Affidavit #1 of Petr Komers

tfqe PILED JAN i 2018 Affidavit #1 of Petr Komers Affirmed/Sworn the 30'h day of January, 2018

REGISTRY

No.: 18 0247 Victoria Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN: WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS, and ROLAND WILLSON ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS BENEFICIARIES OF TREATY NO. 8 PLAINTIFFS AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, and BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS AFFIDAVIT OF PETR KOMERS

1, Petr Komers, with a business address of 207 Edgebrook Close NW, Calgary, Alberta, ecologist, AFFIRM or MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1.

I have personal knowledge of the things I say in this affidavit, except where stated to be based on information and belief and where so stated I verily believe the same to be true.

2.

I am an ecologist with over 20 years of experience conducting and supervising university research and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. My specialization includes the assessment of ecological impacts, regional habitat use, population ecology, and the assessment of disturbances on a wide range of wildlife species including species at risk listed under the Species at Risk Act.

I received my Doctor of Philosophy from the

University of Saskatchewan in 1992. Since 2002, I have been the President and Principal Consultant at Management and Solutions in Environmental Sciences (MSES) Inc. 3.

MSES Inc. was asked by West Moberly First Nations to give our opinion comparing, at a high-level, the potential environmental impacts of BC Hydro's Site C hydro-electric

Page 1 of 2

project relative to the alternative energy projects described in the Alternative Portfolio considered by the BC Utilities Commission in its Site C Inquiry.

4.

Attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit "A" is a copy of our report dated January 2018 and entitled "Evaluation of Impacts and Mitigations for Site C Dam Compared to Alternative Energies" (the "Report"). In this Report, I provided my expert opinion in relation to wildlife ecology in section 3.2. I also had overall responsibility over the entire Report. A copy of my curriculum vitae is included within the Report.

5.

I hereby adopt the Report as my expert evidence in this proceeding, and certify that I hold as my expert opinion the opinions, conclusions and recommendations made therein. The factual assumptions, research conducted, and documents forming the basis for these opinions, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as applicable limitations thereto, are set out in that Report.

6.

I certify that I am aware of my duty as an expert witness to assist the court and not be an advocate for any party. This duty prevails over any obligation that I may owe to any party, including West Moberly First Nations on whose behalf I have been engaged.

7.

I further certify that I have made this affidavit in conformity with this duty and will, if called on to give oral or written testimony, give that testimony in conformity with this duty.

8.

In particular, in preparing this affidavit, I acknowledge that it is my duty to provide: evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan; evidence that is only related to my area of expertise; and, such additional assistance as may reasonably be required to determine a matter at issue.

AFFIRMED/SWORN BEFORE ME In Calgary, Alberta on January 30. 2018.

A commissioner for taking affidavits for Alberta TERRY E GILHOLME Barrister & Solicitor Commissioner for Oaths/Notary Public In and for Alberta

Petr KOMERS

Page 2 of 2

Evaluation of Impacts and Mitigations for Site C Dam Compared to Alternative Energies

Prepared for

West Moberly First Nations

January 2018

THIS IS EXHIBIT" Prepared by

referred to in the Affidavit of

Sworn before me this tii y of

tiiftijJi A.D. 20

/T

K FOR OA I V A r,

0 MSES Management and Solutions in Environmental Science

I (Hi A !. ililR JA

TERRY E GILHOLME Barrister & Solicitor Commissioner for Oaths/Notary Public In and for Alberta

207 Edgebrook Close NW

Calgary, Alberta T3A4W5 Canada

Phone Fax

403-241-8668 403-241-8679

Email: petr.komers@mses.ca

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40MSES

January 2018

List of Contributors Wildlife Ecology

Dr. Petr Komers

Vegetation Ecology

Dr. Sheri Gutsell

Aquatic Ecology

Dr. Megan Thompson, P.Biol.

Research Assistance

Ms. Nina Modeland, B.Sc., B.A. Ms. Shannon Gavin, M.Sc., P.Biol.

Ms. Abbie Stewart, M.Sc., P.Biol.

We certify that we are aware of our duty as expert witnesses to assist the court and not be an advocate

for any party. We further certify that we have made this report in conformity with this duty and will, if called on to give oral or written testimony, give that testimony in conformity with this duty.

MSES Inc.

Page i

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

49 MSES

January 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II

ACRONYMS 1.0

2.0

3.0

IV

INTRODUCTION. I.I

Approach

1 .2

Qualifications

I

I

COMPARISON OF RELATIVE DISTURBANCE FOOTPRINTS

2

2. 1

Land-Use Efficiency

2

2.2

Land Requirements for BCUC's (2017) Illustrative Alternative Portfolio

5

COMPARISON

OF

RELATIVE

IMPACTS

TO

TERRESTRIAL

AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS

3.1

3.2

3.3

AND 7

Vegetation Ecology

8

3.1.1

Comparison of Impacts

8

3. 1 .2

Comparison of Mitigation Measures

10

3.1.3

Conclusions for the Impacts to Vegetation

10

Wildlife Ecology 3.2. 1

Comparison of Impacts

3.2.2

Comparison of Mitigation Measures

14

3.2.3

Conclusions for the Impacts to Wildlife

16

Aquatic Ecology

17

3.3. 1

Comparison of Impacts

17

3.3.2

Comparison of Mitigation Measures

19

3.3.3

Conclusions for the Impacts to Aquatic Ecology

19

4.0

CONCLUSIONS

20

5.0

LITERATURE CITED

20

MSES Inc.

Page ii

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

0 MSES

January 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)

PAGE LIST OF TABLES Table I: The area of each clearing site within which Site C project components and activities will occur. The total area (135.1 km2) was used in our calculation of the land-use

efficiency of the Site C project. (Source of data in this table: BC Hydro 20 1 3, EIS, Volume I , Appendix A. Table 2. 1 , pg 4 of 1 08)

3

Table 2: The area of disturbance required by BCUC's (2017) illustrative alternative portfolios, which includes a low, medium, and high load forecast

6

LIST OF FIGURES Figure A: The land use efficiency (km2/TWh/y) of BC Hydro's Site C Project, compared with

alternative renewable energy products, calculated from their direct footprints.

The land use efficiency values, and upper and lower estimates, for the alternative renewable energy products are taken from Trainor et al 20 1 6. Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A:

MSES Inc.

MSES Team Resumes

Page iii

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

49 MSES

January 2018

Acronyms

BC

British Columbia

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

EIS

Environmental Impact Statement

ha

hectare

JRP

Joint Review Panel

km2

square kilometre

km2/TWh/y

square kilometre per terawatt-hour per year

m

metre

MSES

Management

and

Solutions

in

Environmental

Science MW

Megawatt

MWh

Megawatt hour

MWLAP

BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

NREL

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

PV

Photovoltaic

MSES Inc.

Page iv

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

49 MSES

January 2018

1.0

Introduction

Management and Solutions in Environmental Science (MSES) was requested to provide technical advisory services on behalf of West Moberly First Nations' (WMFN) application for injunctive relief to suspend BC Hydro's Site C project. MSES experts in vegetation, aquatic ecology and wildlife ecology were asked to consider, at a high-level, the potential environmental impacts of BC Hydro's Site C hydro-electric project relative to other alternative energy projects addressed in the Alternative Portfolio considered by the BC Utilities Commission. Technical experts provided input on the following requested topics: •

A quantitative comparison of the relative disturbance footprint on a per megawatt (MW) or megawatt hour (MWh) basis;

ÂŽ

A qualitative comparison of the relative impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecological values.

Including a discussion of potential mitigation measures that would be available for the Site C project compared to alternative energy projects.

The discussion provided below represents our opinions based on our technical expertise from a highlevel approach.

Supporting examples and

references are included where appropriate

but

do not

represent an exhaustive consideration of all available research and literature.

I.I

Approach

MSES was asked to compare the land use requirements of the Site C project with those of alternative renewable energy products (solar, wind, and geothermal), to produce a given amount of energy per year. For the purposes of this report, we used the conclusions of the Joint Review Panel (JRP 2014) regarding project design and environmental impacts. However, while the assessment and findings of the

JRP have been utilized in this report in order to draw comparisons between the Site C and alternative energy sources, we do not adopt the JRP findings as our evidence for impacts.

1.2

Qualifications

MSES Inc. was founded in 2001 with the intention of integrating scientific rigor with the need for planning and managing environmental resource use. With this initiative in mind,

MSES has helped

numerous Review Boards, Provincial Agencies, Aboriginal communities, local landowners and industry clients to understand, manage, and prepare for future effects of proposed projects on the environment, and assisted in ensuring that their interests and visions are met now and for future generations. Within the MSES team are senior and

intermediate personnel with decades of cumulative experience in

terrestrial ecosystem management, environmental impact assessment development, and technical review of regulatory components for resource development projects. Below is a summary of the qualifications of the lead authors providing their expert opinion in this report (full resumes can be found in Appendix A).

Wildlife Ecology

MSES personnel, led by Dr. Petr Komers have specialized in the assessment of disturbances on a wide range of wildlife species, including species at risk listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). We have focused on wildlife conservation, movement and habitat use within Alberta, Alaska, British Columbia and

MSES Inc

Page I

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40 MSES

January 2018

the Northwest Territories. MSES developed mitigation measures for wildlife movement and habitat use for mines in the Eastern Slopes of Alberta, Oil Sands developments north of Fort McMurray, Oil and

Gas exploration in the Mackenzie Delta and, Northwest Territories, as well as international Oil and Gas operations.

Vegetation Ecology

Dr. Sheri Gutsell is a forest ecologist whose expertise includes trends in biodiversity, plant species

distribution and the effects of herbivory, drought, and wildfire on trees. Dr. Gutsell uses her knowledge of forest fire dynamics to evaluate the effectiveness of current reclamation practices for re-establishing vegetation. Her technical reviews of vegetation components of environmental impact assessments have highlighted the need to classify all ecosites phases with as much detail as possible so that the baseline ecosites phases

may be

used as

targets for comparing future

reclamation

efforts and

measuring

reclamation success.

Aquatic Ecology

Dr. Megan Thompson is our limnological and aquatic ecologist who has published peer-reviewed papers, given

talks

and

lectured

on

northern

limnology,

permafrost

hydrology,

biogeochemistry,

and

anthropogenic impacts on lakes and rivers. In her consulting role, she has conducted third-party reviews of environmental impact assessments related to water quality for various natural resource extraction projects, on behalf of several Aboriginal clients in Alberta, New Brunswick and British Columbia. Her combined research and applied consulting experience has led her to develop an extensive knowledge of the many applicable regulatory regimes that apply to freshwater systems and their watersheds, including provincial,

federal

and

international

legislation,

management

frameworks

and

impact

assessment

processes.

2.0

Comparison of Relative Disturbance Footprints

MSES was asked to compare the land use requirements per unit of energy per year of the Site C project with those of alternative renewable types of energy production (solar, wind, and geothermal). MSES also was asked to use the assumptions of the BC Utilities Commission report (BCUC 2017) to compare land requirements for the energy needed in the illustrative alternative portfolio with Site C. two sections provide these analyses.

Note that our analysis does

The following

not consider the feasibility or

appropriateness of applying these alternative renewable energy products in British Columbia.

2.1

Land-Use Efficiency

To compare land use requirements of the Site C project with those of alternative types of renewable energy production, we first examined, for Site C, the amount of land required to produce a given

amount of energy in a given year. This is referred to as 'land-use efficiency', and it is expressed as the square kilometres required for each terawatt hour (TWh) produced (km2/TWh) (e.g. Donald et al.

2009, Fritsche et al. 2017, Fthenakis and Kim 2009). The smaller the amount of land needed per unit of

MSES Inc

Page 2

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40 MSES

January 2018

energy produced, the greater the land-use efficiency. To calculate land-use efficiency of Site C, we used

the total area (km2) of land disturbance (i.e., direct project footprint) for the project and divided it by the yearly electricity that will be produced by the project in terawatt hours (TWh). The total direct

footprint of the Site C project is 13,512.9 hectares (ha), or 135.1 km2. This is the area of land that will be cleared for the project and inundated by the reservoir when it is filled to the maximum normal level

of 451.8 metres (m) elevation, and it includes the components identified in Table I (BC Hydro, 2013, EIS, Volume

I, Appendix A, Figure 2.1, page 4). The Site C project will have an energy generating

capacity of up to 1, 100 megawatts (MW) and is expected to provide about 5, 100 gigawatt hours (GWh), or 5.1 TWh, of energy each year (BC Hydro, 2013, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Volume I, page 1-2; Joint Review Panel 2014, page I). Based on these values, the land-use efficiency of Site C is

26.5 km2/TWh.

Table I: The area of each clearing site within which Site C project components and activities will occur. The total area (135.1 km2) was used in our calculation of the landuse efficiency of the Site C project. (Source of data in this table: BC Hydro 2013, EIS, Volume I , Appendix A, Table 2. 1 , pg 4 of 1 08).

Clearing Sites Dam construction site

Total Area (ha)

Total Area (km2)

% of Total 15%

2,035.1

20.4

Highway 29 realignment

417.8

4.2

3%

Construction materials sites

625.9

6.3

5%

Access roads

196.0

2.0

1%

Transmission rights-of-way

1,231.2

12.3

9%

Reservoir

9,006.9

90.1

67%

13,512.9

135.1

100%

Project Activity Zone

Notes about Table I:

•

Regarding the Reservoir site: "The reservoir site excludes access roads and is to a 5-year beach erosion line. The surface area of the reservoir post inundation would also include part of the dam construction site and would vary with the depth of the water.

The

reservoir's surface area would be 9,330 hectares when filled to the maximum normal level

of 461.8 metres elevation" (BC Hydro, 2013, EIS, Volume I, Appendix A, Table 2.1, pg 4 of 108) •

The Site C clearing site areas reproduced in Table I, and used in our calculations, likely do not include the pre-existing transportation infrastructure,

pre-existing

rights-of-way, or other pre-existing project components that will be used without

modification for the project. Therefore, the total disturbance footprint calculated for the project may be an underestimate. ©

We were unable to find information for the Site C project that distinguished the

permanent footprint (e.g. operational footprint) from the temporary footprint (e.g., temporary work spaces, temporary roads, borrow pits). To our knowledge, the

Site C clearing site areas reproduced

in Table

I, and used in our calculations,

includes temporary disturbance areas. We do not assume these areas will be

successfully reclaimed and therefore they have been included in the total direct project footprint calculations.

MSES Inc

Page 3

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

49mses

January 2018

•

Zones of Influence (ZOI), or buffers, are ecologically significant and considered by MSES and in the scientific literature to be disturbed lands. We have not included them in our calculations of land area to ensure consistency with calculations for

alternative energy projects from the literature.

For comparison with Site C, the land use efficiency of alternative types of renewable energy production was taken from published, peer-reviewed literature. We sought studies that calculated the land use

efficiency of wind, solar, and geothermal energy projects. Several publications described the land use efficiency of different types of energy production (e.g. Donald et al. 2009, Fritsche et al., 2017, Fthenakis and Kim 2009). However, we could find only a single recent meta-analysis (Trainor et al. 2016) that reported this information in a format comparable to our land-use efficiency calculation for the Site C project. Trainor et al., (2016) compiled land requirements based on published literature, permitting agencies, aerial imagery, and other public sources for solar photovoltaic (PV), solar thermal, wind, hydropower, and geothermal energy projects across the United States (US). When more than ten

estimates were available for each

type of energy production, the median value was used as a 'representative' value. To account for multiple uncertainties stemming from variability among producers and states, a high and low estimate of land use efficiency with each scenario by using the 25th and 75th quantiles (percentiles) to estimate low and high impacts, respectively (Trainor et al. 2016). When insufficient data were available after an extensive literature search, they selected values from the limited available resources to characterize representative low, and high land-use impacts.

Similar to our calculations for the disturbance footprint of Site C, Trainor et al. (2016) calculated land use efficiency of wind, solar, and geothermal projects based on the direct project footprint, e.g., the area cleared for reservoirs, associated access roads, etc. Figure A shows the variation in land use efficiency across and within the different types of energy production (Trainor et al. 2016). Using median or

representative values from Trainor et al. (20 1 6)'s analysis based on direct footprint wind appears to be the most efficient, followed by geothermal, solar PV, hydropower, and solar thermal. Notice that when compared with the alternative types of energy production from Trainor et al. (2016), our calculations for the Site C project show that it has the lowest land use efficiency.

MSES Inc

Page 4

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40 MSES

January 2018

Land Use Efficiency of Renewable Energy Sources 100 90 •

~

E Land Use

87.0

Efficiency

80

e lower estimate

70

~£ 60 >-

® upper estimate

£

50

1

40

ljj CD oo

D

O

30

26.5 17.0

20

15.0

• 28.0 19.3 ....

16.9

I 1.0 10

1.4

I I I

5.1

1.3 0

12.1

0.3

£

G*°

G

/

<f>

o*

oc <r

13.0

sl&

Energy Source

Figure A: The land use efficiency (km2/TWh) of BC Hydro's Site C Project compared with the alternative types of renewable energy production, showing the median representative values and high and low estimates as calculated in Trainor et al. (2016).

2.2

Land Requirements for BCUC's (2017) Illustrative Alternative

Portfolio We compared the land requirements of Site C with BCUC's (2017) illustrative alternative portfolio, which includes a low, medium, and high load forecast (Table A-22 in BCUC 2017). BCUC (20 1 7's analysis concluded that the low load forecast was the most realistic and appropriate for resource planning. However, we also included a comparative analysis for medium and high load forecast for completeness.

BCUC (2017) predicts that to meet the low load forecast capacity, the alternative portfolio would require 444 MW of wind projects, in addition to Demand Side Management (DSM) initiatives (energy

efficiency optional Time of Use rate, capacity focused DSM) (Table A-22, BCUC 2017). We determined the amount of land that would be required to produce that capacity using data from a meta-analysis study conducted in the US (Denholm et al. 2009). Denholm et al. (2009) examined the land area requirement of wind energy projects using data from 172 large capacity (>20 MW), modern (after 2000) energy projects, where data was obtained from environmental impact statements (EIS),

wind

environmental assessments (EA), project applications to utility regulatory bodies, project fact sheets,

MSES be

Page 5

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40 MSES

January 2018

etc.,

(Denholm et al. 2009). We used

Denholm et al. (2009)'s data to calculate the land area requirements for a given capacity using only studies that provided both permanent and temporary disturbance area. There were 52 studies that provided such data (Appendix A, Denholm et al. 2009).

This was to maintain consistency with data from Site C, where we assumed that the direct disturbance

area calculation from site clearing data (Table I, above) also included the area of temporary disturbance.

The land area requirements of the 52 wind energy projects used in our analysis were calculated by summing the total direct impact area (permanent and temporary disturbances, (ha) of all wind energy plants and dividing by their combined total capacity (MW). This represents a weighted average of the area required per MW of capacity. We calculated the median and 25th and 75th percentiles (lower and upper quartiles) to account for the skewed distribution of data. Based on our analysis, and shown in Table 2, the median area requirements per capacity across wind energy projects is 0.74 ha/MW, with 25th and 75th percentiles of 0.47 and 1.19 ha/MW, respectively. This means that to produce 444 MW of capacity from wind

energy projects, as suggested in

BCUC's low load forecast, would require a

disturbance area of 328.66 ha (with 25th and 75th percentiles of 208.68 and 528.36 ha, respectively).

BCUC (2017) predicts that to meet the medium load forecast, the alternative portfolio would require 438 MW of wind energy projects and 81 MW of geothermal projects, in addition to DSM initiatives (energy efficiency optional Time of Use rate, capacity focused DSM) (Table A-22, BCUC 2017). Similarly, to meet the high load forecast, the alternative portfolio would require 441 MW of wind energy projects and 81 MW of geothermal projects, in addition to DSM initiatives (energy efficiency optional Time of Use

rate,

capacity focused

DSM)

(Table A-22,

BCUC

2017).

To

calculate the area

required

by

geothermal energy projects to produce the capacity forecasted for medium and high loads (both 81 MW), we used the land-use efficiency rates from Trainor et al. (2016) (depicted in Figure A, above).

Based on these calculations, the amount of land that will be required to produce 81 MW of geothermal energy is 364.71 ha (Table 2). Therefore, for the medium load forecast, to produce 438 MW of energy

from wind projects and 81 MW from geothermal energy, would require a disturbance area of 688.83 ha (with 25th and 75th percentiles of 208.68 and 528.36 ha, respectively) (Table 2). For the high load forecast, to produce 441 MW energy from wind projects and 81 MW from geothermal energy, would require a disturbance area of 691.05 ha (with 25th and 75th percentiles of 208.68 and 528.36 ha,

respectively) (Table 2).

All of these forecast scenarios are considerably lower than the 13,5 12 ha area to be disturbed for Site C.

Table 2: The area of disturbance required by BCUC's (2017) illustrative alternative portfolios, which includes a low, medium, and high load forecast.

Land Use BCUC Load Forecasts

Energy Product

Efficiency

Area

Load (MW)

(ha/MW)*

Low Load Forecast

Wind

0.74

Total

Medium Load Forecast

(ha) 444

328.56

444

328.56

Wind

0.74

438

324.12

Geothermal

4.50

81

364.71

519

688.83

Total

MSES Inc

Required

Page 6

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

0MSES

January 2018

High Load Forecast

Wind

0.74

441

326.34

Geothermal

4.50

81

364.71

522 691.05 * ha/MW for wind was calculated from Denholm et al. 2009 study; ha/MW for geothermal was calculated from Trainor et al. 2016.

Energy projects may produce less energy than their maximum capacity. The proportion of energy

produced compared to the maximum amount of energy a project could produce, is known as the

capacity factor. It is unclear if the capacity factors of wind and geothermal have been taken into account by Denholm et al. 2009 and Trainor et al. 2016. If they have not taken the capacity factor into

account, the area requirements listed in this table may represent, in the worst case, 33% of the total area required to meet the load forecasts presented in this table.

3.0

Comparison

of

Relative

Impacts

to Terrestrial

and

Aquatic Environments The Site C dam is planned to generate up to 1,100 MW of capacity for more than 100 years. The project will consist of the following components: ®

Dam, generating station, and spillways;

•

Reservoir (83 km long);

•

Substation and transmission lines to Peace Canyon Dam;

•

Realignment of approximately 30 km of the existing Highway 29;

•

Quarried and excavated construction materials;

•

Worker accommodation;

•

Road and rail access; and

•

Construction-related activities (JRP 2014).

In comparison, general project components for a wind energy project could involve the construction of wind turbine generations,

electrical

collector networks,

substations, transmission

lines,

operations

building, meteorological towers, access roads and other associated infrastructure. An example of project components associated with a photovoltaic solar energy facility could involve the installation of PV modules on ground mounted module tables, substation, inverter(s), transformer(s), transmission lines (below ground), access roads and other associated infrastructure. Typical infrastructure associated with a geothermal project includes a well field, substation, access roads, and auxiliary buildings (DiPippo

2016).

MSES Inc

Page 7

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40 MSES

January 2018

3.1

Vegetation Ecology

3.1.1

Comparison of Impacts

3. I.I.I

Site C Dam

Site C project impacts on vegetation were assessed using two key indicators for vegetation: terrestrial ecosystems and rare plants. Although all upland and wetland plant communities were mapped, BC Hydro focused their assessment only on at-risk and sensitive ecological communities and federally and provincially listed rare plants. The assessment focused mainly on the general effect of habitat alteration,

which is the "temporary or permanent removal or loss of habitat or a reduction in habitat suitability." Habitat alteration occurs as a result clearing and grubbing for site preparation, changes in water flow regimes, inundation during reservoir filling, habitat changes along the new reservoir shoreline, competition with

invasive species, contamination, dust deposition, and incidental anthropogenic disturbance. There will be permanent losses of 6,956 ha of upland and wetland forest communities and

1,200 ha of shrub

communities for Site C.

The JRP concludes that the project will have significant adverse effects on: â&#x20AC;˘

at-risk and sensitive ecological communities

ÂŽ

wetlands

Š

rare plants

The JRP could not draw conclusions on effects of the project on plants of interest to Aboriginal groups

because the assessment was cursory and does not give an accurate picture of potential effects to specific traditional

plants.

Finally, the JRP concluded that cumulative effects on vegetation and ecological

communities would be significant.

3.1.1.2

Alternative Energy Projects

The principal impact of solar, wind, and geothermal energy projects on vegetation is the permanent loss

of vegetation to accommodate the infrastructure needed for a project, e.g., solar panels, wind turbines, access roads, substations, service buildings, etc. The significance of these impacts is primarily dependent on I) the ecosystem within which the project is developed, 2) the size of the area disturbed, and 3) the configuration of project infrastructure within the project area. These factors are discussed below in

relation to solar, wind, and geothermal energy projects.

The upland and wetland plant species and communities that exist prior to a solar, wind, and geothermal energy project is one of the most important factors determining the significance of the impacts of disturbance. For energy projects that take place within undisturbed native ecosystems, such as a forest or native grassland community, the installation of permanent infrastructure will lead to permanent losses of a portion of the plant species and communities that were present there prior to disturbance. If these areas also contain plant species and communities at-risk and sensitive species and communities, they will

also be lost. Additionally, in areas that are considered temporary disturbances, e.g., workspace needed during construction, it may be difficult or impossible to reclaim the plant species and communities that

were removed, particularly those considered at-risk or sensitive, including wetlands. The size of the area disturbed and the configuration of project infrastructure differs for solar, wind, and geothermal projects.

MSES Inc

Page 8

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

49mses

January 201 8

3. 1.1.2. 1

Solar Projects

For solar projects, the ground surface is first scraped, sometimes to bare ground, and shrubs, trees, and root balls are removed (Turney and Fthenakis 201 I). The number and arrangement of solar panels will

affect the land area needed, with more tightly packed panels requiring less space, but having a more significant impact on underlying vegetation (Tsoutsous et alâ&#x20AC;&#x17E; 2005). If vegetation remains under the solar panels, it is mowed so that it does not cast shade onto the panels, limiting the height of vegetation;

herbicides

may also

be

used.

The photovoltaic

(PV)

panels will

cast shadows

and

change

the

microclimate under the panels, which will result in changes to the underlying plant community. In addition to the effects of solar panels, the additional electrical collection network and infrastructure may result in the power plant's footprint being up to 2.5 times greater than the area directly overlain by

panels (Turney and Fthenakis 201 1).

3. 1. 1.2.2

Wind Projects

For wind energy projects, vegetation loss occurs during the construction and maintenance of wind

turbines and associated infrastructure which physically occupy land area. In forested areas, additional land must be cleared around each turbine. We estimated the average disturbance area resulting from the construction of turbines and associated disturbances for 52 wind energy project in the US using data from a meta-analysis study by Denholm et al., (2009). Because the data was skewed, we calculated the median and 25th and 75th percentiles of the amount of area disturbed per turbine.

Our analysis showed

that the median area disturbed per turbine is 1.14 ha, with 25th and 75th percentiles of 0.70 ha and 1.88 ha per turbine, respectively. If wind turbines are installed within forest ecosystems, the open areas

change the microclimate by increasing light and wind in newly opened areas (Marsh et al. 2005), which can lead to changes in species composition as well as higher rates of tree fall, modifying the structure of

the forest (Laurance 1997). The intensity of impacts varies with topographic features such as slope and elevation, but the fact that wind turbines are often placed on ridge tops, locations of high sustained

winds, likely exacerbates the potential for structural damage to vegetation at some sites (National Research Council 2007).

3.1.1.2.3

Geothermal Projects

Relative to solar and wind energy power plants, vegetation loss for geothermal power plants will occur over a smaller area. The amount of land required by a geothermal plant varies depending on the properties of the resource reservoir, the amount of power capacity, the type of energy conversion system, the type of cooling system, the arrangement of wells and piping systems, and the substation and auxiliary building needs (NREL 2012). In its 2008 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimated that the total surface disturbance for a geothermal power plant ranges from 21

to

148 ha (Geothermal Energy Association 2014). This covers all activities,

including exploration, drilling, and construction, and reflects the variability in actual area of land disturbance based on site conditions and the size and type of geothermal plant. In the United States, geothermal plants are constructed to blend in with their environment, often allowing for other activities,

e.g., agriculture and hunting, on the same lands in compliance with the BLM's multiple use strategy (Geothermal Energy Association 2014).

MSES Inc

Page 9

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40 MSES

January 2018

3. 1 .2

Comparison of Mitigation Measures

The JRP made a number of recommendations for the mitigation of the 8,156 ha of vegetation losses within the Site C project. These include improving the accuracy and reliability of baseline data by conducting additional field work prior to the project, to identify rare plants and sensitive communities, and traditional plant species. The additional data on traditional plant species is needed to allow the completion

of a comprehensive

assessment of effects

on traditional

plants,

in

collaboration

with

Aboriginal groups. Other recommended mitigations are to conduct an assessment of wetland functions lost to the Project that are important to plant species at risk, to monitor construction and operation activities that could cause changes in wetland functions, and to complete a wetland compensation plan.

Other proposed mitigation for impacts to vegetation resulting from the Site C project include avoidance of known occurrences of at-risk species and sensitive plant communities as much as feasible, using existing disturbances as much as possible,

using regulator-accepted

best practices in

and around

wetlands, consideration of an experimental rare plant translocation program for suitable rare plant species, implementing a vegetation and invasive plant management plan, and a soil management plan.

Within disturbances that are considered temporary, e.g., workspaces around infrastructure, mitigation will also include a site restoration and revegetation plan. The restoration of some areas may be possible, where pre-disturbance biodiversity is relatively low. However, in most areas and for the majority of

plant species, especially those considered at-risk or sensitive, including wetland species and communities, their re-establishment, and thus restoration, will not be possible. This means that ultimately, despite these extensive mitigations, Site C will result in the loss of over 8,000 ha of upland and wetland plant species and communities.

For solar, wind and geothermal projects, one of the most important mitigations for vegetation is project siting and location. There are some obvious constraints to where these alternative projects can be located,

i.e.,

areas of high insolation,

high wind, and geothermal hot spots.

However,

relative to

hydropower, there is considerably greater flexibility. The best mitigation for vegetation is through the

avoidance of native, intact vegetation, especially wetlands and at-risk or sensitive plant species and communities.

From a vegetation perspective, siting these alternative energy projects within areas of

existing anthropogenic disturbance would minimize or eliminate many of the impacts.

Other mitigations for alternative energy projects in areas of native vegetation include the use of installation and maintenance techniques that minimize impacts to surrounding native vegetation areas,

thereby reducing soil compaction and erosion. Within disturbances that are considered temporary, mitigation may also include site restoration. The restoration of some areas may be possible, such as

where pre-disturbance biodiversity is relatively low; however, in many areas and for many plant species, re-establishment will not be possible.

3. 1 .3

Conclusions for the Impacts to Vegetation

Given that alternative types of renewable energy production have a smaller direct footprint per unit of energy produced than Site C and they offer a greater potential to avoid native vegetation, it appears that the alternative energy projects will have a lesser impact on vegetation per unit energy produced than Site C. Additionally, our analysis of land requirements, using BCUC (20l7)'s assumptions of a low load forecast, which predicts that 444 MW of wind energy will be needed, shows that the land area disturbance needed to generate 444 MW of wind energy will be significantly lower than that of Site C

MSES Inc

Page 10

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40MSES

January 201 8

(328.66 ha compared to 1 3,5 1 2 ha for Site C). Both analyses seem to strongly suggest that the alternative types of renewable energy production will have significantly fewer impacts on vegetation compared to Site C.

3.2

Wildlife Ecology

3.2.1

Comparison of Impacts

3.2.1.1

Site C Dam

Site C project effects to wildlife were assessed for the following 8 species groups: butterflies and dragonflies;

amphibians

and

reptiles;

migratory

birds;

non-migratory

game

birds;

raptors;

bats;

furbearers; ungulates; and large carnivores.

The JRP concluded that there may be significant cumulative effects to fisher (JRP 2014, Section 6.5.3) and would be significant adverse effects to: •

Nelson's sparrow; yellow rail; eastern phoebe; Le Conte's sparrow; old world swallowtail, pikei subspecies;

Alberta

subspecies;

coral

arctic;

hairstreak,

striped

titus

hairstreak;

subspecies;

great

spangled

common

fritillary,

wood-nymph,

pseudocarpenteri

nephele

subspecies;

Uhler's arctic; tawny crescent; Arctic blue, lacustris subspecies; Aphrodite fritillary, manitoba subspecies; sharp-tailed grouse, jamesi subspecies and Baltimore oriole, o

western toad,

•

broad-winged hawk, the short-eared owl, eastern red bat, little brown myotis, and northern

•

migratory birds relying on valley bottom habitat during their life cycle and these losses would be

myotis (JRP 20 1 4, Section 6. 1 .3),

permanent and cannot be mitigated (JRP 2014, Section 6.3.3).

Habitat Loss Changes in terrestrial habitat composition due to clearing, construction, and operations could influence habitat use and movements by wildlife. The total area of land that will be lost as a result of construction and operation of the Site C Project and filling of the reservoir is estimated at

13,513 ha. Here we

summarize the key effects on wildlife associated with the Site C project as described in the JRP's report,

Section 6.0 (JRP 2014). Effects of habitat loss (vegetation clearing, reservoir filling) and alteration (shoreline erosion) will be permanent in the reservoir. Nesting and denning sites could be lost when the reservoir is cleared. Important habitat could also be lost during the realignment of Highway 29, and any clearing associated with the transmission line right-of-way, and quarry expansion. Increases in habitat fragmentation can result in the reduction of the amount of core habitat available to any given species possibly resulting in changes in the distribution and abundance of terrestrial wildlife.

Changes

in

river,

backchannel,

lake,

and wetland

area could change overall forage

potential and

availability of security cover and nesting substrates which could change the waterfowl and shorebird species assemblage. Reservoir filling could remove island habitats and reduce the amount of shallow water areas that are important to birds that depend on aquatic invertebrates or fish. Migrating bird

MSES Inc

Page 1 1

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

4g_MSES

January 2018

species could be affected by ice formation on the reservoir and may have to shift stopover sites to ice-

free stretches of river habitat.

Sensory disturbances, including construction activities, blasting, and traffic, can negatively affect wildlife

habitat use by causing avoidance of habitat that would otherwise by used. The individual response to disturbance could range from tolerance to den or habitat abandonment.

BC Hydro identified a number

of activities that could result in disturbance and displacement of migratory birds but said that the magnitude of disturbance would be dependent on the type of activities, the proximity to individuals, the timing and the frequency.

Movement Changes in habitat, including fragmentation, can increase access. Predator species can benefit from increased access through improved hunting efficiency along roads, cutlines, and other linear features.

Conversely, there will be potential negative consequences for prey species due to improved predator efficiency. Access roads could create a barrier to some terrestrial wildlife movements. Dispersal of wildlife through the Project area could change in response to access road avoidance behaviour.

Riparian habitats used as travel corridors could become fragmented due to construction of roads and transmission lines and this could restrict wildlife movement. Impacts to river crossings by ungulates were not highlighted as a concern, although shoreline monitoring was proposed to identify and address any risks associated with ungulate river crossings (JRP 2014, Section 6.0).

Mortality Wildlife mortality could occur as a result of site preparation and construction activities, including the filling of the reservoir and potential release of deleterious substances.

Wildlife mortality could increase

due

transmission

to wildlife-vehicle

collisions

on

access

roads,

collisions with

lines

and

possibly

drowning. As well, encounters with humans could affect some wildlife populations through habituation resulting in increased human-wildlife encounters and conflicts. This could result in either relocation or destruction of problem animals.

Habitat fragmentation

results

in

increased

access which

could increase wildlife mortality through

increased hunting, trapping, and predation pressure. Humans and predators can travel more easily and

quickly on roads and trails, increasing their hunting efficiency.

3.2.1.2

Alternative Energy Projects

Comprehensive studies on impacts to wildlife from solar and geothermal projects are still limited, while research on impacts from wind energy projects has focused largely on the direct mortality of birds and bats due to collisions with wind turbines. Below we discuss in general terms, some of the literature pertaining to wind, solar and geothermal projects in association with common impacts on wildlife.

Habitat Loss Vegetation clearing for access roads, facilities or other project-related development associated with

wind, solar or geothermal projects will influence wildlife due to loss of available habitat. The effects of

MSES Inc

Page 12

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40 MSES

January 2018

habitat removal on wildlife will depend upon the size of the project's footprint, the relative importance

of the removed habitat to habitat needs (e.g. nesting sites) and the susceptibility of the wildlife species to disturbances. For example, research has suggested that the modification of existing habitat and the associated infrastructure from solar projects could have various outcomes for avian. DeVault et al.

(2014) found that avian communities may be altered by solar facilities, where bird use of PV facilities

differed from that of adjacent grasslands at airfield facilities; the study showed a higher density of birds using the PV facilities, but lower species diversity compared with that of the airfield grassland. Another

study conducted at I I solar facilities in Britain, found that the abundance and species diversity of birds was higher at some solar sites compared to control sites in the study (Montag et al 2016). However, it was cautioned that these positive effects are in-part conditional that the change in land-use be from

intensive (e.g. agricultural) to non-intensive (a solar facility) (Peschel 2010; BRE 2014).

Geothermal

project

activities

during

construction

and

operation

can

cause

habitat

loss

and

fragmentation (Shortall et al. 2015) and are a source of noise which may reduce wildlife habitat effectiveness adjacent to the project (DiPippo 2016). These developments may also be source of thermal pollution; hot water discharge to rivers can potentially alter aquatic wildlife habitat. In addition, erosion and runoff from drilling and seismic surveys can affect the quality of wildlife habitat (Shortall et al. 2015).

Movement Many of these energy projects would have need for the development of similar infrastructure (e.g. roads, transmission lines), resulting in fragmentation affects on wildlife movement. Roads potentially acting as a

barrier to movement, while transmission lines may assist the movement of some wildlife species. The degree to which a project may impede wildlife movement would depend on the size of the barrier (e.g. reservoir or the width of a road), the relative mobility and behaviour of an animal and the contrast between the disturbed area and the adjacent habitat.

The location of wind energy projects may have negative effects on some bat species migratory behaviour because bats tend to concentrate along select routes as they migrate (Baerwald and Barclay 2009). This can lead to fatalities if individuals come into contact with wind turbines within their migratory routes.

The magnitude of this interaction may be reduced by measuring migratory activity of species so that wind energy facilities could be placed in areas away from key migratory routes.

Geothermal project activities, such as hot water discharge, can result in wildlife displacement and possibly migration of individuals to a more suitable environment (Shortall et al. 2015).

Mortality Habitat clearing may result in wildlife mortality if nesting, denning, or hibernation sites are directly or

indirectly affected. Timing of habitat clearing is critical in avoiding fatalities associated with habitat removal activities.

Wildlife mortality may also result from vehicle-related collisions with construction-

related traffic, as well as, collisions with project components (e.g. wind turbines).

Research has shown that wind energy projects have contributed to the fatalities of birds and bats through collisions with wind turbines (Arnett and Baerwald 2013). These fatalities have raised concerns as to how fatalities can be mitigated to minimize population level effects given the intended growth in

the wind energy sector. Wind energy supplies approximately 6% of the Canada's electricity demand and the average annual growth rate of wind energy in Canada was 18% per year, between 2012 and 2016

MSES Inc

Page 13

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

4)Wmses

January 2018

(Canadian Wind Energy Association 2016). Location of the project relative to key habitat resources (e.g. nesting

sites)

or along

migration

routes

and

turbine design

(height,

rotor velocity,

number and

dispersion of turbines) may influence mortality risk to birds and bats, particularly migratory species.

Understanding population level impacts from wind energy projects on species is challenging, largely

because demographic and population information is lacking for many species. Recent research using population projection models for hoary bats ( Lasiurus cinereus) indicated that continued fatalities related to wind energy projects could pose a threat to sustaining viable populations of migratory bats (Frick et al

2017). The authors suggest that implementation of industry-wide mitigations are necessary to help sustain viable migratory bat species populations (Frick et al 2017). Further research and monitoring would also need to test the efficacy of implemented mitigations measures to ensure that mitigations are

successful at reducing impacts to migratory bat and bird species.

Peer-reviewed literature available on the direct effects of solar facilities on avian species is very limited

(Smith and Dwyer 2016); however, some reports have identified utility scale developments as possible sources of mortality for bird species (Kagan et al. 2014; Walston et al. 2016; Huso et al. 2016; Smith and

Dwyer 2016). It appears that the causes for avian mortality is influenced by the type of solar technology being used (Kagan et al. 2014). Kagan et al. (2014) found causes of fatalities were related to bird collisions with reflective project structures, predation of birds suffering from impact injury and fatalities due to exposure to solar flux (Kagan et al. 2014). The mechanisms underlying mortality events is not yet well understood (Smith and Dwyer 2016) making it difficult to predict impacts. Further research is needed to quantify these impacts and to understand methods that could potentially reduce avian mortality at solar facilities.

Hot water discharge from geothermal projects to rivers can directly impact individuals (e.g. increase in metabolic rate of individuals) and can affect breeding and foraging activity (Shortall et al. 2015). The consequences of these impacts of wildlife health needs to be considered.

3.2.2

Comparison of Mitigation Measures

According to environmental mitigation policy for B.C., a mitigation measure is a "tangible conservation action

taken to

avoid,

minimize,

restore on-site,

or offset impacts on environmental values and

associated components resulting from a project or activity" (Government of British Columbia 2014).

The Government of British Columbia (2014) outlines the following mitigation hierarchy, in order of priority:

1.

Avoid impacts on environmental values and associated components

2.

Minimize impacts on environmental values and associated components

3.

Restore on-site the environmental values and associated components that have been impacted

4.

Offset impacts on environmental values and associated components.

We have used this mitigation hierarchy as a means of comparing the approaches to wildlife mitigation

that are typically used for impacts associated with hydro-electric, wind, solar, and geothermal energy projects.

MSES Inc

Page 14

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40MSES

January 2018

3.2.2.1

Avoid

Careful spatial and temporal placement of infrastructure can be used to prevent or eliminate impacts on

wildlife. A spatial avoidance measure for dams could include consideration of alternative sites along a river valley; however, dam location will inevitably impact riparian wildlife habitat. Other avoidance measures could include avoidance of any unnecessary clearing activity and no-or restricted -activity buffer zones around wildlife features (e.g. wetlands). Temporal avoidance measures for dams include timing restrictions for construction and operation activities that avoid critical time periods for various wildlife species (e.g. schedule clearing activity in winter months to avoid disturbance to nesting birds).

Siting of wind projects outside of bat (and bird) migration routes would likely reduce impacts, although the challenge is understanding the level of risk with any given location (Baerwald and Barclay 2009).

Alternatively, stopping or limiting operational activity during high risk periods (e.g. night time for bats, during autumn migration) is a potential temporal avoidance mitigation measure (Frick et al 2017). While wind project siting is constrained by wind characteristics and electrical grid constraints (Cetinay et al 2017), there is some flexibility within a given land area such that wind farms can be situated to avoid critical wildlife habitat (e.g. wetlands) and wind projects could be located within developed lands (e.g.

agricultural area) thereby avoiding impacts to natural areas (Northrup et al. 2013). Similar spatial and temporal avoidance mitigation measures are applicable to geothermal and solar developments.

3.2.2.2

Minimize and Restore

Measures that can help minimize fragmentation effects associated with dams include the use of existing corridors, deactivation and re-vegetation of temporary access roads, and minimizing disturbance where

possible. Minimizing the effects of increased access typically involves the development of an Access Management Plan that contains a suite of strategies and mitigation measures intended to minimize potential negative environmental effects of Project access. Implementation of a Clearing and Debris Management Program can also help address impacts associated with wildlife attempting to cross the new reservoir. Measures that can help minimize changes to natural drainage patterns and flows include the use of ditches, culverts, and other structures. With regards to transmission lines associated with dams, transmission towers can

be designed to

reduce the

risk of bird

collisions and electrocution,

or

alternatively, a Transmission Line Bird Collision Management Plan could be developed. Human-wildlife conflicts cannot be eliminated but can be minimized through the implementation of wildlife awareness

programs for employees and Conflict Management Plans. Likewise, the impacts associated with accidents and malfunctions cannot be eliminated but can be minimized through training in fire response protocols, the presence of fires suppression equipment, the establishment of spill response programs, and on-site emergency response teams.

Measures that minimize impacts to wildlife habitat, movement, and mortality associated with supporting infrastructure (i.e., roads, camps, transmission lines, etc.) for wind, solar, and geothermal power projects

would be similar to those identified for similar infrastructure for dams. Wind projects most notably impact volant wildlife species. Operational curtailment at wind energy projects, such as the reduction of blade movement in low wind speeds or seasonal shutdowns, can reduce fatalities for volant wildlife species (Northrup et al. 2013). There is also the potential for the use of acoustic deterrents as an operational mitigation measure (Arnett et al. 2013).

MSES Inc

Page 15

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

49 MSES

January 2018

Solar project infrastructure can be arranged on the landscape, and outfitted, to reduce the risk of

collision by birds (e.g. collector/reflector fields can use visual cues to help avifauna distinguish the solar modules from waterbodies; Horvath et al. 2010). Project infrastructure can also be designed such that roosting and nesting on infrastructure is discouraged (e.g. netting or spikes). Geothermal projects can

potentially reduce the amount of land disturbed through the use of directional drilling techniques (Shortall et al. 20 1 5). In general, there is little, if any, empirical, peer-reviewed research on the impacts of solar and geothermal energy development on wildlife, and therefore,

little information

on the

effectiveness of any given wildlife mitigation measure (Northrup et al. 2013). Best management practices and mitigation measures from similar development infrastructure are likely applicable.

Wildlife or wildlife habitat exposed to impacts that cannot be completely avoided or minimized can undergo rehabilitation and restoration. A restoration measure for impacts associated with dams could include the reclamation of camp, work, borrow areas, and other temporary sites once they are no longer in use. This mitigation can also be applied to wind, solar, and geothermal energy projects once the initial construction phase is over. However, while cleared areas that will not have permanent

features can be replanted with appropriate vegetation, such restoration efforts typically result in novel ecosystems and do not resemble pre-disturbance conditions.

3.2.2.3

Offset

Wildlife or wildlife habitat with significant, adverse residual impacts that cannot be avoided, minimized, and/or restored can be compensated in order to achieve no net loss of wildlife or wildlife habitat. For hydro-electric projects, compensation efforts are likely necessary given the permanent loss of wildlife habitat from the inundation zone. Offsets can take the form of positive management interventions such as the development and placement of artificial denning, nesting, roosting, and hibernacula structures.

Likewise, wetland compensation can be used to mitigate the direct loss of wildlife habitat in the project footprint. Compensation can also take the form of land management initiatives outside of the impacted area in order to ensure that alternative wildlife habitat remains available for displaced wildlife.

The shortcoming in using offsets as a form of compensation for residual impacts is that the offsets are necessarily in a different location, potentially distant from the impacted site. For this reason, the offset

may not necessarily compensate like for like; that is, the offset area may target different species and ecosystems than the impacted area and it may be geographically distant from the ecological resources that are required by local land-users in the impacted area.

Offsets are also applicable for wind, solar, and geothermal energy projects; however, the direct footprints for such projects are on average, smaller than those associated with hydro power. As such, the need for offsets would be lower. The requirement for offsets would depend on the type of habitat disturbed with critical wildlife habitat loss being more likely to require offsetting measures.

3.2.3

Conclusions for the Impacts to Wildlife

Because the direct footprints per unit of energy produced are smaller compared to Site C, and because of the better potential to avoid key wildlife habitat, the alternative energy projects would likely have a lesser impact on wildlife per unit energy produced.

MSES Inc

Page 16

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40 MSES

January 2018

3.3

Aquatic Ecology

3.3.1

Comparison of Impacts

3.3.1. 1

Site C Dam

Hydrology, Ice Regime, Sediment Transport and Geomorphology The Site C Dam will be the third dam built on the Peace River in British Columbia, and will result in the upstream inundation of 83 km of the Peace River Valley, with the reservoir extending to the existing Peace Canyon Dam. Small impacts to the surface water regime (i.e., quantity, timing and rate of change of flow and water level) and sediment transport in the Peace River are expected to be most pronounced immediately downstream of the dam. According to the JRP (2014), these impacts are expected to be negligible further downstream (in the case of sediment transport, 1,100 km downstream at Peace Point,

Alberta),

and

will

add

cumulatively to

the existing impacts

on

the

Peace

River resulting from

construction and operation of the Bennett Dam (JRP 2014, Sections 3.1.3, 3.3.1 and 3.3.3). Construction of the Site C dam will also lead to the inundation of lower reaches of several tributary watercourses, and filling of the reservoir is expected to

lead

to temporarily

decreased flows and water

level

downstream. The JRP does not expect that the Project will lead to changes in ice thickness, break-up time, or freeze-up water levels downstream at the town of Peace River, while the downstream extent of influence on the ice regime (i.e., behaviour of the ice front) is expected to be about 550km (JRP 2014, Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3).

During construction of the Site C Project and filling of the reservoir, fine sediment inputs to the Peace River will increase slightly above mean annual baseline conditions, and significantly increase in some cases immediately downstream of in-stream activities. The dam is expected to trap sediment from upstream tributaries and from eroding valley slopes, with a significant decrease in the mean annual suspended sediment load immediately downstream of the dam over the first 10 years of the Project.

However, the changes to fluvial geomorphology and sediment transport are expected to be negligible

(JRP 2014, Section 3.3.1).

Water Quality

In terms of water quality, there is an identified risk of acid generation and metal leaching resulting from construction of the Project and reservoir creation. The creation of the reservoir will cause an increase in mercury levels in fish, both in the reservoir and to a slightly lesser extent, downstream of the dam.

These effects are expected to be greatest between 3 and 8 years after reservoir creation, and to last between 15 and 25 years. This increase in mercury concentration is not expected to significantly impact fish health or aquatic ecosystems, but may have an impact on human health (JRP 2014, Sections 3.6.1, 3.6.2 and 3.6.3).

Fish and Fish Habitat Regarding impacts to fish, the Project may cause both direct and indirect mortality to fish. Construction

of the Site C dam and generating station is expected to result in the direct loss of 198.5 ha of fish habitat, the required Highway 29 realignment would result in the loss of an additional

10.6 ha of fish

habitat, and construction of shoreline protection will result in the loss of 9 ha of fish habitat. Filling of

the reservoir behind the dam will result in the loss of 2,963 ha of main channel and tributary fish habitat, and the creation of 942 ha of littoral fish habitat in the reservoir. It is expected that Moberly River

MSES Inc

Page 17

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40MSES

January 2018

Arctic grayling, mainstem spawning mountain whitefish, and possibly Halfway River bull trout would be most affected by the creation of the reservoir.

The total area of fish habitat that will be lost as a result

of construction of the Project and filling of the reservoir is therefore estimated at 3,172.1 ha, with a net loss (accounting for "new" habitat) estimated at 2,230.1 ha. Despite these changes in habitat, the JRP (2014) expects that the Site C reservoir will contain 1.8 times more total biomass of harvestable fish compared with what currently exists in the Peace River, although these fish will occur at a lower

density. These reservoir fish are expected to differ in their species composition, and some species that are dependent on the riverine ecosystem may be lost from the local area (JRP 2014, Section 4.2.1.3).

The dam will create a complete blockage to upstream fish movement. Surface water regime and aquatic

ecosystems will be modified for some distance downstream of the Project. Mitigation of this migratory barrier will focus on "cold-water" fish species, while the future distribution of certain "cool-water" fish species will be restricted to primarily downstream of the Pine River confluence. (JRP 2014, Section 4.2.1.4). Additional expected direct impacts to fish health and survival will result from sediment inputs to

aquatic ecosystems, fish entrainment, and increased total dissolved gas levels that can cause gas bubble disease in fish. Many of the identified impacts to fish and fish habitat cannot be mitigated, and it is expected that construction of the Project may result in a significant adverse effect on fish and fish habitat (JRP 2014, Section 4.2.1.5). In addition, the construction of the Project, combined with the effects from the upstream dams, would alter fish species abundance and population distributions, and will result in

significant adverse cumulative effects on fish (JRP 2014, Section 4.4.3).

3.3.1.2

Alternative Energy

The potential impacts to aquatic ecosystems, fish and fish habitat that can result from the construction and operation of alternative energy projects varies with the specific type and size of the project, the location, the duration of operation, and the plans for reclamation and closure. The alternative energy projects considered here are solar and onshore wind farms, and geothermal energy projects that generate electricity.

In general, potential impacts to aquatic ecosystems from alternative energy projects include: -

Spills of compounds of concern (e.g., vehicle and equipment fuel, turbine lubricant, anti-fouling

compounds) and the use of herbicides during construction. These may lead to negative impacts on surface water quality.

-

Construction of stream crossings for roads or other project infrastructure. Stream crossings, especially where culverts are used, can increase erosion and sedimentation to surface water, as

well as act as partial or complete barriers to fish passage.

-

Alteration of evapotranspiration, runoff generation, interception and infiltration regimes. This may occur in cleared and paved areas constructed as part of the infrastructure of alternative energy projects, with potentially negative impacts on water quantity and quality in receiving surface waters.

-

Potential impacts to groundwater quantity and quality that can result from the construction and operation of geothermal energy projects (Grasby et al. 2012). Where this groundwater interacts with surface waters, these impacts may extend to aquatic ecosystems.

MSES Inc

Page 18

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

JJmses

January 2018

3.3.2

Comparison of Mitigation Measures

The Panel recommendation for mitigating impacts to water quality resulting from the Site C Project, and

relating to the risk of acid rock drainage and metal leaching, include designing a program to monitor water quality, with procedures to mitigate related issues that may arise. With regards to the expected

mobilization of mercury in the Project reservoir, the Panel noted that mercury levels will be monitored until levels have returned to baseline. This is not a mitigation measure in and of itself (JRP 2014, Section

3.6.3).

The proposed mitigation for impacts to fish and fish habitat resulting from the Site C Project include riparian area avoidance, applying criteria for watercourse crossings, in-stream works guidelines, adhering to timing windows,

work area

isolation

and

fish

salvage

and

relocation

measures.

Erosion

and

sedimentation mitigation will also be implemented. Monitoring programs will measure the effectiveness

of these mitigations, and may be used to validate predictions about changes to aquatic habitat. The loss of riverine habitat will be compensated by completing habitat enhancement works, and impacts to

upstream fish passage will be mitigated via constructed fish passage (i.e., "trap and haul facility"). The success of this fish passage mitigation is uncertain, however, and must be combined with a management plan to reduce entrainment. Ultimately, despite the proposed mitigations, the expected effects on fish and fish habitat cannot be mitigated (JRP 2014, Section 4.3.1).

Several mitigation measures for the identified potential impacts to aquatic ecosystems from alternative energy projects are generally well-established and effective, if properly implemented. Standards for

minimum stream crossing requirements including proper sizing and installation of culverts to avoid sedimentation and fish passage impacts, are issued by the BC government (MWLAP 2004). Operators can develop handling guidelines for any compounds they use with the potential to impact surface water quality (e.g., fueling and maintaining vehicles away from surface waters, restricting the use of herbicides, establishing spill protocols), although this will not result in zero risk of a spill occurring. Changes to surface water quality and quantity resulting from changes in land use can be mitigated to some degree by establishing development buffers near water bodies and by minimising clearing and paving of land.

Avoiding impacts to groundwater related to geothermal power generation requires careful location, drilling and maintenance of wells, along with considerations for source water protection (Grasby et al.

2012). As with the identified impacts of alternative energy projects, many of these mitigation measures are generally applicable to several types of developments and will also be used for the Site C project.

3.3.3

Conclusions for the Impacts to Aquatic Ecology

Many of the impacts to aquatic ecosystems that result from alternative energy projects will also occur as a result of the Site C project, but are likely to occur at a greater scale in the Site C project (e.g.

sedimentation, fish passage restriction, harmful spills). Moreover, the Site C project will have additional unique and significant impacts related to the creation of the reservoir and destruction of fish habitat in the Peace River; for example, mobilizing mercury in a bioavailable form and the local extirpation of some fish species.

MSES Inc

Page 19

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40MSES

January 2018

4.0

Conclusions

Overall, impacts to wildlife habitat and vegetation communities through the removal or alteration of

habitat would be common to most electricity-generating facilities. Although the amount of land required for a project would vary depending on a number of factors (e.g. amount of power capacity, arrangement

of wind turbines), the landscape footprint per unit of energy produced of Site C is generally larger than the landscape footprints of wind, solar or geothermal projects (see Section 2.0).

The more land that is

occupied by a project, including indirect effects that reduces the quality of the habitat surrounding the project, would likely have a greater impact on wildlife and vegetation communities. This is because mitigation options, particularly site selection and routing are more limited for the Site C project than for

alternative energies.

The removal of large tracts of habitat can also fragment the landscape into smaller,

disconnected patches of habitat. In the case of Site C, the difficulty in mitigating impacts to wildlife movement is hindered by the placement of a large body of water that can be difficult for many species to

cross or disperse around. By contrast, for alternative energy projects, siting of the projects could be done to avoid sensitive habitats or traditional and culturally significant areas. Although the location of energy projects would be dependent upon certain landscape features that would allow the project to be

economically feasible, solar, wind and geothermal projects would have more flexibility in avoiding critical or key habitat for species, particularly species at risk.

Comparing the impacts of Site C on aquatic ecosystems, fish and fish habitat with those of alternative energy projects is inherently unbalanced. This is because Site C must necessarily be constructed and operated within an aquatic ecosystem, with a myriad of inevitable direct and indirect impacts, many of which are expected from the Site C project. By contrast, alternative energy projects may be strategically located to avoid or minimize impacts to aquatic ecosystems.

5.0

Literature Cited

Arnett, EB and EF Baerwald. 2013. Chapter 21: Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Implications for Conservation. In Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation. RA Adams and SC Pedersen (eds). DOI 1 0. 1 007/978- 1 -46 1 4-7397-8_2 1 , Baerwald, EF and RMR Barclay. 2009. Geographic variation in activity and fatality of migratory bats at wind energy facilities. Journal of Mammalogy 90(6): 1 34 1 - 1 349.

BC Hydro. 2013. Site C Clean Energy Project Environmental Impact Statement.

BC Utilities Commission. 2017. BC Utilities Commission Inquiry Respecting Site C - Project No. 1598922 - Final Report to the Government of British Columbia. November 2017 Canadian Wind Energy Association, 2016. Installed Capacity [WWW Document]. http://canwea.cawind-

energyinstalled-capacity (URL (accessed Jan 23, 2018 Cetinay, H., F.A. Kuipers, and A. N. Guven. 2017. Optimal siting and sizing of wind farms. Renewable Energy 101: 51-58.

MSES Inc

Page 20

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

January 2018

0MSES

Denholm P, Hand M, Jackson M, Ong S. 2009. Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States.

DeVault, DL, TW Seamans, JA Schmidt, JL Belant, BF Blackwell, N Mooers, LA Tyson and L Van Pelt. 2014. Bird use of solar photovoltaic installations at US airports: Implications for aviation safety.

Landscape and Urban Planning 122: 1 22- 1 28.DiPippo, R. 2016. Geothermal Power Plants - Principles, Applications, Case Studies and Environmental Impact (4th Edition). Elsevier. Electronic ISBN 978-0-08100290-2

Donald, R.I., J. Fargione, J. Kiesecker, W.M. Miller, and J. Powell. 2009. Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America. PLoS ONE 4(8): e6802. doi: 1 0. 1 37 1 /journal.pone.0006802 Frick, WF, EF Baerwald, JF Pollock, RMR Barclay, JA Szymanski, TJ Weller, AL Russell, SC Loeb, RA Medellin, LP McGuire. 2017. Fatalities at wind turbines may threaten population viability of a migratory

bat. Biological Conservation 209:172-177.

Fritsche U.R., G. Berndes, A.L. Cowie, V.H. Dale, K.L. Kline, F.X. Johnson, H. Langeveld, N. Sharma, H. Watson, and J. Woods. 2017. Global Land Outlook Working Paper: Energy and Land Use. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). September 2017.

Fthenakis, V., and H.C. Kim. 2009. Land use and electricity generation: A life-cycle analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13: 1465-1474.

Geothermal Energy Association. 2014. Geothermal Basics - Environmental Benefits. Washington, D.C.

http://geo-energy.org/geo_basics_environment.aspx Government of British Columbia. 2014. Environmental Mitigation Policy - Working Document - May 13, 2014. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-policy-

legislation/environmental-mitigation-policy/em_policy_may 1 3_20l4.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2018.

Grasby, S.E., Allen, D.M., Bell, S., Chen, Z., Ferguson, G„ Jessop, A., Kelman, M., Ko, M., Majorowicz, J., Moore, M„ Raymond, J, and Therrien, R„ 2012. Geothermal Energy Resource Potential of Canada,

Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 6914 (revised), 322 p. doi: 1 0.4095/29 1 488 BRE (2014) Biodiversity Guidance for Solar Developments. Eds G E Parker and L Greene.

Horvath, G., Blaho, M., Egri, A., Kriska G„ Seres I., and B. Robertson. 2010. Reducing the Maladaptive Attractiveness of Solar Panels to Polarotactic Insects. Conservation Biology 24(6): 1644-1653.

Huso, J., Dietsch, T., and C. Nicolai. 2016. Mortality Monitoring Design for Utility-Scale Solar Power Facilities. Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Open-File Report 2016-1087.

JRP. 2014. Report of the Joint Review Panel Site C Clean Energy Project. BC Hydro and Power

Authority, British Columbia, May 2014.

Kagan, R.A., T.C. Viner, P.W. Trail, and E.O. Espinoza. 2014. Avian mortality at solar energy facilities in Southern California: A preliminary analysis. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory. Website:

MSES Inc

Page 2 1

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

40 MSES

January 2018

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/sourcefiles/avian-mortality-solar-energy-ivanpah-apr-20l4.pdf.

Accessed July 2016.

Laurance, W.F. 1997. Hyper-disturbed parks: Edge effects and the ecology of isolated rainforest reserves in Tropical Australia. Pp. 71-84 in Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of

Fragmented Communities, W.F. Laurance, and R.O. Bierregaard, eds. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

Marsh, D.M., G.S. Milam, N.P. Gorham, and N.G. Beckman. 2005. Forest roads as partial barriers to

terrestrial salamander movement. Conserv. Biol. 1 9(6):2004-2008.

Montag, H., Parker, Gâ&#x20AC;&#x17E; & T. Clarkson. 2016. The Effects of Solar Farms on Local Biodiversity; A Comparative Study. Clarkson and Woods and Wychwood Biodiversity.

MWLAP. 2004.

BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection: Standards and Best Practices for

Instream Works. Victoria, BC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study.

https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re-futures.html National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https:// doi.org/ 1 0.1 7226/ 1 1935.

Northrup, J. M. and G. Wittemyer. 201 3. Characterising the impacts of emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation. Ecology Letters 16: I 12-125.

Peschel, T. 2010. Solar parks - Opportunities for Biodiversity. A report on biodiversity in and around ground-mounted photovoltaic plants. Renews Special Issue 45 / December 2010. www.renewables-ingermany.com

Shortall, R., B. Davidsdottir, and G. Axelsson. 2015. Geothermal energy for sustainable development: A review of sustainability impacts and assessment frameworks. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44: 391-406.

Smith, J.A., and J.F. Dwyer. 2016. Avian interactions with renewable energy infastructure: An update.

The Condor, 1 1 1 8(2):4 1 1-423.

Stewart, A. and P.E. Komers. 2012. Testing the Ideal Free Distribution Hypothesis: Moose Response to Changes in Habitat Amount. ISRN Ecology 2012: Article ID 945209, 8pp.

Trainor, A.M., R.I. McDonald, and J. Fargione. 2016. Energy Sprawl Is the Largest Driver of Land Use

Change in the United States. PLoS ONE I 1(9): eO 1 62269. doi:IO.I37l/journal.pone.OI62269 Tsoutsos, T., Frantzeskaki, Nâ&#x20AC;&#x17E; and V. Gekas. 2005. Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy 33: 289-296.

Turney, D., and V. Fthenakis. 201 I. Environmental impacts from the installation and operation of largescale solar power plants. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15: 3261-3270.

MSES Inc

Page 22

Evaluation of Impacts Site C Dam vs Alternative Energies

January 2018

40 MSES

Walston, L.J., Rollins K.E., LaGory K.E., Smith K.P., and S.A. Meyers. 2016. A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States. Renewable Energy 92(2016): PP405-4I4.

MSES Inc

Page 23

*9 MSES M**??->*>> mc ScM-m* r { rwcTWjr So«^C4

Appendix A MSES Team Resumes

40MSES Sheri L. Outsell, Ph.D. Plant Ecology, Reclamation, and Fire Ecology Overview Dr. Gutsell is a plant ecologist and an environmental consultant. She has published scientific

articles in prestigious journals, presented talks at conferences on forest dynamics and wildfires, and

reviewed

scientific

manuscripts and

books. As an environmental

consultant,

she has

conducted environmental impact assessments and third-party reviews of environmental impact assessments, approvals, terms of references and regulatory framework policies. In her expert review capacity,

she

routinely

reviews

regulatory

applications

for their

scientific

rigour,

specifically conservation and reclamation plans and project impacts on vegetation and wetlands.

Dr. Gutsell has also produced technical documents on a variety of topics, including trends in

biodiversity, plant species distribution, and the effects of herbivory, drought, and wildfire on trees. Relevant environmental consulting work includes:

•

Third party technical reviews of the Terms of Reference, Environmental Impact

Assessments, Application Approvals, and Annual Monitoring Reports for vegetation and reclamation, including wetlands, forestry, rare and sensitive plant species and communities, traditional- use plant species, and old-growth forests.

•

Scientific advisor to the Aboriginal Review Group for japan Canada Oil Sands Limited

•

Developed a research project in collaboration with the Aboriginal Review Group to

Hangingstone Project, Alberta, Canada. investigate methods of increasing the number of native plant species that re-establish within reclamation sites.

•

Developed information requests and expert reports on behalf of First Nations for submission to the National Energy Board (NEB).

•

Provided expert testimony on behalf of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation regarding gaps and concerns in conservation and reclamation plans provided by Shell for the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project hearing.

•

Provided expert testimony on behalf of Saulteau First Nation regarding gaps and

concerns in mitigation reclamation plans proposed by BC Hydro for the Site C Project hearing.

•

Provided expert testimony on behalf of West Moberly First Nation regarding gaps and concerns in mitigation reclamation plans proposed by NGTL for Towerbirch Expansion Project hearing.

•

Developed vegetation and reclamation mitigation measures and recommendations for

Environmental Protection Plans.

•

Collected data and produced technical report for the vegetation and wetland component of an Environmental Impact Assessment for a highway twinning project.

•

Collected data and produced technical report for the vegetation and wetland components of several Environment Screening Reports and Biophysical Reports for road and residential projects in Alberta.

•

Conducted vegetation surveys that include ELC classification and non-native and rare

4ยง MSES (A

fcti tkMKM f\ ItWTTVA* to#TA

plant surveys.

Employment Experience 2007 - present MSES Inc. Environmental Consultant - Third-party Reviewer and

Project Manager for

Reviews of Environmental Impact Assessments for oil sands projects (in-situ and mines) and pipeline projects in Alberta; a wind energy project, a hydroelectric dam project, and pipeline projects in BC; a tungsten and molybdenum mine in

New

Brunswick;

a

hydroelectric

project

in

Manitoba;

and

Environmental

Screening reports for road widening projects in Alberta 2002 - 2004

Alpine Environmental Ltd. Environmental Consultant - Environmental Impact Statement for a natural gas development in Saskatchewan. Technical writing of internal review papers on biodiversity,

ecosystem health and

integrity, wildfire and grazing effects on

grasslands

2001 -2004

University of Calgary Science

Writer Ecology

Connections:

Connecting

Ecology

Research

and

Education - a science education website (www.EcologyConnections.ca) Forest Ecology Interpretive Trail Guide: Trees and Forests of the Kananaskis: Barrier

Lake Forestry Trails

Education

1995 - 2001

Ph.D., Plant population and community ecology, University of Calgary

1991 - 1994

M.Sc., Plant population and community ecology, University of Calgary

1987- 1991

B.Sc., Ecology, University of Calgary

Scholarly Publications

Publications in Peer-Reviewed Journals

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. 2002. Accurately ageing trees and examining their height growth rates: implications for interpreting forest dynamics. Journal of Ecology 90:153-166.

Gutsell, S.L., E.A. Johnson, K. Miyanishi, J.E. Keeley, M. Dickinson, and S.R.J. Bridge. 2001.

Correspondence: Varied ecosystems need different fire protection. Nature 409:977.

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. 1996. How fire scars are formed: coupling a disturbance process

0MSES vl UMP* *1 f ÂŤ

tcwtt

to its ecological effect. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 166-174.

Johnson, E.A. and S.L. Gutsell.

1994. Fire frequency models, methods and interpretations.

Advances in Ecological Research 25:239-287.

Johnson, E.A., and S.L. Gutsell. opening of serotinous

1993. Heat budget and fire behaviour associated with the

cones

in two

Pinus

species. Journal

of Vegetation

Science

4(6):745-750.

Book Chapter Gutsell,

S.L.

and

E.A. Johnson.

2007.

Wildfire

and

tree

population

processes.

In

Plant

disturbance ecology: the process and the response. E.A. Johnson and K. Miyanishi (eds.).

Academic Press.

Refereed Publications

Gutsell, S.L. and

E.A. Johnson.

2001.

Understanding old-growth

forests

using stand

level

processes. Supplement to Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82(4).

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. 2001. Understanding forest dynamics in the context of a fire-

dominated landscape. North American Forest Ecology Workshop Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. 1999. Examining a critical assumption of methods used to infer

patterns of forest succession. Supplement to Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 80(4).

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson.

1994. The mechanisms of fire scar formation. Supplement to

Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 75(2):84.

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. 1993. A heat budget model for opening of serotinous cones in Pinus banksiana and Pinus contorta var. latifolia. Supplement to Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 74(2):26 1 .

Other Publications (Non-Refereed) Gutsell,

S.L.

2005.

Ecology

Research

Connections.

Kananaskis

Field

Stations

publication.

University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

Gutsell,

S.L.

2003.

Trees

and

Forests

of the

Kananaskis:

Barrier

Lake

Forestry

Trails.

Interpretive Trail Guide. Kananaskis Field Stations publication. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Johnson, E.A., Miyanishi, K., Gutsell, S.L., Dickinson, M.B., and Revel, R. 2000. Lightning, lightning fires and fire frequency. Research Links. Parks Canada.

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. 1998. What can be learned about forest dynamics from the age distribution of trees? In: Tested Studies for Laboratory Teaching: Proceedings of the

40MSES Urt^wrÂť<JS>AM"U

19

th

horn**

workshop/conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE).

S.J. Archer (ed). June 10-14, 1997. University of Calgary. Calgary, AB. External Reviews Book Reviews for Scientific Journals Gutsell, S.L. 1996. The Ecology of Fire, by R.J. Whelan. Cambridge University Press. 1995. In: The New Phytologist I34(2):387.

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. 1992. Atlas of the Vascular plants of the island of Newfoundland and of the islands of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, by E. Rouleau et G. Lamoureux. In: Cartographica 30(4).

Manuscript Reviews for Scientific Journals

Australian Journal of Ecology, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Ecology, Ecoscience, Forest Science, International Journal of Wildland Fire, Journal of Applied Ecology, Restoration Ecology Conference Abstracts (Non-Refereed) Gutsell, S.L. and E.A.Johnson. 1999. Testing the assumptions of methods used to infer patterns of forest succession. In: Proceedings of Science and Practice: Sustaining the Boreal

Forest.

Networks

of

Centres

of

Excellence

in

Sustainable

Forest

Management.

Edmonton, AB. 14-17 February.

Gutsell, S.L.

1998. Analysis of cohort life tables for upland tree species in the southern

mixedwood boreal forest of Saskatchewan, Canada. In: Proceedings of the Western Student

Workshop.

Networks

of

Centres

of

Excellence

in

Sustainable

Forest

Management. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 2-3 October.

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. 1998. Analysis of cohort life tables for upland tree species in the southern mixedwood boreal forest of Saskatchewan, Canada. In: Proceedings of the VII

International Congress of Ecology. A. Farino, J. Kennedy, V. Bossu. (eds.). Florence, Italy.

1 9-25 July.

Gutsell, S.L 1995. The affects of fire suppression in the North American boreal forest. In: Conference on Sustaining Biodiversity in the Boreal

Forest.

Edmonton, AB. 29-31

January.

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A.Johnson. 1994. The mechanisms of fire scar formation. In: Proceedings of the VI International Congress of Ecology. J.H. Hallis, H.J. Norman, R.A. Benton (eds.).

Manchester,

England.

21-26

August. Gutsell,

S.L.

and

E.A.

mechanisms of fire scar formation. In: Program of the 30

th

Johnson.

1994.

The

Annual Meeting of the

Canadian Botanical Association. 26-30 June.

Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. 1992. A heat budget model for opening of serotinous cones in

4Wmses Sofc/Âťy.1 * { >"<W.

Pinus banksiana and Pinus contorta var. latifolia. In: Workshop on Disturbance Dynamics in boreal Forest. Umea, Sweden. 10-14 August.

Invited Lectures & Workshops Gutsell, S.L. La dynamique des peuplements locaux et paysage de la foret boreale. Dept. des

sciences fondamentales, Univ. du Quebec a Chicoutimi. October, 1998. (Invited lecture) Gutsell, S.L. and E.A. Johnson. Forest dynamics in the boreal forest of Saskatchewan. Workshop in tree

regeneration

in the

boreal forest.

Networks

of Centres

of

Excellence in

Sustainable Forest Management. Montreal, Quebec. April 1998. (Invited workshop) Gutsell, S.L. Large fire years: cause and meaning. U.S. Forest Service Workshop. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 17-19 April, 1996. (Invited workshop) Gutsell, S.L. National workshop on wildland fire activity in Canada. Canadian Forest Service Workshop. Edmonton, AB. 1-4 April 1996. (Invited workshop)

Gutsell, S.L.

1995. The affects of fire suppression

in the North American boreal forest.

Conference on Sustaining Biodiversity in the Boreal Forest. Edmonton, AB. 29- 31

January. (Invited lecture) Technical Reports Dr. Gutsell has contributed to numerous technical reviews and scientific advice pertaining to

vegetation, reclamation and wetland disciplines for various mines, SAGD, pipeline, hydroelectric and other development projects on behalf of First Nations. A few recent examples include: MSES Inc. (2014) TransMountain Pipeline ULC National Energy Board (NEB) Application for the TransMountain Expansion Project - Information Request (IR) No. I to TransMountain.

Prepared for Adams Lake Indian Band.

MSES Inc. (2014) Review of the Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited Application for Approval of the Aspen SAGD Project. Prepared for the Mikisew Cree First Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

MSES Inc. (2014) Technical Review of the Application for the Meikle Wind Energy Project.

Prepared for Saulteau First Nations, West Moberley First Nations and McLeod Lake Indian Band.

MSES Inc. (2013) Deer Mountain Land Use Plan (Part I)- Regional Disturbance Analysis of WMU 350. Prepared for Swan River First Nation.

MSES

Inc.

(2013).

Third-party

Review

of

the

BC

Hydro

Site

C

Impact

Assessment:

Recommendations for Proposed Mitigation Measures for Vegetation. Prepared on behalf of the Saulteau First Nation.

MSES Inc. (2013). Technical Review of the EIA Report for the Northcliff Resources Ltd. Sisson

Mine Project. Prepared for St. Mary's First Nation, Woodstock First Nation, and the Assembly of First Nations Chiefs of New Brunswick.

41Wmses

Awards 1997

Canadian Botanical Association's J.S. Rowe Award - Honourable Mention for the best paper in plant ecology published by a Canadian student (awarded for: Gutsell, S.L. and

E.A. Johnson. 1 996. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 1 66- 1 74.)

Teaching Experience Courses Developed and Taught

2002

th Terrestrial Communities and Ecosystems (4"' year undergraduate course), University of

Calgary ( 1 7 lectures)

2001

The Organization and Diversity of Life (Ist year undergraduate course), University of Calgary (12 lectures)

1998 Understanding landscape-scale patterns of plant community composition (4^- year undergraduate course), University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka (5 lectures) 1997

What can be learned about forest dynamics from the age distribution of trees? (4

th

year

undergraduate lab exercise), Workshop of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education, University of Calgary (I -day field and lab exercise) 1995

Fire frequency, methods,

models and

interpretation (graduate course), 6

American Fieldweek, University of Calgary (5-day field and lab exercise) Teaching Assistant - University of Calgary th

1998-1999

Conservation Biology (4

1992 - 1995

th Terrestrial Ecology (4"' year course)

1992 - 1996

nd Ecology and Evolution (2"" year course)

1991

Biology (I St year course)

year course)

th

North

0 MSES arc

* lyrvnmU Scwcj

Petr E. Komers, Ph.D. Wildlife, Land-use, and Environmental Impact Assessment Overview Dr. Komers specializes in the assessment of ecological impacts, regional habitat use and population ecology.

He integrates this expertise with community,

municipal,

and regional

land-use

plans.

He

routinely acts as an expert witness, a referee of scientific manuscripts, and as an examiner at university

thesis defenses. For over 20 years, Dr. Komers conducted and supervised university research and published in peer-reviewed journals with his students and colleagues. Dr. Komers applies his expertise when advising review boards, legal teams, and other decision makers regarding project impacts on

communities and people. He leads multidisciplinary teams in reviews of impact assessments, advising on completeness and deficiencies, and recommends actions to ensure that environmental management plans are thorough, practical and relevant regarding the identification and management of environmental change. Dr. Komers has led ecological assessments in Canada, USA, Europe, Asia and Africa. His

experience includes multimillion dollar industry and research projects in wildlife ecology, leading of international scientific teams, and the development of environmental standards. Dr. Komers has been selected by the Government of Alberta to join the roster of Albertans who may be called upon to serve on review panels of regional plans under the Alberta Land and Stewardship Act. He resided in six countries and is fluent in six languages. Dr. Komers works with proponents, Indigenous communities, governments,

and NGOs.

Areas of specialization Conservation biology, ecosystem change, wildlife ecology, environmental impact assessment, third-party review, community engagement.

Key Experience ©

Designed,

managed, and written

America, Asia and Africa.

multi-disciplinary environmental impact assessments

in

North

Since the early 1990s, led teams of science practitioners in assessments

ranging from local assessments of environmental applications to multimillion dollar projects of

international significance. ©

Designed,

managed,

and

written

multi-disciplinary

third-party

reviews

of

industry

regulatory

applications and environmental management and monitoring plans. This was done on behalf of Indigenous communities as well as Review Boards at the provincial and federal levels throughout Canada starting in the late 1990s.

•

Served as an

expert witness

and advisor

in

well

over

1000 hours of hearings and

technical

workshops in presence of legal teams. ®

Authored over 50 peer-reviewed or international papers, presentations and invited speaker lectures with a focus on wildlife ecology and conservation, impact assessment and the engagement of indigenous peoples.

•

Supervised graduate students conducting university research in wildlife ecology and conservation at the University of Calgary, Canada, and the University of Uppsala, Sweden.

40MSES Ua*/> 1-4T* mO 6<A/.yvs *

So*-.;*

Key Projects Scientific Advisor to the Environmental Impact Review Board, Inuvialuit Settlement Region, NWT, for the Inuvik to Tuktoyuktuk Road development.

Scientific Advisor (wildlife) to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, the Gahcho Kue mine project and the Taltson Hydroelectric Project, NWT. Scientific Advisor to the Environmental Monitoring Advisory Board, Diavik Diamond Mine, NWT. Lead on the wildlife impact assessment for the Mackenzie Gas Project, NWT. Regional Land Use planning and mapping analyses for First Nations in Northern Alberta.

Third party reviews of ElAs on behalf of Aboriginal communities: projects in the Alberta Oil Sands,

Diamond Mines in the NWT, and Hydroelectric Projects in Manitoba and British Columbia.

Great Sand Hills Regional Environmental Study - Third party review on behalf of the File Hills

Qu'Appelle Tribal Council Scientific Advisor to the Energy Resources Conservation Board, Encana Suffield project.

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment by Alberta Environment, third party review and PowerPoint presentations on the strategy.

Research on

industrial

disturbances in

Southern Alberta

and the Foothills

Natural

Region;

supervision of Graduate Research Projects, University of Calgary.

Research on wildlife population management in Alberta, NWT, Kenya and Sweden.

Lead for the wildlife impact assessment of two mining projects in Alaska.

Environmental impact assessment and environmental management plan in Kirthar National Park (Pakistan).

Employment Experience 2002 - present

MSES Inc.: President and Principal Consultant (International

Project

Development,

Environmental

Evaluation

and

Planning,

Management of Environmental Science Teams) 2003 - 2007

AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd., Calgary, Alberta: Casual Consultant (Lead Wildlife Ecologist for the Mackenzie Pipeline Environmental Group,

Project

Planning, Implementation and Management; Environmental Assessment and Planning) 2001 -2002

Inuvialuit Environmental & Geotechnical Ltd.: Manager Biophysical Services (Project

Planning

and

Implementation,

Senior

Review,

Science

Advisor,

Public

Consultation) 1997-2001

AMEC

Earth

&

Environmental

Ltd.,

Calgary,

(Environmental Assessment and Planning,

Alberta:

Project Planning,

Senior

Consultant

Implementation

Management, Public Consultation, Environmental Regulation) March 1998

University of Calgary, Alberta: Sessional Lecturer (Preparation and Delivery of Lectures in Conservation Biology, Student Advisor)

1995- 1996

University of Uppsala, Sweden: Research Fellow

and

<jWmses m IcAton ÂŤ C

(Fundamental / Applied Research, Project Development and Management,

Student

Supervision, Public Consultation, International Team Leadership) 1993-1995

University of Cambridge, England: Research Fellow (Fundamental

Research,

Project

Development

and

Management,

International

Collaboration)

1988-1992

University of Saskatchewan, Canada: Sessional Lecturer; Teaching Assistant

1985-1987

University of Alberta, Canada: Teaching Assistant

Education 1993-1997 1988-1992

Post-doctorate, University of Cambridge, UK, and University of Uppsala, Sweden Doctor of Philosophy, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

(Thesis: Mating strategies of male wood bison) 1985-1987

Master of Science, University of Alberta, Canada (Thesis: Mate choice in black-billed magpies)

1981 -1984

Bachelor of Science, University of Berne, Switzerland

Awards 1995-1997 1993-1995

Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Post-doctoral Fellowship, Switzerland Natural

Sciences

and

Engineering

Research

Council

( NSERC)

Post-doctoral

Fellowship, Canada 1993-1995

National Geographic Research Award, USA

1990-1992

University of Saskatchewan Graduate Award, Canada

1988-1990

Natural

Sciences

and

Engineering

Research

Council

(NSERC)

Post-graduate

Scholarship, Canada 1989-1991

World Wildlife Fund Canada Research Grant

Affiliations Member

Editorial/Advisory Board for the Journal of ETHOLOGY, ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION

Alberta Roster

to serve on review panels of regional plans under the Alberta Land and Stewardship Act

Advisor

University of Calgary Environmental Science Program, External Advisory Committee

Past-President

Alberta Society of Professional Biologists (ASPB)

Past-Adjunct

Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Calgary, Biological Sciences

Publications Presentations

4Wmses Uiy/r** M Souwh n I'

Komers, P.E. 2017. Science, Policy, and Indigenous Peoples. Environmental Science Program; invited speaker. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary. March 2017

Komers, P.E. 2016. Who gives? On sharing land with bison, moose and wolves in a changing landscape. Invited speaker. Department of Biology. Universita di Firenze, Italy. August 2017 Komers, P.E. 2013. Rates of Land-cover Change in the Alberta Boreal Forest. Ecology and Evolution Seminar; invited speaker. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary. November 2013 Komers, P.E. and Kopach,

B. 2013. Using ecological analysis to assess impacts on rights of indigenous peoples. Session chair and organizer. Presented at International Association for Impact Assessment, Calgary, Canada, May 2013.

Gavin, S., S. Hechtenthal, A. Stewart, T. Whidden, Z. Stanojevic and P.E. Komers. 2010. Maintaining

wildlife movement: the need for regional planning.

Presented at International Association for

Impact Assessment, Geneva, Switzerland, April 2010. Best Poster Award.

Kienzle S.W., J. Byrne, D. Schindler and P. Komers, 2005.

Northern Watershed Environmental

Lead to an Impending

Do Massive Oil Sands Developments in a Crisis?

Results

Impacts Assessments. American Geophysical

from a Gap

Analysis of

Union (AGU) Conference

Poster, Section "Watershed resilience and sustainability", 5-9 December 2005, San Francisco,

California.

Gavin, S. and Komers P.E. 2005. Pronghorn behaviour in response to roads in southern Alberta, Canada. Animal Behaviour Society, 42nd Annual Meeting, Snowbird, Utah, August 6-10, 2005.

Komers P.E. and Clayton D. 2003. Reclamation Challenges North of 60 - Wildlife, Regulations and Traditional Knowledge, presented at the Canadian Land Reclamation Association, Calgary, Alberta.

Komers,

P.E.

2002.

Replacing

Opinion

with

Measurement

in

Environmental

Assessments.

Presented at the National Energy Board, June in Calgary, Canada.

Komers, P.E. and Archie, B. 2001. Dealing with Traditional Land Use and Northern Heritage Issues

in Development Projects. Conference for the Mackenzie Oil & Gas Development Strategies, October in Calgary, Canada.

Komers, P.E. 2000. Non-Linear Responses of Ecosystem Components to Provide Threshold Values for Cumulative Effects Management. Cumulative Effects Management Conference, November

in Calgary, Canada.

Lectures, University of Calgary Komers, P.E., Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Science Program ENSC 502; on regulatory underpinnings and practical approaches to measurement in Canada and internationally. Recurring in Winter Semester 2002 - 2009.

Komers,

P.E.

Impacts on Wildlife,

Environmental

Science

Program

ENSC 401;

on the

measurement and analysis of disturbance effects, recurring, September 1998 - April 2015.

Peer-reviewed Publications

Belvederesi, C., Thompson, M.S., Komers, P.E. 2017. Canada's federal database is inadequate for the assessment of environmental consequences of oil and gas pipeline failures.

Environmental Reviews. Published on the web 25 May 2017, DOI: 10.1 139/er-201 7-0003

4gjySES M*r*j»r.cr« ft 4 6oM»Y* .. fr

H»W«

Stewart, A., and P.E. Komers. 2017. Conservation of wildlife populations: factoring in incremental disturbance. Ecology and Evolution. 2017: 1-9. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3015 Komers, P.E., Z. Stanojevic. 2013. Rates of Disturbance vary by data resolution: implications for conservation schedules using the Alberta Boreal Forest as a case study. Global Change Biology. 19:2916-2928. doi: 10.1 1 1 1/gcb.12266.

Stewart,

A., and P.E. Komers. 2012. Testing the Ideal Free Distribution Hypothesis: Moose Response to Changes in Habitat Amount. International Scholarly Research Network (ISRN) Ecology. Volume 2012, Article ID 945209, 8 pages, doi:1 0.5402/201 2/945209.

Komers,

P.E., A. Stewart, S.D. Gavin, S. Hechtenthal, T. Whidden, and Z. Stanojevic. 2010.

Participatory Management In The Canadian Oil Sands. 'IAIA10 Conference Proceedings'

Submission ID: 56; The Role of Impact Assessment in Transitioning to the Green Economy 30th

Annual

Meeting

of the

International

Association for

Impact Assessment 6-11

April

2010,

International Conference Centre Geneva - Switzerland (www.iaia.org) Stewart, A., P.E. Komers, and D.J. Bender. 2010. Assessing Landscape Relationships for Habitat Generalists. Ecoscience, 17: 28-36.

Gavin, S.D. and P.E. Komers. 2006. Do pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) perceive roads as a predation risk? Canadian journal of Zoology, 84:1775-1780.

Brotherton, P.N.M. and P.E. Komers . 2003. Mate Guarding and the Evolution of Social Monogamy in Mammals, in:

Monogamy:

Mating Strategies and Partnerships in

Birds, Humans and other

Mammals., U. Reichard and C. Boesch eds., University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. Pp. 42-

58.

Komers, P.E. and G.P. Curman. 2000. The Effect of Demographic Characteristics on the Success of Ungulate Re-introductions. Biol. Cons. 93: 187-193.

Komers, P.E., B. Birgersson and K. Ekvall.

1999. Timing of Estrus Influenced by Male Age in Fallow

Deer. Am. Nat. 153: 431-436.

Pelabon, C.,

P.E. Komers, and J. Hoglund.

encounters in fallow deer?

1999.

Do leks limit the frequency of aggressive

Linking local male density and lek occurrence. Can. J. Zool.

77: 667-670.

Pelabon, C., P.E. Komers, B. Birgersson and K. Ekvall.

1999.

Social Interactions of Yearling Male

Fallow Deer during the Rut. Ethology 105: 247-258.

Komers, P.E. and P.N.M. Brotherton. 1997. Female Space Use Is the Best Predictor of Monogamy in Mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B. 264: 1261-1270.

Komers, P.E. 1997.

Behavioral Plasticity in Variable Environments. Can. J. Zool. 75: 161-169.

Brotherton,

J.M.

P.N.M.,

Pemberton,

P.E.

Komers

and

G.

Malarky.

1997.

Genetic

Evidence

of

Monogamy in an Antelope, Kirk's Dik-Dik ( Madoqua kirkii). Proc. R. Soc. B. 264: 675-681.

Komers, P.E., C. Pelabon and D. Stenstrom.

1997.

Age- Vs. Dominance-specific Behaviors.

Komers, P.E. and P.N.M. Brotherton.

1997.

Age at First Reproduction in Male Fallow Deer: Behav. Ecol. 8:

456-462.

Dung Pellets Used to Identify the Distribution and

Density of Dik-Dik. Afr. J. Ecol. 35: 124-132.

Pelabon, C. and P.E. Komers.

1997.

Time-Budget Variations in Relation to Density-Dependent Social Interactions in Female and Yearling Male Fallow Deer During the Rut. Can. J. Zool.

75: 971-977.

40MSES Komers,

P.E.

1996.

Obligate

Monogamy Without

Paternal

Care

in

Kirk's

Dik-Dik.

Anim.

Behav. 51: 131-140.

Komers, P.E.

1996.

Conflicting Territory Use in Males and Females of a Monogamous Ungulate,

the Kirk's Dik-Dik. Ethology 102: 568-579.

Komers, P.E., F. Messier, and C.C. Gates.

1994.

Plasticity of Reproductive Behavior in Wood Bison

Bulls: On Risks and Opportunities. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 6: 481-495.

Komers, P.E., F. Messier, and C.C. Gates.

1994.

Plasticity of Reproductive Behavior in Wood Bison

Bulls: When Subadults Are Given a Chance. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 6: 313-330.

Komers, P.E., F. Messier, P. Flood, and C.C. Gates.

1994.

Reproductive Behavior of Male Wood

Bison Related to Female Progesterone Level. J. Mammal. 75: 757-765.

Komers, P.E., F. Messier, and C.C. Gates.

1993.

Group Structure in Wood Bison: Nutritional and

Reproductive Determinants. Can. J. Zool. 71: 1367-1371.

Komers, P.E., K. Roth, and R. Zimmerli.

1992.

Interpreting Social Behavior of Wood Bison Using

Tail Postures. Z. Saugetierk 57: 343-350.

Komers, P.E., F. Messier, and C.C. Gates.

1992.

Search or Relax: The Case of Bachelor Wood

Bison. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 31: 195-203.

Komers, P.E. and E.J. Komers.

Differences.

1992.

Juvenile Male Magpies Dominate Adults Irrespective of Size

Can. J. Zool. 70: 815-819.

Dhindsa, M.S., P.E. Komers, and D.A. Boag.

1989.

Nest Height of Black-Billed Magpies: Is it

Determined by Human Disturbance or Habitat type?

Komers, P.E.

1989.

Can. J. Zool. 67: 228-232.

Dominance Relationships between Juvenile and Adult Black-Billed Magpies.

Anim. Behav. 37: 256-265.

Komers, P.E. and M.S. Dhindsa.

1989.

Influence of Dominance on Mate Choice in Black-Billed

Magpies: An Experimental Study. Anim. Behav. 37: 645-655.

Dhindsa, M.S., P.E. Komers, and D.A. Boag.

1989.

The Effect of Familiarity with an Environment on

the Dominance Relationships between Juvenile and Adult Black-Billed Magpies.

Orn.

Scan. 20: 187-192.

Dhindsa, M.S., D.A. Boag, and P.E. Komers.

1989.

Mate Choice in Black-Billed Magpies: The Role of

Male Quality vs. Quality of Defended Resources. Orn. Scan. 20: 193-203.

Komers, P.E. and D.A. Boag.

1988.

The Reproductive Performance in Black-billed Magpies:

Is it

Related to Mate Choice? Can. J. Zool. 66: 1679-1684.

Reports and Proceedings Komers,

P.E. 2002.

Non-Linear Responses Of Ecosystem Components To Provide Threshold

Values For Cumulative Effects Management. Proceedings of the Cumulative Environmental Effects Management Conference in Calgary, November 2000.

Komers, P.E. 2002. Book Review: Repairing Damaged Wildlands; A Process Oriented Approach, by S.G. Whisenant BIOS, The Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Volume 17 (1 ): 8.

Patriquin, D.L. and Komers, P.E. 2000. An Ecosystem Approach to Reclamation: The Gregg River Mine Project.

October 2000.

Canadian Land Reclamation Association, Conference Proceedings, Edmonton,

40 MSES ÂŤnC BcKA.*il t" I

Komers,

P.E., G.P. Curman, B. Birgersson and K. Ekvall. 2000. The Success of Ungulate Reintroductions: Effects of Age and Sex Structure. In: L. Darling, ed. Proceedings of the Species and Habitats at Risk Conference, Kamloops, BC, Canada, February 15-19, 1999.

Komers, P.E., and J. Gilson. 1998. The Development of Wildlife Corridors and Green Spaces; an

Information Package. Environmental Committee, Municipal District of Foothills No. 31, Alberta, Canada.

Komers,

P.E.

and S.

Ulfstrand.

1997.

Behavioral

Management of Fragmented Populations.

Plasticity in

Final report.

Fallow Deer Related to the

Roche Research Foundation, Annual

Report, 1996. Basel: Editiones.

Komers, P.E.

1994.

Monogamy in Dik-Dik Antelopes and its Relation to Population Parameters

and Territory resources. Final research report.

National Council for Science and Technology,

and the Office of the President, Kenya.

Gates, C.C., N.C. Larter and P.E. Komers.

1991.

Size and Composition of the Mackenzie Wood

Bison Population in 1989. Government of the NWT, DRR, File Report No. 93.

Popular Publications Komers, P.E.

Komers, P.E.

1997.

Property Rites.

1996.

Natural History, March 106: 28-31.

Fallow Deer Breeding: What Can We Learn from Observing Deer Behavior?

[Swedish] Svensk Hjortavel 3/1996: 14-16.

Komers, P.E.

1991.

A Wood Bison Summer.

Educational video, 31

minutes.

Presented at the

International Behavioral Ecology Congress, Princeton, 1992; Award Winner of the 1993 Animal

Behavior Society Film Festival.

Komers,

P.E.

and

H.

Grosswildes.

Komers,

P.E.

1989.

Naturschutz.

Komers, P.E.

1988.

Erdmann.

1990.

Waldbisons:

Die

Geschichte

Bekannten

Schreikraniche

vom

Aussterben

Bedroht:

Hurde fur

Amerikanischen

Die Tierwelt. 99(28): 13.

Wood Buffalo National Park.

Video copy available at the Wood Buffalo National

Park interpretive centre, Fort Smith, NWT. Komers, P.E.

Eines Wenig

Das Tier 1 990: 1 1 .

1988. Elstern und Rabenvogel. Die Tierwelt. 98(14): 13-14.

49 MSES Megan S. Thompson, Ph.D., P.Biol J R.P. Bio. Aquatic ecology <£ Limnology Overview Dr.

Megan

Thompson

is an

ecologist specializing in

limnology with more than fifteen years of professional, research and academic experience dealing with pollutant and climate change impacts on lakes and rivers. Dr. Thompson's work has focused on the water quality impacts of terrestrial linkages and inputs like industrial surface runoff, mine tailings spills, atmospheric deposition and effluent release on freshwater systems.

She

has

represented

and advised

clients

in

meetings with

industry and

government, written technical and advisory reports, published papers, presented to community meetings and

lectured

on

northern

and

contaminant

limnology,

geomorphology,

statistics,

and

various

anthropogenic environmental impacts on lakes and rivers. Dr. Thompson's training is in the fields of aquatic ecology and limnology, as well as in planning and development, including studies in participatory research and conflict resolution. Dr. Thompson received her Ph.D. from the University of Victoria

(Canada) after completing interdisciplinary research into the nature and impacts of permafrost thaw on nearby lakes in the Mackenzie Delta area of the Northwest Territories. She has experience with projects in the Northwest Territories, Northern Sweden, Alaska, British Columbia, New Brunswick and

Alberta.

Key Experience •

Responsible for

third

party

technical

reviews

of more

than

40

industrial

and

infrastructure

developments and land use applications on behalf of Aboriginal groups. Act as the water quality expert advising clients on the appropriateness of proposed mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management activities for addressing their water quality concerns.

•

Technical duties include reviewing and reporting on baseline, post-development and predicted water quality and aquatic ecosystem information, including observed water and sediment quality data and

predictive modelling methods.

•

clients during preparation of submissions to multiple federal process and legislative reviews, including Canadian Environmental Assessment and NEB review processes, and the Fisheries and Navigation Protection Act.

•

Served as project manager and team lead initiating an interdisciplinary review of corporate and government responses to a large coal mine tailings spill into the Athabasca River, ultimately showing

Advised Aboriginal

that the spill response did not address certain unique client concerns and recommending potential solutions.

•

Edited and contributed to a review assessing the potential impacts of a tailings release to the Nashwaak River from a proposed metals mine in New Brunswick with clients concerned about impacts to fisheries. Provided recommendations that would allow the proponent to appropriately account for these impacts in its assessment.

•

Lead a research project focusing on the properties of soluble permafrost carbon as part of an ongoing landscape study of catchment carbon dynamics near Abisko, Sweden. Successfully used this data to model the expected export of organic carbon from thawing permafrost to freshwater

•

Conducted an extensive research program near Inuvik, NWT investigating the impacts of climateinduced permafrost thaw on water chemistry and aquatic organisms in over 50 arctic lakes. This

systems over the next 50 years.

40 MSES *v

« E>

Sc«t.

involved work with several Inuvialuit agencies, year-round fieldwork in remote areas, coordination between multiple federal government laboratories, and a multi-disciplinary research effort involving

biologists, chemists and physical scientists.

•

Employed in field and laboratory positions sampling and analyzing impacts of municipal wastewater inputs to the Bow and Red Deer Rivers, and alternate stable states in shallow prairie lakes. Served

as a field team lead during later years.

Employment Experience May 20 1 6 - present

Management

and

Solutions

in

Environmental

Science

Inc:

Science

Inc:

Aquatic Ecologist and Limnologist, Project Manager January 20 1 3 - May 20 1 6

Management

and

Solutions

in

Environmental

Associate Limnologist/Water Quality Expert

April 2009- April 2010

Umea University, Abisko, Sweden: Postdoctoral Researcher

April 2004 - April 2009

University of Victoria, Victoria, BC: Graduate Student, Research and Teaching Assistant

February 200 1 - March 2004

University of Calgary, Calgary, AB: Research Assistant

Education 2010

Ph.D. in Hydroecology, University of Victoria and Environment Canada

Dissertation: The impact of permafrost degradation on the pelagic water chemistry and biota of small tundra lakes

2003

B.Sc. in Ecology (with distinction) and Minor in Northern Planning and Development,

University of Calgary Undergraduate Thesis: The impact of sewage effluent on the structure and

function of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the Bow River, Alberta, Canada Professional Designations Professional Biologist (P. Biol.), Alberta Society of Professional Biologists (ASPB) Registered Professional Biologist (R.P.Bio.), British Columbia College of Applied Biology (CAB)

Select Technical Reports

MSES Inc., 2017. Project Manager, editor and contributor to Review of TransCanada's Eastern Mainline Project - Water Quality and Fish and Fish Habitat. Prepared for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper.

MSES Inc., 2016. Project Manager, editor and contributor to Application of Biosolids to Rangeland near Clinton, BC: Identification of Environmental Issues of Concern. Prepared for High Bar First Nation.

MSES

Inc.,

2016.

Project Manager, editor and contributor to Review of National Energy Board Conditions on the Trans Mountain Expansion Project for submission to the Major Projects Management Office. Prepared for Adams Lake Indian Band.

0MSES **! &*Nr« i E'vrrrrr^rt* Sc-^«

MSES Inc. 2015. Contributor to Review of the Horizontal Direction Drill (HDD) Release Information and

Monitoring Response Plan.

Prepared for the Aboriginal

Review Group (ARG), Japan

Canada Oil Sands Limited (jACOS) Hangingstone Expansion Project.

MSES Inc., 2015. Contributor to Review of the Teck Resources 2015 Project Update and Round 4 SIR Responses for the Frontier Project. Prepared for Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation IRC and Mikisew Cree First Nation GIR. MSES Inc., 2015. Editor and contributor to Qualitative Assessment of Potential Impacts to Atlantic

Salmon and American Eel in the Nashwaak River Resulting from Failure of the Sisson Mine Tailings

Storage

Facility.

Prepared

for St.

Mary's

First

Nation

and

the

Maliseet Nation

Conservation Council, with funding from the Aboriginal Fund for Species At Risk.

MSES Inc. 2014-2015. Contributor to Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC National Energy Board (NEB) Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project - Information Request (IR) Nos. I, 2 and 3 to Trans Mountain. Prepared for Adams Lake Indian Band.

MSES Inc., 2014. Editor and contributor to Review and Evaluation of the Final Impact Assessment and

Monitoring by Coal Valley Resources Inc. and the Alberta Government in Response to the Obed Mountain Mine Tailings Pond Release. Prepared for the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation.

MSES Inc., 2014. Contributor to Technical Review of the Application for the Meikle Wind Energy Project. Prepared for Saulteau First Nations, West Moberly First Nations and McLeod Lake Indian Band.

Peer-Reviewed Publications Belvederesi, C., M.S. Thompson and P.E. Komers. In revision. Canada's federal database is inadequate for the assessment of environmental consequences of oil and gas pipeline failures. Submitted to Environmental Reviews.

Thompson, M.S., Giesler, R„ Karlsson, J. and Klaminder, J. 2015. Size and characteristics of the DOC pool in near-surface subarctic mire permafrost as a potential source for nearby freshwaters.

Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 47: 49-58.

Lundin, E.J., Giesler, R„ Persson, A., Thompson, M.S. and Karlsson, J. 2013. Integrating carbon emissions

from

lakes

and

streams

in

a

subarctic

catchment.

Journal

of

Geophysical

Research:

Biogeosciences I 1 8: I -8.

Thompson, M.S., F.J. Wrona, and T.D. Prowse.

2012.

Shifts in plankton, nutrient and light relationships

in small tundra lakes caused by localized permafrost thaw. Arctic 65: 367-376.

Kokelj, S.V., B. Zajdlik, and M.S.Thompson. of

lakes

across

the

subarctic

2009. The impacts of thawing permafrost on the chemistry

boreal-tundra

transition,

Mackenzie

Delta

region,

Canada.

Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 20: 185-199.

Thompson, M.S., S.V. Kokelj, T.D.

Prowse, and F.J. Wrona. 2008.The impact of sediments

derived from thawing permafrost on tundra lake water chemistry: An experimental approach. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Permafrost, pp. 17631768.

Kokelj, S.V., B. Zajdlik, M.S. Thompson, and R.E.L. Jenkins.

2008. Thawing permafrost and temporal

variation in the electrical conductivity of small tundra lakes, Mackenzie Delta region, N.W.T., Canada. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Permafrost, pp. 965-970.

Askey, P.J., L.K. Hogberg, J.R. Post, L.J. Jackson, T. Rhodes, and M.S. Thompson. 2007. Spatial patterns in

fish biomass and relative trophic level abundance in a wastewater enriched river. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 16: 343-353.

0MSES M*i

tna

i t("ÂťowÂť So*rc*

Select Presentations

Thompson, M.S. (MSES Inc.). 2016. Mactaquac Dam: Comparative Reviews. Presentation made to four Maliseet Nation communities.

May 2016. Oromocto First Nation,

Kingsclear First Nation,

Woodstock First Nation, Tobique First Nation.

Thompson, M.S. (MSES Inc.) 2013. Obed Mountain Mine Spill. Presentation made to the Alexis Nakota Sioux Chief and Council and Community Meeting.

November 2013. Alexis Nakota Sioux

Nation.

Thompson, M.S., Wrona, F.J. and Prowse, T.D. Oral Presentation. The effects of shoreline retrogressive thaw slumping on chlorophyll a, nutrient and light relationships in small tundra lakes, presented

at the American Geophysical Fall Meeting. December 2010, San Francisco, CA. Thompson, M.S., Karlsson, J. and Giesler, R. Poster presentation. Impacts of thawing permafrost on dissolved organic material in freshwaters, presented at the Second CAPP Carbon Pools in Permafrost Areas Workshop, June 2009, Stockholm, Sweden.