joint review panel for the enbridge northern … · b176 direct evidence and cv of mr. peter reid...

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 113

Hearing held at

Audience tenue à

Chances Prince Rupert

240 West, 1st Avenue

Prince Rupert, British Columbia

December 12, 2012

Le 12 décembre 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 Rupert (British Columbia), Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Audience tenue à Prince Rupert (Colombie-Britannique), mercredi, le 12 décembre 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 - Ms. Naomi Kovak 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 - Ms. Maria Morellato - Ms. Crystal Reeves


APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS (Continued/Suite)

(ii) INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS Council of the Haida Nation - Ms. G.L. Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson - Guujaaw Daiya-Matess Keyoh - Mr. Kenny Sam - Mr. Jim Monroe Douglas Channel Watch - Mr. Murray Minchin - Ms. Cheryl Brown - Mr. Kelly Marsh - Mr. Manny Arruda - Mr. Dave Shannon 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. Kandace Kerr Friends of Morice-Bulkley - Ms. Dawn Remington - Mr. Richard Overstall Gitxaala Nation - Ms. Rosanne M. Kyle - Mr. Robert Janes



(iii) INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS Government of Alberta - Mr. Evan W. Dixon - Mr. Ron Kruhlak Government of Canada - Mr. James Shaw - Ms. Dana Anderson - Mr. Kirk Lambrecht - Mr. Brendan Friesen - Ms. Sarah Bird Haisla Nation - Ms. Jennifer Griffith - Ms. Hana Boye - Mr. Jesse McCormick - Mr. Allan Donovan - Mr. Michael Gordon - Ms. Gillian Bakker Heiltsuk Tribal Council - Ms. Carrie Humchitt - Ms. Marilyn Slett - Mr. Benjamin Ralston - Ms. Lisa Fong Kelly Izzard Kitimat Valley Naturalists - Mr. Walter Thorne - Mr. Dennis Horwood - Ms. April MacLeod MEG Energy Corp. - Mr. Loyola Keough - Mr. David A. McGillivray Michel First Nation - Acting Chief Gil Goerz Northwest Institute of Bioregional Research - Ms. Patricia Moss Office of the Wet'suwet'en - Mr. Mike Ridsdale - Mr. David De Wit - Mr. Ken Rabnett



(iv) INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS Swan River First Nation - Mr. Jay Nelson - Ms. Dominique Nouvet United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union - Ms. Joy Thorkelson - Mr. Hugh Kerr Terry Vulcano Dr. 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, December 11, 2012 - Volume 112

Paragraph No.: Should read:

9167:

“On a global status, fin whales are the most “On a global basis, fin whales are the most

likely to be struck. Large whale species on likely to be struck. Of the large whale

the west coast of Canada…” species on the west coast of Canada…”

9208:

“…like the coastal gas project…” “…like the Coastal Gas project…”

9212:

“…but it doesn’t include the coastal gas “…but it doesn’t include the Coastal Gas

project…” project…”

9230:

“…as well as small vessel traffic, every…” “…as well as small vessel traffic. Every…”

9233:

“…is much more complicated and difficult “…is a much more complicated and difficult

question…” question…”

9280:

“MR. JEFFREY GREEN: …” “MR. DAVID HANNAY: …”

9319:

“…the inner noise section…” “…the in-air noise section…”

9348:

“…sea otters are presently in Kemano “…sea otters are presently in Caamaño

Sound…” Sound…”

9349:

“…have been seen in Kemano Sound…” “…have been seen in Caamaño Sound…”

9370:

“…one is of surveying. We’re going to be “…when surveying, we’re going to be

recording information on all…” recording information on all…”

9372:

“…of the traffic and the Wright…” “…of the traffic in the Wright…”


ERRATA

(ii)



9392:

“…Coast Cetacean and your clients who “…Coast Cetacean and your clients would

would better define that season…” better define that season…”

9400:

“…is adequate and determining…” “…is adequate in determining…”

9415:

“…the time period that those operates “…the time period that those operate

based…” based…”

9440:

“…is be leadership -- show leadership…” “…is be leaders -- show leadership…”

9488:

“…many check and balances that…” “…many checks and balances that…”

9498:

“…Port of Los Angeles, much, much “…Port of Los Angeles, with much heavier

heavier shipping volumes, species in the…” shipping volumes, and species in the…”

9523:

“…detailed analysis that -- particularly…” “…detailed analysis on that --

particularly…”

9594:

“…I think it’s very general about the “…I think it’s very general discussion about

occurrence of noise in the oceans…” the occurrence of noise in the oceans…”

9596:

“It’s actually in the prologue by Dieter “It’s actually in the prologue by Dieter

Paulmann, who actually is the Chairman Paulmann, who actually is the Chairman of

of Okeanos. Is that President Obama…” Okeanos, that President Obama…”

9621:

“…was there is three different working “…was there were three different working

groups…” groups…”


ERRATA

(iii)



9644:

“…there’s a number statements here…” “…there’s a number of statements here…”

9645:

“…populations to levels that where they “…populations to levels where they may not

may not be able…” be able…”

9713:

“So the laws with respect to offshore; “So the laws with respect to offshore;

B-606.” C-606.”

9755:

“MR PAUL ANDERSON: …” “MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: …”

9917:

“A community engagement is…” “Our community engagement is…”

9970:

“…and Treaty tights…” “…and Treaty rights…”

9972:

“…are hear to speak to…” “…are here to speak to…”

9979:

“…harvest of herring, spawn on kelp.” “…harvest of herring spawn on kelp.”

10042:

“…sought through FSE fisheries…” “…sought through FSC fisheries…”

10072:

“…the Git’xaala have submitted a “…the Gitxa’ala have submitted a

traditional land use study, the Haida have traditional land use study, the Haida have

submitted a traditional land use study. The submitted a traditional land use study, the

Haisla…” Haisla…”

10076:

“…around the significant of adverse…” “…around the significance of adverse…”


ERRATA

(iv)



10076:

“…with respect to FSE fisheries…” “…with respect to FSC fisheries…”

10077:

“…information on FSE fishery…” “…information on FSC fishery…”

10121:

“Where we looked at…” “What we looked at…”

10202:

“…confirm our impacts assessments…” “…confirm our impact assessments…”

10207:

“…species list and information…” “…species lists and information…”

10217:

“…lack of information of the food…” “…lack of information on the food…”

10244:

“…any of the Coastal First Nations, that…” “…any of the coastal First Nations, that…”

10292:

“…it would the most sense…” “…it would make the most sense…”

10297:

“…or rather it -- it incurs throughout…” “…or rather it -- it occurs throughout…”

10298:

“…accommodate that then there -- there is “…accommodate that, then there -- there is a

a degree…” degree…”

10314:

“…put them to the same…” “…put them in the same…”

10351:

“MR. JEFFREY GREEN: ...” “DR. TOM WATSON: ...”


ERRATA

(v)



10391:

“DR. TOM WATSON: …” “MR. DAVID FISSEL: …”

10534:

“…the use of anchorages, as to how “…the use of anchorages. As to how the

the pilots work…” pilots work…”

10642:

“…referred to a complete information…” “…referred to complete information…”

10660:

“…experienced on water fisheries…” “…experienced in open water fisheries…”

10794:

“A about -- I feel that…” “About -- I feel that…”

10904:

“There is all range of…” “There is a range of…”

10999:

“…administrative, but a chairman…” “…administrative, and a chairman…”


TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES

(i)

Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe

Opening remarks by the Chairperson 11101

Preliminary matters brought forward by Ms. Estep 11104

Preliminary matters brought forward by Ms. Humchitt 11123

Enbridge Northern Gateway Panel 1 - Prince Rupert

Marine Environmental & Socio-Economic Assessment

Mr. John Carruthers

Ms. Andrea Ahrens

Mr. David Fissel

Mr. Jeffrey Green

Mr. David Hannay

Mr. John Thompson

Dr. Tom Watson

Mr. Paul Anderson

- Examination by Ms. Morellato (continued) 11131

Peter Reid: Sworn

- Examination by Ms. Estep 11439

- Examination by Ms. Morellato (continued) 11476

- Examination by Ms. Griffith 12264


LIST OF EXHIBITS/LISTE DES PIÈCES

(i)

No. Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe

B176 Direct evidence and CV of Mr. Peter Reid 11472

AQ55-B Coastal First Nations - PNCIMA Herrring and Eulachon

Important Areas

AQ55-C Coastal First Nations - 2011 WHO Air Quality and Health

Fact Sheet No. 313

AQ55-D Coastal First Nations - Health Canada Review of Air Quality

Impact Sections of appl re proposed Kitimat Project

AQ55-E Coastal First Nations - 2007 CEAA Operational Policy

Statement re Addressing Cumulative Effects

AQ55-F Coastal First Nations - About BC Major Projects Inventory

AQ55-G Coastal First Nations - 2009 Dec BC Major Projects Inventory

AQ55-H Coastal First Nations - 2012 March BC Major Projects Inventory

AQ55-I Coastal First Nations - The Sandhill Project - Kitimat 100 Million

Tonnes of Sand Project Overview (undated)

AQ55-J Coastal First Nations - CEAA Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project

in Northern BC

AQ55-K Coastal First Nations - Kitimat LNG Project Description

(from website)


RULINGS/DÉCISIONS

(i)

Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe


UNDERTAKINGS/ENGAGEMENTS

No. Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe

U-62 For Mr. Peter Reid to provide updated information with

respect to amounts of contaminants from sulphur and fuel

within the context of proposed implementation dates and

the Canada-U.S. Sulphur Emission Control Area. 11681

U-63 For Mr. Green to provide the revised analysis report from

the lab showing the proper analysis. 12291

U-64 For Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) to provide

the expectation of what the total area of land that is expected

to be covered by excess cut material will be. 12367

Preliminary matters


--- Upon commencing at 8:30 a.m./L’audience débute à 8h30

11101. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everyone. I believe we’re

ready to get underway.

JOHN CARRUTHERS: Resumed

ANDREA AHRENS: Resumed

DAVID FISSEL: Resumed

JEFFREY GREEN: Resumed

DAVID HANNARY: Resumed

JOHN THOMPSON: Resumed

TOM WATSON: Resumed

PAUL ANDERSON: Resumed

11102. THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there are any preliminary matters that

parties wish to raise this morning?

11103. Ms. Estep?

11104. MS. ESTEP: Good morning, Madam Chair.

11105. We have just two preliminary matters this morning. The first -- I just

wanted to advise the Panel, and for the record, that Ms. Karen Munro is not

feeling well this morning; she’s one of our supporting panel members. And so we

hope that she’ll be able to join us tomorrow.

11106. I don’t anticipate that that’s a problem, but if there are questions that

come up in the area of dredging and that sort of thing, we can get her back here at

a break or at -- over the lunch hour, but we’d like to proceed on that basis, if that’s

acceptable.

11107. THE CHAIRPERSON: It is. Thank you.

11108. MS. ESTEP: Thank you.

11109. And the second preliminary matter, Mr. Green and Dr. Watson both

have brief corrections they’d like to make to the transcript from yesterday, so if I

could ask Ms. Gilbert to bring the transcript up and then start with Mr. Green to

take us through those brief corrections.

Preliminary matters


11110. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: If we could have line 9177, please? I

referred incorrectly to “1.2 vessels per day” and as we discussed, the terms that

were -- we were using is transits per day, so it should read, “1.2 transits per day”.

11111. In line 9196, there is a similar correction required. It should read,

“540 large vessel transits per year”.

11112. And lastly, in line 9432, I referred to speeds of “zero to 10 knots” and

it should read, “8 to 10 knots”.

11113. Thank you.

11114. DR. TOM WATSON: If I could ask you to bring up paragraph 9564

and 9565, line 112, please?

11115. Mr. Leadem indicated:

“…that the Naas Skeena River […] eulachon are listed as

threatened under SARA.”

11116. Eulachon are not listed under SARA but have been assessed by

COSEWIC. This was subject to confirmation yesterday.

11117. Thank you.

11118. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

11119. Ms. Estep, are there any other preliminary matters from Northern

Gateway?

11120. MS. ESTEP: We have nothing further, thank you.


11122. Are there any other preliminary matters that parties wish to raise?

11123. MS. HUMCHITT: Good morning, Madam Chair.

11124. As per your directive as of Monday, the Heiltsuk Nation has canvassed


Examination by Ms. Morellato


with other intervenors on the issue of appearing last, and there are no notable

objections to the Heiltsuk questioning last in this panel proceeding.

11125. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms. Humchitt. So

we will move the Heiltsuk Nations questions to the last of the list.

11126. MS. HUMCHITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.


11128. I don’t see anybody else coming to the mic -- Oh, Mr. Roth? No.

11129. I don’t see anyone else coming to the microphone.

11130. So good morning, Ms. Morellato. Please continue with your questions

of this panel.

--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. MORELLATO:

(Continued/Suite)

11131. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I believe that

I’m hooked up and people can hear me. All right.

11132. All right. Yesterday, Mr. Carruthers, you indicated that Northern

Gateway would be willing to fund a -- the Fisheries Liaison Committee for the

duration of the project; is that right?

11133. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: Yes, that’s correct.

11134. MS. MORELLATO: And you didn’t qualify that statement?

11135. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: Not in a time aspect. I did qualify it

in terms of my anticipation is what would call the operational costs for the

duration of the project.

11136. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, thank you.

11137. I’d like to ask the panel a couple of questions, and Dr. Watson, I’m not

sure whether you’re the person to be asking, but perhaps I’ll start with you and

you can advise someone else would be answering.




11138. Concerning the halibut fishery, are you aware of what the halibut

fishers call the gully? It’s a particularly deep part of Hecate and it’s in an area

that your shipping route traverses on the outside of Triple Island. Are you

familiar with that term the gulley?

11139. DR. TOM WATSON: Not familiar with the term the gulley, but I’m

familiar with that formation.

11140. MS. MORELLATO: All right. And I’m instructed that this

formation was chosen by Northern Gateway because it’s deep and accommodates

large tankers; is that right?

11141. DR. TOM WATSON: I can’t say that that’s -- that’s right or wrong,

that would be a question for one of the route selectors on -- that -- one of the

Route Selection Panel members.

11142. MS. MORELLATO: Could we have a ---

11143. DR. TOM WATSON: It wouldn’t be me to answer that.

11144. MS. MORELLATO: Would it be appropriate to ask for an

undertaking in that regard?

11145. DR. TOM WATSON: Well, I believe that Mr. Carruthers might be

able to answer that quicker than that.

11146. MS. MORELLATO: Okay.

11147. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: No, again -- sorry, I -- you started off

and I didn’t hear the specific question, but if it’s a -- if it’s a question on route

selection, that would be -- go through the transportation -- the Marine

Transportation Panel. And we’d be happy to under -- respond to it at that time.

11148. MS. MORELLATO: All right. Is Northern Gateway aware that the

gulley is a prime halibut fishing area, and in particular for longline fishing?

11149. DR. TOM WATSON: Yes, we are.

11150. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And in regard to the potential disruption




of the longline fishery in that area -- this formation -- has Northern Gateway

assessed the potential impact in that area?

11151. DR. TOM WATSON: Consistent with what we mentioned

yesterday, we have considered the tanker routes and we have considered the

location of various fisheries -- the halibut fishery including one of them -- and I

can say that we have assessed and we have considered the potential for interaction

between fishing vessels and tankers.

11152. MS. MORELLATO: Have you considered that potential in this

specific gulley or this particular feature that we’re talking about right now?

11153. DR. TOM WATSON: We’ve assessed it through the entire length of

the tanker routes that are proposed, and that would include any area under those

routes.

11154. MS. MORELLATO: Can you point me to anywhere on the record --

and you can undertake to do so, sir, if that’s easier -- where Northern Gateway has

specifically considered the impact on halibut longline fishing in this area?

11155. DR. TOM WATSON: I’ll -- if you give me a couple of minutes, we

can show a map of the routes and halibut fishing areas.

11156. MS. MORELLATO: Well, I’m not -- I’m not so much asking, sir,

about the area, I’m asking about whether in your documentation you’ve addressed

this specific concern that halibut fishers have about longline fishing in this gulley.

11157. DR. TOM WATSON: What I was just indicating is that it would be

easier if I show you a map and the route and I can best answer your question that

way.

11158. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. I’m happy for you to take me to the

record, sir, but part of what I’m having difficulty with right now is that I’m not

asking for you to show me where the area is -- you can do that, I’m open to that --

but my question is more specific. My specific question that I’m hoping to get an

answer on is whether Northern Gateway particularly considered the effect on

longline fishing in the gulley?

11159. DR. TOM WATSON: I can keep answering the question the same

way. You asked me is there any document I can show you and I’m happy to do




that and I will. And a more specific answer about the halibut fishery in that area,

we looked at the Halibut fishery along the entire length of the tanker route.

11160. MS. MORELLATO: Well, if…

11161. DR. TOM WATSON: Madam Chair, we’re just looking for the

exhibit number. But it’ll be in section 52 of the application, Volume 8B. Sorry I

can’t be any more specific right now.

11162. We should have it for you in a second to make things easier.

--- (A short pause/Courte pause)

11163. DR. TOM WATSON: That would be B3-36, number 5.

11164. So this is the -- the map of the tanker route.

11165. Excuse me for one moment.

11166. This is colour-coded to match the species that are being fished. On the

left-hand side at the bottom we have the colour coding.

11167. The second one which is a pale turquoise, it says “Existing Groundfish

by Hook and Line”, and that includes Halibut, and you can see the colour coding

which would -- which would include halibut at the top, we see the Triple Islands.

11168. And so we have -- we have considered the potential for interaction in

that -- in that area and we have calculated the possible interaction on an aerial

basis between -- potential for conflict between fishers and the -- and the tankers.

11169. MS. MORELLATO: And, sir, could you take me to where in your

application materials you address that issue.

11170. DR. TOM WATSON: It’s in the same -- it’s in this same exhibit.

And there would be a table, 13-9, on page 13-46. It’s just the previous page to

this.

11171. So in this table on the left-hand side you’ll see we have the fishery

that’s potentially affected. And we’ve got groundfish by trawl, groundfish by

hook and line. We’ve calculated the fishing effort area and the open water area.




11172. And we’ve calculated the area of potential overlap between northern

and southern approaches and fishing effort area. And the way we did this was to

allow -- or to calculate 500 metres on either side of the -- of the proposed tanker

routes, so basically, a kilometre-wide path.

11173. And then we overlap that using a computer exercise to do the

calculations. And the potential overlap is -- the results show that there’s less than

a 1 percent, and most of them less than a .5 percent potential for interaction. And

that’s just on an aerial basis. We have not calculated what it might be on a

temporal basis considering that there’s so many transits per year. So if we were to

do it on a temporal basis the potential for interaction is quite small.

11174. And this is why on the right-hand side we’ve said the magnitude of the

potential effect is low for all those fisheries and low overall, and that’s how we

did that assessment.

11175. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, is there anything in the materials that deals

specifically with the gulley, I’m referencing this formation you’ve just

acknowledged, specifically with that area?

11176. Mr. Green, did you want to address the Panel or answer the question?

11177. MS. ESTEP: Madam Chair, it’s perfectly acceptable for the

witnesses to converse before they provide an answer. And we heard this from

counsel a couple of times yesterday. So I feel I need to interject on that point

now.

11178. MS. MORELLATO: All right.

11179. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, just to confirm, in this

setting this is a perfectly typical approach.

11180. What we’re interested in getting is the best evidence on the record

possible.


11181. DR. TOM WATSON: Just a couple of points on the data that we use

for calculating impacts and identifying fishing areas.




11182. This is -- has been gathered, collected, and evaluated by us from

Department of Fisheries and Oceans information which is -- is the most reliable

that we had available. And we consider it the most reliable.

11183. But there’s something that we need to understand about when we look

at fishing areas. There’s something called the three-party rule. And what that

means is if you have three vessels or less fishing in an area, those data are not

assigned to -- necessarily to that specific area. Often they’ll -- and it’s considered

confidential. So if there’s three or less vessels shipping -- fishing, pardon me, in

an area we may not necessarily ever know where that is. So there’s a data

grouping that happens.

11184. And so it’s quite possible that --- you know -- our information, while

we consider it accurate we have to keep in mind there is this three-party rule.

And it occurs quite often that the data that are collected are assigned to an area

where the fish may not have even been caught. And it’s just one of those

anomalies. And -- so that’s the data we used.

11185. And Mr. Green, I -- would you mind just pitching in about what you

had indicated to me please?

11186. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’d just like to add that the gulley, as

you’re referring to it, is close to Triple Islands, and Triple Islands is the primarily

pilot station for this entire region.

11187. So the other pilot stations are substantially to the south. And any large

vessel, regardless of what fuel or cargo it’s carrying, has to approach to Triple

Islands to take on a B.C. coastal pilot. It’s a part of the regulations of operating in

these waters within British Columbia.

11188. So the vessels for Northern Gateway will operate in exactly the same

fashion as all the other vessels that are coming to the Port of Prince Rupert and

the Port of Kitimat, that use the Triple Islands pilot station.

11189. And as we indicated yesterday, we represent 2 to 3 percent of the

vessel traffic coming into this region, that may not directly apply to the Triple

Islands situation because other vessels may be coming from the south and may

have taken on pilots from other pilot stations to the south.




11190. But it still would be a very large proportion of the vessels in this

region using Triple Islands. So it’s already an area in which there’s a substantial

number of vessels coming and, as we said yesterday, the approach taken by

Northern Gateway is to have a Fisheries Liaison Committee to work out methods

to minimize conflicts with fishers in this region.

11191. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, those aren’t my instructions; that your

shipping route traverses the outside of Triple Island; is that right?

11192. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: Yes it would be west of Triple Island.

11193. MS. MORELLATO: My instructions are that the Northern Gateway

proposed route is the only shipping route on the outside of ship -- Triple Island

and the others don’t go in that area, which is where the gulley is and which is

where the halibut fishery is.

11194. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: No. And again, the best answers will

be provided on the Shipping and Navigation Panel in terms of why those routes

are selected. They are existing shipping lanes and of course, safety of the ship

and the cargo is of utmost consideration as those routes are selected.

11195. MS. MORELLATO: So Northern Gateway’s evidence is that the

shipping route on the outside of Triple Island, where you’re going, is traversed by

other ships as well. Is that your evidence?

11196. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: Yes that’s correct. But again, the

questions are best posed to the Shipping and Navigation Panel.

11197. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, all right. Sir, did Northern Gateway

speak to First Nations halibut fishers prior to selecting their route in this area?

11198. DR. TOM WATSON: As we indicated yesterday, there were some

selected interviews undertaken in the Prince Rupert area. And we don’t have any

specific information that groundfish, halibut fisheries, were specifically identified

at that time by First Nations. And the reality is, I don’t recall specifically.

11199. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you, sir. My instructions, to be fair, are

that Northern Gateway did not speak to the First Nations halibut issue -- fishers

about this issue. All right.




11200. Mr. Green, are you saying that the third-party halibut -- third-party

rule that you mentioned regarding DFO applies in this gulley area?

11201. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’m sorry, I believe that was Dr. Watson

that was providing that evidence.

11202. MS. MORELLATO: Oh, I thought -- I’m sorry, I thought he got it

from you but I’m happy to speak to Dr. Watson.

11203. Are you saying that it applies in this area?

11204. DR. TOM WATSON: That what applies in the area?

11205. MS. MORELLATO: The third-party rule that you just mentioned.

11206. DR. TOM WATSON: It could ---


11208. DR. TOM WATSON: --- but because we don’t -- the third-party rule

will apply anywhere that there’s three or less vessels fishing.

11209. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. So you don’t know for sure whether it

does or not?

11210. DR. TOM WATSON: The only person -- the only people that would

know would be the fishers on those boats.

11211. MS. MORELLATO: Yeah, thank you. And that was my point.

11212. All right, let’s go to another question. Mr. Green, according to your

CV, you’ve previously been involved in assisting and developing marine use

management plans; is that right?

11213. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’ve participated on several, primarily in

the Arctic.

11214. MS. MORELLATO: And you’d agree that the type of data gathered

through integrated marine use planning can assist in assessing environmental

effects; isn’t that fair?




11215. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes it can.

11216. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And you’d also agree with me that the

type of data gathered through marine use planning can also be useful in assessing

cumulative effects; isn’t that fair?

11217. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes ---


11219. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- and that’s actually one of the purposes

of plans, is to look at regional effects.

11220. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And such planning is useful for

cumulative effects assessments because marine use plans consider multiple uses,

for example, and developments in the marine environment; is that right?

11221. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That’s correct.

11222. MS. MORELLATO: And you’re also aware of marine use planning

that is being done right now by coastal First Nations under PNCIMA?

11223. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, we’re aware of that.

11224. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And this is an initiative that is

undertaken by Canada British Columbia and First Nations on the coast; is that

right?

11225. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That’s my understanding.

11226. MS. MORELLATO: And you’re aware that much of the information

that’s available, that has been rather rendered through PNCIMA is also available

on websites and the public through these PNCIMA atlas of maps; is that right?

11227. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, the atlas is now available. At the

time we completed the assessment, the atlas had not yet been published.

11228. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And you’re aware that it’s the

Government of Canada that publishes the PNCIMA maps and atlas?




11229. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: The Government of Canada is involved. I

can’t speak to whether they -- I don’t know if you are referring to the actual

publishing of the documents ---

11230. MS. MORELLATO: Yeah.

11231. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- or whether they -- the documents are

published under the name PNCIMA.

11232. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, fair enough but certainly you’re familiar

now with the PNCIMA atlas, sir?

11233. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes we are, and we’ve been using it in a

number of ways, as we progress through this process.

11234. MS. MORELLATO: And in fact, your application identifies the

open water area boundaries as being based on both ecological and administrative

boundaries that are similar to the boundaries of the PNCIMA in this area; correct?

11235. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes and that’s not unexpected. PNCIMA

partly reflects the territorial waters of Canada. It reflects a defined oceanographic

area and that’s what we tried to capture in our open water assessment area.

11236. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And you’d agree with me the PNCIMA

process has identified important areas of ecological and biological significance?

11237. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes they have.

11238. MS. MORELLATO: And you’re aware that the PNCIMA process is

ongoing at the moment, it’s continuing?

11239. MR. JEFREEY GREEN: It’s continuing. It’s continuing in a

different forum than it was the -- in its original format.

11240. MS. MORELLATO: I’m sorry, sir?

11241. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It’s continuing but it’s continuing in a

different format than it was in the initial version.




11242. MS. MORELLATO: M’hm. If I could take you, sir, to be Exhibit

B3-38, Adobe page 3.

11243. And, Mr. Green, you’re familiar with this map?

11244. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes I am. We had it up yesterday.

11245. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And you would agree with me, sir, that

the northern and southern tanker routes are essentially surrounded by these

significant oceanographic areas?

11246. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes they are, and these are routes typically

used by many other vessels.

11247. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And, sir, that -- the fact that it’s used by

many other vessels would inform the cumulative impacts in this case wouldn’t it?

11248. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes it would.

11249. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And there’s no question that this is an

environmentally and ecologically significant area?

11250. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It has areas of high value, yes. It’s not

unlike other areas of the coastline of British Columbia.

11251. MS. MORELLATO: Right, but you don’t take issue with the fact

that this is a very precious area of the world?

11252. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That’s a value statement and there’s many

definitions of “precious”. I decline answering that question.

11253. MS. MORELLATO: All right. Well, sir, in your professional

judgement, this is an area of high value, is it not?

11254. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It’s an area of high ecological importance.

11255. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you, sir. Thank you.

11256. Now, Northern Gateway has also identified marine protected areas at

B3-41, and if I could ask the Regulatory Officer to bring that up.




11257. And this map, sir, identifies various uses -- and this is page 11. And

you’ll see that the areas outlined in this map with green stripes are -- include B.C

parks and protected areas, including marine conservancies; is that right?

11258. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That is correct.

11259. MS. MORELLATO: And as well, the map sets out a rockfish -- or a

number of rockfish conservancy areas?

11260. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That’s what the map states.

11261. MS. MORELLATO: Yeah. And that it also sets out Gwaii Hanaas

in green, the park?

11262. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, it shows the Gwaii Hanaas National

Park Reserve in green.

11263. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And then adjacent to the northern and

southern routes we see, in light purple, coral and sponge reef areas to the north

and south of the southern route. Is that right?

11264. MS. ESTEP: Madam Chair, the map has a legend; I’m not sure how

effective -- how effective this is ---

11265. MS. MORELLATO: Well ---

11266. MS. ESTEP: --- in terms of an effective use of time.

11267. MS. MORELLATO: Well, if I may, I’m wanting to take the witness

to certain questions, and if my friend gives me an opportunity to complete my

examination on this point perhaps you’ll see where I’m going.

11268. But the record needs to show what we’re looking at, and if I’m asking

him questions on a map anybody reading the record wouldn’t be able to really

understand the significance of what we’re looking at because they won’t have the

map in front of them. So -- I mean, it’s common practice; I’ve been doing it this

way for 25 years. But if I’m not permitted to ask the questions I won’t ask them.

11269. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, the map is in front of us, and




we all do see the legend, and it is part of the evidence. We would ask you to go

straight to the question that you’d like to ask please.


11271. So you’d agree with me that there are very important marine

ecological coral and sponge reef system near Caamano, adjacent to the southern

right; isn’t that right?

11272. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: There’s coral and sponge reef’s in a

number of locations. I think it’s important to point out that these are in deep

water and we’re talking about routine marine transportation which is -- can be

occurring 100 or more metres above where these ships -- or where these reefs are

occurring.

11273. So the ships are on the surface, these are on the bottom of the ocean,

so there’s substantial spatial separation between the routine activities of these

vessels and these reefs that you’re referring to.

11274. MS. MORELLATO: Yes. And again -- and we’ll deal with this in

greater depth later, but just in fairness, we had understood that as part of routine

tanker traffic there are oil spills and oil leaks and we know that oil sinks but, you

know, we’ll continue, we’ll move on.

11275. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No, I would like to correct your statement.

That’s not correct and that I do not want that on the record, is that as we discussed

at some length on Monday, chronic discharges of oil, as you’re referring to, is not

a part of routine operations. And legal discharges of water effluent containing

small amounts of hydrocarbons are permitted under the Shipping Act, they are not

permitted within 50 miles -- nautical miles -- of land.

11276. So in some of the areas you’re referring to, particularly Caamano

Sound, even authorized discharges of effluent would not be permitted. So that is

not a correct statement.

11277. MS. MORELLATO: Well, sir, let’s not debate the point now, we’ll

pick this up again in February. But just in fairness to Northern Gateway, you

need to understand that we do see this issue differently as between First Nations

and Northern Gateway about what happens or doesn’t happen on a routine basis.

So we’ll have to leave the point.




11278. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, this is not the time to debate

with the witnesses ---

11279. MS. MORELLATO: Yes.

11280. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- this is the opportunity to ask your

questions of the witnesses.

11281. MS. MORELLATO: I appreciate that.

11282. THE CHAIRPERSON: I would ask you to move directly to your

next question.

11283. MS. MORELLATO: Madam Chair, I simply wanted the record to

show that we do have a different ---

11284. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, please move to your next

question.


11286. Sir, if I could take you to Exhibit B3-39, at Adobe page number 23.

11287. Now, this map sets out -- it says a “Summary of Biologically

Important Areas for Ground, Pelagic and Anadromous Fish in the Open Water

Area”. Do you see that?

11288. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, that’s what it says on the map.

11289. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And, sir, can you tell me where the

herring populations are situated in this map?

11290. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Herring move throughout the marine

environment, so I am not quite sure what you’re referring to when you say herring

populations.

11291. MS. MORELLATO: Well, there are certain habitats for herring

along the central coast, for example, can you tell me where those are?




11292. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: They’re indicated very clearly in the

legend again as blue highlighting.

11293. MS. MORELLATO: Those are the eulachon spawning grounds. But

I’m talking about the herring populations in the open water; can you tell me where

those are?

11294. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’d like to correct that again. The blue

lines, if you read the legend, say major herring spawning areas, and now you’re

asking the question in the open water area. Herring would be moving in much of

this area.

11295. MS. MORELLATO: And when you say “would be moving in much

of this area”, which area would you be referring to, sir?

11296. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Would you repeat your question please?

11297. MS. MORELLATO: Well, let me just back up again and see if I can

make this easier. You understand that herring is a pelagic fish; correct?

11298. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: They’re pelagic fish for most of their

lifecycle. They obviously come to shore to spawn, as indicated on this map, and

herring populations -- and again I’m not certain what you’re referring to -- occur

along the entire coastal region.

11299. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And as I understand it, as a pelagic fish,

herring spend about 95 percent of their time in the open water; correct?

11300. DR. TOM WATSON: That’s correct.

11301. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you.

11302. Now, in this map, B3-39, Adobe page number 23, there’s reference to

eulachon spawning grounds. Can you tell me, sir, aside from the eulachon

spawning grounds where the eulachon are located within the open water area on

this map?

11303. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’d like us to go to Exhibit Number -- just

a minute please -- the same Exhibit B3-39, page 24, and for a variety of these

fisheries groups we -- it’s in the evidence, we’ve already identified a number of




important areas for fish in the open water area, and maybe that can help us on this

question.

11304. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. So with respect to eulachon then, can

you help me decipher this map, Mr. Green -- or this table?

11305. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Well, as an example, in Dixon Entrance,

McIntyre Bay is identified as summer grounds for this species.

11306. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And where on this map -- if we go back

to map B3-39, perhaps what you could do is just help me see where it is on this

map, because there’s -- where McIntyre Bay is on this map.

11307. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: The information that’s in the table that we

were referring to is a summary of the geographic information on the map that’s

been overlaid, and so if you look at the different highlighting at the bottom you’ll

see that it ranges overlapping important habitat.

11308. MS. MORELLATO: M’hm.

11309. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: And we can go through item by item of

taking items from the table and comparing it to this map if you like, but the map is

meant to represent different areas of importance for different fisheries, and the

more the colour trends towards the browny-gold the more species utilize those

areas for different uses, and the lighter the colour the less species. It doesn’t

mean it’s a less important habitat it’s just a smaller number of species.

11310. MS. MORELLATO: Sure. I understand that, Mr. Green. I’m just

trying to understand where the eulachon are. Perhaps we can go to Aid to Cross

Number 6, and this is a PNCIMA atlas map for herring and eulachon important

areas. And if we can bring this map up please, this might assist. And just scroll

through -- the map, right.

11311. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, can you show us where

you’ve highlighted the portions of the AQ that you plan to use?

11312. MS. MORELLATO: We -- Madam Chair, when we sent the

highlighted portions on Saturday, we advised that we would be dealing with the

maps and, you know, we specifically addressed the particular maps that we would

be dealing with. And we didn’t see the utility in lying -- putting a line beside the




whole map, we -- but did draw our friend’s attention to the map, per se.


11314. MS. MORELLATO: You’re welcome.

11315. So sir, this might help put the -- your table together visually and --

with the map of the coast, on eulachon in particular. And we can deal with

herring later, but sir, would you agree with me that this -- the areas that identified

for eulachon habitation on this exhibit -- or this aid to cross number 6,

corresponds with your table that you just brought me to?

11316. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Actually, if we go back to our map on

page 23 we can show you exactly the same polygon on that map.

11317. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, that’d be helpful. But -- well, okay, but

could you answer the question I just put to you because I think it would be helpful

for us visually to -- if we could go back to the aid to cross number 6 for a

moment.

11318. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I said earlier in the evidence that the table

is a -- the information provided in the table is summarized in the figure.

11319. MS. MORELLATO: Right, but my question sir, is about this

particular aid to cross. I’m just asking whether you could -- and if you’d like to

take this an undertaking, I’m fine with that -- but I’m asking, either by

undertaking or by answering now, whether you can advise whether the purple

eulachon areas that are identified in AQ Number 6 is consistent with Northern

Gateway’s understanding of where the eulachon are?

11320. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’ve said that in -- if we could bring up the

other map, please, on page 23, of B3-39?


11322. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: If you -- I don’t have a pointer, but if you

look at the polygon, it’s different shades.

11323. So we do have a pointer here. So -- I’m sorry, just scroll back down

again, please, I need the area at the top of the map -- at the top of the map. Yeah.




Thank you.

11324. So you’ll see here at Dixon Entrance, there’s a long polygon and ours

is not solid purple like the one you have on your map because we’re overlapping -

- overlapping habitats used by different species. And so as I’ve said earlier in my

evidence, that the darker the brown colour, the more species are utilizing that

area.

11325. So your eulachon polygon is right there. And if you want to go back

to your map, I can highlight the same polygon on your map.

11326. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Thank you very much. So the eulachon

polygon that you just identified on Exhibit B3-39, page 23, overlaps with the

northern route; right?

11327. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It doesn’t overlap entirely with the

northern route. If we can go back again to the map in B3-39, you’ll see where the

route is in relation to that polygon.

11328. MS. MORELLATO: Right. The area that you were generally just

marking with the highlighter included the area around the northern route, didn’t

it?

11329. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Okay. So here is the eulachon polygon

that you’re referring to right here.


11331. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: And there’s the northern route.

11332. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, thank you, sir.

11333. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: And the reason that these are identical is

we did not have the published atlas -- so these coloured maps like you have, but

we were able to obtain shape files for some of the maps in the atlas and that’s why

the databases are identical.

11334. MS. MORELLATO: Sure that’s -- I’m just -- we’re just trying to

understand what the evidence is, sir, that’s all, because it’s an important point for

the First Nations.




11335. So -- now, if we could then go back to -- and we may need to go back

and forth from the two exhibits for clarity sake but if we could go back to AQ

Number 6. Thank you.

11336. And you’ll see another purple area of eulachon, and it’s just to the

right and to the west and to the south of Banks Island, do you see that, sir?

Perhaps she could point that out as well on the map so that we’re ---

11337. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Well, I -- I’m struggling partly with these

questions because we are -- we used exactly the same database as this map ---


11339. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- and so every question you ask me

about this map versus our map are going to be identical and ---


11341. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- if I could direct you -- if I can actually

just direct you because it’s a very large piece of -- body of evidence ---

11342. MS. MORELLATO: Right.

11343. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- Ms. Morellato, and we are trying to be

helpful here.

11344. So in Volume B3-42 -- B3-42, page 168, is a table that actually shows

the marine and anadromous fish summary figures and it identifies where we were

able to get the information for the maps in our report that are based on the maps

that you’re providing. And I’m just trying to be efficient here in the use of our

time.

11345. MS. MORELLATO: Sure. I -- and -- but I simply want the record to

be able to show where the various herring habitats are on the coast because that

again is important to our client.

11346. So sir, if I understand your evidence, you do recognize that the area on

AQ6 to the west and south of Banks Island is considered a herring habitat or

populated area; is that right?




11347. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, it’s shown on the PNCIMA map and

it’s shown on our map.

11348. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Thank you.

11349. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, if you had more questions in

this area, the Panel has heard enough to understand the basis of how the maps

were prepared, so ---


11351. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- we’d ask you to move on to your next set

of questions.

11352. MS. MORELLATO: All right. There’s one -- just one more

question, Madam Chair, that I do need to ask.

11353. And then perhaps the easiest thing that we can do is go back to B3-39

again. And if you look at the area around Bella Bella, again, that whole area

around Bella Bella includes an area of eulachon; correct?

11354. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, it does because we’re using exactly

the same database.


11356. So just to confirm then, the database is the same for both AQ Number

6 and for B3-39 with respect to eulachon, correct? I think that’s what you said.

11357. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: As I’ve said ---


11359. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- the two databases are identical, so they

will be identical.

11360. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And the database includes source

information from Fisheries and Oceans Canada; is that right?




11361. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’ve said this several times, and I’ll say it

again. So the PNCIMA atlases that you are referring to -- the published maps,

were published in 2011. We were able to obtain from DFO the same maps in

2009 and we’ve referenced those.

11362. So the maps in PNCIMA and the maps in our document referring to

biological important areas will always be the same. We’ve used them in slightly

different areas because we’ve done an overlay analysis ---


11364. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- and that’s the only difference.

11365. MS. MORELLATO: Yeah, no, sir, I wasn’t questioning the timing

of this at all, but in any event.

11366. So if I could take you, sir, then back to -- and ask you about herring

and ask you the same question about herring -- so we’ve covered eulachon now

and we need to cover herring.

11367. So with respect to both herring and eulachon, can you confirm sir, that

the information on the PNCIMA map -- AQ6 -- is the -- is consistent with and the

same as the information in B3-39 with respect to herring and eulachon; is that

right?

11368. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’ve said this several times ---


11370. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- the answer is yes.

11371. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And sir, would it be possible then to

have Aid to Cross Number 6 entered as an AQ?

11372. THE CHAIRPERSON: The package that you have submitted has

been entered as an AQ.

11373. MS. MORELLATO: The entire package?

11374. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.




11375. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you. And ---

11376. THE CHAIRPERSON: And Ms. Morellato, the Panel directs you

not to ask any more questions along this line that compares those two figures, we

---


11378. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- we understand the evidence very well

and ---


11380. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- we thank you for your ---

11381. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you very much.

11382. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- questions, but please move on.

11383. MS. MORELLATO: All right. And would it possible to have this

AQ6 entered as an exhibit given that it ---

11384. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, the Panel does not need that

AQ entered as an exhibit.

11385. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. So the document is not being entered as

an exhibit?

11386. THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s correct.


11388. THE CHAIRPERSON: The Panel believes that the evidence in-hand

is sufficient.






11390. MS. MORELLATO: We heard this morning a correction regarding

eulachon and SARA. As I understand it though there’s no question that eulachon

are provincially listed as a blue species; correct?

11391. DR. TOM WATSON: Just give us a moment please.

11392. That’s correct.


11394. And porpoise, finback whales, killer whales, sea lions are also known

to follow the eulachon migration from their habitat areas in the open water into

rivers and coastal areas; is that right?

11395. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: Good morning, Ms. Morellato. I can

answer that question for you.


11397. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: The marine mammal species that you

listed do prey on a wide variety of different pelagic species and eulachon would

be among those.


11399. And so the eulachon and -- that -- so with the eulachon -- and the

marine animals rather that feed on the eulachon, Ms. Ahrens, would travel

through an overlap with the tanker routes, isn’t that right?

11400. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: I believe as has been discussed, the

eulachon being a primarily pelagic species would overlap in many of those areas

as would many of the marine mammal species.

11401. MS. MORELLATO: Right. Especially when those marine

mammals are feeding and following that migration route; right?

11402. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: We have identified also in the marine

mammal sections of the application those areas that are important marine

mammals particularly for feeding.




11403. MS. MORELLATO: And so the answer is yes.

11404. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: Yes.


11406. Mr. Carruthers, I take it that Northern Gateway understands that

marine use plans within PNCIMA use and incorporate indigenous customs and

practices as part of the data gathering; is that right?

11407. MR. JEFFRY GREEN: Yes. Aboriginal people have been a large

part of the PNCIMA process and traditional knowledge is an important part of

PNCIMA.

11408. MS. MORELLATO: And Northern Gateway appreciates the

importance of these customary practices and traditions to First Nations as it

relates to what we find in PNCIMA; correct?

11409. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes. Northern Gateway does respect the

customs and the -- we have -- we try to understand as best we can the importance

of these areas to traditional use.

11410. MS. MORELLATO: And Northern Gateway acknowledges that

First Nations along the coast have a strong sense of responsibility to protect their

coastal areas and waters, isn’t that right?

11411. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: Yes, I’d understand that as well.

11412. MS. MORELLATO: And Northern Gateway understands the strong

connection that First Nations have with their traditional territories, including the

obligation to steward the lands and waters within their traditional territories in a

responsible manner, that -- you understand that sense of responsibility they have?

11413. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: Yes very much, and we do share that.

And it was very evident when you meet with the communities that aspect. And

again, we very much respect it and share it.

11414. MS. MORELLATO: And Northern Gateway doesn’t take issue with

coastal First Nations’ desire to responsibly steward water and lands and resources

within their traditional territory; right?




11415. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: I think we all, again, all share that

responsibility.

11416. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. All right. So that ends this part of my

cross-examination and I’d like to move onto another issue. And I can do that now

if the Panel wishes.

11417. THE CHAIRPERSON: Please go ahead.


11419. During this next set of questions I’ll be addressing the higher

concentrations of criteria air contaminants in the Kitimat watershed and emissions

from the Northern Gateway Project in combination with other projects in the area.

And who would I be asking questions to about that?

11420. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Ms. Morellato, I think to provide the best

information to you what I’d like to do is ask Peter Reid to come forward.

11421. We’ll have to have him -- yes, we’ll have to have him sworn in.

11422. MS. ESTEP: Madam Chair, we’re assuming that this is acceptable to

the Panel.

11423. THE CHAIRPERSON: The Panel would be letting you know if it

wasn’t okay.

11424. MS. ESTEP: Okay. Thank you.

--- (Laughter/Rires)

11425. THE CHAIRPERSON: We’re just watching to see how you make

room for him.

PETER REID: Sworn

11426. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: If it would be acceptable, we’ll just

take a moment to move Mr. Reid up.




11427. MS. MORELLATO: Mr. Green, I thought you’d take the

opportunity to get off the front lines on this one.

11428. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Mr. Reid is much more knowledgeable

probably than I am.

11429. Mr. Reid just needs to bring his computer with him to be able to refer

to the evidence. So could we just have a few minutes please.

11430. THE CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely.


11431. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Ms. Morellato, I think we’re ready to start

questioning.

11432. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, very good.

11433. THE CHAIRPERSON: I think Ms. Estep has a couple of steps first.

11434. MS. MORELLATO: Oh, right.

11435. MS. ESTEP: Thank you.

11436. MS. MORELLATO: No worries.

11437. MS. ESTEP: I’ll move through this quickly, Madam Chair. I just

want to take Mr. Reid through his direct evidence.

11438. We have not filed his written direct evidence and CV but we will

undertake to do that later this afternoon. We have that prepared and ready to go.

--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. ESTEP:

11439. MS. ESTEP: So Mr. Reid, do you have before you a copy of

Northern Gateway’s Witness Panel and Responsibility document which has been

filed as B136-2; and can you confirm that you have participated in the preparation

of portions of the evidence that Northern Gateway listed in that document and

attributed to this panel?




11440. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I do, and I can.

11441. MS. ESTEP: In the errata filed as B173-2 made corrections to the

evidence that this panel is speaking to, do you have any additional corrections to

make?

11442. MR. PETER REID: No, I do not.

11443. MS. ESTEP: With those corrections, is the evidence that this panel

will speak to accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief?

11444. MR. PETER REID: Yes, it is.

11445. MS. ESTEP: And was your personal written direct evidence and

curriculum vitae prepared under your direction and control and are they accurate

to the best of your knowledge and belief?

11446. MR. PETER REID: Yes, they are.

11447. MS. ESTEP: And do you accept and adopt them as part of your

evidence in this proceeding?

11448. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I do.

11449. MS. ESTEP: And, Mr. Reid, you’ve received a Bachelor of

Environmental Studies and Geography from the University of Waterloo and a

Master of Arts in Geography from the University of Waterloo as well, and you

have directed and participated in air quality studies, including emission

inventories and dispersion modelling for both private and public sector clients. Is

that correct?

11450. MR. PETER REID: That’s correct.

11451. MS. ESTEP: Madam Chair, I would like to present Mr. Reid as an

expert on air quality and ask that he be so qualified.

11452. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Estep, do you have paper copies of Mr.

Reed’s direct evidence and his CV for the panel?

11453. MS. ESTEP: I do have three copies at this time, but we can certainly




get more.

11454. THE CHAIRPERSON: If we could have one to Ms. Morellato and

one available for anybody else in the room who wants to see it, and one to the

Panel please.

11455. MS. ESTEP: Absolutely. Do you want me to distribute that now?

11456. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes please, we’d like to see it before we go

further.

11457. Thank you.


11458. MS. ESTEP: And there’s a copy of the written direct evidence but I

covered the substance orally as well.


11459. MS. MORELLATO: Madam Chairperson, may we just have a

moment?


11460. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Reid, in the previous hearings that

you’ve appeared in, have you been accepted as a witness in the area of air quality?

11461. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I have on several occasions.

11462. THE CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry, I misspoke -- as an expert -- have

you been accepted as an expert?

11463. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I have been qualified as an expert in

regulatory tribunals and in court cases.

11464. THE CHAIRPERSON: And in what areas have you been qualified

as an expert?

11465. MR. PETER REID: Generally in the matter of air quality and as it




pertains to effects on human health. But I’m not a human health expert, I won’t

speak to that.

11466. When we study air quality we’re mostly predicting or assessing air

quality based on measurements and then relating those measurements to

objectives and standards. If we want more information on human or ecological

effects of air quality we’ll have to defer to other potential witnesses.

11467. THE CHAIRPERSON: Do any other -- do any parties have any

comments about having Mr. Reid qualified as an expert in the area of air quality?

11468. MS. MORELLATO: So it’s simply in the area of air quality; I

wouldn’t have any objections.

11469. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Estep. And thank you, Mr.

Reid, for answering our questions.

11470. The Panel accepts Mr. Reid as an expert to provide opinion evidence

in the air quality area.

11471. MS. ESTEP: One final housekeeping matter. Could we please get an

exhibit number for the filing of the direct evidence and the CV?

11472. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: B176.

--- EXHIBIT NO./PIÈCE No. B176:

Direct evidence and CV of Mr. Peter Reid

11473. MS. ESTEP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

11474. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And now we’re ready to

proceed. So, Ms. Morellato, please proceed with your questions.


--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. MORELATTO:

(Continued/Suite)

11476. MS. MORELLATO: Mr. Reid, Northern Gateway defines the




boundaries of the project effects assessment area, which I’ll be referring to as the

PEAA, as based on a 300 square kilometre area that contains the Kitimat

Terminal and lands on both sides of the Kitimat Arm extending north and south of

the terminal. Is that right?


11478. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And Northern Gateway also estimates

the maximum predicted ground level concentrations of criteria air contaminants

within the project effects assessment area, or the PEAA; correct?

11479. MR. PETER REID: That’s correct. We focused on the area around

the marine terminal primarily.

11480. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And to estimate the criteria air

contaminant concentration within the project effects or the PEAA, you use a

dispersion model with four scenarios that include the base case, the project case,

the application case, and the future case. Is that right?

11481. MR. PETER REID: That’s correct. We use those cases to

characterize what is existing, how the project effects the environment on its own

if it were alone, and then we add those two together to yield the application case,

which is the project, in addition to what’s already existing, and then the future

case is considering projects that are announced or approved at the time that we are

able to include them in the dispersion modelling.

11482. MS. MORELLATO: All right. And if I could take you, sir, to

Exhibit B3-1, page 127, just to put context and to help frame the evidence here.

There you set out what the base case, project case, application and future case is.

Do you see that, sir?

11483. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I can.

11484. MS. MORELLATO: All right. And so the base case is emissions

from existing industrial sources within the PEAA; correct?


11486. MS. MORELLATO: And the project cases are emissions solely

from the project?




11487. MR. PETER REID: Correct.

11488. MS. MORELLATO: That is the Kitimat Terminal and marine vessel

emissions. Do you see that?



11491. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, this is in the written

evidence.


11493. THE CHAIRPERSON: And so the witnesses have accepted this as

their evidence. So there’s no need to read us through all these various pieces. If

you want to take the witnesses to a passage and ask them a question about that

piece of the evidence that would be great ---

11494. MS. MORELLATO: Yeah, I’m getting ---

11495. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- but otherwise if you could just go

directly to the question that you want to ask on the evidence please.

11496. MS. MORELLATO: I appreciate your point, Madam Chair. I’m

simply trying to -- I do have a question about how this works, for clarity, and I

just need to methodically go through each of these questions. It won’t take a

second. But I -- if you just bear with me ---

11497. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Moreland, thank you, but just go

directly to your question.

11498. Thank you.

11499. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, the -- in the application case, as far as I

understand it, the application case -- and so that the record is clear on this,

because others beyond this panel will be reviewing this evidence, the application

case includes emissions from existing industrial sources within the ---




11500. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato ---


11502. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- excuse me. I don’t think you and I are

communicating very effectively. This is in the written evidence and the witnesses

have sworn that this is their evidence. Would you please go directly to the

question that you’re wanting to ask based on the evidence that’s in front of us.


11504. The distinction between the future case and the application case, sir, is

-- I just want to be -- to understand that -- and that is that the application includes

what’s there already plus the impact of the Northern Gateway Project, as

compared to the future case, which is what’s there already, the Northern Gateway

Project and the Kitimat LNG Terminal effects; is that right?

11505. MR. PETER REID: Yeah, that’s correct.


11507. MR. PETER REID: We’ve reviewed the project inclusion list and

we looked at any of those projects that might reasonably be expected to act in an

additive way with what was already there. And that included the Kitimat LNG

project.

11508. MS. MORELLATO: Right, okay. And then you compared the CAC

concentrations with ambient air quality objectives from the Government of

Canada and from the Province of B.C; correct?


11510. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And if I could take you sir, to Exhibit

B3-1, Adobe page number 131. And as I understand it -- you’ll see that this table

references maximum predicted ground level concentrations and so when you say

maximum predicted ground level concentrations, that’s from one monitoring site;

is that right?

11511. MR. PETER REID: Well, the way the model works is, it will predict

a concentration for every hour that we model. We modelled five full years of




actual meteorological data. So we run through -- assuming that the ship is there

all the time and that all of the emissions that occur near the jetty happen at the

jetty. So we model the ship not as a moving source, but as a stationary source and

we assume that it’s always there.

11512. What the model does is it will predict the concentrations in that

domain, at thousands of receptors. And what we’ve characterized in this figure is

what is the highest concentration at the most affected receptor and in the case of

the project case alone, that is immediately adjacent to the vessel on terrain, so it’s

right next to the jetty.

11513. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And if you look at the table, you’ll see

under maximum predicted ground level concentrations, ug/m3 and that’s

micrograms per cubic metre; is that right, sir?

11514. MR. PETER REID: That’s right.

11515. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And then if you look right to the right

of that, it deals with -- it says NAAQO and that’s national ambient air quality

objectives; is that right?


11517. MS. MORELLATO: And that’s the federal standard?

11518. MR. PETER REID: Those are federal objectives ---


11520. MR. PETER REID: --- and provincial objectives right next to them.

11521. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you. Thank you. So as I understood it

then, the maximum predicted ground level concentrations that are set out in this

table are from a single monitoring point or station, and you said that’s right by the

terminal; is that right?

11522. MR. PETER REID: Well, in the modelling exercise, we have a

number of what we call receptors and these receptors are simply a location in

space. So it’s a virtual location in the model, but in a way it does mimic what a

monitoring station would pick up if it was the location.




11523. So if you want to visualize, you could visualize the domain covered

with tens of thousands of virtual monitoring stations. And what the model is

doing, is it’s saying, what is happening at that location. But I prefer to call them a

receptor.

11524. MS. MORELLATO: And how many receptors or monitoring

stations does a model have?

11525. MR. PETER REID: I don’t know the exact number now but we

follow the British Columbia Dispersion Modelling Guidelines. And what that

guideline requires is that we use what we call a nested grid of receptors.

11526. So the receptors would be densest, very close to the source, because

we understand that the highest predicted concentrations are going to be

immediately adjacent to the source. So they would be very dense, close to the

source, and in the technical data report we have a listing of that density.

11527. And then the further you get away from the source, the receptor grid

becomes less dense and that’s simply because these models are quite

computationally intensive. It doesn’t make sense to have a very dense receptor

grid 10 kilometres from the source.


11529. MR. PETER REID: So we have thousands of receptors in the

domain so that we adequately characterize the maximum predicted concentration.

That’s our aim is to not miss the location where the maximum predicted

concentration occurs.

11530. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. So there are thousands of receptors or

points, if you will, in this virtual model. So the CAC concentrations in this

particular table doesn’t represent an average air quality in the PAA or the quality

at any other monitoring point or receptor, other than the maximum point; right?

11531. MR. PETER REID: Could you repeat that please?

11532. MS. MORELLATO: That this particular model sets out CAC

concentrations at one point but not -- it’s not an average of these various

receptors?




11533. MR. PETER REID: No, what’s depicted there is the maximum

predicted concentration at the ---


11535. MR. PETER REID: In the appendices to our technical data report,

we have something like 60 figures that ---


11537. MR. PETER REID: --- show not only the maximum at the point of

where the greatest concentration is predicted to be, but it shows the maximum in

the entire domain.

11538. It’s kind of a pessimist view of the world because what we’re

depicting is the worst thing happening everywhere and those are the figures that

you see at the back of the report.

11539. Now, when you’re looking at that figure -- those figures, you can see

not only what is occurring at the maximum -- at the point where the maximum

predicted concentration is occurring -- but you can look and see 10 kilometres

away from the source what the maximum is. So it allows you to visualize how

concentrations decrease or change as you move away from the source ---

11540. MS. MORELLATO: Right, but ---

11541. MR. PETER REID: --- but this table is only the maximum.

11542. MS. MORELLATO: Right. So if there are other sites that are above

the federal objectives or above the provincial objectives in the model that’s not

reflected in this data; right?

11543. MR. PETER REID: Not in this particular table but in the figures all

of that information is available to visualize. If you look at this for example, the

base case for SO2, that concentration occurs adjacent to Rio Tinto Alcan’s

facility.





11545. MR. PETER REID: The concentration for the project alone case,

that occurs adjacent to the marine terminal, to the jetty.


11547. MR. PETER REID: So looking at the figures allows you to

determine where these concentrations occur and we also have a practice of having

lines on the map, isopleths of equal -- lines of equal concentration. And we

highlight the objective levels so you can visualize if there’s an area that is above

the objective, you can visualize how large that area is, what its extent is, and

where it is geographically.

11548. MS. MORELLATO: So are you able to advise how many other sites

of the 60 figures or 60 sites that you’ve identified, in addition to the maximum

site here, reflect emissions above the Canadian and provincial objectives?

11549. MR. PETER REID: I guess if you want, we could go to one of the

figures in the technical data report and we could examine one and just look at that.

11550. I’ll have to find the exhibit number for that.

11551. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And while you do that sir, what I’m

looking for, so that we’re being focused here, is I’m trying to get a sense of the

data on how many other monitoring points or receptor points are above the

provincial and Canadian standards. So we’re just looking at one point and I think

it’s important to have a sense of how pervasive the pattern is there.

11552. MR. PETER REID: Sure. So we could look at one of the

application case isopleth map. So if you’ll just give me a second.

11553. The technical data report is Exhibit B10-4.

11554. We’ll take a look at the application case for -- say, one hour SO2 and

that is A41 -- Figure A41. I’ll get you a page number in a second. That’s Adobe

page 43. Okay, so we’re there.

11555. So if you’ll look at this figure, you can see that this is the application

case -- so this is the existing sources in Kitimat in combination with the marine

terminal. And the maximum predicted concentration is on the hillside adjacent to

the Rio Tinto Alcan facility.





11557. MR. PETER REID: So right in there.

11558. And you’ll notice there’s an isopleth that’s labelled 450, and that is the

provincial level A objective. So the 450 isopleth encloses all that land area that

has predicted to be above the British Columbia ambient air quality objective -- the

level A objective.

11559. MS. MORELLATO: And just tell -- I’m trying to see the actual map

and your point. Where are you pointing to, sir?

11560. MR. PETER REID: So right in there.

11561. MS. MORELLATO: Oh, I see. All right.

11562. MR. PETER REID: You can see the line that’s marked 450 in there.

And since the project is in this modelling scenario, you’ll notice there’s a

secondary maxima around the project.

11563. MS. MORELLATO: And so what I’m trying to understand, sir, is

beyond the maximum site dealing with sulphur dioxide, what other sites are

beyond and above the Canadian and provincial standards?

11564. MR. PETER REID: And that would be all of the areas that you see

on the map that is enclosed within this 450 microgram per cubic metre isopleth.

And so there are a number of them. There’s -- the biggest one is around Rio Tinto

Alcan site, and there are a number of them around the marine terminal.

11565. And the model simulates the effects of terrain on dispersion. And the

terrain here is quite complex, so the patterns you’re seeing are quite complex.

11566. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. So all I was trying to understand is

whether in fact there were other points beyond the maximum point that emitted

emissions above the B.C. and Canadian objectives and seems to me that this

shows that there are; correct?

11567. MR. PETER REID: And there are. And at this time, I would like to

stress that these are predictions. And when we’re conducting air quality




modelling what we’re aiming for is we’re aiming to be conservative -- that is,

we’re aiming to overestimate the effect so that we run little chance of missing an

effect that is in fact there, so ---


11569. MR. PETER REID: --- we’ve -- in this report, we’ve got one page

where we show a comparison of predictions at known monitoring -- at a known

monitoring location versus measurements at that actual location. And what we

like to see when we do that is we like to see that we’ve overestimated the

concentrations in our modelling exercise.

11570. And if you look at that figure -- and I can take you to it, if you’d like --

we see an overestimate, say of the maximum value on the order of three to four

times. So when you’re looking at this, understand that this is, in all likelihood, an

overestimate of what we’re -- would see in the ambient environment if we were

able to monitor at every location.

11571. MS. MORELLATO: But that only -- what you don’t do is factor into

that equation those other sites that are above the provincial and national standards.

You just look at that one particular site, that one particular point; correct?

11572. MR. PETER REID: That’s right. We’re blessed here in the case in

Kitimat where we have a monitoring site that is relatively close to our project and

it’s close to other industrial sources, so we’re able to actually compare measured

versus predicted.


11574. MR. PETER REID: A lot of places you don’t have that, so we’re

quite happy to have that one location.

11575. MS. MORELLATO: And what you’re measuring in terms of

cumulative effects is only the KPM -- the LNG -- Kitimat LNG; correct?

11576. MR. PETER REID: Now, this is the application case so the Kitimat

LNG project wasn’t included in this simulation ---





11578. MR. PETER REID: --- it’s included in a -- in the future case.


11580. MR. PETER REID: And I think that the corresponding figure to this

one would be A61.

11581. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Well maybe we’ll get to that in a

second, sir.

11582. Let’s go back to the table at Exhibit B3-1, page 131, Table 14 -- 4-15,

rather -- and if I could take you to the sulphur dioxide emissions.

11583. MR. PETER REID: More precisely, these are predicted

concentrations.


11585. MR. PETER REID: In our field emissions is -- are what comes out

of stacks.


11587. MR. PETER REID: And ---

11588. MS. MORELLATO: So the ---

11589. MR. PETER REID: --- and when they touch the ground, they’re

either measured concentrations or predicted concentrations.

11590. MS. MORELLATO: Right. Okay. So let’s go -- let’s go to the one

hour SO2 concentration. And you’ll see there, under the “Project Case” that it’s

4,627 micrograms per cubic metre; correct?

11591. MR. PETER REID: That’s correct, that’s our predicted

concentration.

11592. MS. MORELLATO: Right. And that concentration is well above

the maximum desirable for the federal objective and well above the maximum

acceptable for the federal objective, do you see that?





11594. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And it’s also well above provincial

objectives as well, right?

11595. MR. PETER REID: Yes, it is.

11596. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And then if you go to the three-hour

block, you’ll see that, for the project case, again, it’s well above the provincial

objectives; do you see that, sir?

11597. MR. PETER REID: Yes.

11598. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And then if you go for -- to the 24-hour

you’ll see that, again, the sulphur dioxide concentrations for the project is above

the maximum desirable and above the maximum acceptable and actually above

the maximum tolerable objectives for Canada; correct?

11599. MR. PETER REID: Yes, they are.

11600. MS. MORELLATO: And above the British Columbia objective;

correct?


11602. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And then if we go down one more, to

the annual, you’ll see that with respect to the project case, that again, it’s above

the maximum desirable, it’s just for the -- for Canada, right? In terms of

objectives, are you with me, sir?

11603. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, we can all see the numbers

on ---


11605. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- the table, would you go directly to your

question, please?

11606. MS. MORELLATO: Sure. So basically you’ll agree with me that




based on your data the sulphur dioxide concentrations from your project alone

exceed all ambient air quality objectives except for the maximum acceptable for

Canada, but for all other ---

11607. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms. Morellato, when you’re rubbing

your neck and you’re wearing that microphone it’s creating a bunch of feedback.


11609. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.

11610. MS. MORELLATO: No problem. We’ll try again.

11611. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry to interrupt your question. Could you

ask your question again please?

11612. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Let’s try it this way, sir. I think the data

speaks for itself, but you’ll agree with me that the -- for your project alone, for the

annual, it exceeds the British Columbia Level A objective?

11613. MR. PETER REID: That’s correct, yes.


11615. And, sir, let’s look then at the Application Case, which includes the

Base Case and the Project Case for sulphur dioxide. And, sir, if the data from

existing industrial sources within the PEAA are included with your project, the

sulphur dioxide concentration levels exceed every provincial and federal ambient

air quality objective, isn’t that right?

11616. MR. PETER REID: The predicted concentrations are in excess of

the objectives.

11617. Now might be a good time to again stress that we’re dealing with

predictions. And if I could take you to Figure 4.2 of Volume 6A -- so that’s that

same document -- Adobe page 131 -- 133 in that version. Yes, that’s the one right

there. And I will apologize for that, we’ve had some sort of PDF problem here

where we don’t have the values on that figure on the axes.

11618. But that is, in blue, measured values at the Kitimat Haul Road




monitoring station in Kitimat. So that’s, from left to right, years one, two, three,

four and five of our simulation.

11619. And the red lines are the predicted concentrations, and those are rank

ordered from highest to lowest. And you’ll see that the predicted concentrations

are always well in excess of the measured. So if we’re going to look at and

interpret these predictions, we should take them with a grain of salt,

understanding that they are overestimates.

11620. With respect to the Project Case submissions, just simply the project

alone, when we were getting ready to file this Application, the Government of

Canada and the United States announced that they were imposing a sulphur

emission control area around Canada and the United States.

11621. What that does is that imposes upon marine operators to use cleaner

fuels when they get within the 200 nautical mile limit. That change came about a

lot quicker than we thought it would. We’d known that that was in the works, but

that happened after we had conducted our assessment, but before we filed.

11622. So rather than redo all of our work, what we did was we made

additions to the assessment where we noted that change and we’ve also got

dispersion modeling results for the project alone case in the report with the

changed emissions that are resulting from the improvement in marine fuels. And

what that does is, in essence, eliminate the sulphur problem.

11623. The reduction in sulphur in fuel is something around 96 percent. So

that corresponds to about a 96 percent reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions and,

correspondingly, for the project alone case, where you’re only considering the

marine vessel, about a 96 percent decrease in the predicted concentrations

adjacent to the jetty.

11624. So that doesn’t affect any of the existing industrial sources, like the

Rio Tinto Alcan, although there’s been a change there. They’ve changed that

smelter. They’ve upgraded the smelter. But what we considered was the changes

imposed by the International Maritime Organization declaring the sulphur

emission control area on our predicted concentrations adjacent to the jetty.

11625. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, if I could take you back to Table 4-15,

you’ll see there that again with respect to sulphur dioxide, if you look at the Base

Case and you add it to the Project Case, because you’re -- and then you land on




the Application Case, because the Application Case looks at both together, you

have no real significant change, and that is a difficult number to recognize.

11626. So under annual, for example, you have 82.0 as a Base Case. You

have 40.4 as a Project Case, and then you have 82.1 as the Application Case, and

when you add the Kitimat LNG Project and you have 82.1 again.

11627. So what we’re having difficulty with here is that you have a figure for

sulphur dioxide that’s the same, except for a .1 difference, when you add the Base

Case to the effect of your project, and then you have no change at all when you

add the effect of the Kitimat LNG Project. Do you see the concern there, sir?

11628. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I understand. What I mentioned

previously was that this IMO change, this regulation, reduces the effect of the

Project Case. The Application Case then is largely unchanged by the marine

vessel’s presence at the jetty. What the Application Case reflects is the effect of

the existing industrial sources.

11629. These two sources, the jetty and Rio Tinto Alcan, are something like

eight kilometres apart, and the marine vessel is a relatively small source of SO2.

Even modeling it like we did, assuming that the fuel had 2.6 percent sulphur in it,

it’s a relatively small source and the effects are manifest immediately adjacent to

the jetty and they decrease very rapidly as you move away from the jetty. Their

effect in Kitimat is very small. The predicted concentrations in Kitimat are very

small.

11630. I’ve already mentioned that these are, in all likelihood, overestimates

on the order of three to four times. And one important thing to consider is the

location of these predicted concentrations. We’re in a valley that has very steep

sides and all of these high predicted concentrations are on terrain at a high

elevation above the sources. The plumes rise from the sources and they impact on

the side hill.

11631. In order for there to be an effect from an air pollutant you have to have

the concentrations occurring where people are. If you don’t have these

concentrations where people are, you don’t have an effect.

11632. What we can do is we can compare, say, the Base Case predictions

against the background values that we’ve chosen to represent the existing sources

in the assessment. So what we did was we went to the monitoring data for




Kitimat; we looked at the site that’s representative of an industrial exposure, not a

human exposure but an industrial exposure, something that’s on the west side of

the valley between the two main industrial sources, Rio Tinto Alcan and the

Eurocan facility, which is now shut down. Those are more representative of what

people are potentially exposed to if they’re in that industrial area.

11633. Now, Kitimat is B.C’s first planned community. It’s very fortunate in

that they put all of the residences on one side of the valley and all of the industry

on the other side of the valley. Winds in that valley are predominantly north and

south so that, in essence, almost nobody lives immediately downwind of the

industrial sources.

11634. So if you’re looking in the residential areas, the air quality is even

better. So I wouldn’t take these results as indicating that air quality and what

residents in Kitimat are exposed to is poor.

11635. MS. MORELLATO: But, sir, okay -- are you done? A couple of

questions here. There are people obviously work at the terminal; right?

11636. MR. PETER REID: Yes there are.

11637. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Do you know how many people that are

-- that is?

11638. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, just while they’re conferring,

if you could tell us when an appropriate time to take a morning break would be. I

didn’t want to interrupt your ---

11639. MS. MORELLATO: Sure ---

11640. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- questions. So ---

11641. MS. MORELLATO: --- I’m happy to break after this question.

Would that be appropriate?

11642. THE CHAIRPERSON: Would that be appropriate?

11643. MS. MORELLATO: Sure.

11644. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure.






11647. MS. MORELLATO: Maybe just one or two and we’ll finish it up.

Okay.

11648. MR. PETER REID: I’ll just look that up and bring it back. I know

the annual, I just don’t -- I’ll break it down at how many would be up there at any

one time.

11649. MS. MORELLATO: Right. And just to follow-up, sir, when you

talk about the project case producing 40 micrograms per cubic metre at 40.4

annually, is that generated primarily by the terminal?

11650. MR. PETER REID: Yes. In the model, we’re allowed to do all sorts

of things. And for the project case, what we’ve done is we’ve pretended that

there’s no other source active in the area, that the only source that’s active is the

marine vessel at the jetty and everything else is turned off.

11651. And so that predicted concentration, what you’re saying is 40, is the

annual average adjacent to the jetty, assuming the ship is there all the time. Now,

like I said, we like to overestimate things so that we’re not missing an effect. The

vessel is only there what, one day in three or something like that.

11652. So the -- you know, when you see high predicted concentrations for

the shorter averaging intervals; the one hour, the three hour, the vessel actually

has to be there for that to happen, so two out of every three days, there’s no vessel

there. So if worst-case meteorology coincides with the vessel being there, that

could potentially happen, but if the vessel isn’t there there’s nothing happening.

11653. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Well, sir, the -- I think we’ll break there

and then we’ll come back and resume. How’s that? Okay.

11654. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Morellato.

11655. So we’ll come back for 10:25, please.

11656. Thank you.




--- Upon recessing at 10:12 a.m./L’audience est suspendue à 10h12

--- Upon resuming at 10:28 a.m./L’audience est reprise à 10h28

11657. THE CHAIRPERSON: If everyone can take their seats, we’ll get

ready to get underway again, please.

11658. I believe we’re ready to get underway again. People are just taking

their seats.

11659. Ms. Morellato, please proceed with your questions of this panel.





DAVID HANNAY: Resumed


TOM WATSON: Resumed


PETER REID: Resumed


(Continued/Suite)


11661. Mr. Reid, you mentioned before the break, the Canada North America

Emissions Control Area Initiative. Do you remember that?


11663. MS. MORELLATO: Canada has not implemented the North

America Emissions Control Area Initiative has it?

11664. MR. PETER REID: I’d read a paper just very recently stating that

the first part of it is -- I’ll have to actually look at the date but yeah, effective from

January 1, 2012.

11665. So the regulation is one where the -- yeah, the regulation is one where




they’ll be gradually requiring more and more stringent limits on sulphur in fuel,

over time.

11666. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. No, I understand your answer, sir, but

my understanding my instructions are that this Emissions Control Area

Agreement with the U.S. has been delayed. It’s not been implemented and its

implementation is -- date is not certain. Isn’t that right?

11667. MR. PETER REID: From what I’ve read, the Government of

Canada and the Government of the United States have committed to this.

They’ve set out a timeline and there are feasibility studies ongoing to see if the

timeline needs adjustment. But I take it when the Government of Canada and the

Government of the United States announced that they’re going to do this that it’s

going to happen.

11668. The timeline may change but the change in itself is not a difficult one,

it simply requires fuel switching. So currently, marine vessels -- a lot of marine

vessels burn a heavy residual fuel oil, bunker C. It’s what’s left over after you

refine oil and it has a lot of impurities in it, sulphur being the one we’re most

concerned about.

11669. To reduce the emissions, they simply need to switch their engines over

to a lighter fuel oil, a diesel oil that is very easy to refine the sulphur out of. And

that’s simply a requirement for marine vessel operators to take on some extra cost.

It doesn’t require ships to be retrofitted or changed in any way. It’s simply they

are going to be burning more of the expensive fuel when they get within the 200

nautical mile limit.

11670. So I don’t see any great difficulty in implementing that other than

these people have to bear a slightly higher cost.


11672. I understand what you’re saying, sir, but my question is -- and please

confirm -- that you’re not disagreeing with me that this initiative has not been

implemented -- it hasn’t, right?

11673. I mean, if you are disagreeing with me, I just need to know.

11674. MR. PETER REID: Just give me a second to assemble some figures




here.

11675. We’re looking at some of the latest information on proposed

implementation dates and amount of sulphur. And I would like to get it right

now and not have to correct it tomorrow.


11676. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Reid, would it be helpful if you did it as

an undertaking and could then file it subsequently?


11678. MR. PETER REID: Yeah, that would be easy and in the interests of

time.

11679. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

11680. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Gilbert, could we get an undertaking

number please?

11681. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: U-62.

--- UNDERTAKING NO./ENGAGEMENT No. U-62:

For Mr. Peter Reid to provide updated information with respect to amounts of

contaminants from sulphur and fuel within the context of proposed

implementation dates and the Canada-U.S. Sulphur Emission Control Area.


11683. MR. PETER REID: So we’ll provide the dates and the target levels

for sulphur and fuel related to the Canada-U.S. Sulphur Emission Control Area.


11685. Now, before the break, we -- you confirmed that the SO2

concentrations were exceeding the maximum tolerable ambient air quality

objectives for a 24-hour period that was set by the federal government.




11686. And I’d like to take you, if I can, sir, in light of that, to Exhibit B3-1,

Adobe page number 93. You’ll see under the heading “Maximum Tolerable”

there it says:

“Denotes time-based concentrations of air contaminants

beyond which, because of a diminishing margin of safety,

appropriate action is needed to protect the health of the

general population.”

11687. And, sir, you don’t take issue with that statement?

11688. MR. PETER REID: Yeah. That is the wording that were used in the

original criteria document.

11689. MS. MORELLATO: And so the federal government has stated that

when the air quality objectives are exceeded, as they have been in this case,

mitigation measures are required to protect the health of the general population;

isn’t that right?

11690. MR. PETER REID: Yes, that’s what’s written.

11691. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Sir, can you tell me what the health --

or can someone tell me what the health impacts of high sulphur dioxide

concentrations are?

11692. MR. PETER REID: Okay. I guess the first thing I’ll point out is that

we compare our modelled results to objectives that are designed to evaluate

against ambient air quality, so measured air quality.

11693. I’ve also mentioned that we’re in the business of producing

predictions, and we’re happiest when these predictions are overestimates. It adds

a layer of conservation to our assessment. And we pass those predictions on to

human and ecological health risk specialists who do their work. And that’s the

way we attack our work, is that we’re trying to get a very conservative estimate of

what’s happening.

11694. So I don’t want the mistaken impression to go on the record that the

values that we have in our table for predictions could in fact be measured if we

were at that location measuring all the time.




11695. My expectation is that any measured concentrations, especially with

respect to the project, now that we have 96 percent less sulphur, are going to be

far less than were predicted. And we have a table in this report that shows the

effect of that change, so that there will in fact not be exceedances of these ambient

air quality objectives.

11696. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, you did your best in putting information

and prediction together on what the result would be, correct?

11697. MR. PETER REID: Yeah. The practice that we follow is to perform

these assessments, not to predict exactly what’s going to be happening. The

model is a tool for making a decision.

11698. And if we’ve done our modelling correctly and we’re certain that we

have overestimated the effect; that is, we can compare predicted versus measured

at a location or two in the domain, then we’re -- we’ve done our job. We can

compare those to the objectives.

11699. And if we are below the objectives, then we needn’t do no more work.

We -- you know, the object of the exercise isn’t to exactly match predicted and

measured. It’s to arrive at an overestimate so that we have conservation built into

our assessment.

11700. MS. MORELLATO: I understand that, sir, and I understand that,

you know, you’ve put together what you say is a conservative model.

11701. But notwithstanding that it’s conservative, it’s a possible scenario,

otherwise you wouldn’t have submitted this evidence, correct?

11702. MR. PETER REID: At the end of the day, in our assessment and our

evidence is where we conclude is that exceedances of the ambient air quality

objective attributed to the project are unlikely. That’s our evidence.

11703. And we have indicated, though, that there is a potential and we

recommended that monitoring take place. And we’ve detailed in the ESA what

this monitoring program could look like.

11704. Now, there’s ambient air quality monitoring taking place now in

Kitimat to ensure the protection of human health, and we voluntarily said that we

would join in that effort and augment it such that we’re able to characterize




what’s happening, particularly immediately adjacent to where the marine vessel

is.

11705. MS. MORELLATO: So, sir, you know, we can only go with the

evidence that you’ve put on the record.

11706. But just a moment ago I was asking you about the health impacts of

high SO2 concentrations. And what I was asking Northern Gateway is if they

were aware of what those health impacts were. So I’d like to get back to the

question and see if it can be answered.

11707. MR. PETER REID: Yes, we do understand what the effects of

sulphur dioxide in the ambient environment are.

11708. For my purposes, I rely on the objectives. And we’re most happy

when our concentrations lie below the ambient air quality objectives.

11709. What we could undertake to do, if you wish, is we have a document,

not available right here, but I could find a document that I prepared some time

before that shows the effects of sulphur dioxide. And we could also have our

human health risk person speak to that. If you wanted to swear that person in,

Dennis Yee would be able to answer those questions.

11710. MS. MORELLATO: I would like to ask some questions on it. We

have a model that suggests that the concentrations are above acceptable standards

from the government. So I think we should deal with what the impact of those

emissions would be.

11711. MR. ROTH: Madam Chair, the way I’ve heard the evidence as it’s

come out, most of it is already in the Application. So it’s all there, including --

the change in the sulphur and fuel standards for marine vessels is that the models

are likely over predicting by three to four times.

11712. If you actually look at the monitoring data, it’s three to four times what

the model is predicting. When we go to the low sulphur in fuel standards that is

mandated by both Canada and the United States, there -- is unlikely that there will

be any exceedances associated with the project.

11713. I think if we now go back to the modelling that is predicting three to

four times higher concentrations that are actually being observed and measured,




and take into account that the modelling was being done on the basis of 2 percent

-- 2.6 percent sulphur in fuel in these vessels, it’s a hypothetical exercise now to

go and ask the health expert what the health effects of these concentrations would

be, when the evidence is that in fact these aren’t going to be the concentrations for

two reasons.

11714. One is that the model is over predicting by three to four times

monitored data and most importantly, 96 percent of the sulphur that the

predictions was based on is going to be eliminated from that fuel.

11715. So I think it would be a hypothetical exercise now, if we brought Mr.

Yee up to talk about health effects of these forecast sulphur levels.

11716. MS. MORELLATO: Madam Chair, Northern Gateway has

presented evidence in a table. Their own evidence shows that sulphur dioxide

concentrations in the Kitimat watershed will be above maximum acceptable

standards set by the Government of Canada. This is their evidence.

11717. They can make arguments later that, you know, that their evidence

shouldn’t be taken at face value but they’ve put this evidence before us, it’s there,

and my client -- and we would like the opportunity to cross-examine on the

impacts of sulphur dioxide at concentrations that the -- that Northern Gateway’s

own evidence indicates is possible.

11718. I think that’s just basic, natural justice and procedural fairness to let us

ask these questions. This is your own evidence.

11719. MR. ROTH: Madam Chair, I think Mr. Reid has explained that the

reduction in sulphur levels in fuels came late in the application process, so all of

the modelling for the application was done before this change occurred. So we

have a situation where we’ve done modelling and forecasting on a basis that, by

law, cannot occur anymore.

11720. So it’s not just a fact of modelling versus actual measurement in the

three to four times. That’s one factor that we’re coming up with. And if that was

the only basis that Mr. Reid had described for it being unlikely that the project

would result in any exceedances, I would not be objecting to this.

11721. The reason I am objecting to it, it’s not just my argument, it is

evidence that we have redone the work and if we take 96 percent of the sulphur




out of the fuel, there will be no exceedances associated with the project. So to go

back and examine upon the health effects, as if there were 2 percent six -- 2.6

percent sulphur in fuel, I don’t think would be a productive use of time.

11722. Again, we’ve got an expert here, we can answer the questions, so it’s

not as if we have to bring anybody that isn’t -- we have to bring somebody up to

the front row, and we’re getting rather jammed up there, but we can do it if the

Panel believes it useful but I don’t think it’s a useful use of time.

11723. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just give us a moment please.


11724. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, it’s the Panel’s

understanding that the evidence that you’re seeking to question on has been

superseded by new evidence, based on the changes of the law, that the evidence

on the record is that that now does change the predicted levels to be below the

government objectives.

11725. So on that basis, the Panel doesn’t see it as a useful exercise for the

application in front of it here today to have health effects questions on the table

that has been in front of us over the last while.

11726. You’re certainly welcome to continue your questions on how they got

to their conclusions that have led them to the new evidence and that sort of thing.

But the idea of questioning on the health effects of the old evidence, we don’t

believe would be helpful to us in the process.

11727. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you, Madam Chair. I ---


11729. MS. MORELLATO: --- do respectfully wish to note an objection on

the record and also to note that our understanding is that this new agreement and

these changes have not been implemented and so the model is still valid today.

11730. So I’ll respectfully continue but I simply wanted the record to note our

objection.

11731. Sir, as I understand it, Mr. Reid, sulphur dioxide turns into sulphuric




acid when it combines with water; is that right?

11732. MR. PETER REID: Sulphur dioxide in the environment eventually

oxidizes into a sulphate form. And in combination with water, that can form

sulphuric acid and it’s one of the basic components of acid rain. So its two main

acidifying substances; oxides of nitrogen which turn into nitrates and oxides of

sulphur that turn into sulphates.

11733. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you, sir.

11734. And as a main component of acid rain, sulphuric acid can cause

deforestation; is that right?

11735. MR. PETER REID: I guess on the extreme end of the range that

would be true, but it’s all shades of grey from very subtle effects, no perceptible

effects, through to very dramatic effects. And that of course is all based on the

amount of acidifying substances that are input into the environment. And there

are extreme cases where that is been noted, where there’s effect on ecosystems up

to and including injury to vegetation.

11736. MS. MORELLATO: Right. Sir, are you familiar with the World

Health Organization ambient air quality guidelines?

11737. MR. PETER REID: Yes I am.

11738. MS. MORELLATO: And being aware of these guidelines, you

would consider as a prudent practice, correct?

11739. MR. PETER REID: Maybe you could rephrase that question? I’m

not quite understanding what the question is.

11740. MS. MORELLATO: Sure. You’re aware of them, and it’s important

to be aware of what the World Health Organization says about air quality. Isn’t

that fair?

11741. MR. PETER REID: They’re one of a number of bodies that put out

ambient air quality objectives, and while they don’t immediately pertain to this

jurisdiction, we are aware of them.

11742. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, if I could take you to Aid to Cross Number




9?

11743. If I could ask the Regulatory Officer to kindly bring that up? It’s

World Health Organization Air Quality and Health.

11744. And you’ll see that this is a Fact Sheet Number 313 from the World

Health Organization and it’s dated September 2011. Do you see that, sir?

11745. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I’ve got it.

11746. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And if I could take you to page 4 under

sulphur dioxide? Just scroll down. Thank you. There you go. And you’ll see

that it says, “Sulphur dioxide guidelines: 20 micrograms per cubic metre 24 hours

mean” and then “500 gram (sic) cubic metres 10 minute mean”. And right below

that, sir -- and I’ll ask you the question in a moment -- it says:

“A sulphur dioxide concentration of 500 micrograms per cubic

metre should not be exceeded over average periods of 10-

minute duration. Studies indicate that a proportion of people

with asthma experience changes in pulmonary function and

respiratory symptoms after periods of exposure of SO2 as short

as 10 minutes.” (As read)

11747. And then it continues:

“The revision of the 24-hour guidelines for SO2 from 125 to 20

micrograms is based on the following considerations…” (As

read)

11748. And then it sets out the reasons why the change was made. And, sir,

were you aware of this guideline prior to doing your assessment on air quality?

11749. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I read the guidance document. This is a

paraphrasing of a larger guidance document. And I’ve read that several years ago

when it came out. So we’re well aware of this.

11750. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. This document itself, though, was

published in September of 2011. So are you familiar with the guideline that’s in

this document?




11751. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I am.

11752. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. But you don’t reference it in your

analysis or your materials, correct?

11753. MR. PETER REID: No, we don’t, and the reason for that is that the

guidelines from the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada

apply in this jurisdiction and not the World Health Organization’s objectives.

11754. Similarly, we don’t go to other jurisdictions that have lower ambient

air quality objectives and try to use them to reference against our work to show,

you know, relative concentration and relative to the guidelines. So we don’t hunt

around for ambient air quality objectives. We use the objectives for the

jurisdiction in which we’re working.


11756. So going -- referencing back to your Table 415, there it shows that the

SO2 concentrations from the Northern Gateway Project, in combination with other

projects in the project effects assessment area for a 24-hour period are upwards of

139 micrograms per cubic metre over 40 -- and that’s over 40 times higher than

this World Health Organization guideline, correct?

11757. MR. PETER REID: Let’s bring that table up please.

11758. MS. MORELLATO: Sure. It’s a table found at B3-1, page 131.

11759. MR. PETER REID: And you’re citing the 24-hour values?

11760. MS. MORELLATO: Yes, if you go across the 24-hour value.

11761. MR. PETER REID: Okay. I think at this time I would like to go to

another table. We’ve already talked about how this table is based on information

that is out of date for several reasons. We realized that when we were filing the

Application and we did describe in the Application the reasons why this

information was out of date and we’ve detailed those.

11762. What we did do was it was possible for us very quickly to rerun the

models for the project alone case and to come up with a revised set of numbers for

the project alone effects, taking into account the various levels of sulphur that are




projected to be in marine fuels in the future, and that is in our technical data

report, B10-3, and that’s Adobe page 84. So if we could go to that, we could have

a more informed discussion on predictions that are pertinent to the conditions that

we expect when the marine terminal is actually in operation.

11763. And the results here that are most pertinent to our case is the one that

says the Project Case with 2015 ceiling, and that is a 0.1 percent sulphur in fuel

concentration.

11764. MS. MORELLATO: And, sir, where are you pointing here? I’m just

trying to follow it. Now, is this related only to the Northern Gateway Project?

11765. MR. PETER REID: These are the maximum concentrations

immediately adjacent to the jetty.

11766. Now, I guess for reference purposes, I’ve looked at some figures and --

in the report, and these concentrations are representative of what’s happening at a

location immediately adjacent to the jetty where people are very unlikely to ever

be. Workers can be inside the project fence line and they are governed by

workplace exposure limits. But on the outside of that fence line it’s very unlikely

that a person would be there.

11767. So what we’ve done is we’ve looked at how are these concentrations

diminished with increasing distance from the project, and within two kilometres,

those concentrations are cut in about a quarter, and at the closest settlement, the

Kitamaat Village, those concentrations are one tenth of what’s up there.

11768. So we quickly see that we go from a situation where we’ve got, say,

for the one hour, 171 micrograms per cubic metre immediately adjacent to the

facility, not 4,600. And at some distance away it fades into insignificance. It’s

immeasurable concentrations where people actually live.

11769. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, this table only refers, though, to the

project. It doesn’t refer to the Base Case and it doesn’t refer to adding the Base

Case with the project with the cumulative impact, right? It’s just the Project

Case?






11772. MR. PETER REID: It’s the project alone case. These are the

emissions for which we are responsible, and they don’t express what is happening

in concert with other sources around, and that’s simply a function of time. We

didn’t have time immediately before the filing to completely redo all the work.

11773. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And again, this is based on the change

that you suggested happening -- this is based on it actually having happened and

happening, right, sir?



11776. MR. PETER REID: So we’ve assumed that the Government of

Canada and the United States are good at their word. And that those changes,

which are relatively simple to effect, actually occur.

11777. And I think that the Governments of Canada and the United States are

quite motivated to do this because they’ve done studies that have shown that the

aggregate effect of all of the marine traffic off of our coast has -- has quite

measurable impacts on human health.

11778. So there’s a -- there’s an improvement that can be gained simply by

requiring shippers who are coming within our waters to switch to a cleaner fuel.

They can burn their residual fuel oil outside of 200 kilometres but if you’re doing

business in North America you’re going to just simply turn a switch, start burning

diesel fuel, which is very clean, and we automatically get an improvement in our

air quality.


11780. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I would just like to add to that.

11781. So as the regulations were written, and we are going to provide an

undertaking, but the original date was for a reduction in 2010 to 1.5 percent

sulphur with a subsequent reduction in 2015 to .1 percent sulphur.

11782. This project -- vessels would not be mooring at the terminal until

2018. So just to put times into perspective I think we need to know those dates.




11783. MR. MORELLATO: Right. Thank you, sir.

11784. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: Just to -- sorry, just to complete a

question earlier, you had asked how many people would be at the terminal while a

ship was loading.

11785. And it would be in the order of 10 to 20, depending on the exact time,

including the personnel on the tug boats.

11786. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you, sir. Thank you.

11787. All right, so let’s go back to Exhibit B3-1, page 131, because our

understanding is that the new guidelines are not -- have not been implemented.

And we have to at least look -- and it’s fair to only look, at the model that you’ve

put together based on what we understand to be the case today. We should at

least look at that as well, okay, because no one can predict the future

categorically.

11788. So let’s just look at Table B3-1, this is your evidence, at page 131.

And let’s look at sulphur dioxide concentrations that are predicted by Northern

Gateway.

11789. And my -- that is -- I asked the question before and I didn’t get the

answer so I just want to, you know, finish this up. And my question was this, if

you look at the sulphur dioxide concentrations and in combination with Northern

Gateway’s project and other projects in the project effects assessment area for a

24-hour period, and you scan across to what’s the maximum tolerable, you’ll see

that for a 24-hour period it’s above. But it’s also 40 times more than what the

World Health Organization recommended; right? Because they recommended 20

micrograms and you’re much higher than that; right?

11790. The 830 micrograms per cubic metre is 40 times higher than what the

World Health Organization has recommended. Isn’t that right?

11791. I just want -- I’ve asked the question twice now, I just would like an

answer.

11792. MR. PETER REID: Okay, I guess we’ve covered a number of points

there. And I’ll answer them as best I can.




11793. I guess first of all is the WHO standards. We’ve already mentioned

that they -- that they don’t apply. But -- not only do they not apply in Canada, is

that by the documents that we’ve seen we don’t fully understand their rationale

for their decision on the levels that they’ve chosen.

11794. The larger document that explains a little bit more to us, tells us that

they have an interim target of 125, an interim target two of 50, and an air quality

guideline, that is the ultimate one, the one that you’re talking about, of 20. The

way we see it is that these are aspirational targets. What they’re doing is they’re

recommending for lower concentrations of sulphur dioxide. And that’s a good

thing.

11795. I think what they’re speaking to as well is where most people live

which is in large cities -- so we’re not going to apply these objectives to land that

is immediately adjacent to an industrial facility where nobody lives.

11796. So in large urban centres, governments can do things like improve the

quality of fuel. So they can reduce the amount of sulphur in fuel or they can have

more public transit; things like that to reduce it.

11797. I think that’s what the World Health Organization is saying, is that

people in cities where most people live should be exposed to less sulphur dioxide.

And they have three levels that they’re recommending, each more conservative,

125, 50, and 20.

11798. And 20 is a very low number. We currently meet 20 in Kitimat at a

location that is between two industrial facilities. I might point out that one of

those industrial facilities is now shut down. So the levels that we’re seeing in

Kitimat are probably lower now than when we constructed our baseline.

11799. The other thing I want to point out is that -- we’ve already pointed out

that the information here was outdated when we filed it. What’s also happened is

Rio Tinto Alcan has undergone a large change to their operation, a very dramatic

change to their operation. And I wouldn’t want the impression to go out that

these figures are representative of their current operation. In fact I don’t know

what they’re emitting currently. We’re seeking now to get access to some of their

studies but we don’t have that information right now. So that information is

outdated.




11800. I guess the final thing is that these maximum concentrations -- we’re

focussing on the maximum -- occur on isolated hillsides well-above these

facilities. They’re not representative of exposures that people are seeing in their

everyday lives in Kitimat.

11801. I would characterize the air quality in Kitimat with respect to SO2 as --

as very good. So I don’t want to be giving the mistaken impression that this is a

problem, that SO2 is a big problem in Kitimat.

11802. MS. MORELLATO: What I’m struggling with, sir, is that your own

evidence suggests there is a possible problem there and we’re just asking

questions on it.

11803. But maybe we can move onto the table as it relates to particulate

matters10. And that’s at the bottom of Table 4-15. You see that sir?

11804. And you’ll see that the concentrations of particulate matter for the

future case, that’s including the project and the LNG project, the baseline is 61.3

micrograms per cubic metre, and that’s above the provincial guideline, correct?

11805. MR. PETER REID: Yes that’s correct.

11806. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And the provincial guideline is

consistent with World Health Organization guidelines on particulate matters10;

isn’t that right?

11807. MR. PETER REID: I’ll have to refer to that document.

11808. You’re referring to the WHO?



11810. MR. PETER REID: Yes, so for the 24-hour -- for the base

application and future case, they’re above 50. And the number that the WHO has

for PM10 -- the 50, is equivalent to the British Columbia ambient air quality

objective ---





11812. MR. PETER REID: --- for PM10. So in this case, the WHO has the

same number as the Province of B.C. So ---


11814. MR. PETER REID: And all the caveats for SO2 apply to the

particulate matter as it’s occurring on isolated hillside above the facility, and

particulate air quality is very good in Kitimat.

11815. MS. MORELLATO: We don’t know what these other receptors say,

though, because we don’t have that information in front of us, right? We just

have the information for the maximum point?

11816. MR. PETER REID: Well, we do have isopleths maps for all of these

substances. In the back of the technical data report, there’s 60-some odd ones. So

if you want to go to a specific case, say, the future case, we could isolate that

figure and locate ---

11817. MS. MORELLATO: I’m actually -- in the interest of time, sir, I’m

happy to leave that for closing argument, providing that the information on

specific receptor sites is in the materials. I’m content to leave it at that.

11818. So if you look at other receptor sites in the model, in other areas,

you’ll be able to tell -- I think what you’re saying from the evidence you’ve

disclosed -- whether those receptor sites are above the Canadian and provincial

objectives; is that right?

11819. MR. PETER REID: Well, why don’t we look at them? I’d like to

look at them.

11820. MS. MORELLATO: I’m in the Panel’s hands. I wasn’t intending to

take the witness there, but I -- in the normal course of things, counsel directs the

witness, not the other way around. So I’m content to move on on that basis. I just

want to know if the information is there.

11821. MR. PETER REID: The information is in there and ---





11823. MR. PETER REID: --- well, what it shows generally is what I’ve

been saying before is that at the maximum -- at the location of the maximum

concentration, what we call the point of maximum impingement, you’ll have a

high concentration, but they diminish quite rapidly as you move away from the

source.

11824. So the isopleths maps give you a lot of information to look at to try

and understand the relationships between all these various sources, how the

emissions interact with terrain, how meteorology moves these emissions around

the domain, and then what the prediction is at every location in that domain.

11825. So you can look at that and see patterns like high concentrations on

hillsides, low concentrations in residential areas and Kitamaat Village and things

like that. So that’s something you can look at.

11826. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, sir. And the -- and you’re saying that

that evidence -- we didn’t locate it -- but you’re saying that evidence is there and

on a microgram per cubic metre basis, right, for these different receptor sites?


11828. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: Ms. Morellato, just for your reference in

case ---


11830. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: --- you’d like to look it up later, ---


11832. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: --- you can find that figure in B10-5 ---


11834. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: --- Adobe page 7.

11835. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Thank you. All right.

11836. So let’s move forward here. So if we could take the witness to Aid to

Cross Number 9 again, and just to page 2 of that document? And again, this is the




World Health Organization Air Quality and Health document that I took you to

earlier. I just want to take you to the particulate matter section there.

11837. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I’m looking at it.

11838. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And you’ll see that the document sets

out 20 micrograms per cubic metre annual mean and 15 micrograms per cubic

metre for 24 hour mean. And under that, the document says:

“The 2005 air quality guidelines set for the first time are the

guideline for particulate matter. The aim is to achieve the

lowest concentration possible as no threshold for particulate

matters has been identified below which no damage to health is

observed. The recommended value should represent an

acceptable and achievable objective to minimize effects in the

context of local constraints, capabilities and public health

priorities.” (As read)

11839. And my question, sir, is are the World Health Guidelines -- and this

one in particular -- something that Northern Gateway intends to follow?

11840. MR. PETER REID: The short answer to that is no. We’re going to

employ the Ambient Air Quality Objectives Guidelines and Standards for British

Columbia and Canada.

11841. You might note, though, that, say, the Canada-wide standards for

particulate matter -- and that’s PM2.5 -- is not that much dissimilar from the World

Health Organization’s standard and they also say the very same things.

11842. It’s well-known that there’s no bright line below which there are no

effects. There’s no zero effects threshold. And the Canada-wide standard says

exactly the same thing. And we all understand that the goal is to minimize

exposure.

11843. And the Canada-wide standard speaks to that in terms of taking

prudent actions, like when facilities are up for renewal of their authorizations or

when they’re undergoing a major capital change, at that time you revisit their

emissions control technology. And at that time you can impose on them controls

to lessen the effect of particulate on the population.




11844. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, I’d like to take you, if I could, to Aid to

Cross Number 10. And it is a Health Canada document and it’s entitled “Review

of the Air Quality Health Impacts Sections of the Application Submitted for

Environmental Assessment Approval of the Proposed Kitimat Terminal Project.”

And the author is Jamal Harb from Health Canada.

11845. Do you see that?

11846. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I see that.

11847. MS. MORELLATO: And it was dated August the 3rd

, 2005.

11848. Sir, have you read this document before your assessment was made?

11849. MR. PETER REID: Are you saying had I read this prior to working

on the Northern Gateway Project?

11850. MS. MORELLATO: That’s right, sir, yes.

11851. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I had read that prior to working on the

Gateway Project.

11852. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And so if I could take you to the second

page -- the second -- or the first bullet references the Canada-wide standard and it

says this:

“It is important to note that this standard is not considered a

threshold level for adverse health effect impacts, and

incremental increases even in one microgram per cubic metre

of particle matter 2.5 have been associated with both mortality

and morbidity in epidemiological studies. Increases in PM2.5

even at levels below the Canada-wide standard have been

shown to adversely affect human health. Therefore,

assessments of PM2.5 should include a quantitative assessment

even for background levels below the Canada-wide standard.”

(As read)

11853. And, sir, you would have no basis to take issue with this statement,

would you?




11854. MR. PETER REID: No, but in re-reading it the other day, I was

asking myself what exactly they meant by a quantitative assessment. Because

what we do when we do dispersion modelling, is that’s called a quantitative

assessment. We take emission numbers; we put them through the model and we

come up with predicted concentrations.

11855. I’m wondering if that’s what he meant or whether he was talking about

taking those results from our dispersion modelling and subjecting them to a

human health risk assessment. And if either meaning of that word quantitative --

we’ve done that. So no, I don't take issue with that.

11856. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, so what I understand Health Canada is

saying here is that marginal increases in particulate matter 2.5 concentrations are

more important for us meaning health effects than comparing absolute

concentrations to ambient air quality objectives. So it's a marginal increase, is the

point. Is that right, sir?

11857. MR. PETER REID: That's correct, and that's what a human health

risk assessment person would do. And if you look at the Canada-wide standards

document you'll see that their overriding goal is to minimize risks. And it's

important to note that they've used the word “minimize” and not “eliminate”,

because there are intelligent choices that you can make to minimize risk by

lessening exposure, but particulate matter is -- fine particulate matter especially, is

ubiquitous in the atmosphere.


11859. MR. PETER REID: And pristine locations, you're going to have an

exposure to say an annual average somewhere around say 2 micrograms per cubic

metre. That imposes a risk on you. So in the cleanest environments we can

imagine on earth there is particulate matter in the atmosphere and there is a risk.

11860. So you can't eliminate the risk but you can make intelligent choices to

minimize it.

11861. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you. I think we'll get out of the model

and move to Exhibit B3-1, Adobe page number 48, if I could. Thank you.

11862. So sir, in your project description Northern Gateway states that the

number of tugs that will be operating at any given time. And you'll see under




2.8.2, if I could ask you to -- thank you -- to scroll down, you'll see that one of the

bullet points says:

"Up to four escort [tugs or] four escort or harbour tugs will be

used to berth or unberth each tanker."


11864. MR. PETER REID: That's correct, I see that.

11865. MS. MORELLATO: And:

"Up to six escort or harbour tugs may operate within the

[Confined Channel Area] at once."


11867. MR. PETER REID: That's correct.

11868. MS. MORELLATO: But you assume only three tugs are operating

in your emissions analysis; isn't that right?

11869. MR. PETER REID: I would have to look that up, but that seems

reasonable that we didn't use that many tugs.

11870. And the reason for that, I would believe, is that this document was

evolving as we were doing our assessment. And we have a point at which we

have to stop all the various parts of our input data from moving around as choices

are made about how many tugs are going to be here and there, and we take those

into our assessment.

11871. One thing I will point out though is that to kind of counteract that

effect and to remain conservative, we assumed that that activity was occurring at

the jetty where its effect on the land immediately adjacent to the jetty would be

maximized. So there is some activities with tugs that occur mid-channel and on

the way to the jetty that we assumed are happening at the jetty.

11872. So if we've underestimated the number of tugs that are actually there

we have overestimated their effect by assuming that they're closer to the land than

they are in reality.




11873. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you, sir. My point was that your

analysis assumes three tugs; is that right?

11874. I can take you -- would it be helpful if I took you to the application?

Would that be of assistance to you, sir?

11875. MR. PETER REID: No, I'm willing to concede that there were three

tugs.

11876. MS. MORELLATO: It's three tugs. Okay, all right.

11877. So you're -- all right. All right. Sir, according to CEAA you

understand, of course, that this environmental assessment has to include

cumulative effects, and so I'd like to take you, if I could, to the CEAA's

operational policy statement that clarifies the scope of assessing cumulative

environmental effects, and that is Aid to Cross Number 12. And I'd like to take

you to page 3.

11878. And this -- just to frame this and to assist the Panel, what we'd like to

do is explore with you the fact that only one project was included in your

cumulative impact assessment. So let's look at what CEAA recommends, let's

make sure we're on the same page, and then let's look at what was actually done if

we can.

11879. So if we can look at this page 3, you'll see at the top of the page it

says:

"To better reflect the broad objectives of the Act, the agency

position has evolved to include certain and reasonably

foreseeable projects and where appropriate those projects that

are hypothetical this position is also consistent with the best

practices approach of the practitioner's guide." (As read)

11880. And then if you to definitions, it defines certain as:

"The actions will proceed or there is a high probability the

action will proceed." (As read)

11881. Reasonable foreseeability:




"The action may proceed but there is some uncertainty about

this conclusion." (As read)

11882. And hypothetical:

"There is a considerable uncertainty whether the action will

ever proceed. The conjecture is based on currently available

information." (As read)

11883. And my question, sir, is did Northern Gateway consider this guideline

when it put its assessment together?

11884. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, we did.

11885. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, thank you.

11886. I'd like to discuss reasonably foreseeable and hypothetical projects in

the Kitimat region. And if I could, I'd like to begin with the B.C. Major Projects

Inventory, and that's at Aid to Cross 13. And that just describes the inventory.

11887. Mr. Reid, are you familiar with Major Projects Inventory published by

the Province of British Columbia?

11888. MR. PETER REID: No, I'm not. I'm relying instead on other

practitioners in the environmental assessment process to compile a project

inclusion list for us and then we employ that. We looked through the project

inclusion list to determine if there are any projects that could reasonably interact

with ours.

11889. So I don't -- I don’t assist in compiling that list, and I'm not a CEAA

practitioner as well. Jeff Green will have to answer questions relating to CEAA.

11890. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. So Mr. Green, are you familiar with the

B.C. Major Project Inventory?

11891. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, our team is.

11892. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And you're familiar with the Major

Project Inventory that was published by the Province of British Columbia, well,




over the course of time, not just one year?

11893. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I don't understand your reference to 20

years.

11894. MS. MORELLATO: I didn't say 20 years, I said over the course of

time.

11895. But perhaps what I can do to clarify the point, sir, is take you to this

aid to cross. And you're -- this simply sets the context that British Columbia,

through B.C. Stats, publishes a Major Projects Inventory and it's a comprehensive

database containing information on major development activities in British

Columbia. You're -- right? You're ---

11896. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes.


11898. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: And we've used this database as one of the

data sources to construct what we call the project inclusion list, which

Mr. Thompson and I will be happy to respond to.

11899. MS. MORELLATO: Great. And if we could take you then to the

next aid to cross, and this is a Major Projects Inventory of British Columbia dated

December 2009.

11900. Oh, yes, it's aid to cross, I believe, Number 14. And I could take you

page 110, if I could. It should be just on the next page. There you go. If you

scroll down you'll see the page number there. Okay.

11901. So you see that this Major Projects Inventory, sir, was published

before the preparation of Northern Gateway’s evidence and submission on air

pollution?

11902. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It was published in December 2009. The

application was filed in May 2010.

11903. MS. MORELLATO: Right. And so this -- and did you consult this

document before putting your application together?




11904. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I think I’ve already said to you that we

used the B.C. major projects site. Whether we used this specific date, likely not,

because we were at a point where one has to close off. Our project conclusion list

is described in the environmental assessment.

11905. MS. MORELLATO: I understand, sir. I was just needing to

understand what the evidence was on that point.

11906. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, we used the major projects website.

11907. MS. MORELLATO: You appreciate I couldn’t have understood that

without asking the question.

11908. Okay, so the specific projects listed in this inventory under Kitimat,

one is the Crab/Europa Hydroelectric project. Do you see that?


11910. MS. MORELLATO: And that’s the proposed run of the river project

of 32 megawatts on Crab River and 102 megawatts on the Europa River. And

you’ll agree with me that the construction of the Crab/Europa Hydroelectric

project could increase criteria or containment emissions in the Kitimat watershed

-- or airshed, rather?

11911. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’m not certain exactly where that project

is. I’m wondering if we can indicate where that is.

11912. MS. MORELLATO: Well, sir, my question was different than that.

My question was just whether you would agree that the construction of this

project could increase criteria air contaminant emissions in the Kitimat airshed?

11913. MR. PETER REID: Well, yeah, the project -- the construction of

most projects will result in an increase in particulate. But not knowing exactly

where it is, it’s hard to say if that would impinge on Kitimat.

11914. Now, you’ve mentioned airshed and Jeff has just told me that this

project is 50 kilometres away. Unfortunately airsheds are an artificial construct.

They aren’t as clearly defined as watersheds. Watersheds are really convenient.

You know, you have a line in height of land where water goes one way or the

other way and you can delineate really easily where a watershed is. An airshed is




a little harder to define.

11915. And usually you’re choosing some kind of a bound where emissions

that are generated locally where their effects are confined to, and if you were

interested in looking at, say, effects from a distant project you would want to

understand well could those emissions actually make it into, say, Kitimat and

have a measurable or a meaningful effect. You have to do a lot more work to

make a statement like that. So I can’t agree on that that ---

11916. MS. MORELLATO: Okay, let’s try it again then, sir. You indicated

that the project effects assessment area included a 300 square kilometre area

around the Kitimat Terminal, and this particular document that I have in front of

you now, this aid to cross, indicates that the Crab/Europa project is in the Kitimat

area. So -- and you I think just as well indicated that it’s -- what did you say, 50

miles from -- what did you say it was?

11917. MR. PETER REID: Five zero (50) -- 50 kilometres.

11918. MS. MORELLATO: Kilometres. So it’s within the project effects

assessment area. And so my question then is would you agree that the

construction of this Crab/Europa project could release criteria air contaminants

within the PEAA, the project effects assessment area?

11919. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I’ll agree that the construction of that

project in the larger PEAA will be contributing emissions.


11921. MR. PETER REID: Within that area we have a smaller domain that

we’ve used to run our dispersion model. We didn’t run our model over the entire

PEAA. And the reason for that is that we’re trying to determine what the effects

of the project are and what other sources that are reasonably close to our project

might have on our area and how those may act additively.

11922. So we can’t ignore Rio Tinto Alcan for example. It’s 8 kilometres

away and it’s big. We can’t ignore the former Eurocan mill because it’s very

close as well. But we would never assess some temporary construction emissions

from a project that’s 50 kilometres away. It’s simply too far away to have a

meaningful effect in the area that we’re interested in. So that would be a

professional judgment that we would make when we’re scoping our assessment.




11923. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. So is it Northern Gateway’s evidence

that you looked at this Crab/Europa project and determined that you ought not

consider it?

11924. MR. PETER REID: Yeah, so I guess I’m informed here that this 300

kilometre squared PEAA would exclude a source that’s 50 kilometres distance,

simply by virtue of the fact that it’s a square area and the project that you’re

describing is 50 kilometres distance so would lie outside that area. Regardless of

whether it’s in or out it’s -- it would be too small to consider, and there are

probably a number of other small projects that we would have screened out.

11925. Another thing I guess is, Jeff mentioned that, you know, our

application was filed in May of 2010, these projects are from December 2009.

We were done our modelling well before that date.

11926. It’s a particular hazard in our line of work is that our work takes a long

time and we have to get our work done in time for other practitioners to get their

work done, the human and ecological health risk assessment people.


11928. MR. PETER REID: So the cut-off for our date is relatively a long

time before the application is filed.


11930. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: If I could also add to that. I think some

other important examples here, you don’t -- we can’t just look at location. So if

you look at this specific example, you’re looking at the construction start date is

2010 with a finish in 2012. There would be no temporal overlap between the

operation of the terminal and this project, nor would there be an overlap with the

construction of this project, and this project.

11931. MS. MORELLATO: Thank you, sir.

11932. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So as a result of that it wouldn’t be

included.

11933. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Thank you. Let’s go to the next project




that’s listed in this inventory, and that’s the Break-Bulk Port Facility, and it says:

“Kitimat Port Development Society proposed building of a

break-bulk port to hold handle product not shipped on

containers facility may be built to accommodate 100 square

metres of warehouse space, 180,000 tonnes of pellet storage,

500 tonnes of concentrate, and up to eight new deep sea

berths.” (As read)


11935. And, sir, you would agree with me that the construction and operation

of this Break-Bulk Port Facility could increase CAC emissions in the projects

effects assessment area?

11936. In fairness, sir, I think you said a few moments ago that any

construction would increase the CACs, but I simply wanted to address this

particular matter.

11937. MR. PETER REID: Yes, and assuming this occurs in the district of

Kitimat, there would be some temporary emissions of particulate that are local in

their geographic extent and temporary. So you would have -- and you’re

addressing specifically particulate.


11939. MR. PETER REID: You would have two kinds of particulate

mainly. You would have dust, larger particulate, so crustal materials, clays, soils

like that that are, you know, released by vehicle traffic or the wind, and you

would have very fine particulate matter that is more -- it originates in internal

combustion engines.

11940. So the PM2.5 are largely related to combustion of fuels and heavy

equipment, and the larger particles, like total suspended particulate or PM10, those

are more related to dust -- just what we call fugitive dust.

11941. So yes, there would be a temporary release of particulate matter from

the site, large particles and small.

11942. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. But the operation of it would also




release some CAC emissions, wouldn’t it?

11943. MR. PETER REID: Yes, there’s this activity and there are a number

of other activities that we’ve taken into account in the assessment, local activities

---


11945. MR. PETER REID: --- such as home heating, automobile use, things

like that -- a marine -- other ---


11947. MR. PETER REID: --- marine vessels that all release CACs.


11949. And this is a port operation. You see that, sir? You see that?


11951. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And this is not a project that was

considered in Northern Gateway’s cumulative effects assessment, correct?

11952. MR. PETER REID: No, it wasn’t.

11953. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. I’m going to ---

11954. MR. PETER REID: Not in my assessment.


11956. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: I’d like to point out that the major project

list is something that we rely on routinely. And we actually continue to monitor

these things ongoing. One of the things that you’ll find in the socioeconomic

assessment is we’ve expressed concern that things are so dynamic in Kitimat that,

with regards to whether you have a camp, your housing policies, all of those

things, are going to require us to stay on top of this, so we have.

11957. And I can say, from having looked at these things numerous times, that




there are many projects on this list that I would consider hypothetical and

therefore are not required to be included in the cumulative effects assessment

according to CEAA’s descriptions.

11958. And if you look at the Break Port facility, for example, you see that on

the 2009 listing, it -- under the first entry, it was December 2006. Well, I even

checked the most recent project list from September 2012. It’s still listed on that

list with big question marks as to start and end point.

11959. So I think one could honestly say that it’s probably a hypothetical

project. It’s not a reasonably foreseeable one, and there are many on these lists.

11960. If you look at some of the hydroelectric projects, for example, these go

back to when B.C. Hydro put out a request for applications for hydro power. A

lot of people put in applications. A lot of these things still exist on the major

projects list, but they’ve been there for six, seven years with -- and unlikely that

they will proceed in the near future.

11961. I suspect if B.C. Power puts -- or Hydro puts out another request, they

might become alive again, but you have to take this list with a bit of a grain of salt

because some of these lists have been on there forever.

11962. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And, sir, you’re aware, though, of

CEAA’s guideline that provides that a best practice would include considering the

cumulative impact of a hypothetical project?

11963. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: It basically says that’s discretionary.

11964. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And so Northern Gateway’s position is

that it won’t consider hypothetical projects?

11965. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No. We did not include hypothetical

projects in our cumulative effects assessment.

11966. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And, Mr. Green, you had indicated that

-- or it may have been Mr. Reid -- that the development of the Break Port facility

could include increases in CACs, but -- and you refer to particular matters --

particulate matters in particular, but CACs also include sulphur dioxide and

carbon monoxide as well, doesn’t it?




11967. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That’s right.

11968. MS. MORELLATO: Including NO2?

11969. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Correct.


11971. Taking you back to the inventory which relates to Kitimat projects --

and again, this is the Aid to Cross we were just looking at for 2009 -- you’ll see

that there’s reference to the Europa Creek Hydro Electric Project under Kitimat.

And there is says:

“The proposed project is 80 kilometres southeast of Kitimat

and includes a 230 KV transmission line from the Europa

Project to substation near Caamano...” (As read)

11972. And I take it, sir, that this is something that was not included in your

cumulative assessments?

11973. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No, it was not.

11974. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. But you would agree, sir, that the

project, through the construction of it, would release CSA -- CAC emissions?

11975. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: The project provides very few details.

There’s no dates. And I also note that it’s 80 kilometres southeast and, as Mr.

Reid has spoken to, that’s outside the project effects assessment area.

11976. MS. MORELLATO: Now, if I can take you to the Pembina Kitimat

to Summit Lake Pipeline? And that’s the top of the page. Go up the top of the

page and you’ll see the reference to Kitimat to Summit Lake Pipeline.

11977. And again, sir, this is the construction of a marine terminal in Kitimat

and a 465- kilometre pipeline with the capacity of 100,000 barrels a day of

imported condensate to Summit Lake near Prince George where it would connect

with Pembina’s existing western pipeline society -- system, rather, for

transmission to Edmonton.

11978. Sir, would you agree that this construction operation of the Pembina




Kitimat to Summit Lake Pipeline would increase CAC emissions in the project

effects assessment area?

11979. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: I’d like to answer that one. Even though

that particular project is still -- was listed on this major projects inventory and also

the March 2012, the information that we had was that the environmental

assessment for that project was actually terminated on December 10th, 2008

because the proponent had withdrawn the project. Therefore, it’s again one of

those hypotheticals and there was no need to include it in the case.

11980. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Thank you, sir.

11981. The Spirit Pipeline is next. You see that, sir? And that’s TMX North

Project is a pipeline project which would carry 100,000 bp -- what’s that -- bpd of

condensate -- barrels per day of condensate from Valemount to Kitimat. And will

you agree, sir, that construction operation of this pipeline could release CACs in

the project effects area?

11982. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: That’s another one of those projects

that’s been on the books for a while. And the most recent version of the project --

major projects inventory dated September 2012 has that project as having been

withdrawn.

11983. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. All right, sir.

11984. Moving on to the Northern Gateway pipeline -- oh, that’s the one that

we’ve already -- and what we’re dealing with here. Let’s move to the next page.

11985. The next page under Kitimat deals with the Rio Tinto Alcan

aluminium smelter expansion. Do you see that, sir?

11986. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I do.


11988. And that’s a proposed expansion of the aluminium smelter that would

increase production by 400,000 tonnes per year. Do you see that, sir?

11989. MR. PETER REID: That’s correct, yes.




11990. MS. MORELLATO: Did you ---

11991. MR. PETER REID: I see that.

11992. MS. MORELLATO: --- account for changes in CAC emissions

associated with this expansion by Rio Tinto?

11993. MR. PETER REID: No, we didn’t. That wasn’t possible. I’m not

sure this project was announced when we were considering our dispersion

assessment, but we certainly wouldn’t have had any reasonable data to change our

assessment of that source. The one reason is we relied on information from an

emission inventory from the Province of B.C. that characterized the average

operational emissions of the facility as it existed when we were running our

models. We would not have had any basis for changing that.

11994. Now, the emissions could go up or they could go down. I imagine that

the province’s desire would be to see some of them come down. There’s certainly

been technological improvements since the facility was built in the fifties.

11995. So -- so we’re not certain of the direction that these emissions went but

we would have no basis for actually changing the emissions scenario that we had

in hand which was the existing facility, and that’s just the nature of our work. I

doubt Rio Tinto Alcan understood what their emissions could potentially be.

11996. MS. MORELLATO: Right. But sir, the production increases

expansion would involve construction would it not?

11997. MR. PETER REID: It would involve some construction on a

brownfield site but I think the effect that we’re most interested in is the one that

would prevail post-construction, the operational emissions. Construction

emissions are temporary and they’re quite often not continuous.

11998. And a lot of projects we sometimes consider and model, the

construction case, especially in the case like mines, because that’s often the most

disruptive activity. But for other projects like a small facility or an improvement

at a facility the construction emissions are relatively small. And even if we did

have them, we most likely wouldn’t include them in the dispersion model because

they fall below a de minimis that would actually affect the outcome. It wouldn’t

change our conclusions and it wouldn’t change the results.




11999. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, if you have enough construction happening

it wouldn’t be de minimis anymore because there would be a cumulative impact

wouldn’t there?

12000. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’d like to direct you again to the dates.

Just because a project is in Kitimat does not mean there will be an overlap with

this project.

12001. And the summary here actually says pre-construction to commence in

summer 2009. That activity is ongoing right now. The construction period for

this project will not overlap with the construction period for Northern Gateway.

12002. MS. MORELLATO: All right. And so -- and your evidence today is

that post-expansion there won’t be any increased emissions; is that right?

12003. MR. PETER REID: We don’t -- we don’t know what that case is

yet.


12005. MR. PETER REID: So the fact that the capacity has increased

doesn’t mean that emissions have increased. Emissions could very well decline.

So I look forward to seeing that information in the future but we don’t have it

now.

12006. MS. MORELLATO: All right. So that wasn’t assessed then, sir,

correct?

12007. MR. PETER REID: No. We modelled emissions in the B.C. year

2000 emission inventory.


12009. MR. PETER REID: Those were the best emission we could get

because the province at that time sought to construct an emission inventory that

went beyond -- what they normally do is to say, take --- the facility is capable of

emitting this or it’s permitted to emit a certain amount of CAC’s. And what they

sought to do in 2000 was to get an emission inventory that was more reflective of

actual emissions because actual emissions can be a small fraction of what’s

authorized in their permit.




12010. So we took the year 2000 emission inventory as our -- as our best

estimate of what that facility emits.

12011. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, the KSL pipeline project is also mentioned

in this aid to cross; would you confirm that that did not form part of your

cumulative assessments as well?

12012. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It did include -- it was included in our

project inclusion list. It was included in a number of assessments. It was not

included here, again, because of the dates of the construction. You’ll see that the

project was proposed to finish in 2013.

12013. Clearing has started on that right-of-way now and construction is

expected to commence on the pipeline itself next year.

12014. MS. MORELLATO: Right. But you didn’t include it in your -- in

this particular cumulative assessment?

12015. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No because there’s not a temporal overlap.

It’s not just a special overlap, it has to also -- it has to spatially overlap and it has

to temporally overlap.

12016. MR. MORELLATO: Sir, the most recent major projects inventory

for 2012 contains additional project, that, in our view contribute to air pollution in

the Kitimat region. While the projects may not have been planned at the time that

your submission was put in they should be included in any updates to the

dispersion modelling.

12017. I’d like to take you, sir, to page 112 of the 2012 Major Projects

Inventory, and that’s found at Aid to Cross Number 7.

12018. Oops, I think we’ve got the wrong one here. Hang on. Just bear with

me.

12019. Fifteen (15) I believe it is. Yes it is, it’s Aid to Cross Number 15.

12020. And you see reference there to the Shell LNG facility. Do you see

that, sir?




12021. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes we do.

12022. MS. MORELLATO: And it says it’s a proposed LNG terminal plan

located at the former Methanex facility site and will have an actual gas

transportation capacity of up to 1.8 billion cubic feet per day.

12023. Sir, was that included in your assessment? I guess it wasn’t.

12024. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No it was not. This project had not been

even discussed in -- there was no public discussion of this project in 2009 when

we had to finalize the project inclusion list.

12025. And I think it’s important to recognize that when projects like this

come up, and this is not atypical of a cumulative effects assessment in any part of

Canada, is that Shell, when they undertake their cumulative effects assessment,

will have to incorporate any other project around them. And so they will be

assessing the cumulative effects of adding their project to whatever else is on the

ground or proposed at the time that their project comes forward to a similar

process like this.

12026. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And you’ll agree that the construction

and operation of this facility could increase CAC emissions in the project effects

assessment area?

12027. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Only if it depends on the temporal

timeframe, again for the project, and we don’t know what the construction

schedule for this project will be.

12028. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And you haven’t looked into that, sir?

12029. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: Actually, the most recent major projects

list which is -- is now September, list that as being 2018/19. But again, they have

to apply, go through a full EIA. So it’s a ways away.

12030. MS. MORELLATO: Right. But it will be during the duration of

your project won’t it? Even if it happens in 2018-2019 or later; correct?

12031. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Well, if it’s 2018-2019, that would be

assuming a certificate is issued, this project would be constructed and operational.




12032. MS. MORELATTO: Right. And that would release CAC

emissions; correct?

12033. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: We’ve said that.

12034. MS. MORELATTO: Yes. Okay.

12035. Madam Chair, I notice the time. I’m almost done. That’s the good

news.

12036. And I’m hoping we can break now. And I’ll resume and try to wrap

up in about an hour and a half or so in the afternoon, maybe less than that if I can.

12037. THE CHAIRPERSON: Let’s take our lunch break now and come

back for one o’clock, please.

12038. Thank you.

--- Upon recessing at 12:00 p.m./L’audience est suspendue à 12h00

--- Upon resuming at 1:01 p.m./L’audience est reprise à 13h01







TOM WATSON: Resumed


PETER REID: Resumed

12039. THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there any preliminary matters which the

parties wish to raise at this point?

12040. Ms. Estep?

12041. MS. ESTEP: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Panel.

12042. We have two quick preliminary matters here. I just wanted to put for

the record that Ms. Munroe has rejoined the back row and Mr. Thompson has one




correction he’d like to address from his testimony this morning.

12043. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: In regard to the status of the Spirit

Pipeline team X-North, this morning I said it was withdrawn. In fact, it is on

hold.

12044. So, essentially, it’s one of those things that’s -- we’ll see what

happens.

12045. THE CHAIRPERSON: Seeing no other parties wishing to raise

preliminary matters, Ms. Morellato, please finish up with your questions of this

Panel.



(Continued/Suite)

12047. MS. MORELLATO: This morning, mention was made of an

assumption that there will be a vessel every two or three days at the port and

assessing emissions.

12048. I think, Mr. Reid, was that something you had said?


12050. MS. MORELLATO: And as I understand it, the evidence that’s been

given by Northern Gateway has been that there’s 1.2 transits per day given, I

believe, 220 vessels coming in and leaving.

12051. So if you average that out over the course of the year, it’s 1.2 transits

per day; correct?

12052. MR. PETER REID: I’m wondering right now if we were speaking to

the Kitimat LNG Project or to Gateway when we talked about the number of

vessels.

12053. MS. MORELLATO: I understood we were talking about Gateway.

12054. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, that is correct.




12055. It’s 1.2 transits per day, which means that, at any one time, on average,

there could be a vessel at the wharf and another vessel somewhere within the

channel assessment area. It could be moving out it could be coming in.


12057. And in addition to that, of course, there’ll be the tugs as well; right?


12059. And we assume for our modeling case that there was a vessel at each

of the jetties at all times. We just didn’t assume one vessel we assumed there

were two vessels, and the vessels behave differently.

12060. The condensate vessels actually run their auxiliary systems fairly hard

while they’re at the jetty pumping whereas the VLCCs are receiving cargo.


12062. MR. PETER REID: So we assume that they’re present at the jetty all

the time.


12064. And, sir, with respect to situations where there’s a storm at sea, I

understand Northern Gateway’s evidence is that the ships won’t venture out in

bad weather and they’ll hold at the terminal.

12065. Is that right?

12066. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: Again, I think the Shipping and

Navigation Panel is the best one to respond to those questions.

12067. MS. MORELLATO: All right. Then, let’s do that then.

12068. When we left off this morning, we were speaking to projects that are

found in the B.C. projects inventory that are identified as happening in the

Kitimat region, and we were at the aid to cross that dealt with 2012.




12069. And so just ask for that to be brought up. I believe it’s aid to cross

number 15. Yes, it is.

12070. And you’ll see there that there’s reference made to the Douglas

Channel Energy Project, and that’s a proposed natural gas liquefaction plant with

a targeted production of 900,000 tonnes per year.

12071. Sir, has this project -- you would agree, rather, that this project would

release CAC emissions in the project effects assessment area?

12072. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: If I could start first by saying this project

is included in the project inclusion list.

12073. It’s under a different name because, at the time we’d compiled the list,

it was referred to as the “TEEKAY Project”. And that’s, I believe, T-E-E-K-A-Y.


12075. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: And I’ll let Mr. Reid respond to the

question on CAC.

12076. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I think it’s fair at this point to interject that

we’re looking at a number of projects in a cumulative case that were not included

for one reason or another, either they’re outside of our assessment area or there

isn’t sufficient information to characterize them properly, or they MAY have too

small an effect.

12077. One big change in the Kitimat airshed in recent years has been the

shutting down and the permanent decommission of the Eurocan pulp mill.

12078. Now, we modeled Eurocan as a continuous source in our assessment.

Shortly after we finished, it was announced that it was being shut down. Now,

what that does in the airshed is that gets rid of a major source of PM2.5. I can -- if

we want to direct to some tables we can, but I can paraphrase here from them that

we’re decreasing our emissions of PM2.5 by 591 tonnes per year, and that

represents about 62 percent of the total emissions of PM2.5 in the airshed.

12079. With respect to sulphur dioxide, we’re reducing the emissions to the

airshed by 643 tonnes per year, and that’s about a 6 percent decrease in SO2.




12080. So the other side of the coin of some of these projects not being in is

that we’ve characterized some other projects that are not there any longer, that are

not operating and won’t be operating.

12081. I guess the other point to raise on particulate air quality in general is

that Kitimat has excellent air quality with respect to PM2.5. The annual average of

PM2.5 in Kitimat is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4 micrograms per cubic

metre and the B.C. government air quality objective is 8 with an aspirational

target of 6 and they’re already at 4.

12082. So there’s very little improvement that can be affected in terms of

PM2.5 in that community. It’s largely a function of the fact that we’ve got 6,000

kilometres of Pacific Ocean to the next large industrial sources in Asia, and we’ve

got a wet environment that is very good at suppressing and removing particulate

matter.


12084. And, sir, we’ll get to the list of what was included and what wasn’t and

what you consider to be hypothetical or reasonably foreseeable in just a moment.

I have your point.

12085. What I’d like to do now is just follow-up on this question on the

Douglas Channel Energy Project because that is a project that will involve

proposed natural gas with liquid to be exported by transport vessels.

12086. And so you would agree with me that that project, the construction and

operation of it, would release CAC emissions in the Kitimat PPEC -- or PPEA,

the Project Effects Assessment Area?

12087. MR. PETER REID: Yes, that among a lot of other activities ---


12089. MR. PETER REID: --- releases criteria air contaminants.


12091. And then, so that’s the Douglas Channel Energy Project. Now, the

next project I’d like to speak to you is not listed here but it is found in an aid to




cross and it involves Sandhill, and I believe that is Aid to Cross Number 16. Yes,

16.

12092. And you’ll see, sir, when it’s pulled up that it’s a document that

involves Arthon Industries Limited, the Sandhill Project - Kitimat - 100 Million

Tonnes of Sand.

12093. And under the project overview, it says:

“Sandhill materials and Arthon Industries Limited are B.C.

companies. Sandhill has acquired title to the major deposit of

natural aggregate materials known as Sandhill. The

companies are carrying out the following…” (As read)

12094. And then, it sets out development facilities, waterfront lands for

construction, storage and terminal facilities, secure committed markets for up to 4

million metric tonnes of product annually, et cetera. And so this is sand that’s

going to be exported.

12095. Sir, are you aware of this project or this proposed project?

12096. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: The Sandhills Project was actually

included in the base case for the analysis. The copies of the major projects list

that you submitted didn’t have everything. The ones -- the pages that you

submitted were the projects that were proposed, but there’s also another category

called “Started or Under Construction”.

12097. And you’ll find that if you look at both the 2009 list and the most

recent 2012, the Sandhills or Cascadia Project, as it was called, was considered

started in 2009 and 2012. So it was included.

12098. MS. MORELLATO: Oh, thank you, sir. I wasn’t aware of that. All

right. So ---

12099. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: And I’d just like to clarify. So what Mr.

Thompson referred to as the base case for the cumulative effects assessment ---


12101. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- I’d like Mr. Reid to speak to the actual




-- your air quality question.

12102. MS. MORELLATO: All right. So okay, please, sir.

12103. MR. PETER REID: So it wasn’t included in our assessment.

12104.

MS. MORELLATO: It was not?

12105. MR. PETER REID: It was not. The Sandhills Project ---


12107. MR. PETER REID: --- it may have been mentioned in another part

of the assessment, but it wasn’t included in the assessment. I think one of the

reasons for that is that, like I said before, we take our information at a certain

point, what’s in, what’s out, and we start working with that.

12108. Now, if in the process another project comes along and they decide to

include it in the project inclusion list, that boat has sailed. We can’t go back and

restart out work without setting back the schedule. So we have to make a decision

at that point; is it worth impacting the schedule of the assessment to include a

project? And in many cases, unless it was a major one that had major

implications on our source, we wouldn’t.

12109. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. All right.

12110. But you would agree that this project, the Sandhills Project, would

release CAC emissions in the project effect assessment area?

12111. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I can’t conceive of many activities that you

could do in Kitimat that wouldn’t release some CACs.

12112. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. The next document I’d like to take you

to is another aid to cross and it’s a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

document regarding Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project.

12113. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, is that AQ-17?

12114. MS. MORELLATO: Yes, it is. Thank you. Thank you.




12115. And this is a document from the Canadian Environmental Assessment

Registry. It’s entitled “Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project” and it references the

construction and operation of approximately 650-kilometre pipeline to deliver

natural gas to a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility near Kitimat.

12116. Sir, you’ll agree with me that the construction and operation of this

pipeline could release CAC emissions in the Kitimat project effects assessment

area?

12117. MR. PETER REID: Now, that’s a long linear project and there’s

some portion of that that’s going to be in the vicinity of Kitimat and there are

going to be some emissions in that area. We’ve characterized a lot of linear

developments and, in general, the emissions are fairly small for those.

12118. All you’ve got is heavy equipment operation and, like I mentioned,

some fugitive dust, and if you’re operating in this area, there isn’t much chance to

generate dust.

12119. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: If I can also add, that’s the project that

would link up to the other project you referred to in one of your earlier aids to

cross, the Shell LNG facility.

12120. MS. MORELLATO: Right. Okay.

12121. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: And these -- both these projects were only

begun to be talked about in 2011 and details have only begun to emerge on the

project in 2012.

12122. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. So for that reason then, sir, they weren’t

included in your assessment, correct?

12123. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: They’re not included in any of the

cumulative effects assessments for this project.


12125. So, sir, I just wanted to try to get a sense from Northern Gateway.

You indicated before lunch that you do not include hypothetical projects in your

cumulative assessment, and so we also know that CEAA has, as a best practice in

its guidelines, suggested that that be done.




12126. So my question is that it seems, therefore, that Northern Gateway has

chosen not to implement a best practice when it comes to cumulative impact

assessment, correct?

12127. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No, that’s not correct. And just as an

aside, I was a reviewer of the Cumulative Effects Practitioner’s Guide that the

guidance document you showed came from. Hypothetical projects are a difficult

component of a cumulative effects assessment.

12128. First of all, if you do not have a good footprint on the project, it’s very

hard to look at its spatial overlay with cumulative effects that you’re -- sorry, I’m

just going to move the mic here a bit -- it’s very difficult to look at cumulative

effects in a quantitative fashion.

12129. The second thing is if you don’t have operational information, such as

Mr. Reid would require on air quality, it’s extremely difficult to start predict ing

what that might be. So several of these hypothetical projects, they’re still at a

stage where it would be difficult for us to do a quantitative assessment,

incorporating them into the environmental assessment. Our choice is not to deal

with them because we cannot quantify them well.

12130. And in this case, it’s a highly sophisticated model with the need for

good input data.

12131. The second reason that we do not include them, as I said this morning,

is that under both the Environmental Acts of British Columbia and the

Environmental -- Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, all of these projects

would have to undergo a cumulative effects assessment themselves in which, if

this project was approved, we would either be part of the base case or, depending

on the timing, reasonably foreseeable case.

12132. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, you’ve included the Kitimat LNG in your

cumulative assessment, but that’s the only one, correct?

12133. MR. PETER REID: Yes, the Kitimat LNG Project was approved, I

believe, at that time and we had very good information on the emissions from that

project. And yes, we included it.

12134. MS. MORELLATO: So ---




12135. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: And that only applies, by the way, to the

air quality assessment for a number of the other components. Other projects were

included ---


12137. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: ---and we won’t go through those at this

time.

12138. MS. MORELLATO: Right. We’re talking about air quality

assessments. So of the list we’ve gone through then, which would Northern

Gateway accept as a reasonably foreseeable project that hasn’t -- that they haven’t

included?


12139. MR. PETER REID: Okay. The two that we didn’t include would be

the Douglas Channel Energy Project and Break Bulk facility.

12140. MS. MORELLATO: No, I’m talking about the air quality.


12142. MS. MORELLATO: What about the B.C. LNG Terminal?

12143. MR. PETER REID: That’s Kitimat LNG?

12144. MS. MORELLATO: No, the ---

12145. MR. PETER REID: That’s the same as Douglas Channel, isn’t it?

12146. MS. MORELLATO: Oh, is it? I wasn’t ---

12147. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So the ---

12148. MS. MORELLATO: Is that the same project? Okay.

12149. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- Douglas Channel Project was actually

-- that’s the same as Douglas Channel, isn’t it?




12150. MS. MORELLATO: Oh, is that -- is it? I wasn’t ---

12151. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So, the ---

12152. MS. MORELLATO: Is that the same project? Okay.

12153. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: The Douglas Channel project was actually

referred to in our assessment as ---


12155. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- the Merrill Lynch Teekay floating

LNG project because ---


12157. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- essentially it’s a pre-constructed LNG

facility that’s brought in on a ship and then just moored to the shoreline.

12158. MS. MORELLATO: What about the Coastal GasLink pipelines

project?

12159. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That was not included, as I’ve said,

because it was not a proposed project at the time we did our assessment and we

had no information on it ---

12160. MS. MORELLATO: Right. I appreciate that, but my question now

is on what you see as reasonably foreseeable that -- that’s a reasonable

foreseeable project, is it not?

12161. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No -- you have to understand that at the

time you do an assessment, reasonably foreseeable means that it’s been talked

about publicly and there’s information on it publicly.

12162. And at the time we did this assessment in 2010 -- this is a project that

was not even put onto the VC site until 2011, and only in 2012 has the Proponent

come forward and begun to do work and speak about what that project might be.

12163. So we -- it would be a hypothetical project and we, at that time, we




didn’t even know it was going to be built. So we couldn’t even hypothesize that

another LNG facility might be there.

12164. MS. MORELLATO: Yeah, I understand, sir. What I’m asking about

is whether it’s reasonably foreseeable in your view today. We’re talking about

today, right, because we need to be as up to date as possible here.

12165. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Well, if one was going to do a cumulative

effects assessment today, yes, it would be reasonably foreseeable. The other thing

would be that the Kitimat LNG project and the Kitimat Summit Lake pipeline

would be based case because they’re projects that are underway. The Kitimat

LNG facility, the site’s been cleared, they’re doing construction on the site as we

speak.

12166. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. And that’s the Summit Lake pipeline,

so that would be part of the analysis if you were to do it today, right? I think

that’s what you just said. I’m trying to understand here.

12167. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It would depend on what we’re looking at.

I think for -- we’ve said that it’s -- it will be constructed and completed ---


12169. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- before the construction of this project.

12170. The other thing that would happen is we would remove the Eurocan

facility from the assessment and that would change things substantially.

12171. The second and the other point was that Rio Tinto will likely have

better details on what their modernization means. It’s about installing more

energy efficient technology and that would likely change the contribution of that

facility, which I understood from Mr. Reid as being a very major contributor, both

for CACs and particulates.

12172. MS. MORELLATO: Right. So just so that we’re clear, was there

just -- was there one project that was on this list that I’ve asked you about in terms

of pending projects that the province has identified that hasn’t gone ahead? All

the other ones are still potentially pending, is that right, or they’ve started? It’s

just I think one that you said wasn’t going ahead, is that right? Or are there -- are

they all still possibly going ahead? Just trying to get your evidence correct on




this.

12173. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Mr. Thompson said the Spirit pipeline is

on hold.

12174. Mr. Thompson, do you want to walk through ---

12175. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: Yeah. The -- yeah -- the list is still long.

It’s still mostly proposed. The only sort of major changes is that the Pembina

Kitimat to Summit Lake pipeline has been withdrawn. The Spirit Pipeline TMX

is on hold, and the Alcan one is started.

12176. MS. MORELLATO: Is started.

12177. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: Yes.

12178. MS. MORELLATO: But all the other ones are still a possibility,

right? They haven’t ---

12179. MR. JOHN THOMPSON: Yeah. It’s interesting, PTP may have

started, but according to the major projects list, it’s still proposed, so ---

12180. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. All right. So PTP may have started.

All right. Thank you.

12181. With regard to the Kitimat LNG project, what assumptions do you

make in your analysis about the export capacity of that project?

12182. MR. PETER REID: I would have to go look into that assessment to

dig out that assumption, but it would have been what the capacity was announced

at the time and that was a while ago. I have no recollection of that.

12183. MS. MORELLATO: Perhaps I can assist a little bit. If I could take

you to the Aid to Cross Number 19, and it’s a project description of the Kitimat

LNG. There it is. And it’s under the “Quick facts”.

12184. So there you’ll see under the “Quick facts”, it says:

“Project number of shipments: five to seven per month; Export

capacity: initially five; Major provincial and federal




environmental approvals; National Energy Board export

license received for 10 MMTPA[s]. (As read)

12185. So sir, the project number of shipments is five to seven per month; is

that right?

12186. MR. PETER REID: I see that in there and I also see the MMTPA

which -- I’m not familiar with that unit of measure because when we -- we would

have designated it as the Proponent would have at the time in terms of Bcf --

billions of cubic feet of gas per day -- that would be the gas flowing into the

facility, not the product leaving.

12187. So I’m familiar with those -- with those numbers. And I think it was

about a 1 Bcf per day facility, but we could get hung up on measurements here if

we’re not careful.

12188. MS. MORELLATO: I sympathize, believe me.

12189. The -- that acronym, I believe, stands for million metric tonnes per

annum. And so you’ll see that -- that we have envisioned a doubling of the export

capacity of the Kitimat LNG from 5 MMTPAs to 10. Do you see that, sir?

12190. MR. PETER REID: Yes, I do. Five -- initially 5 and export licenses

for 10.

12191. MS. MORELLATO: And so you would agree with me that doubling

the export capacity of the Kitimat LNG would increase air pollution emissions in

the project effects assessment area; correct?

12192. MR. PETER REID: That doesn’t exactly follow. And I think the

devils in the details in this one in terms of what that means, because while they

may have an export license for a certain amount, the case that we’re relying on in

that assessment would be -- what we were told was the capacity of the facility. So

if they were going to increase the capacity, they would most likely have to update

their assessment to include what the effect of the increase in process heat is, for

example.

12193. The facility has relatively small emissions because they’re just using

electricity mainly to liquefy natural gas and they have just some process heat on

site, so it’s a relatively innocuous facility, again, like the Kitimat LNG facility.




The Kitimat LNG, like the Gateway facility, it’s all about the ship, it’s all about

the marine vessel. And we understand from the IMO commitment that Canada

and the United States have made is that that problem largely goes away.

12194. So in terms of its significance for air quality, any kind of increase in

the facility’s capacity isn’t a major factor. It burns natural gas -- practically the

cleanest fuel there is for process heat -- and it uses electricity.

12195. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, did you include the air pollution emissions

associated with this higher export capacity in your cumulative effects assessment?

12196. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, I’d understood maybe you’d

had a microphone malfunction there. I don’t believe we’re picking you up on the

transcript.

12197. MS. MORELLATO: Is it working now? Let me try.

12198. Can you hear me now? No.

12199. Can you hear me now? Okay.

12200. So my question, sir, was did Northern Gateway include the air

pollution emissions associated with this higher export capacity in your cumulative

effects assessment?

12201. MR. PETER REID: I don’t know that right now. I would have to

look into that, but that’s the best I can do right now as I’m not certain.

12202. MS. MORELLATO: Would this be an appropriate undertaking,

Madam Chair?

12203. MR. ROTH: Mr. Green might be able to answer. I noticed his light’s

on and he was looking like he was trying to say something.

12204. THE CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead, Mr. Green.

12205. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I was just trying to find in more detail as

to vessels which are the primary mechanism that we looked at in our air quality

assessment. The application for Kitimat LNG which, by the way, has changed

multiple times, they’ve had three changes.




12206. The first two EAs for this project were actually for importing natural

gas to Canada. Then they filed an amendment to that to begin exporting and that

was the first one that we went to. So it would have been the original capacity, not

the expanded capacity. And what we looked at was they predicted 70 to 90

vessels as a likely tanker volume with 48 to 60 being the more likely range.

12207. I think we have to be cautious about assuming than an increase in

capacity would mean a directly proportional increase in vessels because the

application also talks about the ability to use larger LNG vessels at this facility.

So the larger the vessel, the more natural gas it can take and, therefore, it may not

be a directly linear relationship between an increase and a number of vessels.

12208. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. All right. So the answer is that that

wasn’t included. Sir, if I could take you to this question of whether Northern

Gateway’s cumulative effect assessment has evaluated any changes in Northern

Gateway’s operations over the next 30-year period?

12209. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No, it has not, because one does an impact

assessment based on what you call your assessment basis. That’s what you were

referring to earlier when you went to Volume 6b or 8b. I’m not sure which one it

was ---


12211. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: --- but the project description in the

environmental assessment is what we based our assessment on. And any change

to the project, as in terms of changing capacity, would require a separate

application and a separate assessment.

12212. MS. MORELLATO: Is there any intention to increase capacity in

the foreseeable future?

12213. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: No, there’s not. And any potential

expansion would be subject to further approval through the National Energy

Board.

12214. MS. MORELLATO: Yes, I understand that, Mr. Carruthers.

12215. And so let’s say in the next 10 years, Northern Gateway does not




intend to expand its capacity?

12216. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: We have no current plans to expand

the capacity.

12217. MS. MORELLATO: Okay. Now, sir, can you confirm that in

response to the federal government’s information request, Enbridge stated that

they would complete a revised air quality dispersion modelling assessment if

there are additional emission sources that would change ambient air quality

concentrations?

12218. MR. PETER REID: Yes. In the environmental assessment,

recognizing that a lot of information changed on us at the last minute, we offered

that if it was requested, we would remodel that. And I also have to point out that

we’ve got a number of other assessments that are coming up in this area that will

actually be doing that for us, but if there is a need to redo it, it’s something that

we’ve offered to do.

12219. MS. MORELLATO: And, sir, based on what we’ve discussed today

and the evidence you’ve given today on the potential increases and CAC

concentrations, will Northern Gateway agree to complete a revised air quality

analysis that includes these additional projects?

12220. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: As Mr. Reid has mentioned, there’s a

lot of analysis that’s being done by others in this air shed, and so that informat ion

would be available to us in the future. And you know, should we be directed by

the Board to do such further analysis, we would. We’ve made the offer to the

government in the past -- to the federal government in the past, so we’d look to

their direction.

12221. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, you would agree with me that a proper

cumulative effects assessment must be done before this Panel renders its decision

on whether there are significant adverse air quality effects, wouldn’t you?

12222. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: We believe that a very thorough analysis

has been completed based on the information we had at that time, and that from

those we came to our conclusions.

12223. When there are -- with any kinds of project planning like this, there are

a lot of projects that are added and projects that are taken away, facilities that




change their existing emissions profiles.

12224. So it is always a bit of a moving target. So we’re no different than any

other project in that respect and we believe that we did a thorough analysis based

on the information we had at hand at that time.

12225. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, I’ll respectfully ask the question again, and

that is, it’s a yes or no question. Would Northern Gateway agree that a proper

cumulative effects assessment must be done before this Panel renders its decision

on whether the significant air quality impacts are of concern or not?

12226. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: I respectfully submit that I answered

your question.

12227. MS. MORELLATO: Sir, would you agree that the additional

evidence that we’re asking for here, to include these other projects in your

assessment, must be reviewed and tested in this hearing process by the intervenor

so that we have an opportunity to see what you’ve done and see whether we have

an opportunity to respond to it and test it?

12228. MR. ROTH: Madam Chair, I’ll, I guess, cut in. She tried to establish

a base for this and the responses have been -- and Mr. Green has done this and

Mr. Reid -- you have to cut off at some point in time to be reasonable. These

models take a long time to re-run. And the reason it’s not necessary is because

the next proponent has to do it.

12229. So it’s not as if this information won’t become available. If any of

these projects plan on proceeding, the proponents of those projects will have to

undertake their own environmental assessments, which will include their own

baseline project cases and cumulative effects cases for future project development

should they proceed. So it’s not as if this will not occur.

12230. The other premise to the question, though, which is quite concerning,

was the suggestion that there’s been increasing emissions, and that’s not the

evidence at all. The evidence is that the standards for sulphur and fuel have gone

down, and that will substantially reduce emissions from vessel traffic.

12231. The Eurocan Project has been closed down since the modelling work

for this project. And although it’s not certain, there’s some suggestion that the

emissions from the Rio Tinto Plant, under its modernization project, likely have




gone down.

12232. So the next project proponent will be able to take all of that into

account and there’s really no basis whatsoever for suggesting that there hasn’t

been an adequate assessment of the cumulative effects of future projects that were

reasonably foreseeable at the time, having been undertaken by Northern Gateway.

12233. So I don’t -- I object to the suggestion that this hasn’t been done and

the request for an undertaking that we do it now.

12234. MS. MORELLATO: Madam Chair, their evidence has come on the

record that there are projects that are -- that have started that have not been

included in Northern Gateway’s cumulative impact assessment on air quality

emissions. There’s evidence on the record, admissions that there are foreseeable

projects that have not been included in their assessment.

12235. There’s -- we’re not talking about future assessments; we’re talking

about Northern Gateway’s assessment. And they’ve admitted that there are

projects that have started and that are about to start that have not been included in

their assessment. You know, if they wish not to provide this information then

we’ll deal with it in the courtroom but, in all due respect, this is important

information the public ought to know.

12236. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Roth, any additional comments?

12237. MR. ROTH: No, Madam Chair.


12238. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, I believe you got the answer

to the question that you had raised from the witnesses.

12239. Did you have another question in this area? I’m --

12240. MS. MORELLATO: Yes, Madam Chair, the question I had was

whether Northern Gateway would actually include in its assessment the

information regarding started projects and additional projects that are about to

start, in their assessment?

12241. And in particular, they agreed to complete a revised air quality




analysis that included additional projects, if that was necessary, as I understand it

in their IR response to the government’s request.

12242. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, you’re losing me.

12243. Can you tell me what the question was that you’re -- because I thought

you got your answer to the question and I’m just wondering, did you have another

question on this that you wanted to pose?

12244. MS. MORELLATO: And perhaps I don’t think I heard and if I -- if

Northern Gateway’s agreed to do an additional assessment that, that’s -- then, I’ve

gotten my response that I was looking for. But --

12245. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, so is your question that: Is

Northern Gateway prepared to do the additional assessment?

12246. MS. MORELLATO: Yes, the question ---

12247. THE CHAIRPERSON: And I thought that an answer was given on

that but perhaps it’s me.

12248. MS. MORELLATO: I think it was ---

12249. THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you could pose that question again

and we will see where we go from there.

12250. MS. MORELLATO: Sure. That’s fair.

12251. My concern is that it seemed to be a qualified response. And so, I --

12252. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Morellato, just pose the question,

please.

12253. MS. MORELLATO: Can you confirm that in response to the federal

government’s information quest, Enbridge stated that they would complete a

revised air quality dispersion model assessment if there was additional emission

sources that would change the ambient air quality concentrations?

12254. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: So to confirm we believe that we have


Examination by Ms. Griffith


done a thorough and adequate assessment of the air quality in current and

predicted cases for this project and from a cumulative perspective as well.

12255. Should we be directed to do so, we would conduct further analysis but

that -- but we believe that that’s not required given all of the information that has

been given today and all the caveats around the modelling that has been done to

date and around the cases and projects that were included in the cumulative

effects assessment.


12257. That is the question that I asked and the answer that I was hoping to

get clarification on.

12258. And those are my questions.

12259. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Morellato.

12260. So we’ll let Ms. Morellato pick up her materials and call next the

Haisla Nation.


12261. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. McCormick and Ms.

Griffith.

12262. I was just waiting to see who was going to pull the microphone closest

to them to find out who was starting off.

12263. Ms. Griffith, please -- please being your questions of this witnesses

panel when you’re ready.

--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. GRIFFITH:

12264. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

12265. Good afternoon Madam Chair, Panel Members, staff from the NEB,

and witnesses. It’s good to be here in Prince Rupert.

12266. Most of my questions are going to focus on the marine terminal but,




before we go there, I’d like to ask some questions about the Errata that was filed.

12267. So if we could please have Exhibit B173-2, page 10. This is the Errata

that Northern Gateway filed on December 4th

and if we go about half -- a third of

the way down the page there, great.

12268. The line under the solid grey line -- no, actually -- okay, that’ll work.

Right there.

12269. About halfway down the page there for the Marine Ecological Risk

Assessment for the Kitimat terminal, there’s a reference to Errata in B9-19 and

then if we move to the right we see that there’s a reference to Table 3-1 and then

we see the actual Errata. And that is we see that: “1,2,4-trichlorobenzene” has

been replace with “1,2,4-trimethylbenzene.”

12270. And if we scroll a little further to the right, we’ll see that the rationale

for the Errata is that it was a clerical error.

12271. Now, I understand that 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is a volatile, organic

compound; is that correct?

12272. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, that’s correct.

12273. MS. GRIFFITH: And I also understand that 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

has a different level of toxicity for aquatic organisms than 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene.

12274. Is that your understanding as well?

12275. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Ah, yes. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene as

opposed to the methyl -- the trichlorobenzene is more toxic than the trimethyl.

12276. MS. GRIFFITH: And how much more toxic is it?

12277. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: In the range of a factor of two.

12278. MS. GRIFFITH: Factor of two?

12279. So would it be possible for you to give me the LC50 numbers for

trichloromethylbenzene and – sorry, trichlorobenzene and trimethylbenzene? The

1,2,4 compounds?




12280. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: We could.

12281. What I’d say about this is that the lab that conducted the analysis

notified us that there had been a -- it was their reporting problem. And so they

corrected the -- so this is the lab, it’s not strictly a clerical error. It was the lab

that did the analysis on the samples.

12282. And these were -- just a minute.


12283. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So this was an analysis of the hydrocarbon

samples.

12284. And so they identified that they had identified it as 1,2 trichloro, where

it should have been 1,2,4 trimethyl.

12285. MS. GRIFFITH: And the errata that Northern Gateway filed, did it

include the revised analysis report from the lab showing the proper analysis?

12286. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: We can provide that.

12287. MS. GRIFFITH: That would be great. If you could do that then

maybe I’ll shelve these. Can you provide it tomorrow?

12288. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: We will undertake to do that, yes.

12289. MS. GRIFFITH: Okay, then I’ll maybe move on to some other parts

of my questions which still actually relate to this errata.

12290. THE CHAIRPERSON: Can we just get an undertaking number for

that before we move on, just to make sure that we’ve got it captured?



For Mr. Green to provide the revised analysis report from the lab showing the

proper analysis.




12292. MS. GRIFFITH: In reviewing the marine terminal ERA and in also

looking at some of the spills risk assessment studies done throughout those

assessments, the 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene has been considered, but the 1,2,4

trimethylbenzene has not, as far as I can tell; can you confirm that?

12293. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So the 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene is more

toxic than the 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene. So all of our analyses included the 1,2,4

trichlorobenzene, and as a result, we’ve actually used the more toxic substance in

all of our analyses. So actually, the ecological and human health risk assessment

is using a more toxic component in the hydrocarbon than actually existed. So it

would not change our conclusions in the ecological human health risk assessment.

12294. MS. GRIFFITH: And do 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene and 1,2,4

trimethylbenzene have the exact same effects mechanisms?

12295. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, it’s a narcosis effect that we’re

looking at and they would operate in a similar fashion.

12296. MS. GRIFFITH: And do the various marine species have the same

sensitivity to trichlorobenzene as they would to trimethylbenzene?

12297. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Within the concept of the trichlorobenzene

being more toxic, yes. So it would apply to -- it would be more toxic to marine

biota so we’ve actually used -- we’ve used a more toxic substance but in reality

it’s a less toxic substance.

12298. MS. GRIFFITH: From what I understand though in your risk

assessments, you’ve looked at a whole number of substances and you haven’t

looked just at the most toxic substance and then foregone analysis of all the other

substances on that basis.

12299. So can an analysis of 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene substitute -- or an

assessment of the effects of 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene substitute for an assessment of

the effects of 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene?

12300. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So essentially our analysis is conservative

because we’ve used the less toxic substance -- or rather we’ve used the more toxic

substance when in reality it’s less toxic.

12301. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Mr. Green, but that doesn’t answer the




question which is, can the analysis of one substance, in this instance 1,2,4

trichlorobenzene substitute for an analysis of another substance, 1,2,4

trimethylbenzene?

12302. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes. We believe that this is -- it is

equivalent in the sense that it’s -- changing the substances will not change the

outcome and it’s one substance in a very complex mix in the hydrocarbons.

12303. MS. GRIFFITH: And when you say “changing the substance will

not change the outcome”, it’s the outcome of what particular study you’re

referring to there or what particular assessment?

12304. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: The ecological risk assessment. So

essentially when we look at the toxic effects of the oil we’ve actually, in this case,

used a substance that’s more toxic when it should have been a substance was

slightly less toxic.

12305. MS. GRIFFITH: Could we please have Exhibit B9-24, page 23.

And if we could just please scroll down a little bit until we find that. That should

be good.

12306. We see there towards the end the 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene as reported in

the original lab assessment, and we see numbers associated for that for diluted

bitumen, for synthetic crude and for condensate. And is the information you have

from the laboratory that it’s simply the wrong word in the left column or are the

numbers also different in that lab analysis?

12307. In other words, did the lab analysis in fact find 610 milligrams, I think

it’s milligrams per litre of -- milligrams per kilogram of 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene in

the diluted bitumen?

12308. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, so the values remain the same,

instead of saying1,2 trichloro, it should say trimethyl. So only the name in the

first column would change and not the value.

12309. MS. GRIFFITH: And when did the lab inform Northern Gateway of

this error?

12310. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It was approximately two months ago and

this errata was actually filed for the previous panel in Prince George. To be clear,




the Pipeline Emergency Response Panel in Prince George.

12311. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Dr. Green; I didn’t see it until

December 4th.

12312. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: You’re upgrading me.


12313. MS. GRIFFITH: Mr. Green.

12314. Although I think by the end of these hearings, you might have earned

it.

12315. Sorry, and just to confirm, the lab analysis or the error wasn’t based on

an analysis of different samples, this was an error made in the analysis of the

original samples the lab had; is that correct?

12316. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It was an error in the reporting, so it was a

clerical error by the lab. So it doesn’t affect the samples, it had nothing to do with

the analysis. It was a clerical error by the laboratory.

12317. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Mr. Green.

12318. I’ll move on now to questions relating to the marine terminal. And am

I correct in understanding that both dredging at the marine terminal and blasting

at the marine terminal is anticipated to result in excess material?


12320. MS. GRIFFITH: And Northern Gateway’s intention is to dispose of

this excess material in an area it is calling “the excess cut disposal area on land”;

is that correct?


12322. MS. GRIFFITH: And I ---

12323. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’m sorry, can I just make a small

correction there.




12324. So during blasting under water, it’s impossible to capture all the

material. It’s -- we’re in a very steep slope fiord so there will be some loss of

material downslope, and the remaining material will -- that can be captured will

be brought above water and then taken on land.

12325. MS. GRIFFITH: And the amount of material anticipated to be

dredged is approximately 30,000 cubic metres; is that correct?


12327. MS. GRIFFITH: But some of that is anticipated to escape the dredge

buckets and end up elsewhere; is that also correct?

12328. MR. DAVID FISSEL: Yeah -- yes, that’s correct.

12329. MS. GRIFFITH: And from what I understand from the blasting, the

amount of material anticipated to be removed by blasting is approximately 25,000

cubic metres; correct?

12330. MR. DAVID FISSEL: Yes, that’s correct.

12331. MS. GRIFFITH: And I also stand at about 40 percent of that won’t

be recoverable and will end up on the bottom; is that also correct?

12332. MR. DAVID FISSEL: Yes, I believe that’s the right figure.

12333. MS. GRIFFITH: And the total material then which is anticipated to

be deposited at the excess cut disposal area from marine dredging and blasting is

approximately 45,000 cubic metres, does that sound right?

12334. MR. DAVID FISSEL: So let’s see if we’ve got this right. It’d be

about 40 percent of the 25,000 cubic metres from blasting, and that’s about

10,000, and then there’s a very small amount that’s lost in the course of dredging,

it’s -- it’s approximately 1 percent of the 30,000 cubic metres. So that would be

about 3,000. So that would make 13,000 in total. Is that right? Oh, sorry, no --

10 percent of 30,000 is -- yeah, 3,000 cubic metres, so 1 percent is 300 cubic

metres.

12335. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Mr. Fissel.




12336. What I’m trying to get at is the number -- the volume of material that

would be disposed of on land so I think it’s the ---

12337. MR. DAVID FISSEL: Oh, I see, yes.

12338. MS. GRIFFITH: --- the -- off the ---

12339. MR. DAVID FISSEL: Yeah, so it’d be 10,000 plus ---

12340. MS. GRIFFITH: Approximately 40 ---

12341. MR. DAVID FISSEL: --- almost all of the 30,000, so that would 99

percent of the 30,000.

12342. MS. GRIFFITH: And this is in addition to the 3 million cubic metres

that -- of material that’s anticipated to be deposited as a result of grading at the

tank terminal; is that correct?

12343. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: Now, I -- I’m not sure if you’re going

to stay on the marine side or on -- on the lands -- the construction side of the -- the

terminal but those were questions that we had the right people available in Prince

George in terms of the terminal construction and tank terminal.

12344. MS. GRIFFITH: Could I please have Exhibit B3-12, page 30?

12345. And about halfway -- halfway down the page there we see a reference

to blasting and grading, and we see that site grading for the tank lot will generate

approximately 3 million cubic metres of excess cut material.

12346. Can you confirm that this is what Northern Gateway’s application

says?

12347. MR. JOHN CARRUTHERS: That’s what the application, as I read

it says, yes.

12348. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Mr. Carruthers.

12349. Does Northern Gateway know what the total area of land is that is

expected to be covered by the excess cut material?




12350. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Maybe -- maybe just to explain here the

reason we’re having some difficult answering some of these questions and -- and

know it’s this application is quite confusing and complex -- is that the land

terminal, or what we call a “tank terminal”, was assessed as part of the pipeline

and I think Paul and I are the only two people from the pipeline panel still here.

12351. And then the panel here today is for the marine terminal which is all

the infrastructure from the high riparian zone down. We’ll try to answer your

questions as best as we can. We may not have the right people here for answering

those questions.


12352. MR. ROTH: Madam Chair, if it speeds things up, I might suggest,

there is a little bit of confusion. There’s overlap in the volumes so the volume

we’re referring to is -- we just don’t have any engineers on this panel. We’ve got

emails out to them right now, and we -- maybe if we just -- if it’s not critical to

your next question, we will provide an undertaking to -- to tell you how much of

that 3 million cubic metres, if anything, has to be disposed of off -- off of the

terminal site or however you want us to phrase the undertaking.

12353. MS. GRIFFITH: I’m not as concerned about the volume that has to

be disposed of in the excess cut area, I’m just trying to get a sense of the area

covered by excess cut material.

12354. But I’m happy to move on with questions on the understanding that I’ll

get that information at some point.

12355. MR. ROTH: Okay, and we -- like, I can provide it off the record to --

to you and then we can put it on the record, if you want, just to make sure we get

the information you need.

12356. MS. GRIFFITH: I would like it on the record.

12357. MR. ROTH: Yeah, okay. So I’m just having a problem clarifying

the undertaking. So on the undertaking you want to know how -- how much area

will have to be covered at the excess disposal area or how much area is being

excavated to -- to get the material?

12358. MS. GRIFFITH: The question is, what is the total area of land that is




expected to be covered by the excess cut material?

12359. MR. ROTH: And by “the land” you’re saying land off of the terminal

site?

12360. MS. GRIFFITH: Just an area of land; it doesn’t matter whether it’s

on the terminal site or off the terminal site. I understand that the excess cut

disposal area is off the terminal site. I’m just trying to get a sense of how much

vegetation will be squashed, essentially.

12361. MR. ROTH: Okay. That -- that makes it very clear.


12362. THE CHAIRPERSON: I -- I don’t think we’ve had a clearer record

today than that.


12363. MS. GRIFFITH: Which leads me to my next question: am I correct

---

12364. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can we get ---

12365. MS. GRIFFITH: Oh sorry.

12366. THE CHAIRPERSON: Let’s just get an undertaking number for

that.



For Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) to provide the expectation of

what the total area of land that is expected to be covered by excess cut

material will be.

12368. MS. GRIFFITH: Am I correct in assuming that this excess cut

material will cover or smother any existing vegetation on that land?






12370. MS. GRIFFITH: And, in fact, it’ll be a big pile of rock, clay and

other excess soils; correct?

12371. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I think that’s a fair assumption of what the

base material will be.

12372. As to what the final reclamation plan would be, I don’t know off the

top of my head.

12373. MS. GRIFFITH: And how -- is there any potential for acid rock

drainage?

12374. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: There’s no one on this Panel to speak to

acid rock drainage, but our understanding is that there is very little to no potential

for acid rock drainage.

12375. MS. GRIFFITH: So has the rock at the terminal site that’s below

water been analyzed to see whether it’s acid containing and whether exposure to

air could result in acid rock drainage?


12376. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Again, I apologize that there’s no one

here on this Panel that can speak to acid rock drainage in any detail. So I’m not

sure if there was any sampling done.

12377. It’s my understanding that this is not an area that they were concerned

about for acid rock drainage, and if there was to be any encountered, we do have

mitigation measures to deal with that.

12378. But again, I do not believe this is an area that we were concerned at all

with acid rock drainage.

12379. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Griffith? Sorry, would this be an

appropriate time to take the afternoon break and ---




12380. MS. GRIFFITH: I have one more question ---

12381. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure, absolutely.

12382. MS. GRIFFITH: --- but I’m concerned that we don’t have the right

people here, and then it’ll be a natural time for a break.

12383. THE CHAIRPERSON: Great, thank you.

12384. MS. GRIFFITH: How will the excess cut area be managed so that it

does not have adverse effects on the area’s hydrology?


12385. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Could I ask you to repeat the question,

please?

12386. MS. GRIFFITH: How will the excess cut area be managed so that it

does not have adverse effects on area hydrology?

12387. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: And the excess cut area that you’re

referring to, is that at the marine terminal or at the tank terminal?

12388. MS. GRIFFITH: Sorry, I’m actually -- the access cut disposal area.

So you put a big pile of stuff down and water flows differently.

12389. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I’m glad I asked that you repeat the

question. Thank you.


12390. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So we have been searching here and, in

Volume B3-12, there is a discussion of acid rock drainage, and it basically says:

“Geochemical testing of the shoreline near the marine terminal

has shown there is little risk of acid rock drainage and metal

leaching from soils or rick disturbed during terminal

construction. For these reasons, acid rock drainage is not

expected to result in changes in water or sediment quality ...”




12391. So it says little risk and so, obviously, there would be monitoring to

address that and -- Mr. Anderson, do you want to?

12392. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: And with respect to the hydrology of the

area for the disposal site, a reclamation plan would be developed for that area and

a component of which will be ensuring that the hydrology is not negatively

affected.

12393. Re-contouring and re-vegetation would be included as part of that

reclamation plan.

12394. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you.

12395. So this would be an appropriate time now for the afternoon break.

12396. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We’ll come back at

2:30, please.

--- Upon recessing at 2:16 p.m./L’audience est suspendue à 14h16

--- Upon resuming at 2:32 p.m./L’audience est reprise à 14h32

12397. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, everyone, for being back

promptly.

12398. Ms. Griffith, please -- yes, we have all the witnesses. I do need to

make sure I do that check.

12399. Ms. Griffith, please continue with your questions of this Panel.

12400. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Madam Chair.







TOM WATSON: Resumed


JOHN REID: Resumed




--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. GRIFFITH:

(Continued/Suite)

12401. MS. GRIFFITH: The construction of the marine terminal is

estimated to result in the disturbance of up to 1,000 metres, or one kilometre of

marine riparian vegetation; is that correct?


12403. MS. GRIFFITH: And this is along the shoreline; correct?

12404. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, it’s approximately one kilometre of

shoreline.

12405. In the Marine Fisheries Habitat Compensation Plan, we actually

estimate all of the different types of habitat losses.

12406. MS. GRIFFITH: And what I understand the habitat loss estimate to

be for marine riparian vegetation, it’s 18,339 square metres; correct?

12407. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That’s correct.

12408. MS. GRIFFITH: And am I also correct in understanding that the

marine riparian vegetation consists of shrubs as well as Western Hemlock,

Western Red Cedar, Amabilis fur, Sitka Spruce and some Douglas fir?

12409. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Those would be the major species.

12410. MS. GRIFFITH: And as has been confirmed by Northern Gateway

in previous panels, a number of CMTs, both pre and post-1846 have been

identified on the lands Northern Gateway proposes to use for the tank terminal.

12411. Is it possible that this marine vegetarian -- sorry, marine riparian

vegetation also includes CMTs?


12412. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It’s possible that CMTs could incur --

occur within that marine riparian zone. There’s CMTs throughout the site.





12414. Could we please have Exhibit B3-12, page 196? And if we could just

scroll down to the bottom there, the “Prediction Confidence”.

12415. What we see here is that the prediction confidence for marine riparian

vegetation is moderate because not much is known about current availability and

status of marine vegetation in the region.

12416. Is that correct?

12417. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, we know less about marine riparian

vegetation -- abundance and structure.

12418. MS. GRIFFITH: And what does the word, “region”, refer to?

12419. Is that the PDA, the PEAA, or the REAA? Or is it a different area

altogether?

12420. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No, it would refer to the Regional Effects

Assessment Area.

12421. MS. GRIFFITH: And couldn’t the absence of information about

currently availability -- current availability and status of marine riparian

vegetation have been easily cured through field investigations and surveys?


12422. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I think the simple answer is: Yes, field

surveys could have been done.

12423. The area that is encompassed within the Regional Effects Assessment

Area would include, for example, the area from Elmslea Cove through along to

our site, the Rio Tinto area, the working waterfront of Kitimat, and then around to

Kitamaat Village and slightly beyond that.

12424. So the -- that would be the region in which we’re referring to here.

12425. MS. GRIFFITH: And so the prediction confidence reference here is




-- unlike in some of the EA reports I think I’ve seen -- based on the REAA and

not the PEAA; is that correct?

12426. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Sorry, could you just repeat the question

again, please? I didn’t quite catch it.

12427. MS. GRIFFITH: I probably didn’t word it very well.

12428. It’s been my understanding from some of the other sections of the EA

I’ve -- or the ESA I’ve seen that the prediction confidence is discussed in terms of

the predicted effects which are usually set out in the context of a percentage of

impact within the PEAA.

12429. But are you saying that, for the marine riparian vegetation, you looked

at the REAA?

12430. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: We would have quantified the amount of

marine riparian vegetation affected within the Project Development Area, the

PDA. The -- I just need to check on the Project Effects Assessment Area.


12431. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Sorry.

12432. It’s -- right at the very beginning, it does refer to it’s a long-term loss

of approximately 0.2 percent of the marine riparian habitat in the Project Effects

Assessment Area.

12433. MS. GRIFFITH: Although, I understand the errata has it at 2.62

percent now?

12434. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: That sounds -- we can proceed.

12435. MS. GRIFFITH: So the additional studies and field work which

could have been done to cure the lack of information, could have been limited to

the PEAA; couldn’t they?


12436. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So our surveys that we did do within the




Project Effects Assessment Area focused primarily on the highest high tide mark

and down.

12437. Marine riparian, it’s an odd beast in a sense because it would have

been partially captured in the terrestrial vegetation assessment, which was

primarily air photo based, with some ground truthing as we discussed in Panel 2b.

So it used terrestrial ecosystem mapping.

12438. The marine surveys focused on the marine habitat so it -- we don’t

have field data specifically for the marine riparian zone.

12439. MS. GRIFFITH: And just to confirm the -- we discussed the or you

referred to the extent of the field surveys that would have been required to assess

the shoreline of the Regional Effects Assessment Area but, really, additional

fieldwork to assess the shoreline of the Project Effects Assessment Area, which is

significantly shorter in terms of shoreline length, would not have been

unreasonable; would it?


12440. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So, no, our surveys were focused on the

PDA. We didn’t do the complete surveys for the Project Effects Assessment

Area.

12441. MS. GRIFFITH: And wouldn’t it have been reasonable to do those

surveys so that you could get a higher prediction confidence than moderate?

12442. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I think it’s fair to say that I’m not sure

why they weren’t done but, yes, I think it would have improved the prediction

confidence.

12443. What we can say is that, as part of the Marine Habitat Compensation

Plan -- so the Marine Fisheries Habitat Compensation Plan -- DFO does consider

marine riparian habitat to be a contributing component.

12444. While fish may not be in the habitat, it provides shading and a variety

of other values. So the intent is to do detailed assessments before and after the --

so before any construction starts on the site, we would be looking at the actual

finalized footprint of the Marine Terminal, including the land based components

and calculating -- determining what the habitat is.




12445. We would make predictions about what the loss of that habitat might

be. Post-construction, there would be surveys, again, to determine whether our

predictions were right or wrong, or how accurate they were and there would be a

correction. And the Habitat Compensation Plan would be based on that finalized

assessment. So there will be surveys done within any of the disturbed area.

12446. Part of the problem we had here was that the Marine Terminal itself,

the actual design, has been an evolving process. We had to fix it in here, in the

assessment basis.

12447. My understanding of -- they’re moving away from a more -- I’m going

to call it -- robust structure to a more of a -- I’m trying to think of the right word --

sort of a, more of a trestle like facility that’s above the water.

12448. MS. GRIFFITH: But here today, at the time at which this project is

being assessed, we just don’t have the information to take that prediction

confidence above moderate; do we?

12449. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: No, we don’t.

12450. MS. GRIFFITH: And if we could just scroll up that page a little bit,

please, to the Cumulative Effects Implications, there’s a -- sorry, it’s still on page

196 under the heading “Cumulative Effects Implications”, about midway down.

12451. In about the middle of that paragraph is a sentence that says:

“In addition, the terminal is within an area designated as

industrial and forest licence lands by the District of

Kitimat[…]. As a result, the cumulative change in the

availability of marine riparian habitat, although large, is not

expected to alter substantially the long-term sustainability of

this community type or the species that rely upon it. The

change is also not out of context for a municipal area zoned for

industrial use.”

12452. It is standard CEAA practice to forecast the way in which land may

potentially be used in the future to determine whether or not the proposed project

will have significant adverse environmental effects?




12453. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I -- I would say that’s what one would

refer to as “context” and the -- the sentence before that actually talks to something

I mentioned earlier and that says that there has been substantial disturbance of

marine riparian estuarine habitats as a result of a number of developments around

the Kitimat area.

12454. But that -- within the project effects assessment area and along

Douglas Channel very similar types of shorelines are -- are -- exist and, as an

example, the marine environmental sensitivity atlases do provide some level of

information about that -- the occurrence of those habitat types along the foreshore

of -- of this area.

12455. So the -- I don’t have the numbers here right in front of me, we could

find them. The rocky shoreline type that’s in front of the marine terminal area,

the marine riparian area that will be disturbed is the most common habitat type in

the confined channel assessment area.

12456. Now, that’s the shoreline type, the rock type, it’s not referring to the

vegetation components but that type of shoreline is the most common shoreline in

the confined channel assessment area.

12457. MS. GRIFFITH: So from that I take it that the reference to the fact

that the proposed terminal is in area designated as industrial and forest licensed

lands is not relevant to the assessment of whether the project’s proposed impacts

will be significant is it?

12458. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Sorry, I -- I didn’t answer that part of your

question very well.

12459. The context is important in that land use planning sets what may or

may not be an acceptable change. And when an area is zoned as industrial I think

the tolerance for change is obviously much higher than in an area that might be

designated as a protected area.

12460. And -- and so it does influence how one might determine whether

something or not may be significant so it’s -- it’s what’s referred to as “context”

in the guidance documents under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

12461. MS. GRIFFITH: And just so I can confirm what I -- what I think

I’ve heard then, it is standard CEAA practice to base significance assessments on




context; is that correct?

12462. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I would rephrase it slightly as one

integrates context into the determination of significance.



12464. MS. GRIFFITH: Now, the marine terminal ESA was conducted to

meet the requirements of the National Energy Board Act and of the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act, is that correct.

12465. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’m sorry, yes.

12466. MS. GRIFFITH: And as part of the requirements it has to meet

under the -- under CEAA the ESA must set out anticipated environmental effects,

cumulative environmental effects, significance of environmental effects, and

mitigation measures and monitoring requirements; is that correct?

12467. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes. I would just add monitoring and

follow-up to your last point.

12468. MS. GRIFFITH: And would you agree that potential changes in

species diversity, abundance, and distribution, and changes in habitat quality are

all environmental effects for the purposes of a CEAA assessment?


12470. MS. GRIFFITH: And would you agree that if the changes have a

negative impact on species or habitat they could be adverse effects?


12472. MS. GRIFFITH: And would you agree that if the changes are -- of

considerable magnitude or duration they could be significant adverse effects?

12473. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, if they met the criteria for

significance as defined in -- in our assessment.




12474. MS. GRIFFITH: And would you agree that in order to set out

anticipated environmental effects the ESA would have to contain sufficient

information to allow a responsible authority or a decision maker to determine

what the environmental effects are, the significance of the effects, what mitigation

measures are required, and what monitoring or follow-up may be required?

12475. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, that’s reasonable.


12477. And we see at the -- the very first line of the text here on this page that

“Nearshore fish surveys were conducted in late summer 2005.”

12478. Now, could I please have Exhibit B9-25, page 32? If we could just

scroll up to the bottom of the previous page, that would be great.

12479. Again: “Nearshore fish surveys”, we see that this is from the marine

fish and fish habitat TDR and it -- it describes the “Nearshore fish surveys were

conducted in late summer 2005” and that the “Bish Cove...” area was surveyed

“...in August and September 2005”.

12480. Has Northern Gateway done any fish surveys in the marine terminal

area since the surveys referred to in these two exhibits?


12481. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So -- so no additional fish surveys were

done. We did do two additional underwater surveys using remote operating

roves. The last one in 2012 was specifically to look at the presence or absence of

sponges in the area and how they would contribute to fish habitat in this region.

So while actual fish surveys haven’t been done we have been looking at fish

habitat.

12482. The -- the second point is that we did have information in this area that

we felt was already adequate to conduct an environmental assessment and this

survey that was conducted was primarily to -- to augment the existing

information.

12483. MS. GRIFFITH: So just so I’m sure I’ve understood this correctly,

the field surveys for fish conducted for the marine fish and fish habitat TDR were




limited to late summer described as “August and September” of one year about

seven years ago; is that correct?

12484. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: For the actual fish, and then the habitat

surveys were done at other time periods through remote sensing -- or remote

instruments.

12485. MS. GRIFFITH: Can you tell me when adult pink salmon are

president in -- present in the marine terminal PDA?

12486. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Primarily in the spring period.

12487. MS. GRIFFITH: And has this been confirmed through field surveys

or is this a best guess?

12488. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It would be through a combination of

literature and the field survey. Rather just literature.

12489. MS. GRIFFITH: And at what time are out-migrating chinook

present in the marine terminal PDA?

12490. DR. TOM WATSON: Out-migrating chinook salmon should be

coming out in the summer period -- later in the summer, anywhere from June

onwards.

12491. MS. GRIFFITH: And is this based on the field survey or is this

based on literature?

12492. DR. TOM WATSON: Actually neither, it’s my local knowledge of

chinook salmon lifecycle. I wasn’t involved with the fisheries studies back in ’05.

12493. MS. GRIFFITH: Sorry, you were or you weren’t?

12494. DR. TOM WATSON: I was not.

12495. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Dr. Watson.

12496. I’ve been dying to say that.

12497. DR. TOM WATSON: Don’t pick on me.





12498. MS. GRIFFITH: When might herring be spawning in the marine

terminal PDA?

12499. DR. TOM WATSON: I’m back. Herring should be moving into

deeper water -- or into shallower waters somewhere around February and -- or

even earlier -- and spawning will be occurring in the February -- February-March

period, in that window. It’s not exactly precise, but that’s the approximate timing.

12500. MS. GRIFFITH: And this is also based on literature or your

knowledge and not on field surveys; correct?

12501. DR. TOM WATSON: On this one we do have a submission from

your manager of fisheries from the Haisla. And I read with interest that he had

specified some of the times that the Haisla are harvesting and targeting herring,

among other species. So it’s partly that and then partly what I know from north

coast and central coast timing for herring spawning.

12502. MS. GRIFFITH: And so from that, can I understand that herring

may be -- spawning herring may be migrating past the marine terminal or may

actually be spawning near the marine terminal?

12503. DR. TOM WATSON: I’m sorry. I don’t have that site specific

information. Perhaps one of my Stantec colleagues might know more than I.

12504. My understanding is that that’s not a principal harvest area because the

area is quite deeply incised on the shore with very steep banks and when they’re

spawning, they would be looking for kelp beds or other type of vegetation where

they could deposit their eggs.

12505. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I think two points is that spawning areas

can vary from year to year. We’re aware that in some years there can be a small

amount of spawning within the general area of the PDA and the project effects

assessment area. There’s other areas in Kitimat Arm, Hawkesbury Island and

Hartley Bay. We speak about that in the general section of the environmental

assessment in, sort of, terms of background information.

12506. MS. GRIFFITH: Mr. Green, you mentioned earlier that the fish field




surveys were conducted to augment the information available through the

literature. Was there a specific gap in the literature for the late summer period

that Northern Gateway identified in selecting its timing for the fish field surveys?


12507. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: So we did not feel there was a gap in the

knowledge. It was primarily to get some local site-specific information. For the

purpose of the assessment, we made the assumption that the fish species of

importance would be in the project effects assessment area and would be exposed

to effects from the project.

12508. The other element here I think that’s important is, much like wildlife,

is that the habitat is a -- we believe an important aspect to look at. And indeed

that’s what our conversations with DFO have been about, is what kind of habitats

will be affected by the project. And then what will the compensation be to

address direct and indirect habitat effects as a result of construction and operation

of the project.

12509. MS. GRIFFITH: So the local site-specific information that you

obtained through your surveys was obtained for late summer; is that correct?

12510. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, for the date indicated.

12511. MS. GRIFFITH: And so you have no local site-specific information

for the remainder of the year; is that also correct?

12512. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: We don’t have actual field data, but there

is literature, there is the traditional use information that has been filed by the

Haisla. And as I’ve mentioned earlier, that we would be conducting surveys --

habitat base surveys prior to and after construction in order to complement the

habitat compensation plan.

12513. MS. GRIFFITH: Can I understand from that -- sorry, did you have

something more to say?

12514. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Maybe if I could just add -- the other

commitment that Northern Gateway has made and it’s in order to look at both

routine effects and also provide a baseline on abundance and diversity. We’ve

committed to a marine environmental effects monitoring program that would be




one of the sites we would definitely focus on is the terminal area.

12515. The intent is to collect three years of information on transects that

would run from the marine riparian into the sub-tidal zone. The details on that

have not been finalized. That would be something in this case that we would

want to discuss with the Haisla and with Fisheries and Oceans and likely

Environment Canada.

12516. And the intent is two-fold. One is to record diversity and abundance

of species in those areas, quantify the habitat and also quantify environmental

quality. So we would be looking at sediment quality, water quality, tissue quality

of the species that are present.

12517. The hope of Northern Gateway is that the First Nations communities

in the confined channel assessment area and in the terminal area would be

participating in conducting those surveys.

12518. And there is a commitment that all eight communities within the

confined channel assessment area, we would work and develop the marine

environmental effects monitoring program for them. But in this case, there is a

specific commitment to establish the site at the terminal and collect the data as

rapidly as we can following post-certificate.


12520. I will have a few questions about that marine environmental effects

monitoring plan, but I just want to follow-up on this field survey issue.

12521. I note that Northern Gateway did not file its ESA without any field

surveys for fish. Would Northern Gateway have been comfortable to file its

assessment without any field surveys for fish based on its information from local

knowledge and literature?

12522. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: One of the problems with presence and

absence surveys for fish is that, if you don’t collect a certain species it doesn’t --

during a certain time of year, it doesn’t mean that the fish aren’t there at other

seasons or in other years.

12523. So we took a habitat-based assessment, we went out and mapped the

habitat in these areas and assumed that all of the fish that are in this area could be




using those habitats at certain times of the year. So that’s how we based our

assessment.

12524. There is substantial information on the fisheries in the Kitimat River

and in the Douglas Channel, and there is a wealth of information, frankly, in

terms of being able to do an assessment such as this. We needed to go out to do

the habitat surveys. We also collected fish at the times when we were out doing

field programs.

12525. So in answer to your question, perhaps we may have been -- we didn’t,

you know, make the assessment of whether we needed to do any work or not, we

were going out to do habitat work, we also collected fish survey -- did fish survey

work.

12526. But, as I say, there is a lot of information on the fisheries in this area.

12527. MS. GRIFFITH: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

12528. Would Northern Gateway have been comfortable filing its ESA

without any fish field surveys?


12529. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: As I mentioned, we didn’t do an

assessment as to whether we would be comfortable doing that -- filing without

any fish survey, so I guess I’d have -- we’d have to discuss that a bit more

internally.

12530. That’s not what we did do. We did habitat surveys, we did underwater

series, as Mr. Green’s mentioned, and we did do a fish survey.

12531. So I guess, at this point, I can’t answer that question.


12533. And just at the bottom of that page is a heading “Eulachon”.

12534. And what we see here is Northern Gateway is stating that the

movement patterns and habitat use of eulachon in the upper Kitimat arm are not

well-known.




12535. Can you explain that in the context of the information you just

provided that Northern Gateway has a good understanding of what fish are in the

marine PDA at what times and how they move through the area?


12536. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: There is quite a wealth of information on

eulachon in this area.

12537. The problem with this species is that the numbers have gone down so

dramatically that it’s difficult to get a good understanding of this species given

those population numbers.

12538. So that’s what we were referring to in this portion of the ESA.

12539. MS. GRIFFITH: Is it your understanding that eulachon move past

the marine terminal area in late summer?


12540. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: It’s our understanding that they travel

through in deep water in the March to mid-April timeframe through this area.

12541. MS. GRIFFITH: So conducting field surveys in late summer

wouldn’t have provided any additional information on eulachon; would it?

12542. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Not with respect to those movement

patterns, no.

12543. MS. GRIFFITH: What if the field surveys had been conducted at

different times of the year?

12544. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Again, this is a very difficult species

because the numbers are so low and there’s years where there’s basically no

adults coming in.

12545. So, you know, doing one or two or more surveys may not give us any

more information than we have existing.




12546. MS. GRIFFITH: And would you agree that, since the numbers are so

low, they’re also particularly vulnerable or the populations are particularly

vulnerable?


12547. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Well, yes, just the fact that they’re listed

by COSEWIC makes them a vulnerable species.

12548. MS. GRIFFITH: Could I please have Exhibit E9-21-12, page 42?

12549. And if we could just scroll down to the response section, that would be

great.

12550. This was an information request by the Haisla Nation to Fisheries and

Oceans Canada or DFO asking what additional information on eulachon DFO

thinks would be beneficial for the JRP’s assessment of potential effects of the

project on eulachon.

12551. And we see here that DFO has set out some very specific information

which it thinks would be beneficial, and that is on the screen there.

12552. Has Northern Gateway taken any steps to obtain this information and

submit it in this process so that it is available for consideration by the JRP?


12553. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: No, no further information has been

collected.

12554. I’d like to stress that we do not see an obvious pathway of effect of our

project on eulachon. We would work out timing restraints and least-risk windows

with Fisheries and Oceans.

12555. And also, with respect to our habitat compensation plan, we would

work that out in detail with DFO.

12556. But in answer to your question: No, no further information has been

collected.





12558. When you say you don’t see an obvious pathway of effect, is it

possible to determine all potential pathways of effect without having a clear

understanding of where a species is, when and how it is using its habitat?

12559. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I believe we do have a good

understanding of the habitat that is present. And as I have said, we assume that all

fish could be using that habitat. I believe that we’ve got a thorough understanding

and we’ve addressed that in the environmental assessment.

12560. And so I believe in this case we do not believe, knowing, first of all,

the biology of the species, understanding the lifecycle of this species and

understanding our project and how they might overlap, that we do not see an

obvious pathway of effect.

12561. MS. GRIFFITH: So I suppose then you wouldn’t agree with me that

there’s a knowledge gap when it comes to marine fish at the marine terminal?

12562. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: That’s correct. I wouldn’t agree with you

that there is a gap of information there.

12563. I think historical information is good in this area. And our

understanding of the habitat that’s present in this area is excellent.

12564. MS. GRIFFITH: Do you disagree then with what DFO has set out

about the additional information required with respect to eulachon to be provided

for the purposes of the JRP’s assessment?

12565. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I would never disagree that more

information would be helpful. And I think they used the word “beneficial”.

12566. But I do not believe that not having this information that we’ve

collected limits our assessment in any way. I believe we’ve done a thorough

assessment, as I’ve said, and I believe that having this information would

certainly not change our understanding our predictions because we have assumed

again that if the habitat was there, it could be used by the species. That’s what we

based our assessment upon.





12568. I’d like to go to the discussion or to the concept of the marine

environmental effects management plan.

12569. Could I please have Exhibit B46-2, page 29? If we could just scroll

down please, a little further down. I think maybe it’s on the next page. There we

go.

12570. This is the discussion of the marine environmental effects monitoring

program that Northern Gateway set out in a response to a federal government IR

2.13 and it refers to the collection of additional data on the current status of

marine biota and their habitat and any potential change in species diversity,

abundance and distribution and habitat quality in the PEAA, CCAA and OWA.

12571. And as we discussed earlier, Northern Gateway agrees that potential

changes in species diversity, abundance, and distribution and habitat quality are

all environmental effects for the purposes of CEAA assessment.

12572. Northern Gateway has also agreed that if the changes go the wrong

way, there could be adverse effects. And if the changes are of considerable

magnitude or duration, there could be significant adverse effects.

12573. Given this, wouldn’t you agree that it’s necessary to have the

information you propose to obtain through the marine environmental effects

monitoring program at the project assessment stage to assess whether there may

be changes in species diversity, abundance and distribution and changes in habitat

quality?

12574. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: The purpose of the marine environmental

effects monitoring program is to help refine our project in respect of mitigation,

timing for least risk periods and for obtaining pre-construction baseline

information for the purposes of a follow-up program under CEAA.

12575. It reflects the moderate level of certainty that we had in terms of our

predictions and it will help us to determine the effectiveness of our mitigation.

12576. That’s the intent of this program. It isn’t an intent to provide more

information to inform the environmental assessment.

12577. MS. GRIFFITH: Sorry. I just -- I didn’t quite catch you on that last




sentence.

12578. It is or it isn’t a program?

12579. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: It is not a program that is intended to

supplement the environmental assessment.

12580. It is a program as a follow-up program under CEAA to help refine

some mitigation programs, to help refine timing. And it’s done closer to the

timing of construction so that we have the most recent available information prior

to construction, and to confirm our predictions, which is the basis of a follow-up

program, and the effectiveness of our mitigation.


12582. And at the very top of that page we see a sentence:

“Several species of fish and marine mammals are known to

frequent the subtidal pelagic area of Kitimat Arm and the study

area. Fish species commonly harvested include chum, coho,

chinook and pink salmon, and steelhead, eulachon, and [the]

Pacific herring.”

12583. Do the several species of fish known to frequent the subtidal and

pelagic area of Kitimat Arm and the study area include any species other than

chum, chinook, pink salmon and steelhead, eulachon and Pacific herring?

12584. DR. TOM WATSON: Yes, there’s many other species that are

inhabiting those areas.

12585. And, Ms. Griffith, if I could add one comment that I’d made earlier

about timing of herring spawning? I believe I mentioned March. It’s -- it will go

through March and April, and it’s not exactly a precise timing window, but once

they move into those shallow water areas they will spawn on kelp and vegetation.

12586. I just wanted to make that clear, or clearer, rather.

12587. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: If I could also add that this is a very

generic description that’s part of the initial screening for the ecological risk

assessment.




12588. So it’s not intended to be as comprehensive of what’s in Volume 6b

and 8b in terms of the ecological assessment.

12589. MS. GRIFFITH: Now, I understand that for the marine terminal

ESA, Northern Gateway has identified the following key indicators for fish:

eulachon, Pacific herring, rockfish and chum salmon. Is that correct?

12590. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Yes, that's correct.

12591. MS. GRIFFITH: And Northern Gateway is using chum salmon as an

indicator for effects on other salmonid species; correct?

12592. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: That's correct.

12593. MS. GRIFFITH: Could we please have Exhibit B3-12, page 79? If

we could scroll about -- a little bit down and then over to the right. There, that’s

great.

12594. And so we see here that the basis on which chum salmon have been

selected as a KI, is that it's because it's commercially and recreationally valuable;

it's culturally important; it's sensitive to disturbance; and it is an important food

source for marine biota; and it is abundantly or widely distributed in the area.

12595. None of these characteristics tell us how chum salmon is similar or

dissimilar to other salmon species; do they?

12596. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: It doesn't specifically state it but one of the

reasons we chose it -- and I think we discussed this yesterday or the day before --

was because of its abundance and wide distribution. We think it's the best salmon

species to focus on.

12597. Other species of salmon are not as widely distributed and are not as

abundant, and we feel that this one will cover off the potential effect pathways

between the routine construction and operation of the marine terminal and marine

transportation adequately to address the effects on the broader suite of salmon.

12598. We do understand that all salmon use habitats differently. The fry

behave differently and the adults behave differently and migrations can be

different, but we feel chum is a good representative for salmon.




12599. MS. GRIFFITH: And I understand that -- so from that I understand

that chum salmon has a lifecycle that generally represents other salmon but isn't

identical to that of other salmon. Is that correct?

12600. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I'd say generally, the -- as an example, we

look at an effect mechanism. One of the effects we looked at in marine

transportation and marine construction is the effects of underwater noise. And so

chum salmon are sort of representative of all salmon and how they might respond

to underwater noise.

12601. We know there's differences in the way salmon, the adults are moving

in the ocean and the timing of that movement. We know there is differences in

the strategies that the young fry use once they've emerged from the eggs and how

-- which habitats they spend time in and when they move out to the estuary or

pass.

12602. So there's different strategies used but we feel that for the types of

effects we'll see on fish as a result of routine operations of the terminal for

construction, operations and decommissioning, as well as transportation, that it's

an adequate representative.

12603. MS. GRIFFITH: And does the suite of KIs of eulachon, Pacific

herring, rockfish, and chum salmon, are they a reliable suite of KIs to assess

impacts on all the fish known to frequent the study area?

12604. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: We've had discussions like this for a

number of other species or family groups of wildlife and other groups. We would

say here we've tried to select species, first of all -- I think we'll see here all of

these species are culturally important. We know that all of these species covered

here are used as traditional foods. There are different aspects to them that we've

identified here, this is the summary of the selection basis that reflects what we say

in the EA.

12605. So we do believe that each of these species uses marine habitats in a

different way. Some are pelagic, some are bottom. Rockfish are obviously using

bottom environments. And that the culmination of looking at these, we look at

the suite of effects that could occur to fish in general.





12607. And the marine terminal ESA has identified activities at the marine

terminal that have the potential to result in habitat disturbance, habitat loss,

species displacement, and injuries to or death of marine organisms. Both the

terms "species" and "marine organisms" include fish. Is that correct?


12609. MS. GRIFFITH: And the marine terminal ESA discusses mitigation

for impacts to marine fish and one of those mitigation measures is the use of work

windows for in-water activities, such as dredging and blasting.

12610. Obviously, these work windows haven't yet been determined; have

they?

12611. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Not specifically. We have a general

understanding that winter would be the -- generally the least risk window but we

will be working with DFO in order to determine the exact timing of those

windows based on my previous discussion when it came to the marine

environmental effects monitoring program.

12612. MS. GRIFFITH: And the goal for these work windows will be to

protect migration spawning and egg development of an anadromous species such

as eulachon and salmon; correct?

12613. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: In part. They'd be to mitigate the

pathways of effect that we've identified and try to minimize the impacts

associated with the project.

12614. MS. GRIFFITH: Would you agree that work windows are a critical

mitigation measure with respect to impacts on chum salmon?

12615. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I believe they're a very important tool in

what I would refer to as the mitigation toolbox. We've identified other measures

aspects such as bubble curtains. We've looked at the way of containing sediment

during dredging. Blasting -- the blasting management plan will be an important

part that would be embedded within the construction periods.

12616. So there's a number of different tools that one would use to minimize

effects on marine biota in a broad sense. So especially in this area where we're




dealing primarily with fish but there are -- we know there are seasonal

occurrences of marine mammals that we have to take into consideration as well.

12617. MS. GRIFFITH: Given the differences in the lifecycles of the

various species in the area, the work windows could be different for each species

couldn't they?

12618. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Well, as I mentioned, we'll be developing

those site-specific windows with DFO, and they will take into consideration all of

the species that are in that area.

12619. MS. GRIFFITH: Do you actually know whether there is a clear work

window for this area?

12620. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I'm told that the general work window is

November 30th to February 15

th.


12621. MS. GRIFFITH: Dr. Watson, you mentioned earlier that herring

spawn in March and April. It's my understanding that the spawning period is

broader than that, and it is from January to April, is that not possible?

12622. DR. TOM WATSON: There could be regional and stock differences

in spawning timing. There's also seasonal differences in temperatures locally.

We've seen El Nïno come and -- come and go, and that's impacted not only

species' presence coming further north.

12623. But the answer to your question is I'm not aware that they would be

that early in that area. That would surprise me but I’ll defer to a more local

knowledge of your fisheries manager and what I read from what he had indicated

that the spawning period is later than that.

12624. MS. GRIFFITH: And what about eulachon, what’s your

understanding of the spawning period for eulachon?

12625. DR. TOM WATSON: Well, they’re an anadromous species so they

would be migrating into fresh water, streams and rivers and that would be

occurring in the spring period, the migration.




12626. MS. GRIFFITH: So your understanding is that the eulachon would

be migrating past the terminal to the fresh waters in the spring period.

12627. Do you have a month you could attach to that?

12628. DR. TOM WATSON: No, I believe I mentioned earlier that I’m a

little bit unarmed as far as specific runtime and I’ll defer to my Stantec colleagues

for that if you could just excuse me for a moment.


12629. DR. TOM WATSON: The information that we have for this general

area is that spawning in Douglas Channel area would be peaking in mid-March

and it’s also been noted in mid-April.

12630. The answer to your question about “Do they migrate past the proposed

terminal area?”, I don’t have any insight specific information on that for that

period.

12631. So if we had to pick a month, it would be before the spawning period,

so it would be February.

12632. But I’m subject to further confirmation. That’s the best guess this

biologist can give you now.

12633. MS. GRIFFITH: Does anyone else on the panel have any additional

information?

12634. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: There is information in the literature with

respect to the movements in Douglas Channel.

12635. There is some recent -- some work, it’s not recent, late 1990s -- and

some other work in around 2005 for documenting February to March as their

movement patterns in Douglas Channel.

12636. MS. GRIFFITH: So, February, that would be in that potential work

window that you’ve identified; correct?

12637. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Yes, I think -- I said the general work

window would close February 15th

and February to March -- February and March




would be the movement timing.

12638. MS. GRIFFITH: The Northern Gateway hasn’t conducted any field

surveys for the presence of fish at the terminal during that time period; has it?

12639. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: No, as I’ve mentioned we’ve only

conducted work in the summertime but we would be proposing, as I’ve also

mentioned, to do some further work to determine site-specific timing windows.

12640. MS. GRIFFITH: And what if there are no timing windows?

12641. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Well, as Mr. Green has mentioned, there

is a suite of mitigation measures. There is the timing window of November 30th

to February 15th, generally speaking.

12642. So there is, generally speaking, time to do work within Douglas

Channel and that’s considered to be the least risk-window. Again, it’s not a no-

risk window but it is a least-risk window and there are other mitigation measures

that we can implement in addition to timing.


12643. MS. GRIFFITH: Will it be possible to do all the work that may have

adverse effects on fish during the November to mid-February window?


12644. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: The entire period of in-water activity is

estimated to be approximately 18 weeks.

12645. There are certain activities that would be -- would pose a higher risk

based on our pathways of effect, such as blasting for marine species especially --

sorry, for marine mammal species especially.

12646. So there are -- there would be activities that may be extended beyond

the least-risk window but those activities would be subject to other mitigation that

are considered to be less risk based on -- based on the pathways of effects that

we’ve -- the analysis that we’ve done.

12647. Mr. Green passed me a note here that I may have misspoke. What I




meant to say is 18 weeks for the dredging and blasting activities, not for all

activities.


12649. The marine terminal ESA sets out the prediction confidence for

various impacts to marine fish and for impacts to marine fish habitat quality and

habitat availability and for acoustic impacts, the prediction confidence is

moderate, not high and the reason for a moderate prediction confidence is the

same with respect to each of these impacts and that is the exact spatial and

temporal distribution of each KI species in the PEAA relative to impacts is

unknown.

12650. But it’s really not just the KI species or the key indicator species for

which this distribution isn’t known; am I right?


12651. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I’ll begin and, if Mr. Green wants to add

to my answer, he’s more than welcome to.

12652. In terms of the species, fish species in this area, it’s certainly the

migratory species that are more of a -- more in question as the timing of their

movements can be variable year to year and species to species, of course.

12653. We do have a better understanding of the more resident species,

certainly the benthic species that are there and the work that we’ve done in the

past helps to -- helps us to have a better understanding.

12654. Again, go back to the basis of our assessment which is a habitat basis,

so we do have a good understanding of the habitat within this area and that was

the basis of our assessment.

12655. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: I’ll just add that the bethnic species that

are in the immediate proximity of the project development area, we do understand

that distribution very well.

12656. We’ve done the two surveys. We’ve done underwater mapping of the

habitat type here. So I’d say for the less mobile species, we have a better

understanding of where they are and their exposure to the project.




12657. And as Mr. Anderson said, the migratory species, they do tend to vary

between years, both in terms of when they arrive or could be moving through the

area and where they are, so they are not always consistently moving in exactly the

same place each year.

12658. MS. GRIFFITH: Could Northern Gateway have a better

understanding of what migratory species are where, when, if they had done more

than just field surveys in one year at one distinct time of year?

12659. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: I would say that we wouldn’t have much

better understanding if we had collected it over a number of years; that there is

such variability year to year that we wouldn’t have an exact timing of when they

might occur during the year of construction.

12660. We would -- we can always have -- you know, help better our

understanding by collecting more information. But I think we have a good

understanding of the species’ movements now, and we will have a better

understanding as we get closer to the timing of construction, as we work with

DFO to develop these least risk windows and collect more site-specific

information.

12661. MS. GRIFFITH: So from that I understand that the additional

information which you hope to collect through the marine environmental effects

monitoring plan, will assist in determining whether the mitigation that’s being

proposed, and that we’re being asked to rely on with respect to adverse effects, is

actually working. Is that correct?


12662. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: The purpose of the follow-up program

that we’re describing is to ensure that the mitigation measures that we have

proposed are working effectively. So we would be, before construction, trying to

determine, based on site-specific information, the timing of -- for example, the

timing of the least risk window and then monitoring that during the period of

construction to ensure that the annual movements are consistent with the timing

window that we’ve worked out with DFO.

12663. We would be doing this work in concert with local communities,

whether they be Aboriginal or otherwise, and specifically hoping to get input




from the Haisla First Nation into the design of these programs, into the design of

the environmental effects monitoring program, the habitat compensation plans

and other programs that would be applicable to this area.

12664. MS. GRIFFITH: Mr. Anderson, I think I heard you say a couple of

questions ago that you would have no better understanding if habitat -- or

migratory fish data had been collected at different times of year over a number of

years than you do now. So why is there a sense that this monitoring or these

additional studies which you intend to conduct post-certificate would give you a

clearer understanding?

12665. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Well, for two reasons, and I think I’ve

mentioned them both already. The first one is that we’ll be getting the most

recent information in the year or years just prior to construction, and then we

would be monitoring during that year of construction to ensure that the timing

window is working efficiently with respect to the movements of the fish during

that year.

12666. MS. GRIFFITH: And if the timing window isn’t working, is

Northern Gateway willing to shelve the dredging and the blasting in order to

ensure that the potentially at-risk species won’t be negatively impacted?

12667. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Well with any follow-up program there is,

as we said, a suite of mitigation measures. When one isn’t working we would

look to others, and we would work with the regulatory authorities to ensure that

the measures that we are implementing are getting the effectiveness that we are

expecting, and that’s what we’re monitoring in the monitoring program, and we’d

be looking for other mitigation if they’re not successful.

12668. MS. GRIFFITH: Could we ---

12669. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Perhaps if I could just give an example, is

for blasting one of the measures that’s been proposed and has been used

elsewhere is the use of a bubble curtain, which is essentially you surround the

area in which you’re working with pipes that are on the bottom, perforated pipes,

and you pump compressed air through the pipes and they create bubbles that rise

to the surface.

12670. It does a couple of things; it contains the sound much more effectively,

it also essentially provides a visual barrier to fish that are moving through the




area. So it is a way of minimizing the effects. It doesn’t avoid the effects entirely

but that’s one of the measures.

12671. So in addition to timing windows, there’s these other measures that

can be taken. And I think one would continue to look at those sorts of measures

in an adaptive process. But it is important that because of the variation in fish

movements and marine mammals in this area, it’s better to be collecting at the

time you’re doing the activity then trying to make predictions ahead of time.

12672. We think -- the general seasons are relatively well known, so what

you’re really trying to do is look at the beginning and the ends of those seasons

where there might be some question about what’s going on and then focusing in

on those periods to make sure that you’re not having effects on species that you’re

trying to minimize effects on, and if you are then you’d begin to adapt by taking

on additional measures.

12673. MS. GRIFFITH: And I understand bubble curtains are primarily

mitigation for acoustic disturbances; is that correct?

12674. MR. JEFFREY GREEN: Well it’s an effective way of, I guess,

providing a level of, I’m going to call it, white noise. For blasting it reduces the

pressure wave.

12675. I’m not sure what affect it would have in terms of any disturbance in

the water sedimentation, but I believe we’re also talking about sediment curtains.

And maybe Mr. Fissel could speak to that.

12676. MR. DAVID FISSEL: Yes. For the purpose of mitigating dredging

we’d be -- the application involves using silt curtains, which are different than

bubble curtains.

12677. MS. GRIFFITH: And are they used at the same time or are they

mutually exclusive?

12678. MR. DAVID FISSEL: I would think they’d be used at different

times because normally the development plan would be to do the dredging first,

which would involve the silt curtains, to be followed by the blasting.

12679. MS. GRIFFITH: And in Northern Gateway’s attachment to Federal

Government IR 2.7, which is Exhibit B46-5, we see some of the mitigation




measures that have just been mentioned set out for both eulachon and for herring.

12680. And if we could just scroll to the right-hand column that sets out the

mitigation measures.

12681. And for bubble curtains it says “they will be used where practical and

appropriate”. Does Northern Gateway have any experience using bubble curtains

in a setting such as in the area in front of the proposed marine terminal

development site?

12682. MR. DAVID FISSEL: I think that would be a question that would be

best answered by the Shipping and Navigation Panel. We have expertise on that

panel for those kinds of questions.

12683. MS. GRIFFITH: It’s my understanding that this is a mitigation

measure proposed for construction impacts so I would have thought this was the

right panel.

12684. MR. DAVID FISSEL: I think that was considered in the design of

the terminal construction and those mitigation measures were part of -- those

people, the engineers on that, involved in that, would likely have some experience

with mitigation measures involved in marine construction.


12685. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: This work would be undertaken by

contractors that are, you know, quite familiar with doing work on marine

structures in a marine environment such as this. It would be -- so detailed plans

would be developed.

12686. There is lots of information in the literature regarding the effectiveness

of this mitigation. And so we know it’s not an unproven mitigation whatsoever

and there is -- you know, as I say, plenty of information and how effective it can

be.

12687. MS. GRIFFITH: So from that I understand that Northern Gateway’s

familiarity with this mitigation measure is based strictly on literature?





12688. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: We have done a literature review and,

yes, as I say, there is -- there is a lot of information in the literature.

12689. But, yes, in terms of this Panel especially, the information has been

literature-based.

12690. MR. DAVE HANNAY: I -- this is Dave Hannay. I’m the acoustics

expert.

12691. I just thought -- think it’d be worthwhile to point out that bubble

curtains are used quite extensively for other sources, like pile driving, where the

high pressure pulses that are produced by that activity can cause injury to fish and

also create noise that can have effects on other marine wildlife.

12692. So while we’re only -- while I have experience directly with pile

driving, the use of air curtains has been tested quite extensively with blasts and

the tests in the literature show that it is quite effective.

12693. And there’s one example we’re looking at right here for Defence RND

Canada and they did direct testing of effectiveness of a bubble screen on

underwater blast and they showed that the peak pressure could be reduced by up

to 60 percent and the energy density reduced by 40 percent.

12694. And this could have a significant effect on reducing the distance at

which sound pressures would exceed the injurious thresholds for fish.

12695. MR. PAUL ANDERSON: And in terms of the implementation of

these programs, our preliminary discussions with the construction specialists that

we’ve had conversations with, they do have familiarity with these systems.

12696. But I think your question was specifically Enbridge, and we do not --

on this Panel, have a lot of experience with that.

12697. MS. GRIFFITH: And in the literature review, does the literature talk

about bubble curtains being successful with respect to the species that may be

encountered at the marine terminal?

12698. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: Hi.

12699. With respect to the literature review we were doing, we were primarily




evaluating the effectiveness of bubble curtains as a technique to reduce both the

pressure level induced into the marine environment and the acoustic levels.

12700. So that was to assess effects to all species including marine mammals

and fish. So it wasn’t a species specific targeted, mostly it was looking at what

the -- how the habitat would change as a result of the blasting and testing whether

bubble curtains might be an effective technique of reducing that impact.

12701. MS. GRIFFITH: So the mitigation measure wouldn’t take into effect

the particular sensitivity of a given species or the particular ability of a bubble

curtain to protect a particular species; is that correct?

12702. MS. ANDREA AHRENS: It would depend on the exact effect you

were looking at.

12703. So two effects we were looking at were potential harm to species and

as well as acoustic effects.

12704. And for each of those we had thresholds that we did modelling on --

especially in terms of acoustics -- and there are set thresholds in the literature at

which harm might occur. So we were considering whether bubble curtains have

been shown to reduce levels down to a threshold below which you would expect

harm.

12705. And as part of the mitigation plans, for example -- obviously, I can

speak more to marine mammals, but we have mitigation measures in place to

ensure that after modelling -- and we’ll be doing specific sound source validation

studies of blasting in site after the blasting plans have been complete. And we

will model safety areas to ensure that -- in my case -- marine mammals are not in

the vicinity at the time of those blastings.

12706. MS. GRIFFITH: And the harm thresholds that you considered, were

they just for the KIs or were they for the full suite of potential species that may be

president -- present in the terminal area?


12707. MR. DAVE HANNAY: Yeah, I can tell you what the approach we

took for looking at acoustic, at least, disturbance on fish and that did use some

KIs.




12708. We had -- the KIs that we used there were salmon -- and specifically

Atlantic salmon as an audiogram -- but salmon in general would be the, I guess,

the KI -- and also herring.

12709. The approach was to look at their hearing thresholds relative to the

sounds that were produced and then define -- based on thresholds that can cause

disturbance, there’s accepted thresholds for disturbance of those animals to define

zones over which they could be disturbed.

12710. And I think we -- I think we have those in the -- they can be looked up

-- they’re in some of the filed evidence.

12711. Do we have those?


12712. MR. DAVE HANNAY: So -- and as we were talking about earlier,

we were -- those were more for the general operations.

12713. And we were looking at dredging, specifically, for the sound from

dredging. We were looking at sounds of a level -- the threshold was 161 db --

reference to a micropascal -- and this is for Atlantic salmon.

12714. Excuse me for a second, I’ll just review.


12715. MR. DAVE HANNAY: Yeah. Okay.

12716. So the approach taken was to look at the two species we talked about

-- Atlantic salmon and herring, as our indicator species. The reason for those two

particular species is that they represent a hearing specialist -- and that’s the

herring. It has the greater hearing sensitivity than most other fish. And then, a

generalist would be the Atlantic salmon.

12717. Now, we examined the sound levels or the levels of those two species

would perceive the industrial sound levels at. We don’t have a very good

understanding and this is admitted that we don’t know the levels at which those

species will react, but at least we have the exposure levels.




12718. I think that’s -- at least we did examine the exposures at least that

those animals would receive. And we could use those then to relate to other

species that were either good hearing specialists or for generalist hearing --

animals with general hearing ability.

12719. MS. GRIFFITH: I do have some more questions on this topic, but I

think, given the time, I understand it’s time for us to finish up for today.

12720. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Griffith. That’s very

helpful.

12721. So we will finish up for today and we’ll start again tomorrow morning

at 8:30.

12722. Thank you everyone. Good night.

--- Upon adjourning at 4:05 p.m./L’audience est ajournée à 16h05

joint review panel for the enbridge northern … · b176 direct evidence and cv of mr. peter reid...

Documents