with your

questions of this witness panel.










DAVID REID: Resumed

GORD ROZON: Resumed



28034. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Madam Chair.


(Continued/Suite)

28035. MR. McCORMICK: I'd like to take some time to discuss grizzly

bears and the potential impacts of the project on grizzly bears.

28036. Madame Clerk, if we could please see Exhibit B3-6, page 29 of 81?

Thank you.

28037. Displayed on the screen is Figure 9-3.2, Volume 6A of the

Application. It displays sensitive areas for wildlife in Western British Columbia

as determined by Northern Gateway. The pink dotted lines that we see on the

screen indicate grizzly bear population units and we note that the proposed right

of way traverses both the Bulkley Lakes Grizzly Bear Population Unit, which I

may refer to as GBPU, as well as the North Coast Grizzly Bear Population Unit.

28038. It's my understanding that grizzly bears have been identified as present

within the project development area; is that correct?

28039. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Grizzly bears are present -- or the route

crosses through grizzly bear range, yes.

28040. MR. McCORMICK: Just to confirm that, that is confirmation that

the grizzly bears are present in the project development area?

28041. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Well, given -- I mean, the project

development area is the right-of-way footprint, et cetera, and I can't say at this

moment a grizzly bear is present in that, but it's certainly within their range.

28042. So they could be present in the PDA at any time.




28043. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Ms. Bryden.

28044. Madame Clerk, if we could, please, turn to the same exhibit, however,

page 30 of 81. I believe it's the next page. Thank you.

28045. On the screen, we see Subsection 9.2.1 of Volume 6A, which

identifies key project issues for wildlife. Would you agree that all of the potential

environmental impacts of project activities displayed here in this section have the

potential to impact grizzly bear populations?


28046. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: The three main effects identified here --

change in habitat availability, change in mortality risk, and change in movement

-- have the potential to affect grizzly bears, that's correct.


28048. And I understand that the grizzly bear is a blue-listed species in British

Columbia and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has

listed the grizzly bear as a special concern as it is vulnerable to human

disturbance.


28050. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: That's correct.

28051. MR. McCORMICK: And a species of special concern is one that

may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological

characteristics and threats.


28053. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: I don't have the definition right in front

of me, but that's sounds like the COSEWIC definition of special concern.

28054. MR. McCORMICK: And just perhaps to confirm, Madame Clerk, if

we could, please, display Exhibit B3-6, page 39 of 81?




28055. This is Volume 6A of the Application and I believe in the first

paragraph under the two bullet points in the second -- my apologies, the third

sentence we note:

"A species of special concern is one that may become

threatened or endangered because of a combination of

biological characteristics and threats."

28056. If we could please return, Madame Clerk, to B3-6, page 30?

28057. Would you agree that the potential environmental impacts of project

activities, displayed in Subsection 9.2.1 of Volume 6A, could constitute potential

threats to a species of special concern, such as a grizzly bear, if they were

significant?


28058. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Could you restate your question, please?


28060. We see displayed on the screen Section 9.2.1 of Volume 6A. What it

displays is the key project issues for wildlife and my question is whether you

would agree with me that the potential environmental impacts of project activities,

displayed in Subsection 9.2.1 of Volume 6A, could constitute potential threats to

a species of special concern, such as a grizzly bear, if they were significant?

28061. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: The potential project effects of the -- the

potential effects of these activities displayed here, if significant, could have the

potential to have an adverse effect on grizzly bears.

28062. MR. McCORMICK: And as adverse effects, they could be

considered threats to species of special concern, such as grizzly bears, if they

were, in fact, significant?


28063. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: A significant adverse effect on a species

of special concern would be a concern, obviously, from a project perspective and

would be subject to measures to minimize that concern.





28065. And from the three primary project issues that we see for wildlife,

displayed in Section 9.2.1, would any of either changes in habitat availability,

changes in mortality risk or changes in movement, if significant, not constitute a

threat to a species of special concern?

28066. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: With respect to this project and grizzly

bears in particular, similar to caribou, as we've talked about past couple of days,

change in mortality risk would be of the most concern with respect to this project

as a result of creation of linear feature access on the landscape.

28067. MR. McCORMICK: So am I correct in my understanding that these

three potential key project issues for wildlife are threats to special -- to species of

special concern?

28068. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Well, these three broad effects that

we've identified and assessed are concerns to wildlife in general. That's why we

-- you know, they've been identified for assessment. Change in habitat, change in

mortality risk and change in movement are concerns for all wildlife species with

respect to development.

28069. MR. McCORMICK: And just to ensure that that isn't misconstrued

in some later discussions, by concern, you also capture threat, in what you're

saying as these representing concerns, they are also threats as well?

28070. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: I guess you'd have to define threat. That

would seem to be a concern to me as well.

28071. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Ms. Bryden. That would be threats

as understood in relation to the identification of grizzly bears as a species of

special concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada.

28072. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, my friend has tried to explain what he

means by threat and in doing so he's referred to, I believe, a document. I don't

mean to be difficult, but I don't think he provided the clarity the witness was

looking for, Mr. McCormick.




28073. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly. Perhaps I can assist.

28074. Madame Clerk, if we could please display once again, Exhibit B3-6,

page 39 of 81 -- 39.

28075. In the paragraph immediately below the bullet points, in the third

sentence we see that:

"A species of special concern is one that may become

threatened or endangered because of the combination of

biological characteristics and threats."

28076. So we see the use of the word “threats” within Volume 6A of the

Northern Gateway application. Within the understanding of threats as used in the

volume that we see displayed before us on the screen, do the concerns that you've

identified, Ms. Bryden, also qualify as threats to species of special concern?

28077. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Thank you for that.

28078. Yes, potential changes in habitat, the availability potential changes in

mortality risk and potential changes in movement patterns would be considered

potential threats.


28080. And would you agree with me that grizzly bears exhibit moderate to

long-distance dispersal patterns?

28081. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Grizzly bears as a species are

considered a landscape level species. There's obviously differences within the

species, and among age, and sex classes and how long-range their movements

might be on an annual basis.


28083. And would you agree that grizzly bears can be affected by changes to

the overall permeability of the landscape in terms of regional habitat

connectivity?

28084. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Changes to the landscape with respect to




permeability, as you suggest, related to liner feature development is a well-known

factor in grizzly bear population ecology.

28085. MR. McCORMICK: And just so I'm clear, noting that they are a

factor, is -- are grizzly bears affected by that factor, in that they are affected by

changes to the overall permeability of the landscape in terms of regional habitat

connectivity?

28086. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Population -- or excuse me, habitat

fragmentation is a result of development. In particular, liner feature development,

roads in particular is recognized as a factor affecting grizzly bear populations.

28087. MR. McCORMICK: Madame Clerk, could we please display

Exhibit B3-6, page 74? Page 74, please, and if you could please scroll down to

section 9.4.2, "Effects on Wildlife Due to Change in Movement".

28088. On the screen we see section 9.4.2, "Effects on Wildlife Due to

Change in Movement" of Volume 6A. The first line reads:

“The Project may affect local and regional wildlife movements

by decreasing the overall permeability and connectivity of the

landscape for wildlife.”

28089. A little further down it states:

"The effect on movements will be most pronounced for species

that: ---”

28090. And the third bullet notes:

"--- are sensitive to activities along the RoW, even at low

intensity."

28091. Would you agree with me that grizzly bears are sensitive to activities

along the right-of-way even at low intensity?

28092. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: The primary concern with respect to

linear feature development and use with respect to grizzly bears is related to

mortality risk. Typically as the result of human activities, for example hunting

and poaching. So that's the main concern with respect to grizzly bears regarding




linear feature development.


B13-1, page 139?

28094. This is wildlife habitat modelling, approach methods and species

accounts technical data report. You will note at the top of the page that it

indicates that:

"Grizzly bears may be vulnerable to individual disruption

arising from construction, maintenance, and use of linear

developments. Efficient foraging strategies of bears were

disrupted near human facilities including roads in Yellowstone

National Park […]"

28095. Now, I appreciate that hunting and poaching are issues of concern for

grizzly bears. But am I also correct in my understanding that the construction

activities envisioned for the Northern Gateway Project are likely to be more

intense than simple road, use as indicated in this passage, and that grizzly bears

will be sensitive to those activities?

28096. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: With respect to how we develop the

wildlife -- or the grizzly bear habitat model, we assign sensory disturbance buffers

to account for disruption of habitat use during construction. We used an 800-

metre buffer, that's the same buffer we use for roads, for example.

28097. The difference with -- so we certainly acknowledge that sensory

disturbance associated with intense construction can be as disruptive as some road

level activity but the duration of the effect -- obviously construction is -- it’s

progressive along the route. It moves along and ends unlike a road which would

be a continuous disturbance.

28098. So we certainly have accounted for the magnitude of sensory

disturbance associated with construction, and again, important consideration with

construction is the duration and also the timing.

28099. As I’m sure Mr. Fiddler could talk in more detail but we have winter

construction and summer construction activities, so that’s also a factor. Again,

road disturbance being, you know, for example a highway being something that

would be continuous and year round.




28100. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I would just like to point out so these

references refer to roads with traffic and we’re -- I believe the questioning is

about the right-of-way and the type of disturbance associated with the right-of-

way and that’s very different.

28101. The intent in the grizzly bear areas is not to provide access along the

right-of-way for the very reasons that Ms. Bryden’s been referring to in terms of

mortality risk. Obviously access roads will be comparable to this if they’re open

and the traffic volumes are appropriate. And so I think when you’re comparing

these references to the right-of-way we have to keep that in consideration.

28102. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: I would also like to add to the

comment made by Mr. Green and Ms. Bryden about the sensory disturbance

buffer used in the models.

28103. Ms. Bryden mentioned that we use an 800-metre buffer for the

construction phase of the project along the right-of-way. It’s also important to

acknowledge that during the operations phase we’ve applied a sensory

disturbance buffer of 400 metres.

28104. So we acknowledge that disturbance is going to be much lower during

the operational phase along the right-of-way. But we believe we’ve presented a

conservative number of 400 metres because, as Mr. Green pointed out, these

disturbances referred to in the exhibit on the screen are -- are pertinent to roads

with traffic. And we expect through controlled access that that sensory

disturbance will be much lower.

28105. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Mr. Preston.

28106. So I’ve heard from the varied responses that Northern Gateway

acknowledges that there will be interferences or sensory behaviour impacts

related with intense construction and that has been accounted for in construction

plans or it will be accounted for in construction plans.

28107. However, I’m not confident that I understand Northern Gateway’s

position on whether grizzly bears are in fact sensitive to activities along the right-

of-way at low intensity. Low intensity activities occurring over the right-of-way,

will grizzly bears be sensitive to that?




28108. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: I think by acknowledging the 400-

metre sensory disturbance buffer built into our models at the operation phase

which we just mentioned would be considered low intensity relative to the

example on the screen which would have roads with traffic and so forth that we

have accounted for sensory effects with respect to low intensity activities.

28109. MR. McCORMICK: And in accounting for them Northern Gateway

is acknowledging that grizzly bears are, in fact, sensitive to those low intensity

sensory effects?

28110. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: Yeah, we do acknowledge that they

can be sensitive to low intensity disturbances by having the 400-metre buffer. If I

can point you to the last sentence of that first paragraph on the screen:

“[There are] some authors [who] believe that grizzly bears

may become accustomed, or desensitized, to predictable

occurrences, including traffic…”

28111. So we do believe with the 400-metre buffer at the operational phase --

we have acknowledged sensitivities to low intensity disturbances but we’ve also

been, we believe, conservative.


28113. And noting your reference there we see it at the page 139 of Exhibit

B13-1, the last sentence in the first paragraph:

28114. “However, some authors believe that grizzly bears may become

accustomed, or desensitized, to predictable occurrences, including traffic…”

28115. And I note that that was a study prepared by -- or it refers to two

studies in fact; McLellan and Mace 1985 and McLellan and Shackleton 1989.

28116. If we look further up in the paragraph, I believe you will note that

there is another study which indicates -- and this would be the middle of the

topmost paragraph on the page that:

“These bears did not appear to habituate to logging traffic

even after two years of hauling. Grizzlies in southern Alberta

similarly did not appear to habituate to high-speed, high-




volume traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway…”

28117. So we see two competing pieces of information; one study indicating

that bears did habituate and one indicating that bears did not. I note that the study

indicating that bears did not habituate was from 2002, and the study indicating

that bears did in fact habituate was from the 1980s. To the degree that these two

studies are in contradiction, which of the two studies is more reliable?

28118. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: As I…


28119. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: As I think I raised a bit earlier today,

while the response of wildlife -- grizzly bears we’ll talk about specifically here --

is variable, depends on context and circumstances. High-volume traffic has been

demonstrated to be disruptive to grizzly bears, and for example, I can comment on

the Archibald et al study because I actually was involved in that work.

28120. That was a logging operation, high-volume traffic. It’s long ago now

and I can’t recall the traffic levels, but it was obviously a very different scenario

than what we’re talking about, a right-of-way along which access will be

discouraged and minimized because of concerns about mortality risk to grizzly

bears.

28121. Grizzly bears have been -- will forage along right-of-ways. That’s --

you know, a common observation. Given that the level of activity is low along a

right-of-way post-construction, as we’ve discussed, I don’t think there’s a

comparison to be made with road activity, particularly high-volume logging

traffic and highway traffic for example.


28123. Two follow-up questions on that, the first is noting that the McLellan-

Mace study is from 1985 and the McLellan-Shackleton study is from 1989, is

Northern Gateway not aware of any further studies addressing this topic that are

more current?


28124. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Could you restate the question, please?




28125. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Ms. Bryden. Looking at the last

sentence displayed on the screen:

“However, some authors believe that grizzly bears may

become accustomed, or desensitized, to predictable

occurrences, including traffic…”

28126. It relies on two studies, McLellan and Mace, 1985, and McLellan and

Shackleton, 1989. Noting that that is over two decades ago does Northern

Gateway not have any studies addressing this topic that are more current than

those relied upon for this conclusion?

28127. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: What you’re looking at here is not

meant to be an exhaustive literature review of information available on grizzly

bear habituation to traffic and other disturbances.

28128. I mean, the McLellan-Mace and McLellan and Shackleton are sort of,

I would say, classic papers that addressed the effects of extraction industries on

grizzly bears in the flathead valley.

28129. I imagine there’s been subsequent work on habituation of grizzly bears

to traffic but that’s not central to -- I mean, we’re not looking at a project that’s

developing a road here so we didn’t -- an extensive literature review on

habituation wasn’t necessary.


28131. And then, I guess you would agree with me that, when reviewing this

information that we see displayed we should be cognizant of the fact that it is not

necessarily the most current information?


28132. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: As I said, this isn’t an extensive review

of the literature so there are likely more current papers on the habituation of bears

to roads.





28134. Madame Clerk, could we please see Exhibit B3-6, page 42?



28136. And on the left most column -- this is Table 9-4 of Volume 6A, and

the “Key Indicators of Environmental Effects on Wildlife”. It’s a continuation of

earlier portions of the table provided on the pages preceding this.

28137. You’ll see in the left-hand most column under “Mammals”, the one,

two, three, fourth row addresses grizzly bears. And if we look all the way to the

right of the table -- and I believe you’ll have to scroll over, Madame Clerk -- we

see under the title line “Effects Analyzed”, one subdivision being “Movement”.

And the fourth row down under “Movement” does not have a checkmark.

28138. Am I correct in my understanding that the absence of a checkmark in

the far right column indicates that movement related effects on grizzlies were not

analyzed as part of Northern Gateway’s assessment?

28139. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: The effect of the right-of-way was not

considered to be a major potential adverse effect on grizzly bears and was not

assessed in detail.

28140. We did address movement as qualitatively for mammals in general.

28141. MR. McCORMICK: And although you did address movement for

animals in general, no specific analysis of the effects was undertaken for grizzlies

relating specifically to movement?


28142. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: If we could go to Adobe page 142 of

B3-7?


28143. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: So this is the section of the ESA where

we address movement -- the effect of the project on movement for mammals

collectively.




28144. But, in this section, although it’s collective qualitative assessment for

mammals, we do speak about the effects generally for specific species such as

caribou, grizzly bear, some of the other smaller species.

28145. So again, we look generally and qualitatively at the effect of the

project on movement for wildlife but, with respect to this project which the main

effect being the creation of a long linear feature across the landscape, we

primarily focused on mortality risk as the concern for wildlife, particularly

caribou and grizzly bears.


28147. And if I understand correctly your previous statements, the reason why

a grizzly bear specific movement effects analysis was not conducted was because

Northern Gateway was of the position that the potential effects on grizzly bears

related to movement would not be significant.

28148. And I’m wondering how Northern Gateway managed to reach that

conclusion without conducting a grizzly bear specific effects analysis relating to

movement.


28149. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: I’ll just refer to our section here, page

142, and I can read directly from here, but:

“Although the most sensitive mammal species such as caribou,

grizzly bear, goat and wolverine are likely to avoid

construction sites completely…”

28150. That is, the right-of-way:

“…this avoidance is presumed to be reversible … [upon]…

completion of the site-specific activities.”

28151. Thereafter, the right-of-way being a relatively low use feature.

“The residual change in movement…”




28152. I’m continuing on from what we’ve presented here:

“The residual change in movement is predicted to be localized,

low magnitude and short ... [duration]… during construction.”

28153. And if we go on to -- oops, I can’t scroll down there. If we scroll

down to “Operations”, we conclude then that:

“…assuming strict access controls to reduce human use, the

RoW is unlikely to be an impediment to large and medium-

sized … [animals]… crossing during operations.”

28154. And this would include grizzly bears, moose, caribou, as it were.

28155. So I think then you see our rationale for the assessment of this effect.

And again, I’d reiterate that for grizzly bears the key concern with respect to this

project is the creation of the linear feature across the landscape and its potential

for human access.

28156. MR. McCORMICK: So I am correct in my understanding that the

various conclusions you’ve referenced in this document are premised upon an

analysis that is not specific to grizzly bears and the effects of movement -- the

effects of the project on the movement of grizzly bears?

28157. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: As I indicated, we did a qualitative

assessment of the effects of movement on mammals as a group with specific

reference to certain species where applicable.


28159. Madame Clerk, if we could please return to Exhibit B3-6, page 42,

Table 9-4? Thank you. And if you could scroll to the left, please?

28160. So noting again that we see under the heading “Mammals”, grizzly

bears in the fourth row and, under “Criteria for Inclusion”, it indicates that a

conservation framework rank was identified and for grizzly bears the conservation

framework rank was “2(2)”.

28161. Madame Clerk, could you please display Exhibit B3-6 -- I believe it’s

the same document -- page 44?




28162. Now, here under “Conservation Framework” we see -- excuse me -- if

you could scroll to the left please, Madame Clerk, and then to the bottom of the

page. Thank you.

28163. We see that:

“An example of the applying the Conservation Framework

follows, using the mountain goat…”

28164. And they’ve identified based on the three goals, different numbers, and

they’ve also identified preventative conservation rating.

28165. Could you please provide us with the ratings for the three goals for

grizzly bears and let us know what has been determined to be the primary

management goal for grizzly bears?


28166. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: We’re just looking up the current

ranking.

28167. This is a provincial system, the conservation framework and obviously

the information we presented here is what was current in 2009, so we’re just

confirming.

28168. So just so I can be clear on what you are asking for, you’d like to

know the ratings for the three goals for grizzly bear?

28169. MR. McCORMICK: That’s correct, Ms. Bryden, the three goals

being:

“Contribute to global efforts for species in ecosystem

conservation; 2. Prevent species and ecosystems from

becoming at risk [and] 3. Maintain the diversity of native

species in ecosystems.”

28170. As indicated at the top of the page.

28171. And we would also appreciate if you could inform us of the primary




management goal for grizzly bears.

28172. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Okay. We’re just looking at the latest

information available on the conservation framework. And as in 2009, the highest

priority rank for the goals for grizzly bear is two, as it was then. Priority goal one

is ranked as three, priority goal two is ranked as two, and priority goal three is

ranked as three.

28173. MR. McCORMICK: And just so I’m fully confirmed, the primary

management goal for grizzly bears was which?

28174. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: The highest ranked goal of those three --

for grizzly bear is preventative conservation and it’s ranked as two.

28175. MR. McCORMICK: And would you be able to provide a brief

explanation of what is meant by preventative conservation?

28176. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Just to refer, the next paragraph down

does give some examples of preventative conservation measures. Again, this is a

broad -- the conservation framework’s broad and the province, it applies to

hundreds of species.

28177. But there -- some examples would be monitoring population trends,

preparing wildlife protection and management plans, protecting ecosystems and

habitats and reviewing effects of resource use on a selected species. So those are

some of the activities associated with that goal.

28178. And these aren’t specific to a Proponent. These are broad initiatives

that the province is considering.


28180. Madame Clerk, could we please see Exhibit B46-39, please. That

would be page 1. Thank you.

28181. This document was supplied by Northern Gateway to the Joint Review

Panel as an attachment to Federal Government Information Request 2.66, which

is Exhibit B46-2. It is a framework for an environmental effects monitoring

program for the pipelines which is identified as a draft document and it is dated

November 18, 2011.




28182. Has a final environmental effects monitoring program for the pipelines

been prepared by Northern Gateway?

28183. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: No, it’s currently still being worked on.

28184. MR. McCORMICK: And when does Northern Gateway anticipate

that this document will be finalized?

28185. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: This document would be finalized, we

believe, fairly soon after certificate approval. We would want to get baseline

information started to be collected prior to -- prior to the commencement of

construction.

28186. One of the key limiting factors in terms of getting it developed is

getting third-party input from both research and scientific authorities as well as

through consultation.


B46-2, page 160 of 214. If you could please scroll to the bottom.

28188. This is Northern Gateway response to Federal Government

Information Request Number 2. It notes in the response that:

“In addition, Northern Gateway will develop and implement an

EEMP as a follow-up program in respect of the pipelines…”

28189. Could you please inform us when does the follow-up program begin, is

it something that begins during construction, the pipeline fill-up, at what stage of

pipeline development will the follow-up program begin?

28190. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I’d just like to get some clarity with your

question. Are you asking me when the plan would be prepared or when it would

be implemented?

28191. MR. McCORMICK: I’m referring to implementation, Mr.

Anderson. Notes that Northern Gateway will develop and implement an EEMP

and from your previous answer I understand that the plan will be developed and

finalized post the issuance or potential issuance of a certificate and it will be

implemented as a follow-up program and I’m wondering at one point in pipeline




development will that follow-up program commence?

28192. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Thank you for that.

28193. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McCormick, I’m just seeking

clarification, is this not in reference to a marine environmental effects monitoring

program?

28194. Have we got the right page displayed here?

28195. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Madame Chair.

28196. I would note that the reference I am referring to on the screen indicates

that:

“Northern Gateway will develop and implement an EEMP as a

follow up program in respect of the pipelines.” (As read)

28197. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: So with respect to the EEMP, baseline

data would be a collection of preconstruction baseline information, would be

gathered to supplement the -- obviously, the information that we’ve already

collected, starting -- up to three years prior to the commencement of construction

in certain areas.

28198. The actual follow-up program that you’re referring to -- the purpose of

a follow-up program is to, first of all, test whether your mitigation measures are

successful in achieving what they were intended to achieve and also to look at the

predictions of the environmental assessment and to determine --especially in areas

where there was low confidence in the assessment, in order to prove up those

predictions.

28199. So the implementation would begin for baseline very soon and prior to

construction and the follow-up programs would start during construction.


28201. Madame Clerk, could we please see Exhibit B46-39? Returning to the

framework for an environmental effects monitoring program and page 8, please.

28202. I would note at the bottom of the page that it indicates in relation to




“Grizzly bear (habitat and movement)” that:

“Collaborative monitoring efforts would be applied and may

include programs to estimate population size and trends and

the evaluation of conservation measures (e.g., means to reduce

mortality associated with linear feature density.)”

28203. I note specifically the use of the word “may” in the description of the

programs which, with -- which may be undertaken as part of the collaborative

monitoring efforts.

28204. Is Northern Gateway making a firm commitment to undertake

programs which will estimate population size and trends?

28205. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Yesterday, I spoke about the scientific

advice and -- that we would seek in the development of our program for

environmental effects monitoring as well as environmental research in the areas.

28206. If the population of grizzly bears, in the specific units that we’re --

population units that we’re talking about, was determined to be a gap in that -- in

our understanding, then we would participate in research initiatives in that

respect.

28207. We anticipate that that would likely be more third-party research than

us conducting it ourselves.

28208. MR. McCORMICK: So am I correct in my understanding that, at

this point, there is no firm commitment from Northern Gateway to monitor

activity levels of grizzly bears use and movement in areas known and predicted?

28209. Or -- excuse me, there is no firm commitment from Northern Gateway

to undertake programs to estimate population size and trends?

28210. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I would say there already is a firm

commitment.

28211. Northern Gateway has been working with the Kitselas First Nation for

the last two years and one of the focal species that they’ve chosen is grizzly bear.

And they -- part of that work, it’s what I call a very intensive ground-based survey

approach.




28212. They’re mapping areas that they believe are important for various

seasonal needs of grizzly bears -- feeding, denning, that sort of thing -- as well as

collecting information on numbers of bears based on observation.

28213. Part of that work is going to go exactly to what’s said here, which is to

identify means to reduce linear feature density. So I would say that the work has

already begun and I think it’s important to point out that the Bulkley Valley

grizzly bear unit is of concern and we’ve identified that in the environmental

assessment.

28214. And, in fact, Northern Gateway, in the same volume, made a

commitment to develop a linear feature removal plan specifically for this

population because of the concerns about the amount of linear feature density and

how this project and the PTP project will change linear feature density in this

area.



28216. MR. McCORMICK: It is my understanding that regional effects

assessment area analysis unit for grizzly bears were based upon grizzly bear

population units in British Columbia and bear management area boundaries in

Alberta.


28218. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: That’s correct.

28219. The regional assessment area, where it intersected with those units,

were applied to grizzly bears.


B3-6, page 56, the second last paragraph? Thank you, Madame Clerk.

28221. This is Volume 6A, Part 2, “Pipelines and Tank Terminal ESA”.

28222. We see that it indicates that:




“For this assessment, an effect is considered not significant

when the Project is not expected to result in an effect on the

long-term viability of a wildlife population (e.g. subpopulation,

herd or management unit, as appropriate). It is considered

significant when there is a moderate to high probability that

the Project may result in an effect on the long-term viability of

that same population.”

28223. Does the term “long-term” carry the same meaning that has been

applied in the Application to assess duration of residual environmental effects,

that being, more than 10 years but not more than 30 years beyond

decommissioning?


28224. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Sorry, could you just restate the

question?


28226. We see indicated in the second last paragraph of page 56 of Exhibit

B33-6 that the use of the term “long-term” carries the same meaning that has been

applied in the Application to assess duration of residual environmental effects;

that being more than ten years but not more than 30 years beyond de-

commissioning.

28227. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: So the definitions of “duration” which

you're referring to that we use to characterize the residual effect, that definition of

“long-term” is not the same as what we're talking about here.

28228. This is -- those specific terms they're defined in a couple of places.

Short-term, medium-term, long-term and permanent are related to project

activities.

28229. So they're durations of project activities.


28231. And if time periods used by Northern Gateway to determine residual

environmental effects are not applicable, what is the duration of time used by




Northern Gateway to assess whether a particular effect will have an impact on the

long-term viability of a particular population?


28232. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: We're just having a discussion here

because this is the general section for the wildlife effects assessment. We'll make

the presumption that you're speaking to grizzly bears.

28233. And if that's not the case you can let us know but, typically, long-term

viability for a wildlife population I would define it as being an effect that persists

for more than one to two generations, or lifespans of the species and, of course,

that varies widely amongst the valued -- or rather the key indicators we selected.

28234. At one extreme, for amphibians, that could be one to two years, for

longer lived species like grizzly bears that could be much longer.

28235. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Yeah, and a generation for a grizzly

bear may be 25 years. That's a lifespan of a grizzly bear.


28237. And I'm happy to proceed on the basis of the grizzly bear as a

measure. And just to confirm that the information you've provided -- that being

perhaps one to two generations or a generation being approximately 25 years --

has that been the information that's been used by Northern Gateway within this

document to assess whether a particular effect will have any impact on the long-

term viability of a particular population?


28238. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: Yeah, in principle, that is the factor

that we've used to make our assessment.

28239. MR. McCORMICK: And when referencing it “in principle”, am I

correct in my understanding that if I were to take the time to identify it, I would

be able to locate it within the materials a specific statement indicating that the two

generation long-term and 25 year long-term periods are what have been used by

Northern Gateway to assess the long-term viability of grizzly bears?




28240. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Just while they respond to this, I'd like to

add the comment that this goes to the -- one of the challenges we have in any

environmental assessment, is that: biological thresholds like this are not well-

defined by any agency. I can't really think of many species where we have a

population viability threshold.

28241. And, as assessors, we're always challenged by this and so what we've

done in our environmental assessment is try to be as clear as we can.

28242. And I know this is a very general statement but, as we get into specific

species, we do try to define the terms in terms of scope, magnitude, duration and

frequency as well as the thresholds. And, typically, for wildlife populations one

of the tests is to look at the regional land use plans and what the long-term goals

are in relation to the population.

28243. And I apologize if the language here is vague, but that does reflect I

think the state of the threshold science, if we can even call it a science.


28245. And you'll agree with me that, for the purposes of this assessment,

determining whether or not an effect is significant is very important?


28246. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I'm sorry, I've forgotten your question.

Could you repeat it again?

28247. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Mr. Green.

28248. What the information we're discussing here is relative to is the

determination of whether or not an effect is significant and I'm seeking your

confirmation that the determination for the purposes of this assessment of whether

or not an effect is significant is very important.

28249. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes. I would say it's important.

28250. And in this case, speaking to the grizzly bear, just talking to Ms.

Bryden, we believe that, in effect, it would persist for one to two generations, but

we also have to bring in other factors just rather than time. One also has to look




at the geographic scope of that, the area that would be affected, like magnitude as

is part of the significance determination.


28252. So I've heard you identify generations, geographic scope and

magnitude as considerations when assessing the long-term viability of a wildlife

population or, in this case, grizzly bears.

28253. Are there any other factors that are considered when determining

whether a grizzly bear population will have long-term viability?

28254. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: For our assessment, we've used the linear

feature density, as I'm going to call it “the surrogate”, for a threshold for

population viability.

28255. A grizzly bear population ecologist would likely use a broader suite of

measures that would look at fecundity or the recruitment potential mortality and

the like. What we've done is used a parameter that we believe captures the

mortality concern which, obviously then, has an effect on the population.


28257. So in my understanding of your response is that the parameter of liner

feature density is the sole factor that is being considered when assessing whether

a particular population of grizzly bears will have long-term viability; is that

correct?

28258. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It's the indicator that we've used.

28259. And we believe that linear features and the associated -- in this case,

it's not predator mortality, I think we need to -- it's human mortality associated

primarily with bear/human conflicts and hunting, that the increased access can

lead to increased mortality. And that, in turn, can affect the long-term viability of

the grizzly bear population; especially if it -- if there's a stronger effect on the

female component of the population.


28261. And just returning to what we see on the screen. It indicates that:




"For this assessment an effect is considered not significant

when the Project is not expected to result in an effect on the

long-term viability of a wildlife population." (As read)

28262. And we've determined that we would use grizzly bear populations to

try and give this some specificity.

28263. I understand that the use of the linear feature density parameter helps

to provide Northern Gateway with a basis upon which to make this assessment.

However, when I read the terms of long-term viability, I understand it to have a

temporal aspect.

28264. Could you please indicate what was the time period applied when

using the linear feature density parameter to determine the significance of

particular effects on the long-term viability of grizzly bear populations?


28265. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: The way this is applied then for grizzly

bears in relation to linear feature density is one measures the existing baseline

density of linear features. We then looked at the project contribution to linear

features, and we looked at the future contribution of projects like PTP, which

interestingly enough now has been started and is being built.

28266. So it's -- although at the time we were doing our cumulative effects

assessment, it was a future project, it is now a real project and would probably, if

we redid the assessment today, we would include it as the baseline.

28267. So one would look at how that linear feature would persist and then

how it might be restored. So the duration would be related to the persistence of

the linear feature, and in turn, that would be a surrogate for the potential for that

feature to create a mortality risk to grizzly bears.

28268. MR. McCORMICK: So when assessing significance of a particular

effect on grizzly bear populations the measure that is being applied by Northern

Gateway is the duration related to the persistence of the linear feature; is that

correct?

28269. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I think that's correct if we could add that




in its relationship to creating a mortality risk for grizzly bears.

28270. Conversely, mitigation that is aimed at reducing linear feature density

and reducing the risk will be important in addressing mortality risk and we have

been talking largely about linear feature removal, another important part of

grizzly bear mortality risk in this case is the -- what we call access management,

and they are quite different -- access management and linear feature removal. So

access management is we will create a right-of-way.

28271. In the Bulkley Valley area, which we've been talking about,

interestingly enough, the PTP corridor parallels the Northern Gateway -- or rather

Northern Gateway's proposed right-of-way parallels the now existing PTP right-

of-way largely.

28272. So access management will look at how we can constrain human use

along these new right-of-ways, as well as access from existing access roads into

the right-of-way, that would be another way of reducing mortality risk to grizzly

bears.


28274. And would you be able to provide us with a reference for the location

within the record that it indicates that use of long-term viability, in relation to

grizzly bears, as a measure of whether an effect is considered significant, is based

upon the duration of the persistence of linear features?

28275. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: There would not be a reference, to my

knowledge, of that type. But what we've done for grizzly bear is presented the

types of effects we've assessed and been clear about how -- what the thresholds

are we -- for grizzly bear, and the conditions around which we would determine

whether we think that change is or is not significant within the grizzly bear units

that we're looking at.


28277. So for the reader who would obtain this through the record, there

would be no indication to them that what is meant by Northern Gateway when

applying the terms long-term viability to grizzly bears to determine the

significance of particular effects, that that would relate to the duration of the

persistence of particular linear features?




28278. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I again want to remind us that we are in

the generalized section of the wildlife effects assessment, and you're taking one

line and now extracting that for a species.

28279. There is many pages of evidence submitted in this document that

speak to the effects on grizzly bears in terms of habitat suitability, core habitat

analyses for this particular population that we're speaking to, by the way the

Bulkley herd, and we speak to linear feature density.

28280. And each of those has a discussion of how we quantified the effects

for grizzly bears. So we characterized the effect in term of geographic scope,

duration, magnitude, frequency, and reversibility, and the like, and came to a

conclusion on significance with a description of why we chose -- why we believe

that effect is or is not significant. So I think it's difficult to pull something out of

a generalized section and apply it specifically.

28281. As I've said earlier today, thresholds for wildlife are lacking and that

leaves assessors having to define, to the best of their ability -- and this is a

generalized description of what we think would lead us to saying an effect is or is

not significant -- I believe it's relatively -- it's a rational statement that if one

affects the long-term viability of a population it would be a significant effect.


28283. I believe it can be a reliable statement, as long as we understand what

the terms used do in fact indicate.

28284. Now, I understand from your previous response that it is not possible

to provide an indication of the location within the record where it would define

long-term viability within the meaning of determining significance for an impact

on a grizzly bear population.

28285. And what I'm concerned about is that the information that has been

used by the assessors, to make the determination of whether a particular impact

would be significant on a grizzly bear population, is not available to the reader

through their assessment of the application.

28286. MR. LANGEN: Madam, Chair ---




28287. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I would disagree with that statement

because we have been -- oh, I'm sorry, Dennis.

28288. I would disagree with that statement in that we have specifically

spoken to effects on grizzly bears and indicated why they are or are not

significant, and then related that to that species.

28289. And just because there's a statement here that's not followed up, I do

not think that follows that we have not talked about significant effects.


28291. Mr. Green, I understand that -- from your statement that you've

quantified -- you being -- in relation to Northern Gateway and your work for

Northern Gateway and the significance determination for grizzly bears.

28292. If the project were to result in the reduction of a particular grizzly bear

population unit, could that population still be considered to be viable in the long-

term, even if it never recovers to pre-project population levels?

28293. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I caught the last part of your question, and

I'm sorry, I missed the initial part, could you restate it again? I do apologize for

asking you to repeat it.

28294. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Mr. Green, I'd be happy to.

28295. If the project were to result in the reduction in population of a

particular grizzly bear population unit, could that grizzly bear population unit still

be considered to be viable in the long-term, even if it never recovers to pre-project

population levels?


28296. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’ll begin the response and I’ll likely ask

Ms. Bryden to finish up.

28297. So in terms of population viability, the way we’ve approached this --

and I’d like to use the Bulkley Valley grizzly bear population unit as an example

because it’s the one where we have the greatest amount of concern and that’s

stressed in the environmental assessment -- is that that population is at a cusp




where either PTP or Northern Gateway was going to be the project that would

push it over the linear density -- density feature threshold that we thought was

important.

28298. Now, PTP has gone ahead and cleared and we have a situation not

unlike what we’ve been discussing for caribou where the linear feature density is

above a threshold and, clearly, Northern Gateway through its project will add

incrementally to a disturbance to the bear habitat in that unit.

28299. As a result of that, we’ve -- the project has committed to a number of

measures. So the Bulkley Valley area is actually a focus of the linear feature plan

and we’re currently in discussions with the Ministry of the Environment on how

linear feature density can be reduced.

28300. I mentioned earlier that the Kitselas First Nation is also involved in

doing work that will augment that.

28301. So the intent here is we recognize that we are making an incremental

contribution to an area in which there is a significant effect or cumulative effect

on linear feature density and the way we’re mitigating it is to commit to a no-net

gain just like we did for caribou in linear feature density for grizzly bear.

28302. MR. McCORMICK: Ms. Bryden, will you be furthering that

response?

28303. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Sorry, I didn’t have anything to add.


28305. Madame Clerk, could we please see Exhibit B3-6, page 77? And just

there at the top of the screen.

28306. You’ll note, in the second sentence in the first paragraph, it indicates

that:

“The GBPUs…”

28307. that being Grizzly Bear Population Units:

“…that intersect the REAA [Regional Effects Assessment Area]




in British Columbia are considered viable, with densities

ranging from 13 to 43 bears/1,000km².”

28308. Am I correct to assume based on this statement that one of the grizzly

bear population units in British Columbia intersecting the REAA has a population

density of only 13 bears for a 1,000 kilometre squared area?


28309. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Yes, one of the grizzly bear population

units along the route has a density of 13 bears per 1,000 square kilometres.

28310. As noted, all populations are considered viable. The route it intersects,

bears density varies with region within the province, primarily related to habitat

quality and distribution across the landscape.


28312. Could you please indicate for the Panel which grizzly bear population

unit that would be?

28313. That being the grizzly bear population unit with only 13 bears for

1,000 kilometres squared.


28314. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: There recently came out an updated

population and density estimate for grizzly bear population units in the province.

28315. I wouldn’t be able to pull that up in the next minute but it is available.


28317. Perhaps we could clarify the question by stating: At the time that this

report was prepared, which of the grizzly bear population units only had a density

of 13 bears per 1,000 kilometres squared?

28318. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: It’s the Nation grizzly bear population

unit.




28319. Just one moment, I’ll get the table reference.


28320. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: It’s Adobe page 167.


28322. And if the project ---

28323. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: That page reference was for Exhibit

B3-7.

28324. MR. McCORMICK: Madame Clerk, could we please display

Exhibit B3-7, page 167, I believe?

28325. Is this the reference you’re referring to, Mr. Preston?

28326. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: Yeah. Just scroll down to the table.

That’s right.


28328. I see that we’re looking at Table 9-81, “Characteristics of Grizzly Bear

Population Units Intersecting the RoW”.

28329. And we see indicated that under “Population Unit” is the grizzly bear

population unit Nation. And its density per 1,000 kilometres squared is 13 and

Northern Gateway has identified it as having a viable population status.

28330. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Sorry, just to -- that’s not our

assessment of status, that’s the province’s assessment of status -- population

status.


28332. And when assessing -- bear with me just one moment.





28333. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Ms. Buckley (sic).

28334. And noting that the table is derived from what I understand to be

provincial information, does Northern Gateway rely on the provincial

determination of whether a particular grizzly bear population unit is viable or does

it make its own independent assessment?

28335. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: We rely on the province’s assessment of

status of these grizzly bear population units.

28336. As I mentioned, it’s been recently updated in 2012 and the statuses

remain the same. Some of the population estimates have changed.


28337. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Ms. Buckley (sic).


28338. MR. McCORMICK: Madame Chair, I’m just noting I’ll probably --

I can either -- we can either break for lunch now or it would probably be another

20 minutes or so.

28339. What would your preference be?

28340. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for checking, Mr. McCormick.

28341. Let’s break for lunch now.

28342. Can you give us an estimate as to how far through your questioning

you are compared to the 10 hour estimate that Haisla presented?

28343. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Madam Chair.

28344. Just give me a moment to confer with my co-counsel.


28345. MR. McCORMICK: Madame Chair, we are hoping to complete our

questioning within the 10-hour period we've identified. There is a possibility we




may go slightly over that time period.

28346. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. If you could continue to keep

us apprised as to if there is a point where you believe you will be needing

additional time, it'd be very helpful for us in planning the hours for the next few

days.

28347. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Madame Chair.

28348. And what time will we be reconvening for lunch?

28349. THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's come back at one o'clock. We'll give

everybody three extra minutes.

--- (Laughter/Rires)

28350. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Madame Chair.

28351. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

--- Upon recessing at 11:57 a.m./L'audience est suspendue à 11h57

--- Upon resuming at 1:00 p.m./L'audience est reprise à 13h00

28352. THE CHAIRPERSON: Does anyone have any preliminary matters

they wish to raise at this point?

--- (No response/Aucune réponse)

28353. THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure who's going to use the

microphone this afternoon is it Mr. McCormick or Ms. Griffith?

28354. MR. McCORMICK: Good afternoon, Madame Chair. It will be me

for the start, followed by Ms. Griffith.










DAVID REID: Resumed

GORD ROZON: Resumed



28355. MR. McCORMICK: If the witness panel is prepared I'd be happy to

start with my questions.

28356. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: We are ready, thank you.



(Continued/Suite)

28358. MR. McCORMICK: Madame Clerk, could we please return to

Exhibit B3-7, page 167, please?

28359. THE CHAIRPERSON: And Mr. McCormick, maybe just pull that

microphone just a little closer. Thank you.


28361. Thank you, Madame Clerk.

28362. This was the table we discussed earlier, Table 9-81, "Characteristics of

Grizzly Bear Population Units Intersecting the RoW".

28363. And it's my understanding from your responses provided by Ms.

Bryden earlier that the viability determinations in this table are based upon the

assessment of the Province of British Columbia; is that correct?

28364. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: That's correct.

28365. MR. McCORMICK: And I note beside the heading, "Population

Status", that there is a footnote indicating that the population status information

was sourced in, what appears to be a study, Austin and Wrenshall 2004, as well as

an internet site agbrt2008. Are both of those sources provincial government

sources?




28366. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Yes.

28367. MR. McCORMICK: And through your professional experience have

you developed an understanding of the basis upon which the province makes

these viability determinations?

28368. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Yes. In a general sense, I'm most

familiar with B.C. I'll note also that the other two references, Hamilton 2008 and

Hamilton et al 2004 are also B.C. provincial government sources related to grizzly

bear population management in the province.


28370. And would you agree with me that when assessing the viability of a

particular population unit, that population is a significant factor in that

determination?

28371. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: The province, in their assessment of

viability of these grizzly bear population units, includes a number of factors in

their determination; habitat effectiveness, mortality rates from various sources,

such as legal kill, illegal kill, traffic mortality, other sources.

28372. Again, I don't have the documents right in front of me, so I'm doing

this from memory, but they use a variety of parameters to arrive at a viability

determination.

28373. MR. McCORMICK: And are you aware of whether or not

population is one of those parameters?

28374. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Well, one of the outputs of their analysis

is -- are population estimates for the units and densities, and they arrive at those

population estimates in different ways depending on the population units. Some

of those population estimates are from studies, radio-telemetry studies for

example. Some of them are from methods like hair snag studies that look at DNA

and identify individuals that way. And then some of those population estimates

are arrived at using indirect methods related to habitat quality.


28376. If we take as an example the -- and I'm hoping I'm pronouncing it




correctly -- Nulki, N-U-L-K-I grizzly bear population unit, indicated to have a

population of 11 -- or density of 11 bears per 1,000 kilometres squared. If that

population unit were to drop to a density of -- for discussion purposes -- say eight

bears per 1,000 kilometre squared, would that still qualify as a viable grizzly bear

population unit?

28377. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Given that there's multiple factors that

the province considers in their determination of viability -- of status for these

populations I can't comment on what a change in density might do.

28378. As I noted, density estimates and population estimates are also one

output from the province's process for evaluating these grizzly bear population

units.

28379. MR. McCORMICK: So am I correct in my understanding that

Northern Gateway is not in a position to assess the viability of these populations,

independent of the Province of British Columbia?

28380. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: No. We don't manage -- I mean,

Northern Gateway isn't responsible for the management of these grizzly bear

population units. We assess the effect of our project with respect to the portion of

these grizzly bear population units that were affected.

28381. MR. McCORMICK: And just for confirmation, when you answered

in the negative, were you referring to my understanding that Northern Gateway

could not assess independently the viability of these population units or were you

referring to something different?

28382. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Well, these grizzly bear populations are

very large, much larger than the regional effects assessment area that we

considered for this project. We do set -- you know -- our effects assessment in the

context of what the province has outlined here for example.

28383. And I will say about the -- of the seven grizzly bear population units

within the Province of B.C. that this project intersects, of those the Parsnip and

the Bulkley Lakes grizzly bear population units have -- sorry.

28384. And if we're talking about linear feature density, which was the

parameter we assessed related to mortality risks for grizzly bears, five of these

populations already exceed the existing -- or exceed the threshold that's




commonly used for grizzly bears .6, and two of them do not. And that would be

the Parsnip and the Bulkley Lakes grizzly bear population units.

28385. And I just want to point out a couple things related to that, is that the

province still considers the Hart, Nation, Francois, Nulki and North Coast grizzly

bear population units to be viable. Although -- even though the linear feature

density threshold is exceeded, I think that points out that it's a multi-factor

consideration when determining a viability of a grizzly bear population.

28386. And then what we did when we looked at linear feature density, the

effect of this project and future projects for these grizzly bear population units, we

identified the Bulkley Lakes population unit as a unit where our project had the

potential to exceed the 0.6 threshold.

28387. So we took a precautionary approach and have identified the Bulkley

Lakes grizzly bear population unit as a key focal area or priority area for our

linear feature management and removal plan.

28388. And I think either Mr. Green or Mr. Anderson could add more to the

approach we're using with that plan.

28389. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So in the particular area we're speaking to

the Bulkley Lakes area, the pipeline corridor, as we had assessed it, I mentioned

this this morning, is we assumed that we would be the first pipeline right-of-way

through this region and that the Pacific Trails Pipeline would follow. That was

the way the cumulative effects was structured.

28390. As it stands now, that the PTP pipeline right-of-way is being cleared as

we speak and is a real pipeline corridor on the ground. Nonetheless, the approach

that Northern Gateway is taking in the relation to the PTP or rather in relation to

both there being an existing corridor and Northern Gateway's own corridor, is that

we will still commit to the same hectare for hectare replacement of linear features

elsewhere within the range of those grizzly bears.

28391. I think it's important to stress that input from governments is being

sought right now. We spoke yesterday and earlier to the fact that we do want

Aboriginal governments to be participating in this. We have had discussions with

Kitselas. I'm not sure how many discussions have been held with the Haisla

whose traditional territory also overlaps into this area, but I think it would be fair

to say that Northern Gateway would be looking for input and participation by the




Haisla in this program as well.


28393. Mr. Anderson, did you have anything further to add?

28394. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: No, I think that's fine.


28396. And having understood that there are factors and criteria applied by

the Province of British Columbia when assessing viability of grizzly bear

population units, and understanding as well that Northern Gateway has used linear

density thresholds when making viability assessments, am I correct in my

understanding that British Columbia is using or the Province of British Columbia

is using factors other than linear density thresholds when assessing viability?

28397. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Yes, that's right.

28398. As I indicated -- and again I'm just speaking from memory not directly

from the Province's analyses -- but they used other factors as well; sources of

mortality, for example, habitat effectiveness.

28399. MR. McCORMICK: And given that there are different criteria being

applied by Northern Gateway and by the Province of British Columbia, is it

possible that viability assessments will have different conclusions?

28400. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Well, I just wanted to indicate the

threshold we're using -- the .6 kilometres per kilometre squared -- has actually

been identified by the Province as a threshold for linear feature density for grizzly

bears as part of the Integrated Wildlife Management -- I've just gone blank. I

know the acronym, IWMS -- Strategy -- Identified Wildlife Management

Strategy. The Province has -- their grizzly bear account identifies 0.6 as a

threshold. So the Province uses that as well.

28401. I can't speak directly to whether they incorporated that as part of their

analysis -- their assessment for the grizzly bear population units.

28402. MR. McCORMICK: So when looking at Table 9-81 and observing

that the Province of British Columbia has identified there various grizzly bear




population units as being viable, is the viability assessment that we see displayed

limited solely to density in bears per 1,000 kilometre squared, or is it a broader

viability assessment?

28403. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: So this table, it's a subset of the

information the Province presents in their whole assessment of the status and

viability of these grizzly bear population units. We've taken some information

from it and presented here.

28404. Population size, again, I mentioned that the Province uses a variety of

methods to arrive at population size for these grizzly bear population units. In the

same way, density is essentially based on the population size divided by the area

of the grizzly bear population unit. Again, it's a piece of information the

government provides.

28405. And not shown here is a variety of other parameters that the Province

looks at and has calculated values for for each of the grizzly bear population units

and then they make the assessment based on that information to arrive at

population status for the multiple grizzly bear population units in the province.


28407. So I believe I understand that the population status information we see

displayed in Table 9-81 is premised not only upon population size and density --

the two values displayed in the table -- but also includes information from other

parameters that are outside of this table.


28409. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Yes, as I indicated, the Province makes

their viability assessment based on a variety of information and population size is

not -- it's one of the factors but it's not -- I think again, not speaking directly from

the document, but my understanding would be the main driver for their viability

estimate would be habitat effectiveness and mortality rate from a variety of

sources.


28411. And just to confirm, given that Northern Gateway is using linear

density as a threshold for determining viability, is Northern Gateway limited to




linear density thresholds when determining viability or is it applying the full suite

of parameters that are applied by the Province of British Columbia?

28412. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Well, our -- we use linear feature

density analysis to assess -- to make predictions about the effect of the project on

mortality risk to grizzly bears, not specifically related to a viability assessment the

way the project or the Province does.

28413. So we use -- linear feature density was our measureable parameter for

assessing mortality risk. We also looked at habitat suitability as a method to

address the effect of the project on habitat for grizzly bears, and then as we've

talked before, we did a qualitative assessment of the effect of the project on

movement patterns.

28414. Now, that's our environmental effects assessment. The province is --

you know, has a different mandate, obviously. They're managing grizzly bear

populations and they have -- they use information sources and parameters that are

related to that, and, specifically, as I indicated, measures of mortality sources, for

example, hunting sources.

28415. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: I would add to that, Ms. Bryden just

mentioned that the province considers mortality factors, whether it be legal or

illegal take. The relationship between legal and illegal take is strongly tied to

access and, in fact, linear density.

28416. We did take the precautionary approach. The number that Ms. Bryden

referred to from the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy of 0.6 kilometres

per kilometre squared has been adopted elsewhere.

28417. And specifically, I'd point out, in Alberta, they do acknowledge

0.6 kilometres per kilometre squared as a cautionary threshold in key grizzly bear

habitat areas, and they also identify in Alberta a 1.2 kilometre per kilometre

squared critical threshold.

28418. So we have taken the more precautionary approach with respect to

identifying what could pose a potential change in mortality risk and, hence, a

potential change to viability as a contributing factor.





28420. Madame Clerk, if we could please take a look at Exhibit B3-6,

page 56? And if you could please scroll down to the bottom of the page, I believe

there's a paragraph that begins with "For this assessment…"

28421. This was a paragraph we looked at earlier this morning and it's my

understanding from this paragraph that the determination of significance is also a

factor of probability. And that only those effects that will have a moderate to high

probability of resulting in an effect on the long-term viability of a particular

wildlife population will be understood to be significant; is that correct?


28423. MR. McCORMICK: And has Northern Gateway quantified what is

meant by moderate and high probability when assessing the potential effects of

project-related activities on the long-term viability of wildlife populations?

28424. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: So we don’t specifically define

quantitatively moderate to high probability, it’s a qualitative understanding of that

but what we do quantify -- and again we’ll speak to linear feature density and its

relationship to mortality risk as being the major concern with this project with

respect to grizzly bears.

28425. We identify a threshold and we calculate values around that. And we

have identified, again, for the Bulkley Lakes grizzly bear population unit, where

we have the potential to exceed that threshold.

28426. And we have identified that as a concern with respect to this project

and have implemented, and will continue to implement, the development of a

linear feature management and removal plan to address this concern.

28427. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I think it’s probably important to note --

we noted this yesterday. When it comes to project effects with respect to routine

effects, if we’ve identified it as a potential effect in the environmental assessment,

we’ve considered it to be a real effect, so it’s 100 percent probability of it

occurring as far as the assessment was concerned with respect to routine effects

only.


28429. Madame Clerk, could we please see Exhibit B3-7, page 99 of 233?




Could we scroll down to the second-last paragraph, please?

28430. And I believe it’s the third sentence from the bottom of the second-last

paragraph which reads:

“Bears appear to prefer disturbed RoWs early in the spring

season (Gibeau and Herrerp 1998) because of emergent

vegetation, which helps to offset some of the habitat lost during

construction.”

28431. Has offsetting of the loss of habitat due to emergent vegetation been

considered when assessing residual environmental effects on grizzly bears?

28432. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: With respect to grizzly bears

specifically, given -- it’s known in the literature that grizzly bears will forage

along pipeline right-of-ways under some circumstances. We did -- in our habitat

model for the operation scenario we did ascribe a value -- a habitat foraging value

for the pipeline right-of-way. I believe moderate was our rating.


28434. And if we look a little further down on the page, we see in the last

sentence:

“Furthermore, because of vegetation management for the

Project, berry producing shrubs will most likely not become

established on the right-of-way.”

28435. Has Northern Gateway’s assessment -- how can Northern Gateway’s

assessment be accurate if the factors it has used in offsetting the potential

environmental adverse effects will not actually occur because of its vegetation

management program?

28436. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: So we looked at two seasons for grizzly

bears; spring and fall. Spring, grizzly bears are foraging on forbs, grasses. In the

fall they forage on berry-producing plants like vaccinium for example.

28437. Now, at the time we wrote this, that was the understanding of the

wildlife team. I’ve since discussed right-of-way vegetation management and the

right-of-way vegetation composition and operations with various members of the




team; vegetation ecologists such as Dave Reid and I’ve also spoken with Tom

Fiddler about this.

28438. And this incorrectly describes the conditions. I mean berry producing

plants such as vaccinium or depending on where you are on the route, elderberry

for example would become established along the right-of-way. Not necessarily

along the 25-metre -- I forget the expression -- permanent right-of-way, the pipe --

where the pipe is but within the temporary workspace, so the additional 25 metres

of space.

28439. So, you know, this statement incorrectly characterizes the conditions

along the route. But again, it was based on our understanding at the time we

wrote this. And I think you’ll find in other -- for example, in some IRs related to

this topic, that there’s discussion about what the vegetation composition would be

like along the -- again the -- at operations, the temporary workspace recovery.

28440. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I would just like to add that the 25-metre

extra temporary workspace will be restored and the vegetation will not be

maintained, as indicated -- or not -- it doesn’t really say that here but we’re not

maintaining it. It’s only the vegetation on the 25-metre permanent right-of-way

that will be managed to a degree to maintain visibility of the pipeline.


28442. Madame Clerk, could we please display Exhibit B3-7, page 100.

Thank you, Madame Clerk.

28443. This is Table 9-63, characterization of the residual effects of change

and habitat availability on grizzly bear in relation to the measurable parameters,

spring feeding habitat availability, and fall feeding habitat availability.

28444. Noting the duration column on the right-hand side, we see residual

environmental effects associated with the construction phase are identified as S,

which I understand to meet short -- which I understand to mean short-term less

than three years; is that correct?


28446. MR. McCORMICK: And just to help me understand, the

determination that the residual effects of construction would only be short term,




does that refer solely to those aspects of construction that will not form

components of the project during operations, for instance, as an example, if a

pump station is constructed it would remain in place for the lifetime of the

project. Would the pump station be considered as part of the residual effects of

construction or would be assessed under operations?

28447. MS. COLLEN BRYDEN: Well the entire -- what we call the PDA

(Project Development Area) is addressed in each of these scenarios but at

construction it’s simply that, it’s construction. So it’s the activity relating to

building these features, both the right-of-way, the pump stations, the terminal.

28448. At operations we look at the same PDA and we consider the same

features but they’re built. So the PDA -- or sorry, the right-of-way is in place, the

pipeline is buried, the right-of-way is in place, the pump stations active and

operating, terminals active and operating, so those -- the elements are all there in

each scenario. They’re just characterized differently.


28449. MR. McCORMICK: And would you agree with me that there may

be significant delays in detecting the impact of habitat degradation on grizzly bear

populations in that they may not be immediately apparent?


28450. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: I think as we’ve spoken to earlier today,

the main effect we see with this project with respect to grizzly bears is the

creation of linear feature -- linear feature on the landscape. The actual habitat

effect with respect to loss of habitat or alteration of habitat is relatively minor

with respect to -- certainly, with respect to mortality risk for grizzly bears.

28451. And with respect to duration, we recognize both direct and indirect

effects in our analysis, direct effects by incorporating the footprint of the PDA

into our analysis and indirect effects by incorporating a sensory disturbance

buffer.

28452. So I think we fully encompass the potential effect on habitat to grizzly

bears.

28453. MR. McCORMICK: And just before moving forward, I just draw




your attention to the determination under “Significance”.

28454. The ends in this column indicate that Northern Gateway has

determined that the residual effects of change in habitat availability for grizzly

bears for construction operations, decommissioning for spring and fall feeding

will not be significant.




B13-1, page 138? And if you could, please scroll down to the bottom of the

second paragraph. Thank you kindly.

28458. And noting the last line -- excuse me, the last sentence of the second

paragraph, it reads:

“Even more subtle was his finding that when the rate of

degradation was slow (1% per year), it could take more than

10 years to detect critical amounts of degradation beyond

which bear populations could begin long-term declines.”

28459. Would you agree that the durations identified in Table 9-63 may be

overly optimistic in that they may not capture latent effects on grizzly bear

population effect -- excuse me grizzly bear population levels?


28460. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: With respect to this project and the

effects on grizzly bear habitat, we’re not talking about a permanent effect on

grizzly bear habitat as a result of this project. It’s dynamic.

28461. I mean, it moves through construction where we have the footprint of

the project being constructed, creating sensory disturbance that has an indirect

effect on grizzly bear use of the habitat. It doesn’t specifically degrade the

habitat. It just means that the likelihood of grizzly bear using it during that period

are decreased.

28462. And then we move through into the operations phase where, as we’ve




discussed, there’s some -- there’s regeneration of a portion of the footprint at that

stage and a reduction in the sensory disturbance buffer around those disturbances.

28463. And then, we move into the final phase of the project,

decommissioning, and the expectation at decommissioning is that the conditions

return to baseline. There’s no longer any sensory disturbance associated with the

decommissioned project and the vegetation will return to baseline conditions.

28464. And, you know, the length of time to return to baseline conditions is --

can be lengthy, obviously, if we’re looking to return to mature forest but, in

between the period of recovery, there’s a range of habitat still available to

wildlife. I mean, wildlife -- grizzly bears in particular use a suite of habitats from

early seral habitats, grasses, forbs, to mature forest.

28465. So there’s a range. So there’s not a permanent loss of habitat

associated with this project.

28466. And again, I’ll reiterate the main concern with this project -- and it’s

reflected in the mitigation measures -- is the potential for this project to affect

grizzly bear mortality risk.


28468. And I may be slightly confused in my understanding of the project. I

understand that for the purposes of the ESA, operational life of 50 years was

assumed. But I’ve also -- believe that I’ve heard from the Operations Panel prior

to this that the intention is to operate the pipelines on a perpetual basis exceeding

a 50-year anticipated time period.

28469. Could you please clarify for me whether your statements are based on

the assumed 50 years or the stated longer term?


28470. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Our assessment considered a 30 to 50-

year life of the project.

28471. But regardless of the operations phase, there will be a

decommissioning phase and I think what I said before stands. I mean it’s a

dynamic process and no permanent habitat loss is anticipated.




28472. And again, habitat effects and habitat loss are not the primary concerns

with this project with respect to grizzly bears. It’s mortality risk and I think this is

recognized in a lot of jurisdictions and it’s a common theme with grizzly bear

management and concerns is that mortality risk and human access in association

with linear feature development is the key concern for grizzly bears.


28474. I’ve noted that on a couple of responses you’ve referred to certain

elements of the project being the primary concern.

28475. Am I correct in my understanding that when you say that you mean in

Northern Gateway’s assessment those are the primary concerns as opposed to

attributing that concern to other parties such as third-party stakeholders or

Aboriginal groups?

28476. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Well, I’m speaking with respect to the

wildlife assessment conducted for the Northern Gateway Project is they’ll be

recognized. Mortality risk is a key concern for grizzly bears and for caribou,

specifically with respect to this project, and it’s been, I believe, identified by other

parties as a concern as well, certainly with respect to caribou.

28477. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I would just like to add, and perhaps Ms.

Niro could just go up one paragraph, because again, there’s the danger of always

taking one sentence out of context.

28478. If you can go up just even a little bit higher to the start of “Habitat”.

And if you were to read the entire paragraph and then go down, Ms. Niro, sorry,

to the very last line here. I think this is a literature review and it’s -- this is our

conclusion, the very last line of this paragraph and I’d like to read it:

“As a result, access management and mortality risk remain the

primary issues regarding grizzly bear populations and

resource development activities.”

28479. And the paragraphs you’re referring to about degradation are not

referring to changes in habitat quality. They’re talking to habitat degradation in

relation to these threats. And so it’s not our opinion, it’s the opinion of a lot of

respected researchers in grizzly bear biology.





28481. And just to confirm, the construction phase of the project may relate --

may result in some degradation of grizzly bear habitat; is that correct?

28482. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: The construction phase of the project

has the potential to result in some decreased availability of suitable habitat for

grizzly bears for a period of time.

28483. MR. McCORMICK: And is decreased availability of suitable grizzly

bear habitat the same as degradation or is it different?


28484. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: It’s not my experience to typically use

the word “degradation” with respect to wildlife habitat. We talk about reduction

in habitat suitability or capability as a -- as a typical term.

28485. MR. McCORMICK: And in understanding your concerns about the

use of the term degradation, would that also apply to Mr. Green’s statements

relating to the degradation of grizzly bear habitat?

28486. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: My statements were very specific to the

sentence I read out which was:

“As a result, access management and mortality risk remain the

primary issues…”

28487. And that’s the degradation I was referring to.


28489. And Ms. Bryden, your statements on degradation, would they apply to

the statement from the application that Mr. Green has just read?

28490. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, unless I missed something, I think my

friend may be mischaracterizing-- and I don’t think he’s doing it intentionally --

Ms. Bryden’s evidence. I don’t think she adopted the term degradation as he is

using it. So maybe she has and I’ve missed it and if that’s the case that’s the case,




but I just want to highlight that because I don’t think she has adopted the term

degradation as my friend is using it.

28491. MR. McCORMICK: Madame Chair, I may be misunderstanding.

Perhaps we could ask Ms. Bryden to clarify what she means when she refers to

degradation. It would assist me in understanding.

28492. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Well, I haven’t specifically referred to

degradation. As I indicated the parameter we assess related to habitat is the

availability -- sorry, is the area of suitable habitat available. That’s the

measurable parameter we’ve used in our assessment to look at the effects of the

project on availability of habitat. We’ve -- it’s a common term. We’ve used it for

our other key indicators as well.

28493. The reference to degradation was related to a work done in

Yellowstone National Park and that was their term. I haven’t -- I don’t use that

term myself. We didn’t use it in the ESA to describe the measurable parameter

for a change in habitat availability.


28495. It’s my understanding that the application indicates the construction of

the project is scheduled for a 42-month period in order to achieve the planned in-

service date. Does that estimate remain current or has it changed with

adjustments in planning and design?

28496. MR. RAY DOERING: Mr. McCormick, yeah, that 42 months would

be the duration of the entire project construction. That doesn’t necessarily

represent the length of construction in any one particular location.


28498. And am I correct in my understanding that clearing activities for the

first construction season will begin the year before pipeline construction?

28499. MR. RAY DOERING: Yes, that’s typically the case. For example,

if we were planning a summer pipeline construction program the clearing may

take place in the previous fall.





28501. Madame Clerk, could we please see Exhibit B1-2 page 36? Thank

you.

28502. This is Table 2-2, “Project Milestones” and we see nine rows down

that the oil and condensate pipeline construction was identified to take place over

a period of 3 years, from Q4-2013 to Q4-2016.

28503. I understand that the planned in-services date has now been pushed

back to 2018. Has that change resulted in any adjustment to anticipated duration

of construction activities or is a 3-year timestamp still anticipated?


28504. MR. RAY DOERING: Perhaps we can just go to the updated Table

2-2, which I believe is Exhibit B148-2, and we’ll see that the duration of the

activities is essentially unchanged. Just as described here, essentially three and a

half years or 42 months, as you have indicated for the full spectrum of

construction activities.



28506. And the time periods we see displayed, do they incorporate the

clearing activities for the first construction season or would they be prior to the

start date indicated for oil and condensate pipeline construction?


28507. MR. RAY DOERING: Sorry for the delay. We were just discussing

the dates.

28508. With this revised schedule, we show some of the tunnel construction

activities beginning in the latter part of 2014.

28509. It would be expected that, sometime in that fall as well, there would be

clearing activities beginning for the first pipeline construction spreads. Those

first spreads wouldn’t occur until 2015 -- the actual construction of those spreads

-- but clearing activities would occur in conjunction with migratory bird windows,




et cetera, likely in the fall of 2014


28511. And am I correct in my understanding that the Q3 would be the

appropriate indication for fall?

28512. MR. RAY DOERING: It would be.

28513. MR. McCORMICK: So we see from Q3, 2014 until -- excuse me,

looking at line 9, “Oil and Condensate Pipeline Construction”, we would -- as

opposed to seeing impacts beginning at those particular locations, at Q2, 2015

impacts for pipeline construction could begin as early as Q3, 2014.


28515. MR. RAY DOERING: I think you may have just used indicative Q2

of 2014.

28516. I think what I indicated was clearing activities associated with some of

the first pipeline construction spreads could occur by Q3, Q4, 2014.

28517. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: So depending on which spread you were

talking about, you may have a clearing occurring in Q4 -- Q3 or Q4 of 2014 and

then the construction would occur in -- on that spread the following summer.

28518. So then, obviously, you wouldn’t have a completion date of as late as

2017 or 2018 on that spread.

28519. If that makes sense?

28520. Because you’d be going right into restoration or -- you know,

reclamation of that spread as soon as you were done construction, time permitting.


28522. Madame Clerk, could we please return to Exhibit 3-7, page 100.

28523. My apologies. That is Exhibit B3-7, page 100. That’s it there. Thank

you very much.




28524. And I’ll just draw the attention of the Panel to the duration indicated

for both construction periods being “S” which indicates “short-term” which

indicates three years or less.

28525. So when Northern Gateway identifies the duration of residual

environmental impacts as short-term, less than three years, that assumes that the

period of disturbance resulting from the construction of the pipeline will not

extend beyond a three-year period.


28527. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: We defined as -- you can see later in this

table, a short duration is an effect less than three years. Yes.

28528. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Mr. McCormick, if I can help here, please?

28529. It’s important to identify that the construction is done on a spread-by-

spread basis. And a spread is described generically as a length of pipeline

segment that can be completed in terms of being constructed, back-filled and

initial cleanup completed within a particular season.

28530. So geographic lengths of the pipeline -- and we’ve identified a split

into 12 segments --will be completed within the specific season other than follow

on final cleanup and restoration.

28531. So the actual window of construction in any geographic region will be

mitigated to something far less than three years.


28533. And will that hold true in the Kitimat River Valley as well?

28534. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The Valley? It will.

28535. And my colleague here was just identifying -- and I’d characterize it

this way, pump station construction will typically take a maximum of 12 months.

28536. The terminal and the tunnels are the two exceptions in terms of

duration and they’ll be pushing out to the three year total period.




28537. The Kitimat Valley, we may, in fact, choose to advance some of the

specific crossings along with the clearing in the fall in advance of construction.

In part because a logistic as we’ve talked and will -- this is an iterative process.

As we overlay all the restrictions and commitments, we’ll be filing a pipeline

execution plan for each pipeline segment or each pipeline spread.

28538. And within that, we’ll have the March charts, that my colleague

mentioned earlier, and we’ll have contingency planning for events that may occur

that may cause us to have leave work partially complete for the following year.

28539. So, in all cases though, certainly, we will complete all work and all

spreads -- even the most complex spreads -- within 24 months.

28540. And that would include seasonal breaks to honour and obviously

manage the safety as well as the compliance commitments.

28541. MR. McCORMICK: And taking another look at the table, we see

displayed on the screen, I see that Northern Gateway has indicated that the

frequency of residual environmental impacts -- excuse me, residual environmental

effects during construction has been identified with a “C” indicating that they are

continuous.



28544. MR. McCORMICK: And decommissioning has been indicated to be

“O” which indicates “occurs once”.


28546. MR. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Correct.

28547. MR. McCORMICK: And does the “occurs once” relating to the

decommissioning, does that refer to the residual environmental effects associated

with a single event in the decommissioning process or the decommissioning

process as a whole?

28548. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: It occurs -- it applies to the




decommissioning process as a whole.


28550. And am I correct in my understanding that no plans currently exist for

the decommissioning of the pipeline?

28551. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: It is my understanding that the

decommissioning of the pipeline would be a separate application under the NEB.

28552. So an assessment of the effect of the decommissioning process on

wildlife would be part of that.


28554. And may I understand that as a confirmation that, at this point in

project development, no plan exist for the decommission phase described in Table

6 -- or excuse me, Table 9-63?


28555. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: No detailed plans have been developed

for decommissioning or abandonment of the pipeline, but there are sections within

the Application that speak generally to what would be done.

28556. But in terms of kilometre post to kilometre post plan, that has not been

developed, but it would be developed, you know, and be subject to another

approval of the National Energy Board.

28557. As Ms. Bryden has mentioned, we have talked about complying with

obviously the conditions or the regulation at the time and with the LMCI process,

which is the land matters consultation initiative. And I can refer you to JRP

Number 9, our response to IR 9, and it’s on -- it’s Exhibit B58-2 and page 15 of

19.


28559. So what I understand is that, within the Application, Northern

Gateway does not have a detailed plan, however, it lays out a plan to prepare a

plan at the time of decommissioning.





28561. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I think it outlines our intent to develop a

plan and our commitment to follow certain regulations at that time.


28563. And in the absence of a plan or even with a plan to make a plan, how

has Northern Gateway determined the frequency of any residual environmental

effects associated with the decommissioning process?

28564. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: It would perhaps be helpful to see some

of the text around this table.

28565. For example, on Adobe page 102 -- the other way actually, below the

table. Keep going. Okay, yes, right there.

28566. It’s here we have a section -- again, we’ll talk specifically about

grizzly bear -- where we discuss construction operations and decommissioning

and, based on the information available for the ESA about decommissioning in

general, we describe what that means for grizzly bears. We do the same for other

species as well.

28567. And just going back to Table 9-6-3, the -- a little bit further. One more

page up.

28568. So the characterization terms we use there under “Duration,

Geographic Extent, Frequency”, et cetera, those are, I’ll just say, simplified

descriptions of what is happening and we’ve provided text around what each of

those might mean.

28569. For example, continuous as a frequency under construction is a

description of what the activity might be like with respect to wildlife. You have

people working on the right-of-way during the day, some activity at night,

machinery, et cetera, so that’s continuous during construction.

28570. Obviously, as Mr. Fiddler said, the construction happens in spreads

and phases so it’s not continuous along the line -- the whole line for three years,

it’s broken up. But when it’s happening -- when construction’s happening, it’s a




continuous activity.

28571. And then, when we speak to operations, here we’re talking about

human activity disturbance along the right-of-way, and we characterize it as

“regular” here. And I think if you read the operations text associated, it gives you

a better idea of what “regular” means and it’s a reference to maintenance

activities, over-flights that Mr. Fiddler’s team would conduct to -- as part of

routine maintenance.

28572. And then, as we discussed, for decommissioning, the “O” occurs once

and that’s about the decommissioning process. And at this stage, as we’ve

discussed, we don’t have a lot of detail on what would be involved with that, but

we’ve discussed generally what we think would be involved with respect to

wildlife and the effects on habitat.


28574. Madame Clerk, if we could please see Exhibit B3-6, page 50? Thank

you.

28575. And under the subheading 9.2.4, “Temporal Boundaries for Wildlife”,

we see at the fourth bullet point a description of some of the information relating

to decommissioning and the last sentence indicates that:

“In general, all decommissioning activities are assumed to

have been completed within five years of the end of

operations.”

28576. Noting Mr. Fiddler’s comments about spreads and duration of impacts

and particular points in the pipeline, at any given point, Mr. Fiddler, would you be

able to tell us how long the decommissioning process might take, specifically at

points where it would take the longest?


28577. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The decommissioning of a pipeline shouldn’t

be confused with abandonment and there are distinctions and decommissioning

can preserve a pipeline for future opportunities of use.

28578. So that includes maintenance of warning signs, maintenance of first




call requirements on the operation side. It would include purging the line of all

residual hydrocarbon and often loading it with a low pressure nitrogen gas or

something like that to assure that there’s positive pressure and always an

indication if somebody were to damage it or there were to be some deterioration

of it.

28579. That process is one that’s defined in an application process. It’s very

difficult to predict the future 30 to 50 years out, obviously, in terms of how we

would manage that. It is an industry activity that occurs on some frequency as we

speak and our commitment at this stage is to follow the end, as a minimum, to be

in compliance with the regulations of the day.


28581. Has Enbridge had occasion to decommission pipelines in the past?

28582. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Again, it would be important for you to

identify whether you mean decommissioning or abandonment.

28583. And, yes, we’ve done both, but I can’t speak to details in particular, I

guess.

28584. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Mr. Fiddler.

28585. For the purpose of the question, let’s assume decommissioning.

28586. Has Northern Gateway -- excuse me, has Enbridge ever had occasion

to decommission a pipeline?


28587. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The answer is ‘yes’.

28588. Depending on where you want to go with this conversation, it really is

an operational activity and I don’t think anyone at this Panel has been intimately

involved in any activities of that nature of recent.

28589. MR. McCORMICK: And has anyone on the Panel had the

opportunity to take part in assessing the environmental effects of

decommissioning a pipeline?




28590. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: No, I don’t believe anyone on this Panel

has.


28591. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Mr. Fiddler. My apologies, I

believe that as Mr. Anderson.

28592. Madame Clerk, could we please return to Exhibit B3-7, page 100?

Thank you.

28593. Looking again at Table 9-63, we see some consistency in Northern

Gateway’s assessment of the project’s reversibility. The table indicates that all

residual environmental effects on spring feeding habitat availability and fall

feeding habitat availability from construction, operations and decommissioning

will be reversible as is indicated by the 6Rs displayed in the reversibility column.



28596. MR. McCORMICK: Madame Clerk, could we please turn to Exhibit

B36 -- excuse me, B3-6, page 55 of 81? Thank you.

28597. This page displays section 9.2.6, “Definition of Environmental Effect

Attributes for Wildlife”, and includes Table 9-9 “Definitions of Environmental

Effects Attributes”.

28598. And we see at the bottom of the page, in the left-hand column.

“Criterion”, reversibility, which indicates the likelihood that a key indicator will

recover from an effect.

28599. Immediately to the right, we find two possible definitions that

Northern Gateway has applied to assess reversibility, those being:

“Reversible: environmental effect(s) reversible with

reclamation, natural succession and decommissioning.”

28600. As well as:




“Irreversible: environmental effect(s) permanent and cannot

be reversed with reclamation, natural succession or

decommissioning.”

28601. Are these the criteria that Northern Gateway has applied when

assessing the reversibility of residual effects on spring feeding habitat availability

and fall feeding habitat availability for grizzly bears?

28602. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Those are the definitions of the effects

characterization terms we use in tables such as 9-63 to characterize the project

effect -- residual project effect.

28603. MR. McCORMICK: And I note that the definition of reversible has

no timeline attached to it; is that correct?

28604. Or is the timeline identified in another part of the Application?

28605. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Well, reversibility is one of six effects

characterization terms we use. We’ve talked about several of the others:

magnitude, direction, geographic extent, duration, frequency and reversibility.

28606. So that’s the suite of characterization terms we use.


28608. That was very helpful in helping us to assess what these suite of

characterizations are. However, I’m still uncertain as to whether there is a time

limit understood when Northern Gateway is applying reversible as a criteria in

assessing environmental effects.

28609. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: While Colleen is conferring about grizzly

bear, I’m going to speak generally.

28610. And that is that you cannot take any one of these terms in isolation of

the other terms that are provided for that effect. The intent is they’re a integrated

package that characterize the terms.

28611. So when we provide a duration of long term and say it’s reversible,

they work together. They also -- you’ll see in the very same table, that we speak




to the geographic scope, the magnitude which is the amount of habitat affected

and we’re specific to it.

28612. And I think taking one term out is not -- you’re not looking at what

we’re really saying in the environmental assessment.

28613. The second thing is -- is that we’ve said many times in these

proceedings -- is that within the text of the environmental assessment -- so on the

very next page from the tables that you’re talking to on page 102, we describe

what we mean by the reversibility duration. So we try to explain it in words what

we’re referring to.

28614. So it’s not simply something in a table. The tables are meant to

provide an easily accessible summary. The text of the environmental assessment

is meant to be used in conjunction with the tables.


28616. And the reference you provided in your last statement -- and excuse

me if I missed it in your response -- did that reference include a quantitative time

period for reversibility?

28617. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: We can go to page 102 and look at it if

you would like.

28618. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Green.

28619. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: On page 102, it says “Decommissioning”

and we try to explain in the entirety for the effect, not isolating on one

characteristic. We try to explain how we arrive at the conclusions in that table.

28620. Sorry, Ms. Niro, it’s B3-7, page 102. There we go.

28621. MR. McCORMICK: And you’ll agree with me, Mr. Green, that

there is no quantitative temporal timeline associated with reversibility in this

statement.

28622. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I will say it once more is that the duration

refers to the duration of the effect.




28623. The effect is reversible and we say the duration is long-term.


28624. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McCormick, would this be a good time

to take our afternoon break?

28625. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Madame Chair, I have just two

more questions and then we’ll be able to switch to Ms. Griffith. Thank you.

28626. Madame Clerk, if we could please return to Exhibit B3-7, page 100?

28627. Is that a hint?

--- (Laughter/Rires)

28628. THE CHAIRPERSON: In some time zone.

28629. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Madame Clerk.

28630. And I’d like to briefly examine the third column in the table entitled

“Mitigation Measures”. I note that it has a footnote indicating that the numbers

displayed are “General Mitigation Measures” and they are explained at the bottom

of the table.

28631. We see that Northern Gateway intends to implement mitigation

measures 7, 8, 12, 20 and 39 to limit the residual environmental effects associated

with the construction operation and decommissioning of the project.



28634. MR. McCORMICK: If we could turn to Exhibit B3-6, please,

Madame Clerk, page 60? Thank you.

28635. On the screen, we see displayed Table 9-10, “Mitigation Measures for

Wildlife,” Volume 6A of the Application. It displays the general mitigation

measures for wildlife that Northern Gateway intends to implement during

construction, operations and decommissioning.




28636. Do these general mitigation measures correspond to the general

mitigation measures identified in Table 9-63?

28637. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: These are the -- what was footnoted in

Table 9-63 is a brief summary of what’s provided here.

28638. This section provides the detail. Further detail is also provided in

Volume 7A.


28640. I note that general mitigation measure number 18 has not been

included in the list of general mitigation measures in Table 9-63. It reads:

“18; Wildlife Disturbance; Prohibit project personnel from

harassing, disturbing, harvesting and feeding wildlife at all

work areas including construction camps and access roads;

track and report all incidents to responsible authorities.”

28641. Do Northern Gateway personnel have a history of harassing wildlife?

28642. MR. TOM FIDDLER: No, and, in fact, we have policies that will

prohibit the possession of firearms or other weapons for the personal purpose of

potentially participating in harvest, obviously presumably legal. They’re

prohibited from camp and they’re prohibited from personal vehicles and there’s a

zero tolerance in that regard.

28643. Having said that, we also, on the flip side, for critical species, we issue

sighting cards to individual workers and we put controls in place relative to traffic

patterns, traffic speed on the right-of-way and we have them note and submit

evidence of sighting of key species as well as predators.


28645. Nonetheless, is Northern Gateway willing to commit to implement

General Mitigation Measure Number 18 in relation to grizzly bears to prohibit

project personnel from harassing, disturbing, harvesting or feeding grizzly bears?


Examination by Ms. Griffith


28646. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: This is a subset of the mitigation

measures for wildlife. There’s a much broader selection of mitigation measures

for the environmental protection in the -- in Volume 7, the EPMP and we

definitely have that commitment. And there is also policies around that that

would be applicable. So yes, definitely.

28647. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Mr. Anderson and thank you Mr.

Fiddler, and I’d like to thank the rest of the witness panel for their informative

answers. That will be -- that will conclude my personal questioning.

28648. However, we will have Ms. Griffith following with further questions.

And if it pleases the Panel I believe this would be an appropriate time for a break.

28649. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Let’s take our afternoon break

and come back at 2:35, please.

--- Upon recessing at 2:21 p.m./L’audience est suspendue à 14h21

--- Upon resuming at 2:36 p.m./L’audience est reprise à 14h36

28650. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Griffith, please begin with your

questions of this witness panel.

28651. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Madam Chair.







DAVID REID: Resumed

GORD ROZON: Resumed



--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. GRIFFITH:

28652. MS. GRIFFITH: And good afternoon Panel Members and witnesses

and Madam Chair.




28653. I’d like to just start off to follow-up on some things we heard pursuant

to questioning by Mr. Leadem, yesterday, about monitoring as well as earlier

today.

28654. And that was that Northern Gateway’s commitments with respect to

monitoring would form part of conditions in a certificate if it were to be issued

and I have a few follow-up questions from that.

28655. Once a certificate is issued, if it is issued, are those conditions cast in

stone?

28656. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: We will see draft certificate conditions

prior to their issuance. And I think we’d have the opportunity, as would others

involved in this process, to be able to comment on them before they would be

issued, if a certificate is issued.

28657. I think there is some mechanisms for modification of certificates. I’m

not aware of how that process works. I think it takes a government-in-council

decision but I think you’d need to -- I’d need to seek legal advice to sort of

answer that question properly.

28658. MS. GRIFFITH: If after a certificate is issued, if it is issued, and if

that certificate has in it conditions, and if Northern Gateway -- and let me just

preface by saying this. It’s my understanding that there is a process that’s

available to vary or even waive conditions. So that’s the premise from which I’m

going from this question.

28659. And that is, if Northern Gateway were to seek a variance or waiver of

a condition, is it Northern Gateway’s understanding that that would be a public

process, the way this one is, involving intervenors and interested parties?

MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I think you’re asking me to speculate on a process

that I’ve told you I don’t really clearly understand.

28660. MS. GRIFFITH: Would Northern Gateway be willing to commit

that as part of any certificate that were issued, regardless of whether future

processes available for varying or even waiving conditions required notice of the

public intervenors in this process and interested parties, that Northern Gateway

would provide that notice and seek input from the intervenors and interested

parties to this process?




28661. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: If, as you say, there is a mechanism for

modification or relief from conditions, the National Energy Board has been in this

game doing this for a long time and I’m sure that they would have adequate

consultation processes involved for such a change. And we would definitely

follow, of course, that process, and I’m sure it’s adequate in terms of consultation.

28662. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

28663. I’d like to ask some questions about vegetation. And I understand that

the potential impacts to vegetation was assessed by identifying key indicators; is

that correct?

28664. MR. DAVID REID: Yes, several key indicators were identified and

documented in the application.

28665. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Mr. Reid.

28666. Madam Clerk, may I please have Exhibit B3-5, page 41, and if you

could just scroll down please? That’s good.

28667. And this -- I want to talk about this table. It actually begins at the

bottom of page 41 and rolls over onto page 42, but we’ll start on this page for

now. This table sets out the surface disturbance for key indicators by

physiographic region; is that correct?

28668. MR. DAVID REID: Yes, that’s correct.

28669. MS. GRIFFITH: And we see here on the first line a reference to

ecosystem units and if we could turn down to the second -- the next page please.

We see the other key indicators of old growth forest, rare plant -- rare plants, rare

ecological communities, wetlands and timber resources.

28670. And there’s a footnote for the Coast Mountain Area, and in the

footnote it refers to the terrestrial PDA at the Kitimat Terminal. So just to be

clear, the -- that Kitimat Terminal PDA is included in the Coast Mountain

physiographic region for the purposes of vegetation assessment; is that correct?

28671. MR. DAVID REID: That’s correct.




28672. MS. GRIFFITH: And then going to -- I’ve become lost in my notes.

28673. Could we go to Adobe page 17 in this, please?

28674. If we could just scroll down to the bottom. That’s -- that’s good.

Actually, if we could see the whole table -- I think we can fit it onto the page.

There we go.

28675. So looking at this we see that the PEAA for the Coast Mountains is --

the Coast Mountain physiographic region is 11,789 hectares and that’s 100

percent. And then we see the PDA is 1,211 hectares and that represents 10

percent.

28676. Looking at the subtotal of the native vegetation, 859 hectares, that’s

listed as 10 percent. That 10 percent is not the percent of the PDA made up of the

native vegetation, rather it’s the percent of the native vegetation that’s in the PDA

-- sorry, it’s the percent of the PDA native vegetation in the context of the PEAA;

is that correct?


28678. MS. GRIFFITH: And so really the native vegetation would make up

about 70 percent, I believe, of the PDA; is that correct, 859 divided by 1,211. I’m

just trying to make sure I understand what these tables are telling us.

28679. MR. DAVID REID: Yes, that’s it.

28680. MS. GRIFFITH: Great. Thank you.

28681. If we could turn to Exhibit 3-4, page 72, and Table 8-5 sets out the

effects assessment attributes for vegetation impacts, and I want to make sure I

understand what this table is setting out.

28682. Under “Length of Time” or -- or “Duration” for an impact on

vegetation we have a description that -- if you could just scroll -- there we go. --

says it is:

“...until the KI returns to its baseline condition, or the

environmental effect can no longer be measured or otherwise

perceived (more than 2 years after decommissioning).”




28683. Am I to understand from this description that a long-term effect is not

reversed until two years after decommissioning?


28685. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you. And in terms of the geographic

extents, when we look at a local impact it’s described as:

“An environmental effect of a defined magnitude would occur

within the PEAA.”

28686. And so that’s not a limited area, like a site-specific effect, but a

broader one; correct?

28687. MR. DAVID REID: It’s limited in that the PEAA is 1 kilometre

wide, centered over the pipeline.

28688. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you. But in comparison to a site-specific

impact a local impacted would cover a larger area; is that correct?


28690. MS. GRIFFITH: And this -- this impact could be in the PDA or in

that portion of the PEAA which is not in the PDA; is that correct?

28691. MR. DAVID REID: Yes, that’s a possibility.

28692. MS. GRIFFITH: And while we’re looking at this table let’s take a

look at the reversibility attribute, and I think that might be on the next page.

There we go.

28693. This shows that an effect is either reversible or not; is that correct?


28695. MS. GRIFFITH: But the table itself does not provide a timeframe

for reversibility, does it?

28696. MR. DAVID REID: As discussed earlier, this table lists the various




attributes, I think there’s seven of them, and that they have to be considered

together before reaching a -- a description of the impact, and reversibility does not

include duration, duration is a separate component.

28697. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you.

28698. Could we please have Exhibit B3-5, page 59? And could you please

scroll down a little bit. Right there.

28699. I’m going to use my laser pointer. Starting with that sentence there we

do see a description here or a discussion of residual cumulative effects -- sorry, in

the discussion of residual cumulative effects of the reversibility of effects and

what we see here is a statement:

“Although surface disturbance is reversible, the duration until

the vegetation returns to its original ecosystem composition is

approximately 80 years...”

28700. So when the ESA concludes that an effect is reversible, in the context

of vegetation impacts, is it correct that we should use a time span of

approximately 80 years in determining reversibility?


28701. MR. DAVID REID: The duration of 80 years was presented as an

example from the study indicated, which is the approximate time that it takes for a

forested ecosystem to return. Forested ecosystems are one of several key

indicators that were presented earlier on the table. Not all key indicators return to

forest and the duration of the effect is variable amongst the indicators.

28702. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I think it’s important to note that the

timing of regeneration of vegetation would depend on the type of vegetation that’s

there when you do the construction, obviously.

28703. So in -- in forested areas you might be looking at quite a long duration,

wetlands it might be -- it might be less, agricultural lands certainly a lot less than

that, and we have to keep in mind that, as we said before, over 70 percent of the

pipeline right-of-way is in previously disturbed areas.

28704. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.




28705. In terms of the reversibility attribute, is there a relationship between

the return to baseline concept that’s expressed in respect of duration of an effect

and reversibility?

28706. MR. DAVID REID: The return to baseline is an indication of how

closely the regenerating plant communities would resemble the baseline

component and therefore it reflects the return -- the return reflects a reversible

condition.

28707. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Mr. or Dr. Reid, I’m actually not sure, I

haven’t -- thank you, Mr. Reid.

28708. MR. DAVID REID: “Mister” will be fine.

28709. MS. GRIFFITH: I don’t want to make that mistake again.

28710. Could we -- Madam Clerk, could we please have Exhibit B3-4, page

72 again?

28711. Just looking at the duration of the effects attribute again. Looking at

the long term here, when we see that:

"The period required until the KI returns to its baseline

condition, or the environmental effect can no longer be

measured or otherwise perceived…"

28712. And then:

28713. "…(more than 2 years after decommissioning)…”

28714. Would the effect ever be reversed in the context of the reversibility

heading or characteristic prior to the -- or before the duration of the effect

expires?

28715. So, in other words, for a long-term effect, would it ever be reversed

prior to two years after decommissioning?

28716. MR. DAVID REID: If the baseline condition was a recently

disturbed area and the pipeline is deliberately being focused and located on recent




disturbances, there is a possibility that it might have been an area of, say, grass or

low shrubs and herbs that were -- had been recently reclaimed from some other

form of disturbance, then it is quite possible that it would -- the baseline then

would be returned within the two-year period.

28717. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I think it's also important to remember

that we don't just have a permanent easement.

28718. We have a temporary working space and a permanent easement on the

pipeline and it will only be the permanent easement that's maintained during

operations.

28719. The adjacent space, the temporary working space and extra temporary

working used during construction would be allowed to return back to its previous

state and we would make efforts to plant appropriate covers or -- cover or trees or

shrubs in order to accelerate that recovery.

28720. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you for those responses.

28721. I'm just trying to get an understanding now between -- or of the

relationship of reversibility to duration.

28722. So in this duration chart, we see a short-term duration, which is limited

to one year. And then, we see a medium-term duration which is for the

operational life of the project. And then, we see a long-term duration, which is

more than two years after commissioning. And then, a permanent change.

28723. Now, Mr. Reid, you indicated that an effect could return to baseline

within two years, but a long-term effect, by definition, wouldn't be an effect that's

anticipated to return to baseline within two years. Such an effect would be

characterized, I believe, as a medium-term effect.



28725. MR. DAVID REID: I would appreciate perhaps if you could break

that multiple question down into one or ---


Examination by Ms. Nouvet


28726. MS. GRIFFITH: Mr. Reid, I think it will probably have to be broken

down into several questions and, being mindful of the time and the fact that the

Swan River First Nation is going to be phoning in to question the witnesses now, I

wonder whether this might not be the best time for me to stop and go and parse

that question out.

28727. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Griffith.

28728. Ms. Nouvet, are you on the line?

28729. MS. NOUVET: I am.

28730. THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, that's terrific.

28731. And have you access to WebEx as well?

28732. MS. NOUVET: I seem to have that access.

28733. THE CHAIRPERSON: Terrific.

28734. So good afternoon and please proceed with your questions of this

witness panel.

--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. NOUVET:

28735. MS. NOUVET: Thank you, Madam Chair.

28736. My questions today relate to the impacts of the pipeline on the

woodland caribou and, in particular, the threatened Little Smoky herd in Alberta

whose range overlaps with the traditional territory of the Swan River First Nation.

28737. The first exhibit that I would like to refer to, although we won't

necessarily need to go to any particular page in it, is Environment Canada's

woodland caribou recovery strategy for the boreal population. And that is, of

course, Exhibit E6-2-2.

28738. I take it from answers to Mr. Tollefson's questions a few days ago that

at least some of the witness panel members have read the recovery strategy.





28740. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Yes, that's correct.

28741. MS. NOUVET: I would like to confirm whether the witness panel

members agree with a few of the key facts and conclusions in the recovery

strategy.

28742. These questions are probably not controversial but I just want to

confirm whether the Proponent's approach to mitigation planning for caribou is

based on the same understanding of Environment Canada about two matters:

What caribou need to survive and recover and the current state of the Little

Smoky herd.

28743. So, first of all, I'd like to ask the witness panel whether you agree with

the statement in the recovery strategy that:

"Each boreal caribou local population contributes to the

biodiversity, ecological functionality, and resilience of the

species to environmental change, reducing the risk of species'

extinction."

28744. I guess maybe it is good to go to the specific pages, that is, hard copy

page 20 of the recovery strategy; that's where that quote is located. And I'm just

wondering whether the Panel members agree with that statement on page 20.

28745. And I'll read it one more time while we're getting to that page.

"Each boreal caribou local population contributes to the

biodiversity, ecological functionality, and resilience of the

species to environmental change, reducing the risk of species'

extinction."

28746. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Nouvet, Sheila here. Could you let us

know what section that is under?


28748. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: I think we can just answer that

question now.




28749. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

28750. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: We would agree with that statement.

28751. MS. NOUVET: Okay. Thank you.

28752. I'm wondering whether the Panel agrees that caribou need large tracks

of undisturbed habitat in order to survive.

28753. And that's not a direct quote from anywhere in the report.

28754. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: Yeah, it is our understanding that that

is a requirement for caribou.

28755. MS. NOUVET: And that they prefer mature or old growth forests to

younger forests?

28756. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: That's correct.

28757. MS. NOUVET: And are you aware that the recovery strategy

estimates that the Smoky herd currently counts 78 members.

28758. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: Yes, we are.

28759. MS. NOUVET: And does anyone on the witness panel disagree with

that estimate?

28760. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: No, they do not.

28761. MS. NOUVET: Do you agree with the recovery strategy's conclusion

that the Little Smoky herd is currently not self-sustaining because its population is

too low and too much of its range is disturbed?

28762. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: That is our understanding from the

recovery strategy.

28763. MS. NOUVET: And I just want to confirm whether you understand,

not necessarily agree with, but whether you understand that the recovery strategy

states that:




"The recovery goal for boreal caribou is to achieve self-

sustaining local populations in all boreal caribou ranges

throughout their current distribution in Canada, to the extent

possible."

28764. And, sorry, I should have given the page cite first for that. It's page 19

of the strategy.

28765. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: That's quite all right.

28766. We do understand that that is the overarching goal for the caribou

herds throughout Canada.

28767. MS. NOUVET: And last question on the recovery strategy, whether

you understand that the recovery strategy states that -- and this is also at page 19,

hard copy -- it states that:

“The recovery of all local boreal caribou populations is

technically and biologically feasible.”

28768. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: We certainly agree with that

statement.

28769. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: If I could just add for a moment?

28770. I think the Panel would generally agree with almost everything that’s

in the recovery strategy, if not all that’s in the recovery strategy.

28771. And, specifically, in Appendix A it talks about the mitigation

techniques to avoid destruction of critical habitat. There’s a table there -- it’s

Table I 1 -- and it shows different examples of planning and development tools

that you can use as possible mitigation techniques.

28772. And we’ve incorporated these techniques into our overall mitigation

plan that we’ve developed so far, and those principles and we would continue to

use those principles going forward.

28773. Oh, sorry. I didn’t give a proper reference there but it’s page 98 of

150. I could go through this table but I think these have been sort of foundational

pieces in developing the mitigation strategy that we have to date.




28774. And we certainly -- as we’ve discussed at some length yesterday,

proposed to put forward a caribou mitigation measures. We plan to submit a

caribou protection plan, a caribou habitat restoration plan and a caribou

enhancement or offset measures plan.

28775. And we’ll be doing monitoring of our mitigation and our restoration

efforts over time.

28776. So we definitely agree and we’re definitely considering this as part --

as a critical piece to our planning.

28777. MS. NOUVET: Thank you.

28778. I’d like to now turn to Environment Canada’s written evidence to the

Joint Review Panel which is Exhibit E9-6-32; and, in particular, to Adobe page 53

of that document.

28779. I just would like to confirm that the Panel agrees that -- with the

statement in paragraph 173:

“...avoidance of habitat destruction should be seen as a top

priority.”

28780. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Yes.

28781. Certainly, it’s definitely a critical piece to our route planning process.

We’ve always tried to avoid to the extent that it’s possible.

28782. I should explain a little bit in terms of this specific herd range that

we’re in. Our original plan was to re-route -- or was to route the pipeline to the

north outside of the boundaries of the herd range.

28783. But working with Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource

Development, they wanted us to parallel existing infrastructure through -- that

actually goes -- takes us through the top end -- the north end of the range through

an area of low habitat potential.

28784. And so it’s through that consultation that our pipeline route is where it

is.




28785. MS. NOUVET: And I heard that answer to Mr. Tollefson’s questions

a few days ago and was very interested to hear that.

28786. And I know my client will also appreciate knowing that that was

Northern Gateway’s initial plan and I’d like some more details on that.

28787. First of all, when did ESRD express the view that it would be

preferable to use the existing Alliance Pipeline route rather than completely by-

passing the Little Smoky herd range?

28788. I’m not looking for an exact date, but a general timeframe would be

helpful.


28789. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I’m sorry. I was just trying to find a

reference.

28790. And, in the interest of time, I can tell you it was in the 2008 timeframe.

I don’t have an actual -- an actual record handy but I can find it if that would be of

interest.

28791. MS. NOUVET: That -- it would be appreciated to get that reference.

28792. My other question -- maybe you’ll have the same answer -- is whether

you recall who at ESRD gave that particular opinion?

28793. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, -- sorry Ms. Nouvet, it’s Dennis

Langen, Counsel for Northern Gateway.

28794. I believe Ms. Nouvet’s requesting that Northern Gateway disclose the

individual’s name. And further to my -- my objection or reference yesterday, I

don’t know whether that’s relevant or proper to disclose individuals’ names.

28795. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Nouvet, any comment?

28796. MS. NOUVET: No. We -- my client is just going to want as clear an

understanding as possible of, you know, what level of government decision-maker

was involved in that discussion and, certainly, they may be needing to follow-up




on this issue.

28797. So it would be helpful to have specifics when communicating with

ESRD on this matter.

28798. But it’s not -- if it’s a decision that we shouldn’t have a particular

name, that’s fine.

28799. THE CHAIRPERSON: So let’s have the -- I understand that there’s

an undertaking now to provide you the timeframe when that communication

happened?

28800. And the Panel does not believe it’s relevant to the matters that it’s

considering to have the person’s name associated with it.


28802. I am wondering ---

28803. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just ---

28804. MS. NOUVET: --- whether in those discussions, between Gateway

and ESRD, whether ESRD gave reasons for why using the existing pipeline right-

of-way would be preferable to by-passing the Little Smoky herd range?


28805. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I’m sorry for the delay.

28806. We’re just -- we do have all of our meetings or the majority of our

meetings documented in past filing so I might be able to find it on the record for

you when that meeting occurred.

28807. But I can tell you that the main reason for ESRD at the time wanting

us to follow our proposed route is because the previous route that we had

proposed that went north would have involved disturbance of areas that had not

been previously disturbed and, for the most part, we were not paralleling existing

facilities.

28808. And the reason why we were where we were or where we originally




proposed was just to avoid the caribou habitat range.

28809. ESRD felt that it would be less of an impact on the environment and --

to parallel existing facilities that would go through the range in areas that have

fairly low habitat quality at present.

28810. And to prepare mitigation to ensure our impacts were minimal to the

caribou.

28811. I can also -- and you might be about to take me there, but just below,

on 175 -- recommendation 175 on this page also provides Environment Canada

guidance in terms of the routing in this area as well.

28812. So we have consulted and tried to get as much information as we can

in terms of deciding where our current route should be -- or proposed route should

be and I think we’ve landed on a very solid route that can be -- that have very

minimal impacts. And that we should be able to, with the adoption of mitigation

and the compensation measures that we’ve talked about, have no impact to the

boreal caribou overall.

28813. And, in fact, we may have a net benefit to the boreal caribou by

providing a higher habitat restoration ratio than what’s disturbed.

28814. MS. NOUVET: Was Environment Canada part of the discussion for

the routing?

28815. Because, when I read their written submissions, I didn’t get the sense

that they’d been actively involved in that decision-making.

28816. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Yes, I should be clear.

28817. We’ve talked about routing with both Environment Canada and with

ESRD but they were not together -- I don’t believe at the time -- when we had the

discussions with ESRD. I think it was just with the Province of Alberta when we

had those initial meetings around routing.

28818. MS. NOUVET: And to your knowledge, is there any other Species at

Risk Act species that would be adversely affected if the pipeline were, as

originally proposed by Northern Gateway, routed to bypass the Little Smokey

herd range?




28819. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I'm sorry, did you ask if there were other

species that would be affected?

28820. MS. NOUVET: Other Species at Risk Act species that would stand to

be affected if Northern Gateway's original proposal were implemented.

28821. MR. MICHAEL PRESTON: There could be other SARA Schedule

1 listed species potentially affected if it was to go around the Little Smoky herd.

28822. Just a couple of examples would be some bird species such as olive

sided flycatcher or Canada warbler perhaps. There's also potential to affect an

amphibian, the western toad.

28823. MS. NOUVET: Now, you know, Northern Gateway's original plan

was to bypass the herd range and my question now is: In light of the finalized

caribou report and the clearly dire state of the Little Smoky herd, is Northern

Gateway willing to re-engage with ESRD and Environment Canada about that

section of the route in light of the more recent information that we now have

about what a terrible state that particular herd is in?


28824. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: You used the term "re-engage" with

ESRD. We continue to be engaged with them and our conversations are ongoing.

28825. With respect to the routing through this area, I restate -- my last

statement was that we believe we do have a very solid route. But in light of the

document that has come out recently, we would definitely discuss that again with

AESRD and ask them if there's any changes in their minds in terms of our routing

through that area.

28826. Again restate, though I really think we do have a good route and it

does parallel the Alliance Pipeline for much of the route and I was part of that

project and it went -- it's a very good route, a good solid route through that area.

28827. So I believe we do have a good route but again I'll restate that we

would re-engage -- or sorry, engage with ESRD on this issue again.





28829. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, while we have a bit of a break, I don't

think an undertaking number was assigned.

28830. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Sorry, Madam Chair, I don't mean to

interrupt you. I just wanted to state that I think we do have that information now,

if I could speak to that.

28831. It's actually -- it's stated in Exhibit B41-14, is the exhibit number. And

that document is the attachment to Federal Government of Canada Information

Response -- sorry, I'm just trying to find what number, Federal Government IR 76

and it's B and it's an attachment to that IR, and it's Table 1.

28832. If you look down at the September 28th, 2009 -- and I apologize I said

I thought it was 2008, but I must be getting old -- and we did discuss the routing

of the Little Smoky caribou -- through the Little Smoky caribou range versus the

alternative range to the north -- or alternative routes to the north, I should say.

28833. And it was at that time that the overall discussion was that their

preference was to go through the range.

28834. MS. NOUVET: Well, I find it reassuring to hear that that might be

revisited now that we know that 95 percent of the herd's range is already disturbed

and that their numbers are plummeting so quickly.

28835. I have a couple of questions about the habitat restoration plan, and I

know that's been discussed in the last couple of days at least in hearings, but I'm

still needing just a bit more clarity on whether Northern Gateway has firmly

committed or committed in writing that it would restore habitat in the Little

Smoky Range at a ratio of 4:1.

28836. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Yes, we have.

28837. We've committed to that in previous meetings with Environment

Canada and I believe the exhibit you had up just a few moments ago also

reiterated that commitment.

28838. MS. NOUVET: And would the restoration be based on the area of

new disturbances or on the entire project development area that overlaps with the

Little Smoky Range?




28839. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It's Jeff Green here.

28840. There's two parts to the caribou issue in this -- the Little Smoky

caribou range. There's the 25-metre temporary right-of-way and Northern

Gateway has made a commitment to restore that portion of the right-of-way to

forested habitat.

28841. So that's along -- and that 25 metres will parallel the permanent right-

of-way for the pipeline right-of-way, which also parallels the existing Alliance

Pipeline right-of-way.

28842. For the 25-metre right-of-way that's being created regardless of

whether it's adjacent to the Alliance Pipeline or not, Northern Gateway has

committed for the area. So the total area of the 25-metre permanent right-of-way

within the Little Smoky caribou range -- and we have maps for that now that

we're working with ESRD on -- we will commit to a 4:1 or Northern Gateway

will commit to a 4:1 ratio.

28843. So for every hectare represented by that 25-metre right-of-way,

permanent right-of-way, four hectares of caribou habitat will be restored

somewhere in the Little Smoky range and as we've discussed in ---


28845. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- previous evidence, it will likely be

more in the core habitat area.


28847. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: The area in which we cross is actually

rated as poor quality habitat.

28848. MS. NOUVET: And when would that restoration work take place

relative to the pipeline construction work?

28849. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: That's a very good question.

28850. We've actually had conversations with both the Alberta and the B.C.

government about starting that program. We've had some meetings to talk about




critical or specific areas that we focussed on first and the Little Smoky Range is

one of them.

28851. We're trying to identify candidates and we may actually start some of

the reclamation work even prior to construction.

28852. But a lot of that is -- many details are yet to be determined and,

obviously there's a lot of consultation that would be required. So at this time, I

can't really commit to saying when that activity would begin.

28853. MS. NOUVET: All right. Thank you.

28854. In terms of consultation -- that was going to be my next question -- I'd

like to bring the Witness Panel to Exhibit B46-36, and I believe it's Adobe page 5.

And that's the "Linear Feature Management and Removal Plan".

28855. And on Adobe page 5, there's a phased plan and I'm having a hard time

understanding why Aboriginal groups would only be consulted at Phase 3 of that

plan since Phase 2 involves developing priority areas sub-plans.

28856. Would it not make more sense to consult with First Nations such as

Swan River, many of whom have a really deep knowledge of local caribou herds

and habitat right now?

28857. I mean if you're in the planning stages right now, shouldn't First

Nations be involved right now

28858. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: There is -- it is our intent to consult with

First Nations on these matters. We do think that we need to get a better

understanding of the science and some of the management objectives that the

Province and other regulators envision for this area.

28859. We do and will engage with First Nations as soon as we have some

candidate ideas, but as you say, many of these communities know these areas

extremely well.

28860. They know, for example, the roads and maybe use some of these --

what we’ve been terming “legacy orphan roads” and may be able to identify

candidates. So it will -- it’s shown as a stepwise process in the outline, but it will

be more of an iterative one.




28861. We’ve already had discussions with our community advisory boards to

present this draft at that level. Those community advisory boards have a number

of stakeholders and other interested parties involved and they also have

Aboriginal groups that do attend them, but they don’t represent their community

necessarily. But there are a number of individuals there, there’s resource users

that are there and there’s resource managers there. So we’ve vetted these ideas

already.

28862. So, as I say, it’s sort of shown as a stepwise process, but we do plan to

be inclusive and try to get input into the process, and early in the process.

28863. MS. NOUVET: Can Northern Gateway commit to providing a

consultation opportunity to Swan River before the priority area sub-plans are

developed; you know, even in draft? Because again, the concern here is that

already a decision has been made about what the priority areas are, the sub-plan is

developed. There could need to be a discussion at that earlier stage of what the

priority areas should be.

28864. So is Northern Gateway willing to offer consultation opportunity to

Swan River before it actually starts drafting priority area sub-plans for the Little

Smoky herd?

28865. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Just so we’re clear, in terms of the

priority areas that I spoke to it was identifying which ranges we were going to

focus on initially, and what I meant there was the Little Smoky caribou herd

would be one of those priority areas that we would focus on.

28866. MS. NOUVET: Okay, that is already a priority area?

28867. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Yeah. So we are -- and we’ve already

started to have conversations, as I’ve mentioned earlier, with the province. We

started to -- we’re also going to engage with these -- I believe they’re called

resource road users groups to help start to get an understanding of what the road

use is in that area.

28868. We will definitely continue to engage with Swan River, and certainly

before we have a draft together we could engage -- we would engage with them --

I can make that commitment to you ---





28870. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: --- and have -- and get their input.

28871. MS. NOUVET: Okay, thank you. Because when I look at Phase 3 it

says when the plan is completed to the technical satisfaction of Northern Gateway

and the government, then there will engagement, but your -- the commitment

you’ve just made is that there would actually be discussion -- an opportunity for

consultation in the drafting of that plan and I appreciate that.

28872. And lastly, as I realize I’m running out of time here, I’d like to turn

mitigation measure, and it would be great to display that on the screen, from

Exhibit B3-6, and it’s Mitigation Measure 45, it’s on Adobe 63.

28873. I just had a couple of questions about the statement for Mitigation

Measure 45, the plan to:

“Avoid disturbance of identified key woodland caribou

habitat…”

28874. MS. NOUVET: I’m wondering what identified key woodland habitat

means? I’m hoping that in the case of the Little Smoky herd it includes all of

their range.

28875. Is that the case?

28876. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It’s Jeff Green here.

28877. What that measure refers to is what Northern Gateway would commit

to during the construction and ---

28878. MS. NOUVET: Yeah.

28879. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- operation of this project.


28881. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So it does not refer to disturbances by

other users in the area.




28882. I think it is reasonable to assume though that Northern Gateway has

already said to ESRD that they’re prepared to work with them and other parties to

find the best way to help this herd recover.

28883. So it’s probably within the discussion, but we’re not able to control or

change how other users are using -- working in the area, but we can influence our

own activities.

28884. MS. NOUVET: No, I’m wondering whether Northern Gateway is

committed to avoiding any pipeline construction in the Little Smoky range during

that -- during the caribou’s critical activity periods.

28885. Because the mitigation measure says there will not be -- that there will

be avoidance of construction in identified key woodland habitats. So I’m looking

for confirmation that for the Little Smoky herd, with already 95 percent disturbed

habitat, that the plan will be to avoid construction altogether in their range during

the caribou’s critical activity periods should the pipeline go ahead?

28886. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Just a minute, we’re trying to find some

information here to help you on the answer.


28887. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Sorry for the delay.

28888. We would work with ESRD to identify what those critical restricted

activity periods are for the project in that specific area of the range and we would

work within that time zone ---

28889. MS. NOUVET: And so ---

28890. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: --- or outside the ---

28891. MS. NOUVET: --- is Northern Gateway treating the entire Little

Smoky range as key woodland habitat for the purpose of this mitigation measure?

That’s all I’m looking to confirm.

28892. I don’t know if my question is clear. I’m wondering whether there’s

going to be some further determination by Northern Gateway that only some parts

of the route within the Little Smoky range actually fall within key woodland




caribou habitat, and therefore, that this mitigation measure doesn’t apply to those

parts of the pipeline construction?

28893. I would think the whole range at this point counts as key woodland

caribou habitat and that construction anywhere in the Little Smoky range should

be avoided during critical activity periods given the state of the herd, but I would

like confirmation of that fact.

28894. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I can tell you that the provincial

government will have timing restrictions in that -- in the entire area of the range

and we would meet those requirements.

28895. I’m just -- I guess I’m fussing a little bit with the words “key

woodland caribou habitat”. I’m just not sure if there’s specific designations for

that habitat within the range, but the entire range will have restricted activity

periods and we would meet those periods.

28896. MS. NOUVET: Okay, so Northern Gateway doesn’t have a definition

in mind for “key woodland caribou habitat” that would restrict what habitat we’re

talking about in the Little Smoky range?

28897. I mean, it’s Northern Gateway’s terminology in the mitigation

measure, “key woodland caribou habitat” so I’m just wondering what that means?

28898. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Ms. Bryden is going -- she’s our caribou

expert and she’s just going to give a bit of an explanation around this habitat --

key habitat issue.


28900. MS. COLLEEN BRYDEN: Yes, so this measure number 45, it’s a

general measure for all woodland caribou affected by the project. So you may

have heard some of the previous discussion.

28901. We affect five different herds, so the definition of “key habitat” for --

varies among the herds, but as Mr. Anderson said, for the Little Smoky herd the

whole length of the route would be considered to transect that key habitat for

Little Smoky herd.





28903. And I just have one more really quick question if I can have the --

everyone’s indulgence and then I will be done.

28904. It’s again on this mitigation measure. There’s a statement where that

disturbance is unavoidable. I’m wondering in what types of circumstances it

might be considered unavoidable that construction has to take place during critical

activity periods for caribou, just so that we have some idea of what the reasons

might be for constructing the pipeline during caribou critical activity periods.


28905. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: We’re struggling to try to think of an

example. But we are going to just take a look at the routing through that area just

to see if there’s anything that our construction team here would -- could think of

as potential reasons.

28906. MS. NOUVET: And also, in particular, could unavoidable capture,

sort of economics, that it would be too expensive to avoid construction during

certain times? I’m hoping that can be ruled out as something that’s unavoidable.

28907. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: No, typically, something that would be --

when we use the word “unavoidable” it would be because there’s another

constricting environmental constraint, whether it be a watercourse crossing or that

construction during another period would actually be more destructive to the

environment than constructing within the window. Those would be kind of

examples where you might have a disturbance when timing would be

unavoidable.

28908. MS. NOUVET: If the witness panel has any further comments on

that question I’d love to hear them. And otherwise, those are my questions.

28909. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: No, we can’t think of any other examples

that we can bring to your attention right now. But we appreciate the questions

and we look forward to consulting with the Swan River First Nations on this

matter, and others.


28911. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Nouvet, for participating.




28912. And with that, we will close for this afternoon and resume with the

Haisla Nation’s questions tomorrow morning at 8:30.

28913. Thank you.

--- Upon adjourning at 3:38 p.m./L’audience est ajournée à 15h38

JOINT REVIEW PANEL FOR THE ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT · joint review panel for the enbridge...

Documents

Transcript of JOINT REVIEW PANEL FOR THE ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT · joint review panel for the enbridge...