Submission to the Evaluating Committee, Kativik Environmental Quality Commission, the Federal Review Committee North of the 55th Parallel, and the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel Regarding the Conformity of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Great Whale River Hydroelectric Project to the Guidelines submitted by: the Dam-Reservoir Working Group, Ontario Public Interest Research Group-Carleton Groupe de Recherche dUInteret Publique de lUOntario-Ontario Public Interest Research Group-Ottawa June, 1994 A. SUMMARY Paragraphs 328, 329, 352, 353, 358, 361, 362, 363, 364, 512 (subsection 6), 529, 531, 533, 534, and 535 were examined and analyzed for Conformity to the Guidelines. In general, the Feasibility StudyUs sections dealing with each of these paragraphs are too brief to properly review the material they are supposed to review. The most consistent failing was the lack of citations and references, rendering much of the ProponentUs study into a set of assertions, rather than documented facts. Further, too much reliance was placed on a very small number of studies, to the exclusion of other studies which disagree with the studies cited by the Proponent - in short, an unbalanced view of the literature in the area of mercury is provided. In Paragraphs 328 and 329, several of the few references given were absent from the bibliography. The Proponent relies heavily on its own studies, which have not been subject to peer-review and so are suspect. Due to the lack of references, the unprofessional and spotty quality of the required literature reviews, absence of data, and the ProponentUs failure to adequately describe scientifically documented research in the required areas, the Dam-Reservoir Working Group of OPIRG-Carleton concludes that the Proponent has substantially failed to comply with the Guidelines. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the Environmental Impact Statement, in its present form, be rejected. TABLE of CONTENTS A. Summary 1 B. Introduction 3 B1 Table of Conformity 3 C. Conformity Analysis and Conclusions C1 Physical Chemistry of Surface Water: Paragraphs 328 and 329 4 C2 Mercury Contamination: Paragraphs 352, 353 5 C3 Health: Specific Questions - Mercury: Paragraph 512, Subsection 6, part c 8 C4 Upland and Wetland Ecosystems: Paragraphs 358, 361, 362, 363, 364 11 C5 Availability of Resources: Paragraphs 529, 531, 533, 534, and 535 14 Section C1 prepared by Ayla Khan; Sections C2 & C3 prepared by Dianne Murray; Sections C4 & C5 prepared by Jean Lee; Edited by Dianne Murray, Jean Lee, & Mick Panesar; Traduction de la summarie par Brigid Rowan. B. INTRODUCTION This report contains commentary provided by the Dam-Reservoir Working Group of the Ontario Public Interest Research Group at Carleton University, in Ottawa, and by GRIPO, la Groupe de Recherche dUInteret Publique de lUOntario - Ontario Public Interest Research Group, at the University of Ottawa, concerning the conformity of Hydro-QuebecUs Environmental Impact Statement (Feasibility Study) in reference to the Guidelines. It was conducted entirely by volunteer researchers at these two organisations. Guideline paragraphs selected by individual researchers were analysed. Commentary is presented in order of paragraph number, with the exception of paragraph 512 (subsection 6), which is included in the mercury contamination analysis. Conclusions and recommendations are included in the body of the Conformity Analysis section, to avoid redundancy. B1. TABLE OF CONFORMITY Paragraph 140 of the Guidelines states: RThe Proponent shall submit a table of Conformity in an appendix, showing where each requirement of these Guideleines has been satisfied.S However, in the introduction to the Table of Conformity, the Proponent states SReaders should not limit their reading to the references presented in this table, the totality of the report should be read.S Given the size of the report (50 volumes), and the short time available to volunteer reserachers, this was impossible. It was strongly felt that this statement of the Proponent was not an obligation, given what was required of the Proponent according to paragraph 140 of the Guidelines. The analyses in this conformity report are therefore presented by paragraph, based on what was contained in the sections cited by the Proponent in its Table of Conformity. C. CONFORMITY ANALYSES C1. Physical Chemistry of Surface Water Paragraphs 328 and 329 of the Guidelines of Impact Statement of the Great Whale Project, the proponent agreed to study the physical and chemical properties of surface waters of riparian and lacustrine environments in the study area. Subdivision 2.5.4 and subchapter 2.6 of part 2, book 2, cover the study of the thermal and ice regimes of lakes and rivers of the study area. Cited material was missing from the bibliography: SOGEAM 1992 (cited on pp 59 and 68) could not be found in either the glossary or the bibliography. This is sloppy and unprofessional. Subchapter 2.6 of part 2, book 2 and subdivisions 2.1.1 (mercury) and 2.1.3 (selenium) of part 2, book 6 deal with water quality. The presentation of the water quality parameters in Table 2.12 (subchapter 2.6) is good, but flawed: the period of time over which the data were collected is not given. In Paragraph 329 of the Guidelines, the Proponent is required to discuss methods used for analysis and sampling, yet very little is said about this. It is insufficient that the methods were discussed in Etude d'avant-projet Phase 2; a summary of this should have been included in the feasibility study. In particular there is no reference given in the feasibility study for measurement and sampling methods used to measure dissolved oxygen saturation (subchapter 2.6) and the concentration of selenium or of mercury in the water. The discussion of variations in water quality with respect to season and depth is adequately detailed. There is insufficient discussion of the effects of water quality on aquatic life in subdivision 2.6.5. The only reference cited for this section is CCMRE 1987, which is absent from the bibliography. This is an inadequate amount of evidence, and constitutes an assertion. Lastly, most of the studies cited concerning this area (where they could be found in the bibliography) are those conducted by, or commissioned by the Proponent, These have not been subject to peer-review and are therefore below the standard expected professionally. A true review would have included materials and data generated by a variety of sources and which were subject to the peer-review process. C2. Mercury Contamination The EIS section on mercury contamination is inadequate to Guideline specifications; according to the guidelines, Hydro-Quebec is required to conduct a thorough literature review of the toxicological and ecotoxicological literature on methylmercury. The overview is cursory, and lacks depth of analysis. The citations that were provided in the bibliography were insufficiently representative of the existing knowledge and research base available in the literature on this subject. For example, seminal peer-reviewed papers were absent from the feasibility study's bibliography; as an example, peer-reviewed work by Bodaly, Hecky, Fudge, and Strange on methylmercury in boreal reservoirs, on the Nelson and Churchill Rivers in Manitoba, are strangely absent. Rather than review the literature, the proponent resorted to citing a review prepared for them by Jacques Perusse, but did not provide copies of M. Perusse's review, thus obscuring the reference materials and making it more difficult to check if the information provided by the Proponent was adequate. This is unprofessional. A copy of any subsidiary non-peer-reviewed documents that are critical to the feasibility study ought to have been provided. Further, even the survey performed by M. Perusse, which is not peer-reviewed, was inadequate, as it was equally selective in terms of the literature that it reviewed. Much of the information that is reviewed by both Perusse and Hydro-Quebec, is ten or twenty years old, and no peer-reviewed documents published prior to 1989 were reviewed, although the Guidelines explicitly require a review of R...the current state of knowledge and all pertinent literature on the biological, geological, and chemical mercury cycle in northern climatesS and R ...the current state of the available knowledge on the bioaccumulation and toxicity of methylmercury...S. This is inadequate. There are internal inconsistancies in the material presented - the Proponent contradicts itself. Paragraph 352 requires the Proponent to do a thorough literature review of the biogeochemical cycling of mercury in northern environments. To this end, a figure diagramming the relation between environmental components and mercury loads is given, and is constitutes a fair summing up of compartmentalization of mercury within the environment. However, there is a lack of references and citations, and much of what is given is information very early on (early 1970Us) in the biogeochemical litereature on mercury. Examination of the referenced material (PerusseUs bibliography) shows the same problems. In Section 1.1.1 the description of the distribution and availability of mercury is incomplete - there are no citations or references, and only the most rudimentary description of the process and mechanisms of biomethylation by microorganisms is given. A more detailed description of this information is required. According to paragraph 353, the Proponent is required to "review the current state of the available knowledge on the bioaccumulation and toxicity of methylmercury with respect to fish, mammals, and avifauna, and its sublethal effects on growth, survival and reproduction." (italics by intervenors) The Proponent has failed to perform an adequate survey of this literature. In order to ascertain the toxicity to, and bioaccumulation of methylmercury in, mammals, avifauna, and fish, the Proponent would need to present a description of what is known about the comparative toxicity of methylmercury to these organisms. Table X.XXX gives some information on the comparative toxicology of methylmercury to various animals, by trophic type, but the presentation of the information is flawed: the scales used by the Proponent neither adequately nor fairly visually represent the logarithmic scale of the information, but, rather, imply a false linear relation in terms of comparative toxicity. This table thus occludes the information contained in the literature, and is therefore unprofessional. Information detailing the toxic properties of methylmercury, (genotoxicity, systemic toxicity, neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity, mutagenicity, suspected carcinogenicity, behavioral toxicity), is notably absent. No description of methylmercuryUs mode of toxic action in organisms is provided, despite plenty of peer-reviewed information being available. There is no itemization of sublethal effects of methylmercury to vertebrates, and no information on relevant doses. The Proponent has also failed completely to survey the literature concerning sublethal behavioural effects, which are recognized in the toxicity literature as being first signs of organomercury intoxication. No mention whatsoever of behavioral toxicity is made in the Feasibility Study. Growth, survival, and reproduction in birds, mammals, and fish, are all affected, at varying doses, by methylmercury, and this information is available in some of the works cited by Perusse - notably WHO 1990 (a and b) - yet no mention is made explicitly (beyond the inaccurate Table X.XXX) of the problems mentioned by W.H.O., regarding breeding difficulties in some bird populations because of methylmercury exposure. Piscivorous species are mentioned as problematic, but specific species at risk from methylmercury induced neural damage are not considered, in particular belugas and loons (Delphinapterus leucas, and Gavia spp., respectively). Further, differential toxic effects of methylmercury exposure in the developing young of these species are not mentioned whatsoever, although this is necessary to determine influences on growth and reproduction. It is not possible to ascertain effects of methylmercury on reproduction, unless survivorship and age class structures of these animals are taken into account. Similarly, because of the importance of sensory information to feeding behaviour and migration in these two species, and the known sensory deficits induced by methylmercury in adult piscivorous mammals and avifauna, the Proponent is in no position to determine survival effects, without adequate information on the neurotoxicology and behavioral toxicology of methylmercury in these species. Only one reference is given concerning the possible ameleorative effects of selenium as a prophylactic against methylmercury intoxication. This is insufficient. There is no mention given of recent studies in the toxicological literature that question seleniumUs potential for human protection against methylmercury intoxication (due to how close seleniumUs effective dose is to a harmful dose in humans). This constitutes a serious lacuna in the Feasibility Study. C3. Health: Specific Questions - Mercury Paragraph 512, subsection #6, part c requires the Proponent to "evaluate the impacts of the proposed project with regard to the increase in human exposure to methylmercury. The following issues should be clearly addressed.... c. The neurotoxicity of methylmercury in humans (adults and children) for differing levels and durations of exposure, including the cumulative effects of long-term exposure; the neurotoxicity of methylmercury exposure in utero and in mother's milk, for different levels of exposure; and monitoring studies on the long-term effects of in utero exposure, taking into account the diet of the local population". According to the Table of Conformity, these requirements are satisfied in Part 2 Book 6, sections 1.32, 1.11., 1.2.3.2. When these areas were examined, however, serious shortcomings in the study were revealed. The Proponent has neglected to review the available literature on teratology of methylmercury and the differences in its toxicity to juvenile and developing organisms versus its toxicity in adults. These are critical lacunae; fetal and developing vertebrate brain tissue is much more susceptible to methylmercury toxicity than adult brain tissue. There is neither a complete list given of the toxic effects, nor sites of action of methylmercury in humans. Effects of chronic exposure are minimized, without reference to conflicting opinions in the literature. Section 1.3.2 of Part 2, Book 6, deals inadequately with methylmercuryUs toxicity to humans. This section provides insufficient information on the mechanisms and effects of methylmercury toxicity in developing brain tissue in vertebrates, including humans, versus methylmercuryUs toxicity to adults. There is no overview of the differences in mechanism of methylmercury toxicity in developing vs adult brain tissue. This constitutes a serious lacuna. Further, information is simply absent, concerning the much lower effective dose which can cause disturbances of developmental processes in vertebrate brain, in particular in humans, being an order of magnitude lower than neurotoxic doses for adults, even though this was explicitly required according to Paragraph 512 of the Guidelines. The material included in the review is very selective and leaves out seminal works and authors in the area; for example, the work of Thomas Clarkson on the effects of methylmercury on fetal vs. adult brain tissue and the World Health OrganizationUs recommendations for lowering the Rsafe levelsS recommendations for children and pregnant women, and for aboriginal populations is missing. Further, no mention is made of the role of critical periods in brain development for relevance of toxic effect. C4. Upland and Wetland Ecosystems Paragraph 358 of the Guidelines requires the Propnent to describe the composition, distribution, controlling factors and dynamics of the most common plant communities, their soil and moisture requirements, and the role played by disturbances such as forest fires, and their role in supporting wildlife. Wetlands (which constitute major plant communities) are of critical importance in supporting wildlife such as migratory waterfowl, which use these areas, not for nesting, but as a main staging area. The Proponent has failed to provide information on the probable effects of the alteration of wetlands vegetation communities necessary to migratory waterfowl species, such as snow geese and Atlantic brant. Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 361: The Proponent has failed to discuss... "plant communities of interest to the region: ...area used by Native peoples where species of interest (for food or medicine, etc.) are found." These were required in the Guidelines to be "localized and described using remote sensing studies of the last twenty years, where appropriate." This lack of information constitutes a lacuna in the required information. Further, the 12 species that are designated likely to be threatened are inadequately described: the Proponent has failed to indicate the reason for the designation, whether because of dwindling numbers, as a result of the loss of habitat due to construction activities, or whether due to habitat changes resulting from changes in water salinity, etc. Paragraph 362: Regarding reclamation work, the Feasibility Study is inadequate -the Proponent suggests that riparian vegetation could be restored along certain rivers, either by reforestation or by seeding - yet gives no consideration to the special conditions presented by the friability and other conditions of subarctic and boreal organic soils, for example the special conditions created by permafrost. No reference is given with regard to the success of mitigative and restorative measures in similar projects in northern Manitoba, which share similar soil types, where no mitigation was feasible, and reclamation imposssible due to the high rate of bank erosion following impoundment. There is no attempt made to evaluate the extent of loss of habitat to wildlife, should mitigation and / or restoration prove unfeasible, as has been the case at both the LaGrande and Southern Indian Lake reservoir projects. Although there is an explanation that certain deciduous species have difficulty restablishing on cleared areas at La Grande (e.g. willow (Salix), birch, (Betula), poplar (Populus)), the effect of the more northerly latitude of the Grande Balaine River is not taken into account when establishing these species possible difficulty in reestablishing themselves in the Grande Balaine River basin. Paragraph 363 requires the proponent to "describe the areas that have burnt-over the past 30 years, including maps of burnt-over areas, the origin and date of the fires (if known), and the current status of the area (including any regeneration problems) and its use by wildlife and humans". This can be done making use of available remote sensing studies. The Proponent has provided only a scanty and insufficient description of the current status of these areas, and of their current use by wildlife. Paragraph 364 requires the proponent to assess "the quality and quantity of available wildlife habitats, and particularly of those riparian and wetland habitats which could be lost or significantly affected by the proposed project, notably through the creation of and operation of reservoirs. While riparian and wetland habitats may merit special focus, all habitats important for avifauna of any sort, for caribou (and other mammals) and for significant fish species must also receive special attention. The Proponent shall therefore determine the composition, diversity, and richness of wildlife species associated with these habitats, and shall also evaluate the wildlife productivity of each vegetation group for the region as a whole. Special attention shall be given to the factors most likely to affect the distribution of animals throughout the region." The patchy spatial distribution of resources necessary for wildlife in this area is insufficiently considered by the Proponent. Variation in wildlife and vegetation across the affected area is not taken into account. The Proponent has therefore made an insufficient attempt to identify differences in productivity of different regions, especially regarding the factors affecting wildlife productivity. C5. Availability of Resources In Paragraph 529 of the Guidelines, the Proponent is required to "present an overview of the resources in the territory, and then shall evaluate the diversity and wealth of these animal and plant resources as well as in their use... by Natives (hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering)...". In order to evaluate changes in wealth and use of fish and animal resources by the Cree, it is necessary to first describe their current state, and then their projected state. The feasibility study inadequately describes the current use of resources by Natives. Further, expected changes to the fishing routines presently maintained by the Cree and Inuit are inadequately described. Although the type of construction occuring at different traplines is described (allowing a consideration of the possible losses of potential harvesting ground), the distribution of wildlife at the different traplines is not uniform, therefore the extent of loss of productivity will vary, and this is not considered by the Proponent. The evaluation of the extent of loss of wildlife productivity at the traplines and threat of overharvesting, as well as the need for relocating traplines is not sufficiently considered. Thus the evaluation required by Paragraph 529 is substandard and inadequate. Paragraph 531 requires the Proponent to describe and evaluate the positive and negative quantitative (extending as far as complete loss) and qualitative changes to habitats that could be caused by one or another element of the proposed project, or by their management. There is some inadequacy in the evaluation of this area: information on the degree of loss of habitat due to flooding of plant communities and riparian vegetation, and increased flow regimes engendered by project construction are provided. However, there is no evaluation of the effects of diverting rivers on these habitats, either where flows are decreased or regulated. Affected areas are described as designated for reclamation, but information on the spotty success rates of reclamation attempts in other hydroelectric projects have been excluded, and thus not considered. This is professionally sloppy, as it indicates that the Proponent is marshalling an argument based on selected evidence, rather than on a consideration of all of the material available in the literature on the success of reclamation projects. The effect on waterfowl of the loss of wetlands at reservoirs and increased flow rivers is provided, and a numerical quantity of loss of waterfowl at the modified flow rivers is provided, however a description of the modification is absent; neither is any description given of how this number determined. At areas of high productivity (e.g. Lac Bienville) there is a huge loss of wildlife projected but an evalaation is lacking of whether this is a complete loss of wildlife, or whether these wildlife will be displaced to another area. In Paragraphs 533, 534, and 535, the Proponent is required to : "In examining wildlife habitats... pay particular attention to the species highly valued by the groups concerned, especially the beluga, caribou, fur-bearing animals, and avifauna (particularly migratory birds)". The Proponent has failed to consider and evaluate the carrying capacity of beluga and caribou habitat after hydroelectric devlopment, when assessing the influence of development on changes in habits and habitats during and after construction of the project. There is some evaluation of the present population size and growth rate of these species, but evaluation of these aspects after hydroelectric development is absent.