Québec Hydropower Generation and the Environment by Hydro-Québec

Québec Hydropower Generation and the Environment Review of scientific knowledge and environmental impact mitigation measures, and comparison with other energy technologies December 2020

Cover photos Top left: Aerial view of Romaine-2 generating station Top right: Baie-James region landscape Bottom left: Traditional dip-net fishing for cisco at Smokey Hill, on the Rupert

Québec Hydropower Generation and the Environment REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES, AND COMPARISON WITH OTHER ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Hydro-Québec December 2020

Reference for citation WSP. 2020. Québec Hydropower Generation and the Environment. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal, Hydro-Québec. 232 p.

PROJEC T TEAM HYDRO-QUÉBEC Project Manager Sylvie Racine Energy trading floor

Project Manager – Environment Pierre Vaillancourt, B.Sc. Geography (Université du Québec à Chicoutimi) and M.A. Geography (Université Laval)

Advisors – Environment Christian Turpin, B.Sc. Biochemistry (Université de Moncton), DESS Management – Sustainable Development (HEC Montréal) Mylène Levasseur, Ph.D. Earth Sciences (Institut national de la recherche scientifique – Centre Eau Terre Environnement) Alexandre Beauchemin, M.Sc. Environment (Université du Québec à Montréal) Stéphane Lapointe, M.Sc. Biology (Université du Québec à Montréal) Jean-Christophe Guay, M.Sc. Aquatic Biology (Université de Montréal) Carine Durocher, B.Sc. Anthropology (Université de Montréal) Robert Lussier, B.Sc. Anthropology and M.Sc. Urbanism (Université de Montréal) Alain Tremblay, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences (Université du Québec à Montréal) François Bilodeau, M.Sc. Chemistry (Institut national de la recherche scientifique – Centre Eau Terre Environnement)

Advisor – Indigenous Relations Réal Courcelles, M.Sc. Biology (Université Laval), M.A. Education (Université de Montréal) and M.B.A. (HEC Montréal)

WSP CANADA INC. Project Director Louis Belzile, B.Sc. Biology (Université Laval)

Project Manager Marie Clément, Ph.D. Zoology (University of Guelph, Ontario)

Special Advisor Michel Bérubé, M.Sc. Biology (McGill University)

Contributors to this report Bernard Massicotte, M.Sc. Biology (Université Laval) Marie-Ève Martin, M.Sc. Urbanism (Université de Montréal)

Christian Couette, B.A. Geography (Université Laval) et M.B.A. (Université Laval) Mathieu Cyr, M.B.A. (Université Laval) Roger Schetagne, B.Sc. Biology (Université du Québec à Montréal) Jean Therrien, B.Sc. Biology (Université Laval)

English version – Translation Debby Dubrofsky, C. Tr. Patricia Hamilton Alexia Papadopoulos

Karine Neumann, M.Sc. Anthropology (Université de Montréal) Hélène Desnoyers, M.A. Québec (Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières) François Quinty, M.A. Geography (Université Laval) Patrice Lafrance, M.Sc. Water Sciences (Institut national de la recherche scientifique – Centre Eau Terre Environnement) Mélanie Lévesque, M.Sc. Oceanography (Université du Québec à Rimouski) Jean Deshaye, M.Sc. Biogeography (Université Laval) Rémi Duhamel, M.Sc. Biology of Organisms and Populations (Université d’Orléans, France) Marc Gauthier, Ph.D. Biology (Université de Sherbrooke) Christine Martineau, M.Sc. Biology (Université Laval) Gino Beauchamp, M.Sc. Geomorphology (Université de Montréal)

This report was prepared at the request of Hydro-Québec in accordance with the terms of the mandate entrusted to WSP Canada Inc. No copy of this report, in whole or in part, may be made by a third party without the express consent of Hydro-Québec.

Executive Summary With a long history of developing and operating hydropower infrastructure, Hydro-Québec generates large volumes of low-carbon electricity to meet clean energy demand in Québec and neighboring markets. Québec hydropower has particular features that distinguish it favorably from other hydropower generation sources and its environmental performance is comparable to other renewable energy options. Thanks to the specific characteristics of the environment in which it develops its projects and its ever-evolving knowledge and expertise, Hydro-Québec is in a position to deploy effective mitigation and compensation measures to reduce or manage the environmental and social impacts of its hydropower fleet. Through this report, Hydro-Québec is providing factual evidence concerning Québec hydropower, supported by science and resulting from rigorous environmental compliance monitoring programs conducted over the last few decades. The reader will also find the most up-to-date evidence relating to the effectiveness of the many mitigation measures Hydro-Québec has put in place. The company has never published such a comprehensive review. The facts presented in this document reveal that Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower developments compare favorably with other renewable energy technologies also referred to as “clean.” More specifically, this report contains the following: • An overview of Hydro-Québec (Chapter 2) and the geographical context of large hydropower developments in Québec (Chapter 3). • The legal and regulatory framework for these developments (Chapter 4). • Hydro-Québec’s philosophy and policies regarding the environment and sustainable development (Chapter 5). • A review of the knowledge Hydro-Québec has acquired over nearly 50 years on the environmental impacts of its hydropower developments and evidence of the effectiveness of its mitigation and compensation measures (see Chapter 6 for detailed information and Appendix B for a summary comparison of issues raised previously and actual impacts observed). This review is provided in a question-and-answer format. • The results of the most recent studies comparing the environmental performance of various energy sources, based on a life cycle assessment (Chapter 7). This analytical method considers the environmental impacts of a product or service over its entire life cycle, from the extraction of natural resources to the manufacturing, packaging, distribution and consumption or use of the product or service until it is finally disposed of (including reuse and recycling steps, if any).

Hydro-Québec: taking the environment and socioeconomic aspects into account The environment is a priority for Hydro-Québec, as are the social and economic aspects of its projects. They are taken into account at all stages of a project, in keeping with the principles of sustainable development. In addition, hydropower projects are developed within a framework of rigorous environmental assessment, in compliance with the legal requirements imposed by two levels of government (provincial and federal). A number of hydropower projects are also the subject of agreements with the host communities, including local Indigenous populations.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

iii

In addition to complying with current laws and regulations, Hydro-Québec is proactive when it comes to the environment and social acceptability. In particular, the following points should be noted: • Hydro-Québec subscribes to the principles of sustainable development through its policies and guidelines. In so doing, the company maintains a high level of environmental responsibility at all times. • In accordance with its internal policies and guidelines, Hydro-Québec adheres to the following three basic principles for projects with a significant impact (further details about these principles are provided in Appendix A): – Environmental acceptability and sustainability – Favorable reception by the host communities – Profitability under market conditions • In 1975, the Government of Québec, the Government of Canada, Hydro-Québec and the Crees and Inuit of Québec, among others, signed a treaty involving the construction of a major hydropower project. The groundbreaking James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement granted the Cree and Inuit nations exclusive hunting, fishing and trapping rights in the territory, financial compensation and funding for certain services, and ensured the implementation of mitigation measures. It also established a specific framework for environmental assessment that provided for the participation of the Crees and Inuit throughout the process, as well as an income security program for hunters and trappers to help them pursue their traditional activities. • In 1984, Hydro-Québec adopted an environmental policy affirming its commitment to environmental protection and natural resource development, which led the company to be considered a trailblazer among its peers. • In 1985, Hydro-Québec established the Vice-présidence Affaires amérindiennes et inuit [Indigenous and Inuit affairs branch] to promote a favorable reception for its projects and activities and their integration into local Indigenous communities. With a view to concretizing a practice already in place for several decades, the company adopted an Indigenous relations policy in 2019. • Hydro-Québec attaches particular importance to conducting detailed, sector-specific impact assessments in accordance with the highest methodological and scientific standards. The data it has collected over the years has proven extremely informative, has benefited both the Canadian and international scientific communities and has been the subject of numerous publications in leading scientific journals. Hydro-Québec also maintains a strong presence at a number of seminars and conferences, where its specialists present the results of the environmental monitoring programs associated with its projects. • As a result of the impact assessments it has conducted over several decades, Hydro-Québec has amassed an impressive body of knowledge concerning the environment’s physical, biological and human components, particularly in boreal regions. This data makes it possible to better predict the impacts of future hydropower projects and develop effective mitigation and compensation measures.

Hydropower: clean, renewable, reliable energy Hydro-Québec has conducted more in-depth studies on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from hydropower reservoirs and taken more measurements of GHG emissions from hydropower developments than almost any other utility in the world. The company supports research and has collaborated with several Canadian universities for over 25 years. Hydro-Québec’s program to measure and monitor GHGs in reservoirs and their surrounding areas has yielded approximately 500,000 pieces of field data and has been the subject of numerous international publications and scientific conferences. When compared to other energy sources based on a full life cycle analysis, Québec hydropower stands out as one of the most efficient options in terms of GHG emissions, particularly carbon dioxide and methane. In fact, the GHG emissions from Hydro-Québec’s reservoir hydropower generating stations (17 g CO2 eq./kWh) stem mainly from impoundment of the reservoir and compare favorably with alternative clean energy technologies. Due to the very cold water temperatures, high oxygenation and relatively small amount of suspended organic matter in boreal lakes, Hydro-Québec reservoirs produce very little methane. This explains why GHG emissions from Québec hydropower generating stations are considerably lower than those produced by thermal power plants (620 to 879 g CO2 eq./kWh) and of the same order of magnitude as those from nuclear, wind and tidal generating facilities (3 to 14 g CO2 eq./kWh; CIRAIG 2014). Furthermore, GHG emissions from large hydropower developments are lower than those from many energy sources, such as waves, geothermal power, biomass and biogas (22 to 247 g CO2 eq./kWh). iv

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Based on six other environmental impact indicators in the life cycle analysis (i.e., ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, photochemical oxidation (smog) and resource depletion), Hydro-Québec hydropower generation ranks among the highest performing energy technologies, due to its low use of resources in operation phase and the longevity of its facilities. In short, Québec hydropower allows for the production of a large quantity of energy,1 with good overall environmental performance. Reservoir-based hydropower also has the benefit of being reliable, consistent and predictable and is one of the few clean, renewable energy source able to complement intermittent renewable energy sources. Modern electricity systems must maintain a constant balance between power generation and consumption. Several pathways to decarbonization rely heavily on intermittent resources such as wind and solar power, which require additional storage to provide on-demand energy. Thanks to reservoirs, which act as efficient energy accumulators, hydropower can meet the energy demand during periods when wind or solar power generation is low or non-existent. In other words, the energy stored by reservoirs can play an important role in keeping supply and demand balanced at all times.

Québec hydropower: well-known, well-managed impacts All energy producing technologies have impacts, and after several decades of studies and environmental monitoring, Hydro-Québec can state that it understands and is able to effectively manage the environmental impacts related to its hydropower developments. While hydropower projects result in physical changes in the environment, as shown in Chapter 6, impact assessments can predict the effects of these modifications on the biophysical and human environments with fairly high accuracy. This means that some of these changes can be avoided at the project design phase. Others, such as the flooding of land areas, modifications to the landscape and changes in the structure of fish communities, can be effectively mitigated, corrected or compensated for through the implementation of appropriate measures. While land must be flooded to impound a reservoir, a new aquatic environment is created, with physical characteristics—such as water temperature and quality—that are favorable for organisms at all trophic levels (i.e., phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos, fish, aquatic birds and semi-aquatic mammals). Moreover, reservoirs enjoy a richness of species and biological productivity comparable to those of the surrounding biophysical environment. Boreal reservoirs are thus viable, productive aquatic ecosystems that provide the habitat and food resources necessary to sustain diverse communities. The species that frequent these habitats are able to adapt to them and use them to complete their life cycles and maintain their populations. Environmental monitoring downstream of dams has also shown that the mitigation and compensation measures are effectively maintaining the aquatic communities and their development, preserving the scenic quality of the landscape and maintaining the use of these areas by local communities. In particular, since the early 2000s, these measures include the implementation of an ecological instream flow regime adapted to the life cycle of target species highly prized by local communities, as has been done on the Rupert and Romaine rivers. Other types of measures put in place include establishing management rules at generating stations to mitigate flow fluctuations, developing spawning and rearing grounds for fish, stocking valued fish species, building weirs to maintain water levels in reduced-flow stretches, building fish passes and stabilizing erosion-prone stream banks and shorelines. Monitoring in estuarine and coastal areas shows that, despite the new physical conditions brought about by the operation of hydropower facilities, aquatic organism communities adapt to them and a new equilibrium is established. Local communities are also able to continue harvesting wildlife resources in these areas.

1. Hydro-Québec’s 62 hydropower generating stations have a total installed capacity of close to 37,000 MW.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In regard to the land environment, the impoundment of reservoirs results in the loss or modification of habitat areas, which has an impact on the mammal and bird species that frequent them. However, over the medium and long terms, these populations adapt to the changes and colonize the habitat areas surrounding the reservoirs. In addition, the many mitigation measures Hydro-Québec has implemented to protect and restore land and riparian environments and occasionally, develop new ones, have proven effective in reducing the impact of hydropower developments. For example, the company carries out vegetation control to clear shorelines and help accelerate the reforestation process, builds dikes around bays to maintain water levels and preserve favorable conditions for shoreline vegetation, seeds herbaceous plant species, turns decommissioned sites into marshes and swamps, constructs shelters for small animals and erects nesting platforms for birds. Certain impacts, such as the temporary increase in fish mercury in reservoirs, are more difficult to mitigate. However, in over 40 years of studies, neither Hydro-Québec nor any public health organization has ever identified any cases of mercury intoxication in local communities from eating fish from its reservoirs. Mercury levels may be higher in fish in reservoirs than in surrounding lakes for the first few years following impoundment, but gradually return to normal values, i.e., to levels comparable to those in fish in the surrounding natural lakes, after a certain number of years. Although it cannot prevent the increase in mercury in reservoirs, Hydro-Québec takes all necessary measures to minimize the risks to human health and to keep the local public health institutions informed in this regard.

Hydro-Québec: taking local communities into consideration Hydro-Québec takes care to consider land use by local populations in developing its hydropower projects. Since the construction in 1953 of the Bersimis complex—the first such project Hydro-Québec built at a remote site, away from major urban centers—none of its hydropower projects have required forced resettlement of local communities. Hydro-Québec hydropower projects sometimes require the relocation or removal of buildings such as trapping camps, cottages and rough shelters used for recreational purposes. In this regard, a favorable reception of the project by the local communities is a key consideration for Hydro-Québec (see Section 5.3), and the company applies best practices in compensating the owners for these losses or relocations. To ensure that all its planned projects are as well received as possible by host communities, Hydro-Québec implements a public participation process adapted to the needs of those communities. Nearly all of the over 100 water bodies managed by Hydro-Québec are used for recreation and tourism, albeit less so in northern Québec due to lower populations and a climate that is less conducive to recreational activities. The company takes these activities into consideration in managing reservoir water levels. Committed to striking the proper balance between energy generation needs and those of land users, Hydro-Québec enters into agreements with host communities and works with local authorities (i.e., regional county municipalities, towns, local associations, etc.) to ensure that host regions benefit from local and regional economic spinoffs. These agreements describe the nature of the project and the commitments undertaken by Hydro-Québec and may cover a variety of issues, including the hiring of a local workforce, worker training programs, etc. In concert with local tourist organizations, Hydro-Québec also works to showcase its hydropower developments and make the public aware of the recreational infrastructure and services it offers, including access roads, parking areas and boat ramps. For example, wildlife activity enthusiasts have over 100 outfitters scattered over 26 reservoirs to choose from. Since recreational activities are a major source of revenue for the regions where they are practiced, Hydro-Québec occasionally receives requests from the communities to adapt its reservoir management to certain activities (such as canoe/kayak competitions, fishing, boating, etc.). In such cases, the company works closely with the community to accommodate these requests.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Hydro-Québec adheres to stringent operating regulations in setting minimum and maximum reservoir levels. As required, it provides information about its water management operations to land users and people with land rights. In 1999, Hydro-Québec adopted an internal directive to highlight the heritage of its structures and facilities and promote the many uses of its reservoirs. The lessons learned from developing recreation and tourism activities in the company’s older reservoirs have proven invaluable.

Hydro-Québec: relations with Québec’s Indigenous communities In 2017, Québec’s 11 Indigenous nations included almost 109,000 people—about 1.3% of the province’s population—living in 55 communities scattered throughout the territory. Indigenous communities can make up a greater proportion of the population in some of the regions housing Québec’s large hydropower developments. Over the last five decades, Hydro-Québec has signed more than 40 project-related agreements with these communities (see Sections 6.7.2 and 6.7.3), which take into account their values, legal rights and interests, and cultural and environmental concerns. These agreements enable the communities to actively participate in Hydro-Québec’s projects and environmental monitoring programs, as well as benefit from the resulting economic spinoffs. Hydro-Québec’s objectives are to develop sustainable, mutually beneficial partnerships with communities and nations, based on respect for their values and cultures.

Conclusion The factual evidence provided in this report clearly demonstrates that Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower compares favorably with other energy technologies considered clean and renewable. • Québec hydropower is environmentally efficient. In fact, large hydropower is among the energy sources that produce the lowest GHG emissions (both carbon dioxide and methane) per kilowatthour of electricity generated. It thus contributes little to climate change, while helping to further the decarbonization efforts in Québec and neighboring regions. • After several decades of social and environmental data acquisition, Hydro-Québec can confirm that it has thorough knowledge of the impacts of its large hydropower projects and is able to accurately predict them. • Hydro-Québec can also affirm that it is effectively managing the impacts associated with its reservoir hydropower generating stations and can prevent, correct, compensate for or mitigate them through the implementation of appropriate measures. • Hydro-Québec maintains an ongoing dialog with the communities affected by its projects so that it can adapt its mitigation measures as needed. • Hydro-Québec hydropower developments produce a large quantity of continuous and controllable energy. In addition, given their considerable storage capacity, Québec hydropower reservoirs can complement a higher deployment of intermittent renewables. In this way Hydro-Québec hydropower can maximize GHG reduction efforts by lowering the use of fossil fuel generation.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

vii

Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.1

Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

2 Hydro-Québec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1

Hydro-Québec structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2

Locations of Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.3

Hydro-Québec’s energy supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

3 Geographical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1

Physical geography and geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.2

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.3

Hydrology and water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.4

Bioclimatic domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.5

Human population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.6

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

4 Legal and Regulatory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1

Applicable laws, regulations and policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.2

Impact assessment procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.3

Government approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4.4

The case of the Baie-James region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

5 Hydro-Québec and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1

History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2

Environment policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.3

Policy on Indigenous relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.4

Importance accorded to impact studies and environmental monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.5

Public participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.6

Sharing of knowledge acquired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

6 Review of the Impacts of Hydro-Québec’s Large Hydroelectric Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1

Water quality and sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1.1 How do reservoirs affect water temperature and what are the effects on aquatic life? . . . . . 6-1 6.1.2 Does water quality affect aquatic life in the reservoir and downstream of it? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 6.1.3 Is gas bubble trauma an environmental issue in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric developments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 6.1.4 How do Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower projects modify river sediment dynamics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6.2

Greenhouse gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20 6.2.1 Are Hydro-Québec’s large northern reservoirs an important source of greenhouse gases? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20 6.2.2 How much greenhouse gas is emitted during the construction of Hydro-Québec’s large hydro developments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26

6.3

Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26 6.3.1 How does Hydro-Québec take biodiversity into account in its hydropower projects? . . . . . 6-26

6.4

Fisheries resources and fish habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-35 6.4.1 Are Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower dams in northern Québec impeding fish migration and interrupting their life cycle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-35 6.4.2 What are the consequences of fish entrainment through the turbines of Hydro-Québec’s large hydroelectric generating stations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37 6.4.3 Are reservoirs productive aquatic ecosystems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37 6.4.4 What measures is Hydro-Québec taking to protect fish populations and habitat in rivers downstream of the dams? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40 6.4.5 How are coastal and estuarine ecosystems affected by Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower projects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-47

6.5

Wetlands and vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-50 6.5.1 What are the residual impacts of large hydropower projects on riparian and non-riparian wetlands? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-50

6.6

Terrestrial wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-58 6.6.1 How are mammals and birds affected by the flooding when reservoirs are created? . . . . . . 6-58

6.7

Land use, Indigenous peoples and the economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-66 6.7.1 Have the large hydroelectric development projects in Québec caused population displacements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-66 6.7.2 Have the agreements concluded with Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in relation to the hydroelectric development projects had concrete and lasting spinoffs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-68 6.7.3 How does Hydro-Québec take the unique nature of Indigenous populations into account in the environmental review process for its projects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-72 6.7.4 Is it possible to pursue recreational and tourism activities on Hydro-Québec reservoirs used for hydropower generation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-76 6.7.5 What measures has Hydro-Québec put in place to mitigate the impact of construction and operation of large hydroelectric developments on the landscape? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-79

6.8

Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-81 6.8.1 How is mercury released in reservoirs and what are its effects on aquatic organisms? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-81 6.8.2 Does the increase in fish mercury in reservoirs put the health of nearby populations at risk? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-86

6.9

Impacts from construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-88 6.9.1 What measures does Hydro-Québec implement to limit the environmental impact from construction of its hydropower projects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-88

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7 CIRAIG Comparative Study and Analysis of Key Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.2

Overview of generating technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.2.1 Renewable energy technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 7.2.2 Non-renewable energy technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6

7.3

Technology comparison based on life cycle analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 7.3.1 Sources of information and method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 7.3.2 Results by indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

7.4

General observations resulting from the comparative analysis of energy technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17

8 General Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 APPENDICES A

Hydro-Québec’s directive on the acceptability of company projects and activities (directive 21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Summary of the often-stated generic impacts of hydropower and the real impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

List of Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric generating stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Hydro-Québec’s policy with regards to the environment: Our Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Hydro-Québec’s policy with regards to its relations with Indigenous people: Our Indigenous Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Definitions of a regulated-flow river, reduced-flow river and increased-flow river . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Agreements between Hydro-Québec and various Indigenous communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Example of an information bulletin addressed to Indigenous communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Excerpt from the Northern Fish Nutrition Guide – James Bay Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Life cycle assessment methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

TABLES 2-1

Separation of functions at Hydro-Québec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2-2

Hydro-Québec’s key features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2-3

Characteristics of Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric developments in northern Québec . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

5-1

Major environmental components examined by Hydro-Québec in impact studies for large hydropower projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5-2

Hydro-Québec’s usual communication activities for its projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

6-1

Overview of shoreline erosion in a few Hydro-Québec reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

6-2

Range of gross CO2 and CH4 emissions from hydropower freshwater reservoirs; numbers of studied reservoirs are given in parentheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22

6-3

Areas and percentages of the terrestrial parts of study areas for three hydropower projects that are occupied by riparian wetlands, non-riparian wetlands and terrestrial environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-50

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-1

Distribution of installed capacity of renewable energy technologies worldwide, in North America and in the United States – 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

J-1

Impact assessment methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-2

J-2

Environmental indicators used in CML and IMPACT 2002+ methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-3

FIGURES 2-1

Hydro-Québec’s energy supply sources in 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

4-1

Logical diagram of provincial and federal impact assessment procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

6-1

Water temperatures recorded in 2017 in Rivière Romaine Sud-Est (natural conditions) and Rivière Romaine downstream of the dams at varying distances from the river mouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6-2

Water temperature profiles predicted in Romaine 2 reservoir before impoundment (blue line) and measurements taken during operation phase (other lines) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6-3

Hydraulic structures (weirs and spurs) to maintain water levels in Rivière Rupert reduced-Flow section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

6-4

Gross CO2 emission rates from boreal reservoirs at various ages and value ranges in boreal lakes and rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6-5

Main GHG emission pathways from reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

6-6

Reservoir GHG fluxes by trophic status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-23

6-7

Measured net and projected GHG emissions from Paix des Braves reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25

6-8

Movement of Arctic char from a donor lake to a lake with no fish in the Romaine complex (Côte-Nord Region of Québec) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29

6-9

Schematic representation of trophic surge in newly impounded reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-38

6-10 Fish yields in Robert-Bourassa reservoir from 1977 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-39 6-11 Natural hydrograph and ecological instream flows in Rivière Rupert at diversion point (A) and river mouth (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-42 6-12 Fishing yields in Rivière Rupert before (2005 and 2009) and after (2011 and 2016) the partial Rupert diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-46 6-13 Development of Mista pond in Romaine complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-55 6-14 Diversity of breeding birds of Québec, per survey square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-63 6-15 Mercury cycle following impoundment of a reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-82 6-16 Temporal evolution of total mercury concentrations at standardized lengths of main fish species in La Grande complex reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-85

xii

7-1

Life cycle analysis stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7

7-2

Comparison of energy technologies for climate change indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

7-3

Energy technology comparison results for climate change indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

7-4

GHG emissions from various hydropower generation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12

7-5

Energy technology comparison results for ozone layer depletion indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13

7-6

Energy technology comparison results for acidification indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13

7-7

Energy technology comparison results for eutrophication indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-8

Energy technology comparison results for human toxicity indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15

7-9

Energy technology comparison results for photochemical oxidation (smog) indicator . . . . . . . . 7-15

7-10 Energy technology comparison results for mineral extraction indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16 7-11 Energy technology comparison results for use of fossil fuel indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17 J-1

Life cycle assessment phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

MAPS Comparative lands areas of the United States and Québec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv 2-1

Hydroelectric facilities and generating areas in Québec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2-2

Main hydropower facilities on the Baie-James territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2-3

Romaine hydroelectric complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

3-1

Hydroelectric developments and Indigenous communities in Québec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

6-1

Summary of stocking program to support lake sturgeon populations in Rivière Rupert (Baie-James) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6-2

Fish pass at KP 207 of Rivière Eastmain and configuration of walls and tracking antennae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

6-3

Follow-up of integrity and effectiveness of granular blankets along Grande Rivière shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-31

6-4

Areas seeded along exposed Rupert shoreline, 2010 to 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-33

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

xiii

xiv

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Introduction 1.1 CONTEXT As part of their strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, several jurisdictions seek to increase the use of clean energy to reduce overall carbon emissions and help reduce oxide, sulfur dioxide, and other particulate matter emissions. The approaches adopted to reach GHG targets vary from one region to another. However, some jurisdictions treat large hydropower developments with reservoirs differently than other renewable sources also considered “clean.” This is due in part to the perception that methane emissions from all large reservoirs significantly contribute to climate change, as well as to other ill-perceived generalized environmental impacts. One of the main goals of this report is to provide, in a question-and-answer format, a review of the knowledge Hydro-Québec has acquired, over nearly 50 years, on the environmental impacts of its hydropower developments and evidence of the effectiveness of its mitigation and compensation measures. Appendix B of this report summarizes this information in a table that presents the actual impacts observed for each of the main issues raised in the past. The features that distinguish the electricity generated by Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower developments from other hydropower generation sources include the specific characteristics of the environment in which Hydro-Québec develops its projects and the evolution and effectiveness of mitigation and compensation measures that have been implemented to eliminate, reduce or manage environmental impacts.

1.2 OBJECTIVES The overall objective of this paper is to provide sound, scientific evidence, based on documented impact assessment and monitoring studies, that the energy produced by Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower developments (with reservoirs) should be deemed comparable to other generation technologies often referred to as clean energy. More specifically, the objectives are to: • Describe Hydro-Québec (Chapter 2) and the geographical context of large hydropower developments in Québec (Chapter 3). • Describe the legal and regulatory framework governing these hydropower developments (Chapter 4). • Explain Hydro-Québec’s philosophy and policies on the environment and sustainable development (Chapter 5). • Provide a review of the knowledge Hydro-Québec has acquired over nearly 50 years concerning the environmental impacts of its hydropower developments and demonstrate the effectiveness of the mitigation and compensation measures implemented (see Chapter 6 for detailed information and Appendix B for a summary comparison of issues raised previously and actual impacts observed). The review is presented in question-and-answer format. • Present the results of the most recent studies comparing the environmental performance of various energy sources using the life cycle analysis (Chapter 7). This analytical method assesses the environmental impacts of a product or service over its entire life cycle, from the extraction of natural resources to the manufacturing, packaging, distribution, consumption or use of the product or service until it is finally disposed of (including reuse and recycling steps, if any). • Demonstrate that in terms of clean and renewable energy, Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower developments are comparable to other generation technologies often referred to as clean energy (Chapter 8). QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

1-1

Hydro-Québec Hydro-Québec generates, transmits and distributes electricity. It is required by law to provide Quebecers with a secure supply of electricity. To meet the demand, the company continues to develop hydropower and encourages the development of other sources of renewable energy. For a number of years now, Hydro-Québec has also been actively involved in promoting energy efficiency and in research supporting technological innovation.

2.1 HYDRO-QUÉBEC STRUCTURE Following the Québec government’s adoption in June 2000 of the Act respecting the Régie de l’énergie (R.S.Q., c. R-6.01), which opened electricity production in Québec to competition, Hydro-Québec restructured to adapt to the new regulatory framework. In 2001, accordingly, Hydro-Québec added a second and third division, Hydro-Québec Production and Hydro-Québec Distribution, to the division it had created in 1997, TransÉnergie. Though all three divisions are part of the same company, they are nonetheless separate from one another, in accordance with the principle of separation of functions (Table 2-1). Other units and branches offering centralized services complete the corporate structure. To ensure the complete integrity of its business practices, Hydro-Québec has established codes of ethics, procedures and guidelines to enable its divisions doing business in energy markets to gain access to these free markets. Table 2-1 – Separation of functions at Hydro-Québec Hydro-Québec Production

Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie et Équipement

Operates the generation fleet to produce electricity, which it sells on wholesale markets inside and outside Québec

Responsible for the construction of hydropower and high-voltage transmission projects

Legally required to supply heritage pool electricity (up to 165 TWh a year) at a fixed rate to Hydro-Québec Distribution.

Economic regulation: Transmission rates fixed by the Régie de l’énergie [Québec’s energy board] based on cost of service

Beyond this amount and outside Québec: free competition

Transmits electricity over the Québec grid

Hydro-Québec Distribution et Services partagés Awards electricity supply contracts on wholesale markets to meet Québec’s needs and distributes electricity to Québec customers via the distribution system Economic regulation: distribution rates fixed by the Régie de l’énergie based on cost of service Electricity Supply Plan must be approved by the Régie de l’énergie. Hydro-Québec Distribution issues calls for tenders for supplies beyond the heritage pool of 165 TWh.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

2-1

2.2 LOCATIONS OF HYDRO-QUÉBEC’S LARGE HYDROPOWER COMPLEXES Hydro-Québec Production operates 62 hydroelectric generating stations, 20 with reservoirs and 42 run-of-river plants. With its 28 large reservoirs, Hydro-Québec has a storage capacity of more than 176 TWh. Appendix C describes the infrastructure managed by Hydro-Québec in greater detail. Table 2-2 – Hydro-Québec’s key features Generating stations

Transmission lines

260,000 km

Energy capacity (2019 sales)a Québec market

174.6 TWh

Exports

33.7 TWh

Total

208.3 TWh

Installed capacity

37,243 MW

Customers

4.4 million

a. Hydro-Québec 2020

Most of Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower developments with reservoirs are located in northern Québec, which lies between 49°N and 55°N latitudes (Map 2-1). The region is characterized by a well-developed water system with numerous lakes, wetlands and rivers, which explains its high hydroelectric potential. This vast territory covers approximately 675,000 km2 and encompasses two major watersheds: the Québec side of the Baie-James (James Bay) and Fleuve Saint-Laurent (St. Lawrence River) (between the Rivière Saguenay and the Labrador border). The Québec side of the Baie-James watershed, known as the Baie-James Territory, comprises six major rivers, most of which flow east to west. Three of them, i.e., the Grande Rivière and the Eastmain and Rupert rivers, are used for hydropower generation (Map 2-2). In addition, the upper reach of the Rivière Caniapiscau, which previously flowed to Ungava Bay, was diverted towards the La Grande complex in 1980 and is now part of the Baie-James watershed. The Fleuve Saint-Laurent (St. Lawrence River) watershed east of the Rivière Saguenay, known as the Côte-Nord du Québec [Québec north shore], comprises more than 40 rivers flowing mostly north to south. Six of these rivers—the Betsiamites, Outardes, Manicouagan, Sainte-Marguerite, Péribonka and Romaine—have been developed for large hydropower generation. The main characteristics of these large hydropower developments and their commissioning dates are shown in Table 2-3. The most recent of Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric complexes is located on the Rivière Romaine. Construction of the complex began in 2009 and is scheduled for completion in 2022 (Map 2-3).

2-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

2-3

2-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

2-5

Table 2-3 – Characteristics of Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric developments in northern Québec Hydroelectric facility

Installed capacity (MW)

Rated net head (m)

Type of generating stationa

Number of generating units

Year of commissioningb

Baie-James watershed La Grande complex c PHASE 1 Robert-Bourassa (formerly La Grande-2)

5,328

137.2

RES

1979–1981

La Grande-3

2,304

79.2

RES

1982–1984

La Grande-4

2,650

116.7

RES

1984–1986

La Grande-1

1,368

27.5

ROR

1994–1995

La Grande-2-Ad

1,998

138.5

RES

1991–1992

Laforge-1

840

57.3

RES

1993–1994

Laforge-2

310

27.4

ROR

1996

Brisay e

446

37.5

RES

1993

480

63.0

RES

2006

Bernard-Landry (formerly Eastmain-1-A)

768

63.0

RES

2011–2012

Sarcelle

150

8.7 to 16.1

ROR

2013

PHASE 2

Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complexf PHASE 1 Eastmain-1 PHASE 2

Fleuve Saint-Laurent watershed (Côte-Nord du Québec) Bersimis complex

2-6

Bersimis-1

1,178

266.7

RES

1956–1959

Bersimis-2

845

115.8

ROR

1959–1960

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Table 2-3 – Characteristics of Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric developments in northern Québec (continued) Installed capacity (MW)

Rated net head (m)

Type of generating stationa

Number of generating units

Year of commissioningb

Outardes-2

523

82.3

ROR

1978

Outardes-3

1,026

143.6

ROR

1969

Outardes-4

785

120.6

RES

1969

Manic-1

184

36.7

ROR

1966–1967

Jean-Lesage (formerly Manic-2)

1,229

70.1

ROR

1965–1967

René-Lévesque (formerly Manic-3)

1,326

94.2

ROR

1975–1976

Manic-5

1,596

141.8

RES

1970–1971

Manic-5 PA

1,064

144.5

RES

1989–1990

Toulnustouc

526

152.0

RES

2005

Hart-Jaune

39.6

RES

1960

882

330.0

RES

2003

Romaine-1

270

61.5

ROR

2015

Romaine-2

640

156.0

RES

2014

Romaine-3

395

119.0

RES

2017

Romaine-4 g

245

88.0

RES

Hydroelectric facility

Manic-Outardes complex

Sainte-Marguerite complex Sainte-Marguerite-3 Romaine complex

2022

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Type of generating station: RES = reservoir, ROR = run-of-river Years of commissioning of first and last generating units Hayeur (2001) Robert-Bourassa reservoir (formely La Grande 2) was impounded during Phase 1 Caniapiscau reservoir was impounded during Phase 1 Legally, and as confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal, the Eastmain-1 powerhouse is part of the La Grande complex. However, since the Bernard-Landry (formerly Eastmain-1-A) and Sarcelle powerhouses became fully operational, Hydro-Québec has standardized the name “Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex” in its communiciations to reflect the fact that the three facilities are managed in an integrated manner, with respect to both power generation and environmental monitoring. g. Commissioning planned in 2021

As demonstrated in the following sections, most of Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower developments are located in the boreal region, an environment characterized by a cold climate and relatively low biological productivity.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

2-7

2.3 HYDRO-QUÉBEC’S ENERGY SUPPLY Hydro-Québec is a world leader in the field of electrical power and one of the largest renewable energy producers in the world. Renewable sources (nuclear and thermal energy excluded) supply 99.8% of the electricity distributed in Québec, with most of it coming from hydropower (93.78%). The other sources of renewable energy (wind, biomass, biogas, waste and solar) comprising Québec’s grid mix account for 6.01% of Hydro-Québec’s electricity purchases from independent power producers. Only 0.21% of its electricity purchases derive from non-renewable sources and are linked to the composition of its import grid mix (Figure 2-1). Figure 2-1 – Hydro-Québec’s energy supply sources in 2018 Nuclear: 0.36%

Thermal: 0.05% - Coal and oil: 0.02% - Gas: 0.03%

Other: 6.25% - Biogas, waste and solar: 0.05% - Biomass: 0.83% - Wind: 5.37%

A118AL_f2_1_007_geq_energie_200714.ai

Hydraulic: 93.34% - Hydro-Québec generation: 77.67% - Purchases from Churchill Falls: 13.60% - Purchases in and outside Québec: 2.07%

2-8

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Geographical Context 3.1 PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY Northern Québec is in the Canadian Shield, an ancient geological region formed during the Precambrian era (Bally and Palmer 1989) and characterized by mainly igneous and metamorphic rock from the earth’s crust. In the Baie-James region, the east-to-west landscape is characterized by a 150-km-wide coastal plain with scattered peat bogs (up to 300 m in elevation), a hilly, central plateau (300 to 500 m) with numerous lakes and a region of low mountains (usually 500 to 700 m) with some peaks reaching up to 800 m in elevation (SEBJ 1988). The coastal plain is dominated by marine deposits (silty clay and fine sand) left behind when the Tyrrell Sea retreated about 8,000 years ago. The inland area, on the other hand, is characterized by thin glacial deposits with numerous lakes and rocky outcrops.

Coastal plain of Baie-James and Cree village of Waskaganish

Typical inland area in Baie-James

On Québec’s Côte-Nord region, i.e., the north shore of the Fleuve Saint-Laurent (St. Lawrence River), the south-to-north landscape is characterized by a stepped relief structure consisting of a narrow coastal plain about 50 km wide, followed by a first plateau and then a second highland plateau that gradually increases in elevation from 550 to 800 m. Some peaks can be up to 900 m high. The coastal plain is dominated by sand and gravel and is dotted with numerous peat bogs. The highlands are characterized by thin glacial deposits scattered with rocky outcrops.

Coastal plain of Côte-Nord and municipality of Havre-Saint-Pierre

Highland plateau in Côte-Nord QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

3-1

3.2 CLIMATE Northern Québec is characterized by a dry, cold, continental and subarctic climate in Baie-James and a wet, cold, maritime climate along the Côte-Nord. Mean annual temperatures range from -5 to 1.8ºC. Winters are long (lasting up to seven months) and harsh, particularly in the north. In January, the mean minimum temperature can reach -23°C while in the coldest months, the daily minimum temperature can dip to -50ºC. Summers are short (less than 3 months) but fairly warm, with mean monthly temperatures varying between 10 and 15ºC. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 680 to 1,720 mm, with the lowest amount observed in the northern region (680 to 880 mm) and the highest observed at high elevations (1,370 to 1,720 mm) (Hayeur 2001; MRNF 2007).

3.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Northern Québec features a well-developed water system with numerous lakes, wetlands and rivers, which explains the region’s significant hydroelectric potential. The Baie-James region’s hydrographic system comprises several major rivers with relatively few tributaries, most of which flow east to west. On the north shore, the rivers flow north to south and empty into the Golfe du Saint-Laurent (Gulf of St. Lawrence). The rivers in both the north shore and Baie-James regions are fed mainly by rain and snowfall. They experience a period of heavy runoff from snowmelt in spring, followed by a summer low-water season that varies in severity from year to year. In the fall, the rivers undergo another high-flow period due to rainfall, followed by a long period (four to six months) of low flow under an ice cover in winter (Hayeur 2001). The region’s inland waters are generally well oxygenated, with low acidity (average pH of 6 to 6.5) and low conductivity (generally less than 25 μS/cm), indicating low mineralization (Magnin 1977; Robitaille 1998).

3.4 BIOCLIMATIC DOMAINS Northern Québec is located within the boreal forest, which can be divided into three fairly uniform bioclimate regions, i.e., the spruce-lichen (taiga), spruce-moss and balsam fir-white birch domains. The entire Baie-James region is encompassed within the taiga, where the vegetation consists mainly of moss and lichens with dwarf black spruce and bushes. The coastal plain is characterized by the presence of peat bogs. On the north shore, spruce-moss is the dominant bioclimate, with vegetation consisting mainly of moss and black spruce stands scattered with balsam fir. Some deciduous trees can also be found there. This area is also characterized by the presence of numerous peat bogs. Less than 7% of northern Québec lies within the balsam fir-white birch domain and is located in the southeasternmost area. While the vegetation here is dominated by balsam fir and white spruce stands with scattered white birch, some black spruce, jack pine, larch and trembling aspen can also be found in less productive areas (MFFP 2018).

3.5 HUMAN POPULATION Far from large urban centers, northern Québec is a sparsely populated region with fewer than 130,000 habitants (Institut de la statistique du Québec 2019a), which represent approximately 1.6% of Québec’s total population. The population density is around 0.2 inhabitant/km2, compared to 6.5 inhabitants/km2 for Québec as a whole. Québec has 11 Indigenous nations (First Nations and Inuits) living in 55 communities totaling almost 109,000 people, which is approximately 1.3% of the province’s total population (Map 3-1). However, the proportion of Indigenous people in the population of northern Québec is high, i.e., about 13% in the Côte-Nord administrative region and about 55% in the Baie-James territory. The main Indigenous peoples in these regions are the Innu (grouped mainly on Québec’s north shore) and the Crees (grouped mainly in Baie-James).

3-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

3-3

Baie-James Approximately 17,350 Crees (Institut de la statistique du Québec 2019b) live in eight villages scattered over the Baie-James territory and in the community of Whapmagoostui, just outside the territory’s northern boundary (a number of Inuit also live at the northern edge of the region and in the community of Chisasibi, though most Inuit are north of the 55th parallel). The non-Indigenous population, which totals about 14,000 inhabitants (Institut de la statistique du Québec 2019c), is mainly concentrated in the mining towns in the southern part of the region. Radisson is the only permanent, non-Indigenous village in the north part of the region. Since the opening of the Matagami–Radisson highway in the early 1970s, the region has also been visited by tourists and non-Indigenous hunters and sport fishers (Hayeur 2001).

Côte-Nord du Québec [Québec north shore] The Québec north shore is home to approximately 13,000 Innu living in nine communities scattered throughout the region (Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones du Québec, 2019). The non-Indigenous population totals more than 82,000 and is concentrated in several municipalities along the Fleuve Saint-Laurent (St. Lawrence River) and Golfe Saint-Laurent (Gulf of St. Lawrence). There are no permanent residents in the region’s inland area, which is used mainly for mining, hunting, fishing, trapping and leisure (cottages).

3.6 WILDLIFE Fish Thirty-six freshwater fish species have been recorded in northern Québec waters (Verdon 2001; Bernatchez and Giroux 2012; Magnin 1977). The most common species in Baie-James are longnose sucker, white sucker, lake whitefish, cisco, northern pike, lake trout, walleye, brook trout, and lake sturgeon. Species diversity is slightly different in the north shore fish communities. The region is home to just about the same main species as in Baie-James, but without walleye and lake sturgeon. In addition, Québec’s north shore has a few migratory species not found in Baie-James, including Atlantic salmon, rainbow smelt, American eel and sea lamprey. Because of the cold climate and the relatively low productivity of the aquatic systems, fish in this region have a generally slow growth rate but can reach sizes similar to those in the south due to their longer life span. Fertility is also low. Fish mature at an older age and their breeding cycles may be longer (Hayeur 2001; MRNF 2007).

Mammals Compared to southern regions, animal density is generally low in northern Québec due to the harshness of the climate. More than 39 mammal species have been observed in this region, including moose, caribou, beaver, muskrat, lynx, otter, red fox, black bear, mink, snowshoe hare, red squirrel and marten. The region’s moose, caribou and beaver populations, which are of commercial or recreational value, have been studied extensively (Hayeur 2001; Hydro-Québec Production 2007b).

Birds There is also a wide diversity of migratory bird species along the coasts of Baie James (James Bay) and of the north shore. They include geese (Canada goose, snow goose), dabbling ducks (mallard, black duck), diving ducks (scaup, goldeneye, merganser), sea ducks (common eider, scoter) and small wading birds (sandpiper, plover, etc.). Inland, however, waterfowl habitat is decreasing and species composition is changing in favor of forest birds (Hayeur 2001). The species most frequently found along Québec’s north shore include common goldeneye, black duck, common merganser, ring-necked duck, Barrow’s goldeneye, red-throated loon, Canada goose and green-winged teal. There are also several special-status bird species here, including harlequin duck, Barrow’s goldeneye, bald eagle, golden eagle, peregrine falcon, short-eared owl, Bicknell’s thrush and Caspian tern (Hydro-Québec Production 2007b).

3-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Legal and Regulatory Framework Québec’s current legal and regulatory framework for environmental assessments is known for being rigorous, targeting the biophysical as well social impacts of the projects to which it applies. A detailed impact statement must be produced for every project subject to the environmental assessment procedure, including projects to build and operate large hydroelectric generating stations and reservoirs. Mechanisms for public consultation are also included, ensuring concerns expressed by the public are considered. Based on these consultations, features of the project can be modified and the measures to mitigate its environmental impacts can be improved—which in the end balances project impacts with public priorities and promotes favorable reception of the project by the communities concerned. The laws and regulations applicable to hydropower projects in Québec are listed in the sections that follow, and the environmental assessment procedures to which these projects are subject are briefly described, as are the approvals required. The particular legal and regulatory framework applicable to the Baie-James region is also briefly described (see Section 4.4). It is important to note that the laws applicable to environmental matters, as well as the environmental assessment procedures included in these laws, are constantly evolving. This chapter describes the legal and regulatory framework in effect in April 2020 and presents the procedures under which Hydro-Québec's most recent projects have been assessed.

4.1 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES Under the legal regime currently in effect, large hydropower projects in Québec are generally subject to numerous federal as well as provincial laws. The main ones are listed below. Federal laws that may apply: • • • •

Impact Assessment Act (IAA)1 Fisheries Act (FA) Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA) Species at Risk Act (SRA)

Provincial laws that may apply: • • • • • • • • •

Environment Quality Act (EQA) Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species Cultural Heritage Act Act respecting the lands in the domain of the State Watercourses Act Dam Safety Act Sustainable Forest Development Act Act respecting land use planning and development

Project assessments may also be governed by certain federal and provincial programs or policies, including the following: • Policy on Ecological Instream Flows to Protect Fish and their Habitats (Québec government) • Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program (Government of Canada) • Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains (Québec government) 1. This law came into effect in August 2019 and replaces the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) (2012). Hydro-Québec's most recent hydroelectric projects (the Romaine and Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complexes) were assessed in accordance with the CEAA. To date, no Hydro-Québec project has been evaluated under the IAA. QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

4-1

4.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES In Québec, projects subject to the environmental assessment procedure are listed by regulation (federal and provincial). These lists generally include projects whose environmental impacts, according to the Canadian and Québec governments, warrant more careful, regulated review before permission is granted to execute them. These impacts can take multiple forms, such as changes in any of the following: water temperature and water quality; habitat quantity and quality; abundance of birds or of terrestrial or aquatic wildlife; and land users’ hunting and fishing activities. The impact assessment is undertaken from the design stage of a project. It is the key tool in identifying and analyzing the environmental and social issues a project raises so they will become part of the government’s decision-making process about whether to authorize the project. The impact assessment must enable government authorities to determine if the impacts are acceptable, if the project complies with environmental laws, policies and regulations and if it is desirable to execute it considering the justification given. The purpose of the impact assessment is to predict and assess the impacts on the biophysical and human environments during construction as well as operation of the facilities. A second purpose is to suggest appropriate measures to reduce or compensate for impacts that cannot be avoided. Environmental monitoring and follow-up programs are also established at the impact assessment stage. Environmental follow-ups, which can extend over many years, demonstrate if the impact assessment and predictions were accurate, and allow for rapid intervention if need be. The data gathered are also used to improve the impact assessment as well as the mitigation and compensation measures. Before construction can begin on a large hydropower project in Québec, two levels of government (federal and provincial) must concurrently implement and apply the impact assessment and review procedures within their respective jurisdictions (Figure 4-1). Various permits for specific activities must also be issued under diverse laws that may apply. At the federal level, the main authorities involved are Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Transport Canada (TC). At the provincial level, the main authority is the Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques (MELCC, the ministry of the environment and the fight against climate change), which ensures compliance with the EQA and which may be assisted by the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE, public environmental hearings board). When both assessment procedures are completed, separate approvals are given. Various specific permits are also issued by competent authorities.

Federal procedure The federal impact assessment procedure applies to any project to build a new hydropower facility or a dam used to create a reservoir with a surface area of 1,500 ha or more.2 When the procedure is completed, the Minister of the Environment of Canada, or in some cases the Governor in Council, renders a decision.

Provincial procedure Any project to build or operate a dam (or a dike) that will create a reservoir with a total surface area of more than 100,000 m2, as well as any project to build or operate a hydroelectric generating station with a capacity of more than 5 MW, is subject to the environmental impact assessment and review procedure specified in Section 31.1, EQA. Upon completion of the procedure, the Québec government issues an authorization under Section 31.5, EQA. Briefly, the developer of a project subject to the federal and provincial environmental assessment procedures must file a notice with the competent authorities describing the project. The developer then obtains guidelines for preparation of an impact statement analyzing all environmental issues related to construction and operation of the facilities. The impact statement is the reference document used for public consultation, environmental analysis of the project and decision-making by authorities (Figure 4-1). 2. See the Physical Activities Regulations, SORS/2019-285

4-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Québec

Canada1 Project description

Project notification

Figure 4-1 – Logical diagram of provincial and federal impact assessment procedures Acceptance of project description Instructions from Minister (environmental guidelines)

Québec Public consultation

Canada1

Public consultation

Project notification

Project description Determination of whether an environmental assessment is required

Impact assessment statement Instructions from Minister (environmental guidelines)

Acceptance of project description Consultation and publication of guidelines

Screening analysis (questions and comments)

Public consultation

Redirection to review panel

Determination of whether an environmental assessment is required

Impact assessment statement Proponent responses

Public consultation Publication of reference framework

Screening analysis Notice of admissibility (questions and comments)

Appointment of review panel members

Consultation and publication of guidelines

Redirection to review panel Impact assessment statement (by the proponent)

Public consultation Publication of reference framework

Proponent responses Mandate entrusted to the BAPE2

Appointment of review panel members

Notice of admissibility Environmental analysis (MELCC4 and other departments)

Proponent responses Impact assessment statement (by the proponent)

Recommendation from the BAPE3

Public hearings Screening analysis (questions and comments) Environmental impact report (by the CEAA5) Proponent responses

Mandate entrusted to the BAPE2

Public information Public hearingsperiod Recommendation from the BAPE3 BAPE report

Environmental analysis (MELCC4 and other departments)

Public consultation (about the CEAA’s5 report)

MELCC report

Public hearings Decision by Minister

Recommendation from Minister to government Public hearings

BAPE report 1

Environmental impact report (by the CEAA5) Decision by other departments concerned (e.g., Transport Canada, Department of Public and consultation Fisheries Oceans) (about the CEAA’s5 report)

Decision by government MELCC report

Procedure in force until August 2019 and under which the most recent hydroelectric projects have been submitted Recommendation from Minister

MELCC: Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre Decision by les changements climatiques [department of Minister the environment and the fight against climate change]

CEAA: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

to government

BAPE: Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement [public environmental hearings board]

by government The BAPE can recommend either a public hearing,Decision a targeted consultation or mediation.

Fisheries and Oceans)

For large hydroelectric developments, the BAPE usually recommends public hearings.

Procedure in force until August 2019 and under which the most recent hydroelectric projects have been submitted

BAPE: Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement [public environmental hearings board]

Figure 4-1

Decision by other departments concerned

(e.g., Transport Canada, Department of Stages under government’s responsibility Stages under proponent’s responsibility

MELCC: Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques [department of the environment and the fight against climate change]

CEAA: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Stages under government’s responsibility Simplified logical diagram of provincial and federal impact assessment procedures Stages under proponent’s responsibility for large hydroelectric developments 3

The BAPE can recommend either a public hearing, a targeted consultation or mediation. For large hydroelectric developments, the BAPE usually recommends public hearings.

A118AL_f4_1_geq_002_logigram_200723.ai A118AL_f4_1_geq_002_logigram_200723.ai

Public information period

Screening analysis (questions and comments)

Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie et Équipement.

Figure 4-1

Simplified logical diagram of provincial and federal impact assessment procedures for large hydroelectric developments Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie et Équipement.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

4-3

4.3 GOVERNMENT APPROVALS Upon completion of a project’s environmental assessment procedure, the relevant provincial and federal authorities issue approvals authorizing the developer to begin the project. These are generally as follows: • Québec government authorization for the construction and subsequent operation of hydroelectric facilities (Section 31.5, EQA) • Decision of the Minister of the Environment or the Governor in Council of Canada regarding whether the adverse effects of the project are in the public interest (Sections 60 and 62, IAA) • Authorization from Québec’s Minister of the Environment and the Fight against Climate Change to perform project-related activities subject to prior ministerial authorization (Section 22, EQA) • Authorization from Canada’s Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to death of fish (Section 34.4 (1), FA) as well as harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (Section 35 (1), FA) • Approval from Canada’s Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of any work that is to be constructed or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water and of the design and location of said work (Section 5 (1)a, CNWA) These authorizations generally include numerous obligations, the main ones are as follows: • Implementation of measures to mitigate or compensate for the project’s impacts on the physical, biological and human environment • Environmental follow-up to check the accuracy of the impact predictions in the project’s impact statement and the effectiveness of the mitigation and compensation measures Other government approvals must be obtained apart from those related to the environmental assessment procedures to allow the work to go ahead: • Québec government order-in-council authorizing construction of buildings to be used to produce electric power (Section 29, HQA) • Québec government order-in-council authorizing placement at Hydro-Québec’s disposal of water powers forming part of the domain of the State that are required for the project (Section 32, HQA) • Authorization from Québec’s Minister of the Environment and the Fight against Climate Change to build high-capacity dams (Section 5, Dam Safety Act) During the project construction phase, numerous other permits are required for specific activities, notably the following: • • • • • •

Clearing and construction of forest roads Operation of borrow pits and quarries Treatment of drinking water and wastewater for workcamps and powerhouses Management of domestic waste Application of biological insecticides against stinging insects Use of petroleum products

Most of these permits are obtained under the EQA and its regulations. Activities in woodlands are governed by the Sustainable Forest Development Act and the Regulation respecting the sustainable development of forests in the domain of the State. Lastly, the installation and operation of petroleum equipment are governed by the Building Act and its regulations.

4-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

4.4 THE CASE OF THE BAIE-JAMES REGION In 1975, an important agreement was signed between the Crees and the Inuit of Québec and the Government of Canada, the Québec government and Hydro-Québec among others. This was the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA). Protected by the Constitution of Canada, the JBNQA is considered the first modern-day treaty with Indigenous peoples bearing on land claims in Canada. The territory covered by the JBNQA includes the Québec portion of the watersheds of Baie James (James Bay) and Baie d’Hudson (Hudson Bay) and the entire Ungava Bay watershed (Map 2-2). The JBNQA3 provides for a unique legal system in this territory. It has 31 chapters covering topics that include eligibility, land regime, local and regional administration, health and education, justice and the police, the environment and social protection, hunting, fishing and trapping rights, community building and economic development, the Cree trappers income security program and a special forestry regime. The JBNQA authorized the construction, operation and maintenance of the La Grande complex, which includes several hydroelectric developments on the Grande Rivière. Chapter 8 of the JBNQA is devoted to this major project. The JBNQA also provided for an environmental protection regime by establishing an environmental and social assessment procedure, which was incorporated in Chapter II of the Environment Quality Act. This procedure is similar, in the stages of its execution, to the one that is applicable elsewhere in Québec. Its application is mandatory for certain projects, including any new project for a hydropower plant or for a storage or water supply reservoir associated with a structure intended to produce electricity. The procedure is distinct in that it calls for the establishment of two permanent committees, one (COMEV 4 ) tasked with evaluating development projects under provincial jurisdiction that are subject to the procedure (new hydropower plants or reservoirs, for example) and the other (COMEX 5) tasked with reviewing them. Cree representatives make up half of these joint committees, ensuring their concerns are considered. Once the examination of a project is completed, COMEX makes its recommendations to the provincial administrator (the Deputy Minister of the Environment and the Fight against Climate Change), who then decides whether or not to authorize the project, or to authorize it with certain conditions with which the developer must comply. Lastly, it should be noted that hydropower projects in the Baie-James region may be subject to specific agreements with the Crees or Inuit with respect to particular aspects: the construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities, protection of the physical and social environment, implementation of remedial and mitigation measures, compliance with operating levels in certain reservoirs, hiring of Indigenous labor and so forth. Sections 6.7.2 and 6.7.3 give examples of some of these agreements.

3. For more information about the JBNQA, consult https://cngov.ca/governance-structure/legislation/agreements/ or http://www3.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/produits/conventions/lois/loi.fr.html. 4. COMEV: Environmental and Social Impact Evaluating Committee 5. COMEX: Environmental and Social Impact Review Committee

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

4-5

Hydro-Québec and the Environment 5.1 HISTORY Since its founding in 1944, Hydro-Québec has put the unique characteristics of the land of Québec to excellent use, harnessing the tremendous hydroelectric potential of the province’s immense watersheds to generate electricity. Québec, in fact, has some 500,000 lakes and 4,500 rivers that cover about 22% of the province. By harnessing the hydroelectric potential of Québec’s rivers, Hydro-Québec can produce abundant, renewable energy while limiting the impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The development of Québec’s hydropower potential was undertaken mainly in the second half of the twentieth century, a period that coincided with growing environmental awareness across the planet. This awareness has resulted in the adoption of legislation aimed at protecting the environment, which continues to evolve to this day. Hydro-Québec created its first Environment unit in 1972, and it has continued to grow and develop ever since. Working with numerous external consultants and academic researchers, the unit supports Hydro-Québec managers and engineers at all project stages, from design to operation. In 2019, Hydro-Québec’s staff included more than 150 specialists in a wide range of environmental disciplines—including hydrology, chemistry, ecology, ichthyology, mammalogy, botany, marine biology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology and forestry. Some of the key events that demonstrate Hydro-Québec’s increasing focus on the environment over more than half a century are described below: • 1973: A documentation center specializing in the environment is established. By 2019, this center held more than 25,000 technical reports, scientific articles and other documents. All documentation is now accessible numerically (https://cherloc.ca/). • 1975: The James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement is signed, a historical treaty governing the comprehensive land claim of the Crees and Inuit and authorizing Hydro-Québec to build, operate and maintain the La Grande complex. • 1981: Hydro-Québec adopts an Environment Code governing its jobsite and operations activities. • 1984: Hydro-Québec adopts an environment policy affirming the company’s responsibility to protect and enhance natural resources (this policy is described below). On the strength of this policy, Hydro-Québec is deemed a trailblazer by Environment Canada (Environment Canada 1991). • 1985: The Advisory Committee on the Environment is formed, its members mainly from outside Hydro-Québec. The Committee’s original mandate was to advise Hydro-Québec on strategic orientations and make recommendations on environment-related matters. The Committee’s role is expanded in the 1990s to include community relations. • 1985: Hydro-Québec creates an Amerindian and Inuit Affairs unit tasked with promoting favorable reception and integration of its projects and activities in Indigenous communities. • 1989: The principle of sustainable development is included in Hydro-Québec’s development plan. • 1994: An environmental audit program is launched, its purpose to verify compliance with the law and internal regulations, identify at-risk situations and determine remedial measures. • 1997: Hydro-Québec signs on to participate in the Canadian Electricity Association’s Environmental Commitment and Responsibility Program (ECR), producing annual reports on its environmental performance for the program. • 1998: A new ISO 14001-compliant Environment Policy is adopted. This policy advocates judicious use of resources to ensure sustainable development and sets out corporate public health and safety guidelines. • 2001: The Fondation Hydro-Québec pour l’environnement (FHQE, Hydro-Québec foundation for the environment) is created. Since 2020, the funds have been managed by the Fondation de la faune du Québec (FFQ, Québec wildlife foundation). QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

5-1

• 2001: This year marks the start of a long-standing and still on-going collaboration agreement with Ouranos, a research consortium created in 2001 by the Québec government, Environment Canada and Hydro-Québec, the three partners working to better understand climate change and its effects and to find solutions to adapt to it. • 2005: The Institut Hydro-Québec en environnement, développement et société (EDS, Hydro-Québec institute on the environment, development and society) is created at Université Laval. The institute is funded in large part by Hydro-Québec, and its mission is to promote a comprehensive view of environmental issues within society by conducting or fostering activities to deepen and disseminate knowledge about the environment and sustainable development. • 2011: Hydro-Québec becomes the main financial partner of the Centre for Sustainable Development, whose mission is to offer the general public a space for reflection, innovation, education and a meeting of minds on sustainable development. • 2014: Hydro-Québec issues a guide to good environmental practice for building power lines (Cahier des bonnes pratiques en environnement – Construction de ligne de transport d’énergie). • 2015: Hydro-Québec adopts an action plan on biodiversity and publishes an annual review of its biodiversity performance. • 2016: Hydro-Québec introduces a new ISO 14001:2015-compliant environmental management system. • 2017: Hydro-Québec writes a guide to good environmental practices for the construction of hydroelectric generating stations. • 2018: Hydro-Québec earns the top spot on the list of Canada’s best 50 corporate citizens compiled by the magazine Corporate Knights. A pool of 232 Canadian companies with revenues over $1 billion were evaluated on the basis of 17 environmental, social and governance criteria. • 2018: Research Infosource Inc. names Hydro-Québec Canada’s top corporate R&D spender in the electric power industry. • 2019: Hydro-Québec enters into a partnership agreement with the Fondation de la faune du Québec (FFQ, Québec wildlife foundation) for the FFQ to administer contractual commitments on behalf of the Fondation Hydro-Québec pour l’environnement (FHQE, Hydro-Québec foundation for the environment) and to manage a new funding program entirely subsidized by Hydro-Québec. • 2019: A policy on Indigenous relations is adopted that sets out corporate guidelines for relations with Indigenous communities and services offered to them. Awards and recognition in 2019 • Hydro-Québec is named Canada’s second-best corporate citizen by the magazine Corporate Knights. The magazine ranked Canadian companies with sales of more than $1 billion in a total of 97 industries on the basis of 21 environmental, social and governance criteria. • Hydro-Québec is ranked third most responsible company by Québecers according to a survey, Baromètre de la consommation responsable, conducted by the Observatoire de la consommation responsable, a responsible consumption research unit recognized by the Université de Québec à Montréal’s (UQAM) school of management. • The Montréal region is named the best location in the world to set up a data center at the Datacloud world congress held in Monaco. Tipping the scales in Montréal’s favor were Québec’s 99.8% clean power and its electricity rates, which are among the lowest in the world. • In a survey of top most influential brands, Hydro-Québec is ranked the most influential brand in Québec. Conducted by the firm Ipsos, the study measured brands against five key drivers of influence: trustworthiness, presence, being leading edge, corporate citizenship and engagement.

5.2 ENVIRONMENT POLICY Hydro-Québec adopted an environment policy in the mid-1980s, and this policy has evolved over the years. Appendix D of this report includes the most recent version of the policy, dated November 2018.

5-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

To help protect the environment, Hydro-Québec undertakes to do the following: • • • • •

Establish an eco-responsible corporate culture Promote efficient and optimal use of electricity Promote transportation electrification Work to supply its customers electricity produced solely from renewable resources, such as hydropower Anticipate the impacts of climate change and take measures to adapt to them

Hydro-Québec undertakes to do the following to improve its environmental performance: • Consider the environment in decision-making processes for selecting acquisitions and investments, starting with the establishment of strategic directions and at every stage in the life cycles of its projects, products, services and facilities, to prevent pollution and preserve the biodiversity and quality of the environment • Prevent and manage the impacts of its activities at the source, mitigating negative impacts, maximizing positive ones and monitoring its activities to improve its performance and evolve its practices • Specify to suppliers the applicable environmental criteria for responsible management of their activities, products and services and for sustainable development • Use resources sustainably and whenever possible incorporate life-cycle analysis when making consumption choices • Conduct, support and promote research and innovation on emerging issues and the environmental impacts of its operations This policy includes the following clause: Every manager is responsible for applying the general principles set out in this policy and for reporting the results to management. Since 1999, three basic conditions must be met for Hydro-Québec to undertake the execution of a project: • It must be environmentally acceptable, in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. • It must be well received by local communities (see Directive 21, Appendix A). • It must be profitable under current market conditions.

5.3 POLICY ON INDIGENOUS RELATIONS Hydro-Québec adopted a policy on Indigenous relations in 2019 (see Appendix E). The policy can be summarized as follows: • To foster the acceptability and integration of its projects and activities in Indigenous communities, Hydro-Québec undertakes to do the following: – Inform and involve Indigenous communities at all stages in the life cycles of its projects – Implement a public consultation and participation process in Indigenous communities that takes into account their specificities – Promote economic spinoffs in Indigenous communities • To build and maintain its relations with Indigenous peoples, Hydro-Québec undertakes to do the following: – Contribute to the economic, social and cultural success of Indigenous peoples – Make business decisions that consider Indigenous rights and governance – Engage in conversation and proactive communication with Indigenous communities at all stages in the life cycles of its projects – Provide its Indigenous customers with customer services adapted to their particular needs As with the Our Environment policy (Appendix D), each manager is responsible for applying the general principles of this policy and for reporting the results up the chain of command.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

5-3

5.4 IMPORTANCE ACCORDED TO IMPACT STUDIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING As an environmental impact study is a key part of any project assessment and review process, Hydro-Québec attaches great importance to these studies. Its impact studies are accordingly rigorous and thorough, allowing government and administrative authorities to make informed decisions about the project proposed. Hydro-Québec also seeks to address concerns expressed by the public and complies with statutory and regulatory requirements arising from legislation applicable to the project. Hydro-Québec has conducted numerous large-scale impact studies over the last 40 years. These studies always meet the highest standards and effort is devoted to ensuring compliance with government guidelines. In fact, given the immense size of Hydro-Québec’s major hydropower projects, the effort invested is of substantial magnitude: Hydro-Québec must conduct inventories over entire watersheds to collect the data needed to characterize the environment, understand its dynamics and assess possible project impacts. For example, the study area for the Romaine complex covered more than 15,000 km2. All major components of the physical, biological and human environments are examined (Table 5-1). Table 5-1 – Major environmental components examined by Hydro-Québec in impact studies for large hydropower projects Physical Environment • • • •

Hydrology and hydraulics Thermal regime Ice regime Geomorphology and sediment dynamics • Water quality • Physical oceanography • Greenhouse gases

Biological Environment • Vegetation (terrestrial and aquatic) • Wetlands • Fish and fish habitats • Mercury in fish • Amphibians and reptiles • Birds • Oceanography (estuaries and coastal environments) • Specialstatus species • Mammals

Human Environment • Social aspects • Economic aspects • Land use (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) • Trapping and sport fishing and hunting • Commercial fishing • Mercury and human health • Recreation and tourism • Forestry and mining • Archaeological heritage • Landscape • Traditional pursuits and knowledge (local and Indigenous)

To minimize the impacts of its projects, Hydro-Québec, like many other organizations around the world, uses a hierarchical approach: first, avoid (whenever possible); second, minimize (or mitigate); and last, compensate. When impacts cannot be avoided, Hydro-Québec uses three types of measures to reduce their effect on the environment: • Mitigation measures: These measures are designed to eliminate the negative effects of a project or reduce them to an acceptable level. Mitigation measures essentially are applied in the area directly affected by a facility. • Compensation measures: These measures are meant to compensate for the negative effects of project construction and operational phases that cannot be eliminated or reduced by mitigation measures. Compensation measures are applied near sites affected or in the same region. • Enhancement measures: These measures are designed to improve the condition of a biophysical environment not directly affected by the construction of a project. They may also be applied outside the project’s study area. Enhancement measures generally involve rehabilitation or creation of new habitats. Some of the measures are also intended to encourage the use of the land or to generate greater recreational and tourist interest.

5-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Hydro-Québec conducts monitoring programs over decades to check predictions of its impact assessment and the effectiveness of mitigation and compensation measures. For example, the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert and Romaine hydropower developments will be monitored for 14 and 31 years respectively (Hydro-Québec Production 2007a, 2010). Lastly, Hydro-Québec’s attention to the environment goes beyond the requirements of guidelines and authorization conditions issued by government authorities. For example, Hydro-Québec regularly cooperates with research institutes and academic researchers on in-depth studies investigating environment-related topics. The many scientific publications authored and coauthored by Hydro-Québec bear witness to this.

5.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Hydro-Québec undertakes a public participation process geared to the needs of the community and the scope of the project. The goal is to integrate the project into the host environment as smoothly as possible. More specifically, the objectives of the public participation process are as follows: • • • •

To present the project and help the public understand what it entails To learn the concerns of different groups To identify the main project issues To gather local knowledge that can help in assessing project impacts and identifying mitigation and compensation measures • To provide information to the public on the results of technical and environmental studies as they become available and ensure they are understood Table 5-2 summarizes the methods Hydro-Québec usually uses to reach these objectives. As the members of Indigenous communities comprise a large percentage of the population in areas affected by its large hydropower projects, Hydro-Québec applies a two-pronged approach to these communities: 1) participation in impact studies and environmental monitoring, and the completion of the mitigation measures; and 2) financial commitments that aim to maximize local economic spinoffs, such as preferential hiring of Indigenous workers and advance identification of contracts to be awarded on a priority basis, in whole or in part, to businesses in the community. Thus, right from a project’s design phase, Hydro-Québec shares the results of preliminary studies with representatives of concerned Indigenous communities, organizes public meetings and information-sharing workshops together with these communities and, as needed, provides Indigenous language interpretation services to ensure the Indigenous communities can participate in the conversation and understand the answers given. These meetings offer a forum where Hydro-Québec and Indigenous stakeholders can discuss issues the parties consider worthwhile addressing with respect to study execution and results, project design, impacts and mitigation measures, and the consultation and provision of information to Indigenous users of the areas affected by the project. Representatives of Hydro-Québec and the Indigenous communities work together to prevent conflicts and disturbance of land users and to promote the social acceptability of the hydropower facilities throughout their service life. They also work together to develop mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures so that the Indigenous communities can continue to use the land and conduct their traditional pursuits.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

5-5

Table 5-2 – Hydro-Québec’s usual communication activities for its projects Activity

Description

Information tours

When launching its draft-design studies, Hydro-Québec undertakes one or more information tours through the main towns and Indigenous communities concerned.

Meetings with elected officials and other community representatives

Hydro-Québec holds meetings with elected officials, local decision-makers and Indigenous representatives to provide information about the project and about company practices.

Round table discussions, joint forums

Hydro-Québec organizes round table discussions with representatives of various organizations (MRCs, municipalities, ministries, Indigenous entities, citizen’s associations, economic development agencies, etc.) as well as joint forums as per agreements with Indigenous communities. These meetings offer opportunities for conversation about the project and about studies, impacts and mitigation measures.

Workshops

Held to complement the round tables and joint forums, workshops allow more in-depth conversations about specific aspects and a closer look at certain major issues. Workshops might, for example, be held on jobs and workforce training, economic spinoffs, increased access to the region, logging, the awarding of contracts and subcontracting provisions, and wildlife species of interest to local communities.

Open houses

Open houses are organized to answer questions from the public. Hydro-Québec specialists are available to talk about the project and explain its features.

Focus meetings

At the request of certain organizations, Hydro-Québec organizes meetings that focus on topics of interest to target groups (citizens’ committees, chambers of commerce, the business community, specialized services organizations, tourist/ recreational associations, Indigenous trapper’s associations, etc.).

News bulletins

Distributed by mail throughout regions affected, news bulletins provide well-illustrated, factual information. Readers can send questions and comments to a Hydro-Québec representative (Community Relations Advisor) in the region. News bulletins for Indigenous communities are drafted together with community representatives, who see to their distribution in the community.

Media events

Hydro-Québec makes use of a number of media outlets, including local Indigenous community radio stations. It also communicates in a variety of ways (press releases, interviews, advertising, etc.) to present its projects, address community concerns or quite simply announce its activities.

Other activities

Hydro-Québec sometimes organizes a variety of activities (such as lunch-and-learns, tours of hydroelectric facilities, conferences, meetings with students and groups of young people and meetings between members of different Indigenous communities) to address particular subjects.

In addition, during a project’s construction and operation phases, joint monitoring committees are formed to give Indigenous communities an opportunity to hold discussions with Hydro-Québec representatives, about the environmental monitoring in particular, and to be directly involved in developing and carrying out corrective measures and recommendations to improve the project.

5-6

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

5.6 SHARING OF KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED Given the innumerable studies conducted over close to half a century, Hydro-Québec has built up an impressive body of knowledge, particularly about the boreal environment, where most of Québec’s large hydropower projects are located. Entire regions (such as the Baie-James region) that were still little known at the start of the 1970s are now among the world’s best documented. Huge databases were developed for storage and optimal management of the information gathered. The analysis and processing of this data have generated more than 10,000 technical reports and other documents in all environment-related fields. These works are kept in a documentation center at Hydro-Québec’s head office in Montréal 1 and are available to the public at large as well as environmental specialists (students, researchers, consultants, etc.) This knowledge is not only helpful for improving impact predictions for future projects and developing effective mitigation and compensation measures, it also benefits the broader Québec community. However, the documents are mainly written in French, which is why they are little known in the English-speaking world. To remedy this, Hydro-Québec has made efforts, especially over the last 20 years, to summarize this immense quantity of information and produce documents in English. A number of monographs have been published as a result as well as several dozen peer-reviewed scientific articles. These scientific publications have made it possible to share the environmental knowledge Hydro-Québec has acquired with the international scientific community. The articles have been published in prestigious scholarly journals, including Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Biogeosciences, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Catena, Ecology Letters, Ecosphere, Energy Policy, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Journal of Applied Ichthyology, Environmental Science & Technology, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Science of the Total Environment and Ecological Engineering. These publications are important references in the impact review in Chapter 6. In addition, Hydro-Québec does not hesitate to send delegates to major international scientific conferences to present the findings of studies conducted by its experts on key topics such as mercury in reservoirs, ecological instream flow regimes, greenhouse gas emissions, economic spinoffs of development projects and agreements with Indigenous communities. In fact, many of these presentations have been made jointly with representatives of Indigenous communities. Lastly, Hydro-Québec’s managers and environmental specialists participate actively in international groups for sustainable development, environmental protection and promotion of hydroelectricity and other renewable forms of energy, including the International Energy Agency, the World Commission on Dams, the Canadian Dam Association, the International Association for Impact Assessment, the International Hydropower Association, Waterpower Canada, the National Hydropower Association (United States) and the Edison Electric Institute. The experience, knowledge and know-how Hydro-Québec has acquired over decades in the field of the environment is today recognized in these organizations.

1. Some of this material is available on line at https://cherloc.ca/.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

5-7

Review of the Impacts of Hydro-Québec’s Large Hydroelectric Developments Using a question-and-answer approach, this chapter reviews the knowledge Hydro-Québec has acquired over the past 50 years on the environmental impacts of its large hydropower developments and demonstrates the effectiveness of the mitigation and compensation measures implemented. The questions and answers are grouped under the following topics: • • • • • • • • •

Water quality and sediment Greenhouse gases Biodiversity Fisheries resources and habitat Wetlands and vegetation Terrestrial wildlife Land use, Indigenous communities and the economy Mercury Impacts from construction

The questions and answers were formulated to properly describe the environmental impacts of large hydro in Québec. Each question relates to a specific topic and is followed by both a short answer and a more detailed answer for interested readers. Appendix B also provides a summary of the impacts described in this chapter.

6.1 WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT 6.1.1 How do reservoirs affect water temperature and what are the effects on aquatic life? SUMMARY Dams may affect the water temperature regime within the reservoir as well as downstream of it. In northern Québec (Map 3-1), the surface water temperature in reservoirs is typically 1°C to 5°C warmer in winter and 3°C to 6°C cooler in summer compared to pre-impoundment river conditions. The range of temperature variations over the year is also reduced. The water mass warms slightly later in spring and cools a little later in fall. Multiyear monitoring of fish communities indicates that changes in the thermal regime are not sufficient to cause a decline in the productivity and biodiversity of aquatic systems. In fact, depending on the reservoir, the abundance and growth rate of most fish species has remained similar or slightly higher than under baseline conditions and in nearby natural lakes.

DETAILED ANSWER Changes in water temperature after impoundment In terms of thermal regime, reservoirs behave much like large, natural lakes. Their thermal inertia (due to the large volume of water they contain) means that spring warming and autumn cooling are slightly delayed compared to smaller bodies of water. Reservoirs therefore have a thermal regime that is out of phase with that of natural lakes and rivers in the same region.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-1

Hydro-Québec predicts and monitors the effects of hydropower developments on water temperature. As part of the environmental impact assessments conducted prior to the authorization of new hydroelectric projects, changes in the thermal regime upstream and downstream of dams are evaluated using predictive models (e.g., Hydro-Québec Production 2007b ; Thériault et al. 2010). Once the dams are built, water temperature is monitored at various locations upstream and downstream of them, with measurements taken every 15 to 60 minutes. Hydro-Québec operates an extensive network of 300 water temperature monitoring stations located in all major watersheds where generating stations are operated (i.e., Romaine, Manicouagan, Rupert, etc.). Yearly reports of thermal regime monitoring are prepared to assess changes and validate the predictions made during the pre-project environmental studies. Effects on aquatic life are assessed through various monitoring programs in which fish are typically used as indicators of the health of aquatic ecosystems.

Downstream of dams In all seasons, the changes are usually greater just downstream of dams and the water and air temperatures gradually become the same as the water flows downstream. There is also a decrease in daily and seasonal fluctuations in water temperature, due to the water’s thermal inertia and large volume stored in reservoirs. As an example, Figure 6-1 illustrates the changes in thermal regime in the lower reaches of the Rivière Romaine (Map 2-3) following the creation of three reservoirs in the river’s upper reaches in 2014, 2015 and 2017. In the chart, Romaine Sud-Est1 reflects the natural thermal regime, while the other lines correspond to measurements taken in the Romaine downstream of the dams, at various distances from the river mouth. The stations at kilometre point (KP) 49 or closer are downstream of Romaine-1 (KP 52.5), which is the dam located farthest downstream. The water warms more slowly during the spring and is 3°C to 6°C cooler in summer than under natural conditions. In winter, the water is 1°C to 5°C warmer immediately below the dam, but gradually cools as the water flows, away from the dam. Figure 6-1 – Water temperatures recorded in 2017 in Rivière Romaine Sud-Est (natural conditions) and Rivière Romaine downstream of the dams at varying distances from the river mouth

Romaine-1 and Romaine-2 dams are located at kilometre points (KP) 2.5 and 91.5, respectively. Source: Hydro-Québec 2018a.

1. Romaine Sud-Est is a tributary of the Rivière Romaine used as a control site, as it is not affected by hydroelectric installations.

6-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Digital modeling of the thermal regime was conducted as part of the environmental impact assessments of all recent large hydropower developments in Québec. During the operation phase, water temperatures were also monitored on a yearly basis to confirm changes and validate predictions at various facilities, including the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex (Hydro-Québec 2017c) and Mercier (Englobe 2015) and Péribonka (Environnement Illimité 2014) generating stations.

Upstream of dams (reservoirs) Predictive models of the vertical temperature profiles in reservoirs were also produced during the environmental assessment and then monitored during the operation phase to validate predictions. Romaine 2 reservoir is shown as an example in Figure 6-2. The water temperatures show thermal stratification in summer, where warmer surface water is separated from cooler bottom water by a very distinct thermocline. The bottom layer remains cool all year (around 4°C). Twice a year, in fall and spring, vertical mixing of the water column occurs when water temperatures become similar at all depths. This means that water temperatures and chemical properties become almost the same from the surface to the bottom of the reservoir. In winter, the surface layer cools to around 0°C and an ice cover forms. The water is slightly warmer beneath this surface layer, at about 1°C to 4°C. Thermal stratification represents a marked change compared to pre-impoundment river conditions, where water temperatures were generally uniform from top to bottom. However, this phenomenon also occurs in natural lakes at northern latitudes, where the water is deep enough for thermal stratification to develop (Wetzel 2001). Figure 6-2 – Water temperature profiles predicted in Romaine 2 reservoir before impoundment (blue line) and measurements taken during operation phase (other lines)

Source: Hydro-Québec 2018c.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-3

Effects on aquatic life Monitoring aquatic life in reservoirs and downstream of dams makes it possible to assess the effects of changes in the thermal regime, as well as any other changes attributable to hydroelectric facilities. In Hydro-Québec’s environmental follow-ups, fish were selected as an indicator of the impact on aquatic ecosystems in the 1970’s and are still used for that purpose today. Since fish are at the top of the aquatic trophic network, they are commonly used as an indicator of the overall changes occurring in aquatic ecosystems (Section 6.4.3). An extensive fish monitoring program was conducted over more than 20 years in the La Grande complex, in the Baie-James region. A long-term fish monitoring program (2010–2034) is also being carried out at the Romaine complex. Several such studies have also been conducted in other northern rivers, including the Rupert. The following section summarizes the main conclusions arrived at concerning water temperature.

Reservoirs In the La Grande complex (Baie-James region, Map 2-2), fish communities and population dynamics were regularly monitored from 1977 to 2000 using a standard protocol at 27 stations, including five control stations (Hayeur 2001). The main conclusions pertaining to reservoirs were that fishing yields increased shortly after impoundment, likely due to nutrient enrichment. Fishing yields then gradually declined to a level similar to baseline conditions after about a dozen years (more details are provided in Section 6.4.3). The growth rate of most fish species also increased in the reservoirs. More than 20 years after impoundment, growth rates were still slightly higher than under natural conditions or similar to those observed in the control lake. It is likely that any potential negative effect on aquatic communities and populations resulting from changes in the thermal regime were offset by the increase in biological productivity in the reservoirs.

Downstream of dams In the Grande Rivière, experimental fishing yields for all species were greater immediately downstream of the reservoirs than in the reservoirs themselves. This was due to fish aggregations downstream of the dams and the increased influx of food from the impoundments (Therrien et al. 2002). Effects related to temperature changes were nonetheless detected in a few instances downstream of the dams. Burbot (Lota lota), a cold water species (Hasnain et al. 2010), replaced northern pike as the most abundant piscivorous species. This shift in relative abundance was attributed to colder water temperatures in the summer (Therrien et al. 2002). For species for which there was sufficient data to allow for statistical comparison (i.e., longnose sucker [Catostomus catostomus] and lake whitefish [Coregonus clupeaformis]), the growth rate and condition factor downstream of the reservoirs were either higher or similar to the values observed within them. Monitoring the effects of temperature on Atlantic salmon Remarkable mitigation measures were implemented to protect Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations in the hydroelectric complexes in Québec’s Côte-Nord [north shore] region. This species is found in the lower reaches of the Betsiamites and Romaine rivers and represents one of the fish most highly valued by recreational anglers and First Nations of Eastern Québec. Adult salmon spend most of their lifetime in the open sea but spawning and the juvenile stages occur exclusively in rivers, upstream of saltwater intrusions. Since the potential effect of water temperature changes on Atlantic salmon in the Betsiamites and Romaine rivers was a concern for Hydro-Québec and for environmental authorities, special measures were developed to mitigate the potential impacts of dams on salmon populations in the two rivers.

6-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In the Romaine, the environmental impact assessment predicted a slight decrease of about 5% in growth rate of juvenile Atlantic salmon, due to lower water temperatures during the growing season. Similarly, the timing of the smolts’ seaward migration was expected to be delayed by one to two weeks, as was previously observed in the Rivière Betsiamites (Hydro-Québec Production 2007a). Hydro-Québec undertook to carry out a fish monitoring program which included, among other parameters, indicators that are sensitive to changes in the thermal regime, i.e.: • Timing of the seaward migration and abundance of Atlantic salmon smolts • Growth rate of juvenile salmon • Timing of spawning and abundance of salmon nests on spawning grounds The monitoring program designed to measure pre-development conditions until 2014 was initiated in 2010 (Génivar 2011, 2012, 2013; WSP 2014, 2015 ) and is still being conducted on a yearly basis during the operation phase (WSP 2016, 2017). The results obtained so far indicate the following: • As predicted in the Environmental Impact Statement, spawning now occurs about one week later than under natural conditions, which may be due to a corresponding delay in the cooling of the water in fall. • As predicted, smolts are migrating seaward two to three weeks later than under natural conditions. • The growth rate of juveniles has increased. • No change in age at smoltification was observed. Finally, the monitoring program, which will continue until 2030, has not detected any significant impact on salmon abundance so far.

CONCLUSION In northern Québec’s large reservoirs, changes in water temperature not only occur in the reservoirs themselves, but also affect areas several kilometres downstream of them. Effects of water temperature on the timing of life cycle events were detected in some fish populations such as Atlantic salmon in the Rivière Romaine, although no impact on their abundance was detected at this stage of the monitoring program. In general, experimental fishing yields remained equivalent or higher than those in nearby natural water bodies. Long-term monitoring of fish communities and population dynamics showed that in most cases, overall biological productivity in reservoirs and downstream of them increased markedly for ten to twelve years and then returned to levels slightly higher or similar to those in natural lakes.

6.1.2 Does water quality affect aquatic life in the reservoir and downstream of it? SUMMARY The flooding of soil and vegetation during impoundment may change the chemical characteristics of the water in reservoirs and downstream of them. Northern Québec’s large hydropower reservoirs were built in a cold climate and forested watersheds largely free of any significant source of anthropogenic water and sediment pollution. An extensive water quality study conducted in the La Grande complex from 1977 to 2000 showed that water quality parameters in the productive water layer (0-10 m depth) 2 remained within ranges favorable for aquatic life. Long-term monitoring studies showed an increase in fishing yields and in the condition factor and growth rate of most species in the reservoirs, as well as downstream of them, at least for the first decade after impoundment. These results show that the creation of the reservoirs had a positive impact on aquatic productivity, due to the increase in nutrient availability in bodies of water that were initially nutrient-limited. The increase in nutrients was directly related to the decomposition of flooded soil and vegetation.

2. Surface water parameters were characterized in the first ten metres of depth as this layer generally corresponded to the photic zone, where most of the primary production occurs.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-5

DETAILED ANSWER Change in water quality after impoundment and its effect on aquatic life The main processes affecting water quality in reservoirs are related to the flooding of vegetation and soil over large areas of land (Schetagne 1994). Terrestrial vegetation begins to decay days or months after flooding. Once submerged, the decay of most of the readily decomposable organic material (i.e., the first few centimetres of soil and the green parts of the vegetation) is usually complete after one or two years in temperate or tropical climates, while in cold climates, the process may take up to hundreds of years for the woody part of trees and shrubs (i.e., trunks, branches and roots), as water temperature significantly affects decomposition rates. For example, submerged spruce trunks in Québec’s Gouin reservoir 3 remained largely intact 55 years after impoundment, having lost less than 1% of their biomass (Van Coillie et al. 1983). The release of nutrients and the associated changes in water quality thus occur at a slower rate than in reservoirs in temperate or tropical climates. In fact, the decomposition of the woody part of trees is so slow that it does not significantly alter water quality. The decomposition of organic material has many potential effects on water quality. The process consumes dissolved oxygen from water, releases nutrients and carbon dioxide and slightly decreases water pH (Schetagne 1994). The results from an extensive water quality monitoring program conducted in the La Grande complex from 1977 to 2000 (Schetagne et al. 2005) were used to better predict the impacts of subsequent hydroelectric projects. Since no significant source of water pollution was present in the region, monitoring focused on water quality variables related to aquatic productivity. Most of Quebec’s boreal lakes and rivers are oligotrophic, that is, naturally low in nutrients, chlorophyll and primary production (Schetagne et al. 2005). Prior to flooding, low phosphorus concentration was usually the main limiting factor for primary production in reservoirs (Schetagne 1981). The influx of nutrients caused by the impoundment of reservoirs stimulated biological productivity in the aquatic environment. In general, the greatest changes in water quality occurred 1 to 4 years after impoundment. Chemical properties gradually returned to baseline values 2 to 18 years after the start of impoundment, depending on the water volume, inflow rate and monitoring station locations in the reservoirs. With the exception of some remote bays off the reservoirs’ main axis, dissolved oxygen concentrations in the surface water remained at 80% saturation or more over the long term which is suitable for aquatic life. There were also significant increases in phosphorus concentrations compared to pre-impoundment conditions, which resulted in an increase in phytoplankton as reflected by higher chlorophyll α values. The increase in primary production stimulated the productivity of all aquatic trophic levels, up to fish. As previously mentioned (Section 6.1.1), fishing yields increased, as did the condition factors and growth rates of most species, for a period of up to about 10 years. Although dissolved oxygen levels in the top 10-metre layer remained suitable for aquatic life in most areas of the reservoirs that were extensively monitored (Robert-Bourassa, Caniapiscau and Laforge 1), dissolved oxygen concentrations below levels suitable for aquatic life (oxygen saturation of 50% or less) were observed in some limited areas at the end of the first few winters after impoundment. Low oxygen levels were found in shallow bays away from the reservoirs’ main axis. In these areas, water renewal occurs at slower rates. In addition, these bays were iced over in winter, preventing oxygen to equilibrate between the air and the water column. Anoxic conditions (0% oxygen saturation) were even observed in deep reservoir water layers (hypolimnion). It was estimated, however, that dissolved oxygen concentrations in most of the reservoirs remained higher than 50% saturation at all times (65%, 80% and 85% of the respective water volume in Caniapiscau, Opinaca and Robert-Bourassa reservoirs, Schetagne et al. 2005).

3. The Gouin Reservoir is located at the head of the Saint-Maurice River. It was impounded at the end of the 1920s. It is used to regulate the flow of the river, so as to control floods and to optimize the production of hydroelectricity at power stations located downstream.

6-6

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Oxygen levels in shallow bays and deep water quickly returned to favorable levels during the spring turnover. Episodes of low dissolved oxygen levels were thus limited to a few weeks at the end of the first few winters. The oxygen-poor areas had little effect on fish populations, as fish avoid low-oxygen areas and actively seek out areas with adequate oxygen levels, which always remained abundant. Indeed, the increase in fishing yields during the first years in these reservoirs suggests that there was no significant impact on aquatic life, despite the lower oxygen concentrations in some areas. Fishing yields in the summer were, in fact, much higher at the stations where low oxygen levels were observed at the end of winter (Doyon and Belzile 1998; Belzile et al. 2000). Nutrient and chlorophyll α levels were indeed higher in these bays than anywhere else in the reservoirs and the return to baseline values took 3 to 4 years longer there than in the top water layer (0 to 10 m) of the Caniapiscau, Opinaca and Robert-Bourassa reservoirs. The water quality downstream of dams is largely determined by the water flowing from the reservoirs and the same patterns occurring within the reservoir were observed downstream of it (Schetagne et al. 2005). However, some parameters were affected by turbulence in fast-flowing reaches, as well as downstream of spillways. Turbulence mitigated some of the changes in water quality downstream of the reservoirs by increasing dissolved oxygen levels and reducing CO2 content, resulting in a slight increase in water pH. Phosphorus enrichment was also observed in Paix des Braves reservoir, which was impounded in 2006. Prior to impoundment, the baseline phosphorus concentration in the Rivière Eastmain was very low (8 µg/L, Bolduc 1991). In 2007, one year after impoundment, summer phosphorus concentrations had risen sharply to values ranging from 10 to 27 µg/L (Demarty 2010). However, in 2008, just one year later, phosphorus concentrations had returned to baseline levels and remained there in 2010 (6 and 5 µg/L respectively; Demarty 2010). Therefore, this phenomenon was likely of short duration and no long-term effects were observed. The effects of water quality on aquatic life may be ascertained from the results of the fish monitoring program conducted in the La Grande complex from 1997 to 2000 (Therrien et al. 2002). As mentioned in the previous section, the main conclusions pertaining to reservoirs were that fishing yields increased shortly after impoundment, likely due to nutrient enrichment. They then gradually declined to a level similar to initial conditions after about a dozen years (more details are given in Section 6.4.3). Growth rates in the main fish species also increased markedly in the reservoirs. Twenty-one years after impoundment, growth rates were still slightly higher than under natural conditions and were similar to those observed in the control lake.

CONCLUSION The creation of large impoundments may temporarily modify the physicochemical characteristics of the water in the reservoirs, as well as downstream of them. The water quality monitoring program conducted in the La Grande complex showed that overall, the changes in water quality were relatively small. Most changes in water quality stem from the flooding of soil and vegetation. Flooded organic matter is decomposed through natural chemical and biological processes, which release nutrients and consume oxygen from the water. Due to the cold climate of northern Québec, these processes are less intensive than at more southern latitudes. Hypoxic or anoxic conditions, which represent dissolved oxygen levels that are too low for the needs of aquatic organisms, were observed in deep reservoir waters for a few weeks of each of the first few years after impoundment. However, fishing yields and the condition and growth rates of fish in reservoirs and downstream increased for about ten years after impoundment and then returned to levels similar to those in nearby natural lakes, which shows that impoundment had a stimulating effect on the biological productivity of the aquatic environment.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-7

6.1.3 Is gas bubble trauma an environmental issue in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric developments? SUMMARY Over a period of 40 years, there has been no record of gas bubble trauma in fish at any of Hydro-Québec’s generating stations. Therefore, it is not considered to be an environmental issue in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric developments.

DETAILED ANSWER Gas bubble trauma (GBT, also called gas bubble disease) is a pathologic condition that may occur in fish and other aquatic organisms when the concentration of dissolved atmospheric gases in the water exceeds the point of saturation. Dissolved gas supersaturation (DGS) may occur naturally but may also result from human activities, including the operation of hydropower facilities. GBT has the potential to damage soft tissues in aquatic organisms and cause fish mortalities. In the past 40 years, there has been no record of such an event at any of Hydro-Québec’s generating stations. Nor have any mass fish mortalities been reported (Section 6.4.2). The configuration of Hydro-Québec’s spillways and the absence of air injection in the turbines are not conducive to conditions that produce GBT. For this reason, DGS has never been considered problematic and is thus not specifically monitored at Hydro-Québec facilities. The risk of GBT was evaluated as part of the environmental impact assessments carried out for two recent hydroelectric projects in Québec, i.e., the Romaine complex and Péribonka generating station. GBT was not identified as a major risk by the federal and provincial agencies conducting the environmental impact assessment review. In conclusion, GBT was never reported at any of the dams operated by Hydro-Québec and is not considered to be an environmental issue for Hydro-Québec’s hydropower developments.

6.1.4 How do Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower projects modify river sediment dynamics? SUMMARY To varying degrees, the construction and operation of large hydropower complexes affect sediment dynamics in developed lakes, rivers and streams. The environmental monitoring conducted over the last few decades tends to indicate that the effects of Hydro-Québec developments on sediment dynamics (i.e., erosion and sedimentation) are generally limited and vary, depending on whether they are occurring upstream or downstream of dams. Upstream of dams, the main change in sediment dynamics is the temporary activation of erosion along the shorelines newly created by the reservoirs, stemming from initial impoundment followed by wave action during the operation phase. The intensity of the erosion process depends on the composition of the in-situ soil. Where shorelines consist of rock or non-erosion-prone coarse material, as is the case for most of Québec’s reservoirs, any erosion observed has usually been localized and minimal. Along shorelines made up of finer material such as sand, silt and clay, erosion is a temporary phenomenon since it gradually diminishes over time. Given that erosion is generally limited to the periphery of reservoirs, no major sediment accumulation has been reported in any of Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs and no dredging has been required to date. Downstream of dams, the overall sediment load is reduced and river sediment dynamics are influenced by the type of modification being made to the hydrological regime. These changes happen to varying degrees, depending on whether they are occurring in river reaches where the flow has been regulated, reduced or increased in comparison to those under natural conditions.

6-8

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Rivers with regulated flow conditions 4 experience more frequent fluctuations than those under natural conditions, but these fluctuations are of lower amplitude since runoff eventually levels off. The banks of these rivers are thus under less stress, at least in spring. The results of environmental monitoring show that the banks of regulated-flow river stretches undergo few noticeable changes. Rivers with reduced flow experience a reduction in both flow velocity and sediment transport capacity. Erosion processes also decrease, manifesting mainly as local areas of erosion and water turbidity in particularly sensitive stretches predominantly made up of fine material. Headward erosion may also occur along the lower reaches of some tributaries since they must readjust their profiles to the lower water levels in the main river. These erosion conditions are temporary and only continue until the rivers’ banks and profiles reach a new state of equilibrium. The results of Hydro-Québec follow-up studies show that over years, the overall decrease in flow in these rivers tends to slow bank erosion and increase stability in the area. Conversely, increased-flow rivers undergo an increase in flow velocity and sediment transport capacity. Consequently, their banks are more affected and erosion-prone than in rivers with regulated or reduced flow. Studies have shown that the severity of erosion along these rivers depends on the sensitivity of their banks. In stretches dominated by rock and coarse material, the banks remain stable or undergo very little erosion, while more significant erosion is observed in stretches where the banks contain more fine sediments. To reduce the potential effects of erosion in rivers, where needed, Hydro-Québec implements various mitigation measures that have proven to be highly effective. These include maintaining instream flows, building weirs or spurs to control water levels, laying down protective riprap and seeding the banks with vegetation.

DETAILED ANSWER In terms of sediment, natural rivers are dynamic environments constantly seeking equilibrium between the alluvial sediment load carried from upstream and the river’s capacity (flow) to wash these deposits downstream (Knighton 1998). The construction of large hydropower complexes influences and changes sediment dynamics. In general, the presence of dams holds back the sediments coming from upstream and reduces downstream sediment input (Kondolf and Schmitt 2018). In addition, a temporary activation of erosion is usually observed along newly created reservoir shorelines, along with a change in bank dynamics along river stretches below the dams. To be able to fully understand these effects and identify the appropriate measures, as part of its impact assessments, Hydro-Québec conducts various in-depth analyses, including the following: • Detailed photointerpretation analysis of the areas affected by future hydropower developments to assess the environment’s sensitivity to erosion and sedimentation • Estimate of sediment input caused by erosion of stream banks • Estimate of sediment loads on the riverbeds and suspended in the water During construction, mitigation measures are implemented where needed to reduce the anticipated impacts on bank sediment dynamics (e.g., by maintaining instream flows, building weirs or spurs to control water levels, laying down protective riprap and seeding the banks with vegetation). During the operation phase, Hydro-Québec also conducts long-term follow-up studies to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. The results of these studies are used to verify the accuracy of the impact forecasts, evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and better plan future projects to minimize environmental impacts. The following sections more specifically cover the effects hydropower developments on sediment dynamics up- and downstream of dams.

4. See definitions of regulated-flow, reduced-flow and increased-flow rivers in Appendix F.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-9

Upstream of dams (reservoirs) The erosion processes along reservoir banks in Québec are generally limited, since its large hydropower projects are built in areas not overly sensitive to erosion. In fact, as stated in Section 3.1, most of Québec’s reservoirs are located within the Canadian Shield, which is mainly made up of rock covered with a generally thin layer of glacial deposits. In this context, sections of erosion-prone banks normally represent a small percentage of all reservoir shorelines, most of which are rocky or composed of till and are thus resistant to erosion (Table 6-1). This also accounts for the fact that there is little sand input into the reservoirs. In this respect, no major sand accumulation has ever been reported in the reservoirs managed by Hydro-Québec, including those more than 50 years old (including Gouin reservoir in the Mauricie region, which was impounded in the 1920s). Given the low volume of sediment input in reservoirs, no corrective measures such as dredging have been required to date. In addition, the increase in erosion is temporary, since the erosion-prone banks gradually reach a new state of equilibrium over the medium or long term (5 to 25 years), depending on the slope, the type of material present and the intensity of wave action (which is a function of fetch). Following the impoundment of a reservoir, the newly created shoreline is affected by erosion, which creates notches and causes slumps and occasional landslides. Erosion is more marked in sections made up mostly of fine sediments (i.e., sand, silt and clay). As the years go by, however, beaches and boulder-pebble pavements form along the shoreline, ultimately protecting it from erosion. In short, the shoreline stabilizes over time (Hayeur 2001). Note that drawdown is not generally considered a significant contributor to erosion in reservoirs since, in addition to the fact that the shores are mostly erosionresistant, reservoir water levels normally go down in winter, when the shoreline is frozen and/or erosion is limited (Hydro-Québec Production 2004a and 2007b). Table 6-1 – Overview of shoreline erosion in a few Hydro-Québec reservoirs Reservoir

Reservoir perimeter (km)

Year of impoundment

Highly erosion-prone shores (estimated) a

Eroding shores (observed)b

Proportion (%)

References

Romaine 1

2015

N.A.

Hydro-Québec Production 2007b

Romaine 2

339

2014

0 (2019)

Hydro-Québec Production 2007b ; AECOM 2019

Romaine 3

113

2017

0 (2019)

Hydro-Québec Production 2007b ; AECOM 2019

Romaine 4

602

2021 (to come)

N.A.

Hydro-Québec Production 2007b

Péribonka

106

2007–2008

8 (2013)

Poly-Géo 2004 and 2014

Toulnustouc

2005

0.7 (2005)

Poly-Géo 2006

Sainte-Anne

372

1957

6.1 (2005)

Poly-Géo 2006

2,358

1918

4.3 (1982 and 1984)

Groupe HBA 1998

359

1930

10.2 (1999)

Groupe HBA 1999

3,273

1951 to 1978

N.A.

0 to 13.7 (7.5 on average)

Denis et al. 1991

Gouin Taureau Manic 1, 2, 3 and 5 Outardes 2, 3 and 4

a. Proportion of shores considered highly erosion-prone during draft-design studies b. Proportion of eroding shores observed in the area during post-impoundment monitoring N.A.: Data not available

6-10

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

After conducting preliminary studies, Hydro-Québec takes special precautions when impounding reservoirs in more erosion-prone areas. For example, the reservoir can be filled in stages and the speed of impoundment controlled to keep the risk of erosion to a minimum. This is what was done in the case of Romaine 2, one of the most recently impounded reservoirs in Québec (2014–2015). To date, erosion in reservoirs has not been significant enough to require Hydro-Québec to implement greater mitigation measures such as the placement of riprap along shorelines. Moreover, the results of environmental studies carried out in Québec’s reservoirs over the last 40 years have not given any indication that erosion is having a significant impact on aquatic life. In fact, monitoring has shown that conditions in the reservoirs are favorable for the establishment of diverse, productive ecosystems (Sections 6.3.1 and 6.4.3).

Downstream of dams The presence of a dam generally reduces sediment input being carried downstream. Furthermore, the flow management method can have a strong influence on sediment dynamics. In this regard, a distinction should be made between river stretches where the flow is regulated, reduced or increased in comparison to natural conditions. The effects on sediment dynamics will differ based on these three types of hydrological conditions.

Regulated-flow sections 5 Regulating flow for the purpose of generating power reduces runoff and minimizes low-water periods, but generally results in more frequent flow variations. Although flows in regulated rivers fluctuate more often than under natural conditions, they remain within a more limited range. In this way, peak spring runoff flows are eliminated and shorelines are less affected, at least at that time of year. Overall, the results of environmental monitoring show that the shores of regulated-flow rivers experience little to no impact. Some regulated-flow rivers in the Nord-du-Québec region are home to populations of Atlantic salmon. Given the socioeconomic importance of this fish, Hydro-Québec has placed special emphasis on understanding the effects of the change in sediment dynamics on the species’ spawning habitat. Box 6-1-4 provides an example of the studies conducted on this topic in the Romaine complex.

Reduced-flow sections 6 Reducing a river’s flow leads to a drop in water level, a decrease in the area and volume of water, a reduction in the magnitude of annual water level fluctuations and an increase in turnover time (Hayeur 2001). The slower flow may also reduce the intensity of shoreline erosion processes, as well as the river’s capacity to transport sediment. As a result of these changes, the environment becomes more stable over time, although erosion may occur locally in the short term. The reduction in flow causes the stream banks to become partially exposed (Hydro-Québec Production 2004a; Hayeur 2001), which makes them vulnerable to erosive forces such as runoff and waves. Along shorelines made up of fine material, these new conditions may lead to the formation of gullies and new erosion micro-slopes at lower levels than under natural conditions. Erosion may also affect the lower reaches of tributaries, as they must readjust to the lower water levels in the main river. Where fine sediment is present, this readjustment may result in headward erosion and can occasionally cause an increase in sedimentation and water turbidity at the confluence. Where major reductions in flow have occurred, these erosion phenomena may have been significant. This was the case in the lower reaches of the Eastmain and Opinaca rivers in the Baie-James region, where the flow was drastically reduced in the early 1980s (supplied only by secondary inflows) and where the riverbed and banks were largely made up of fine sediments. The mitigation measures put in place to counter the impacts involved building five hydraulic structures (four weirs and a spur) to maintain water levels over a distance of 90 km, or one third of the exposed sections of both rivers, which resulted in a rapid reduction in erosion processes (Hayeur 2001).

5. See definitions of regulated-flow, reduced-flow and increased-flow rivers in Appendix F. 6. See definitions of regulated-flow, reduced-flow and increased-flow rivers in Appendix F.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-11

The lessons learned from these measures enabled Hydro-Québec to better assess the impacts of subsequent projects such as the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex (Hydro-Québec Production 2004a, 2004b), which was commissioned in 2009 7 and involved partially diverting the Rivière Rupert over a distance of 314 km (the river’s headwaters were diverted north, toward the Grande Rivière). In concert with the Cree stakeholders concerned, Hydro-Québec planned the following measures to mitigate the impact of the reduction in flow (Hydro-Québec Production 2004a): • Maintenance of an instream flow modulated according to the seasons and equivalent to approximately 50% of the mean annual flow at the river mouth. • Construction of eight hydraulic structures8 (weirs or spurs) along the river’s reduced-flow section to maintain a water level equivalent to the mean summer level under natural conditions (Figure 6-3). • Seeding of vegetation (grasses) along exposed banks (Map 6-1).

Baie Jolly (KP 311 of Rivière Rupert) before vegetation seeding

Baie Jolly (KP 311 of Rivière Rupert) after vegetation seeding

7. The Rupert was partially diverted in November 2009 and the four last weirs were erected in 2010. Sarcelle generating station was commissioned in December 2013. 8. The Boumhounan Agreement, which defines the terms for the construction of the Eastmain 1-A/Sarcelle/Rupert project, set the maximum number of weirs to be built on the Rupert at 10. The weir in Baie Jolly (KP 311) and the spur dike at Waskaganish (KP 3) are considered the 9th and 10th weirs. However, these structures play no role in maintaining water levels in the river. They were built solely to facilitate use of the territory.

6-12

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-3 – Hydraulic structures (weirs and spurs) to maintain water levels in Rivière Rupert reduced-Flow section

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-13

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-15

Follow-up studies have shown that these measures quickly stabilized or maintained the stability of the more erosion-prone banks. In fact, the seeded vegetation was well established after two years of growth (Biofilia 2012). In the areas influenced by the hydraulic structures, erosion only occurred locally, i.e., in the most sensitive sections where the river is more than 500 m wide, as was the case before diversion. In the areas not influenced by hydraulic structures, there was a marked decrease in erosion due to the reduced flow and flow velocity (Poly-Géo and Biofilia 2016).

Increased flow sections Contrary to the situation in reduced-flow sections, the overall increase in flow in these sections of the river leads to an increase in water volume and flow speed and thus an increase in the capacity to transport sediments. That means that banks here are under greater pressure than under natural conditions and the risk of erosion is higher. Follow-up studies show that the banks have remained stable in rivers dominated by rock and coarse material. This is the case for the Rivière Laforge, a tributary of the Grande Rivière through which the flow from the upper Caniapiscau is diverted (Hayeur 2001). Conversely, the banks of rivers with high fine sediment content are more likely to be affected by erosion and in such cases, mitigation measures can be effective in reducing the impact. This was the case in the lower Grande Rivière where the significant increase in flow led to the placement of riprap to stabilize the more vulnerable bank segments (Map 6-2).

Area near KP 163 of Rivière Rupert before seeding

Area near KP 163 of Rivière Rupert after seeding

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-17

6-18

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Box 6-1-4 Study of granulometric quality of Atlantic salmon spawning habitat in Rivière Romaine The Rivière Romaine in Québec’s Côte-Nord [north shore] region (Map 2-3) is home to a small population of Atlantic salmon that varies between 150 and 300 spawners, depending on the year (Aubé-Maurice et al. 2019). The species is highly prized by the public in general and the Innu communities in particular. Atlantic salmon can be vulnerable to the changes in the hydrological and sediment regime brought about by hydropower projects. For this reason, as part of the environmental impact assessment (Hydro-Québec Production 2007c), Hydro-Québec conducted in-depth studies to characterize the sediment conditions at spawning grounds under natural conditions and evaluate the effects of changes to the hydrosedimentary regime caused by the hydroelectric development (Hydro-Québec 2019a; WSP 2019a). More specifically, the analysis focused on temporal variations in the quantity and proportion of fine particles (less than 2 mm) in salmon spawning ground substrate during incubation under natural conditions (i.e., prior to construction of the hydropower project). The quantity of fine particles in the substrate may affect the eggs’ chances of survival: the higher the quantity, the lower the chances of survival. The aim was to thoroughly understand the natural sediment dynamics at the spawning grounds during incubation and ascertain whether the expected change in the Romaine river’s hydrological regime was likely to modify the proportion of this type of particle and diminish the quality of the spawning ground substrate. The various sampling methods used to accomplish this included sediment traps to evaluate the mobility of the particles on the riverbed, cryogenic core sampling to identify the exact composition of the substrate and infiltration cubes that imitate the structure of a salmon next to evaluation variations in fine sediment content during incubation. The same sampling methods were then used to conduct a follow-up study of spawning ground substrate quality after the first generating stations were commissioned (2014–2015). The results obtained to date show that the quality of the substrate at the spawning grounds is being maintained (Hydro-Québec 2019a; WSP 2019a) and that salmon continue to spawn there (Aubé-Maurice et al. 2019).

Sediment traps installed on a spawning ground

Substrate sample obtained by cryogenic coring

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-19

6.2 GREENHOUSE GASES 6.2.1 Are Hydro-Québec’s large northern reservoirs an important source of greenhouse gases? SUMMARY Greenhouse gases (GHGs), which essentially consist of carbon dioxide and methane, are emitted from reservoirs, natural lakes, wetlands and rivers and are produced by the decomposition of organic matter. Boreal reservoirs are known to emit significantly fewer GHGs than tropical reservoirs, due to colder water temperatures, high levels of dissolved oxygen in the water and lower amount of labile organic material. After the first few years when decomposition processes are especially active in new reservoirs, GHG emissions decrease very sharply over a period of 5 to 10 years and return to levels comparable to those of natural lakes and rivers. Low water temperatures and well-oxygenated water combined with low organic material input result in very low methane emissions and low overall GHG emissions in Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs. Based on a life cycle analysis, the average GHG emissions from Hydro-Québec generating stations with reservoirs are 17 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh. These emissions are lower than those from most other electricity generating technologies, whether renewable or not. They are similar to those from wind power (14 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh) and lower than those from photovoltaic power (64 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh).

DETAILED ANSWER GHG emissions from reservoirs In general, aquatic ecosystems such as lakes, rivers and estuaries naturally emit GHGs, which consist mainly of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and methane (CH4 ). Kumar et al. (2011) provided the following summary of the results from scientific studies involving 14 universities in 24 countries, which examined GHG balances in freshwater systems through research and field surveys (Tremblay et al. 2005): • All freshwater systems, whether they are natural or man-made, emit GHGs due to decomposing organic material. This means that lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands, seasonal flooded zones and reservoirs emit GHGs. They also bury some carbon in the sediments (Cole et al. 2007). • Within a given region that shares similar ecological conditions, reservoirs and natural water systems produce similar levels of CO2 emissions per unit area (Figure 6-4). In some cases, natural water bodies and freshwater reservoirs absorb more CO2 than they emit. Figure 6-4 – Gross CO2 emission rates from boreal reservoirs at various ages and value ranges in boreal lakes and rivers 8,000

6,000

4,000 3,091

2,000

Reservoir age (years)

Source: Hydro-Québec Production 2007f.

6-20

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

A118AL_f6_4_geq_005_CO2emission_200514.ai

Average gross CO2 flux (mg/m2/d)

Range of values measured in lakes and rivers in the boreal zone

Figure 6-5 illustrates the three main GHG emission pathways from reservoirs (Tremblay, Therrien et al. 2019). GHGs are emitted at the atmosphere/water interface of reservoirs as well as downstream of generating stations. Both carbon dioxide and methane are released from the decomposition of a fraction of the organic matter flooded. In areas where the dissolved oxygen in water has been depleted by bacterial activity, the resulting anoxic conditions will favor the production of methane. In general, this is not the case in boreal reservoirs, where the water is cold and well oxygenated. Figure 6-5 – Main GHG emission pathways from reservoirs

Note: There are three main GHG emission pathways from reservoirs: : 1) diffusive emissions at water/air interface, 2) ebullitive emissions (bubbling, mainly CH4 ) produced mainly in anoxic sediments in shallow areas and 3)degassing emissions downstream of generating station. Source: Tremblay, Therrien et al. 2019.

When methane concentrations are sufficiently high, methane may be emitted by bubbling (ebullition). This generally occurs in warm water. According to a recent review (Deemer et al. 2016), most studies on GHG emissions from reservoirs have focused mainly on diffusive emissions. These studies may thus have underestimated methane emissions, as bubbling and degassing emissions were not considered. However, Hydro-Québec did measure bubbling and degassing emissions in its most recently impounded reservoirs (Paix des Braves and Romaine) and found that they represented a small proportion of the total GHG emissions. GHG emissions from reservoirs are influenced by water temperature and vary according to the climate zone where they are located (boreal, tropical, etc.), as well as several other factors (e.g., reservoir age, biological productivity and organic carbon inputs). This variability is broad enough to preclude generalizations. Boreal reservoirs are known to emit significantly fewer GHGs than tropical reservoirs due to their colder water temperature, high levels of dissolved oxygen and lower labile organic material content. For example, Kumar et al. (2011) reported diffusive carbon dioxide emission rates ranging from -1,012 to 6,381 mg/m2/d for boreal and temperate reservoirs (Table 6-2). Corresponding values for tropical reservoirs ranged from -836 to 19,012 mg/m2/d. Similarly, methane emission rates through bubbling ranged from 0 to 1,412 mg/m2/d in tropical reservoirs while the highest value for boreal and temperate reservoirs was 289 mg/m2/d (Kumar et al. 2011).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-21

Table 6-2 – Range of gross CO2 and CH4 emissions from hydropower freshwater reservoirs; numbers of studied reservoirs are given in parentheses Boreal and temperate GHG pathway

Tropical

CO2

CH4

CO2

CH4

(mg/m2/d)

-1,012 to 6,381 (107)

-4.8 to 128 (56)

-836 to 19,012 (15)

4.8 to 818 (14)

Bubbling

0 to 289 (4)

0 to 1,412 (12)

Degassing

-9 to 4 (2)

n.a.

176 to 1,012 (1)

64 to 481 (2)

n.a.

22,004 to 110,024 (3)

32 to 5,615 (3)

Diffusive flux

River below the dam

Note: Values from Kumar et al. 2011 converted from mmol/m2/d to mg/m2/d

Source: UNESCO-RED 2008.

It should be noted that since the publication of the above table by Kumar et al. Hydro-Québec has collected and published data on GHGs from all emission pathways, including those downstream of its dams. Hydro-Québec’s results are discussed in more detail below. The processes by which GHGs are emitted from reservoirs are similar in boreal, temperate and tropical regions. The generally greater release of carbon dioxide and methane from tropical reservoirs is caused by higher water temperatures and, in several cases, greater amounts of flooded organic material (Kumar et al. 2011). Since oxygen is less soluble in warm water than in cold water, anoxic conditions (the absence of dissolved oxygen in the water) are also more prevalent in reservoirs in the tropics. Methane-producing processes may persist for more than 10 years in tropical climates, producing more GHG emissions in the long term (Tremblay et al. 2005). Deemer et al. (2016) reviewed the global scientific literature regarding GHG emissions based on data from 267 reservoirs on all continents. They concluded that, globally, methane contributes the most to GHG emissions from reservoirs. They also reported that GHG emissions (especially methane) from eutrophic reservoirs are roughly one order of magnitude higher than those from oligotrophic reservoirs (Figure 6-6). They also found a strong statistical relationship between chlorophyll a concentrations and GHG emissions from reservoirs. No eutrophication has ever been observed in Québec’s hydroelectric reservoirs. The average summer chlorophyll a concentrations were generally lower than 5 µg/L (Schetagne et al. 2005), while trophic classifications would generally consider 10 µg/L as the eutrophication threshold (Cunha et al. 2013 in Deemer et al. 2016). Low phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations in Québec’s large hydroelectric reservoirs are thus in line with their relatively low GHG emissions. Noting that elevated GHG emissions are strongly linked to reservoir eutrophication, Deemer et al. (2016) made recommendations to limit nutrient input to reservoirs. One of their recommendations was to strategically site new reservoirs upstream of anthropogenic nutrient sources. As stated in Section 6.1.1, all large hydroelectric reservoirs in Québec are located in low-nutrient rivers (oligotrophic), in pristine watersheds largely free of anthropogenic water pollution that would contribute large amounts of nutrients. Measurements conducted in boreal and temperate countries, including Canada, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the USA, showed that carbon dioxide emissions are highly variable. In some cases, reservoirs emitted significant amounts of GHG while in other instances, they acted as carbon sinks. As for methane, low levels of emissions were observed in some cases. In boreal and temperate climates, large methane emissions are expected only for reservoirs with large drawdown zones and high organic and nutrient inflows (Kumar et al. 2011). Some of Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs have large drawdown zones, but none have elevated organic or nutrient inflows, which contributes to their lower methane emissions.

6-22

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-6 – Reservoir GHG fluxes by trophic status

20,000 Carbon dioxide

Nitrous oxide

10,000 A118AL_f6_6_geq_036_200617.ai

mg CO2 Equivalents m–2d–1

Methane

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic

Trophic status Note: the lines within the boxes indicate median fluxes. The boxes delineate the twenty-fifth and seventy-fifth percentiles, the whiskers delineate the 95% confidence intervals and the dots plot data outside this range. Source: Deemer et al. 2016.

Monitoring of greenhouse gases by Hydro-Québec In order to quantify GHG emissions from its reservoirs, in 1993, Hydro-Québec undertook a number of research initiatives in partnership with universities, research centres and other electricity producers, as well as a program to measure GHG emissions. Over the last 25 years, Hydro-Québec has taken some 500,000 measurements of gross GHG emissions at 31 generating stations and in more6-6 than 90 lakes or rivers . Moreover, as part of a seven-year Figure research project (2003–2009) carried out in collaboration with universities, Hydro-Québec calculated net GHG Titre 1 emissions from Paix des Braves reservoir. Emissions increased rapidly in the first year after impoundment and Titre(Figure 2 6-7), returning to the levels of surrounding lakes within then decreased exponentially in subsequent years a five-to-seven year period. Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie et Équipement.

More than 120,000 GHG measurements were taken over a period of seven years. All emission pathways (i.e., diffusion, bubbling and degassing) were analyzed. The results showed that CO2 diffusion was the main contributor to total gross emissions, while degassing and bubbling were less significant (Tremblay et al. 2005; Tremblay and Bastien 2009; Tremblay et al. 2010). Therefore, neither CH4 , nor degassing and bubbling emissions were considered significant in the net GHG emissions from Paix des Braves reservoir (Tremblay et al. 2010).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-23

GHG measurement tower in the forest

GHG measurement tower installed on a floating dock on a reservoir

GHG measurement tower on the bank of a reservoir

6-24

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-7 – Measured net and projected GHG emissions from Paix des Braves reservoir 800

700 Upper limit

Lower limit

500

400

300 A118AL_f6_7_geq_037_200706.ai

GHG emissions (grams CO2 eq./kWh)

Mean

600

200

100

Time (years)

Note: upper and lower limits based on standard deviation of field measurements Source: Teodoru et al. 2012.

Hydro-Québec and its partners are already working on a similar assessment of net GHG emissions from the Romaine-2 generating station and reservoir. Based on the digital models, GHG predictions were made prior to authorization of the new dams and GHG measurements to quantify net GHG emissions are currently being taken. Although the studies had not been completed as of 2020, preliminary results show a strong correlation between predictions and measurements. GHG emissions from the reservoir are expected to be lower than the average 6-7 emissions from other Hydro-Québec reservoirs (17Figure grams of CO 2 equivalent per kWh). GHG emissions at Paix des Braves reservoir (Eastmain 1 reservoir) (6.9 TWh) over time

CONCLUSION

Titre 2

Most GHG emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs are related to the decomposition of a fraction of the organic material present in flooded emissions Document for information purposesareas. only. ForOverall any other GHG use, please contact vary greatly, both within and between climate zones. Géomatique at Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie et Équipement. Since emissions are determined by temperature and biological processes, they are about one order of magnitude lower in cold, boreal reservoirs with lower overall biological productivity (oligotrophic reservoirs) than in temperate or tropical reservoirs with higher biological productivity (eutrophic reservoirs). Hydro-Québec reservoirs are located in pristine northern watersheds with relatively low nutrient input and cold, well-oxygenated water and are, therefore, not likely to emit significant amounts of methane. On average, Hydro-Québec reservoirs produce total GHG emissions of 17 g of CO2 eq./kWh, which is less than other energy sources. These emissions are lower than those from most other electricity generation technologies, whether renewable or not, or comparable. They are similar to those from wind farms (14 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh) and lower than those from solar photovoltaic energy (64 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh) (see Chapter 7 for a comparison of electricity generating technologies).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-25

6.2.2 How much greenhouse gas is emitted during the construction of Hydro-Québec’s large hydro developments? During the construction phase of large hydroelectric dams, GHGs are emitted through the production and transportation of materials such as concrete and steel and the use of civil work equipment and materials, including heavy machinery and diesel engines (Kumar et al. 2011). CIRAIG (2014) calculated the GHGs emitted from Hydro-Québec’s hydropower reservoirs during the construction and operation phases. The construction phase (excluding emissions from the reservoir itself ) accounts for less than 20% of GHG emissions. Most emissions during construction stem from the production and transportation of building material and the building of retention structures. On average, Hydro-Québec’s generating stations with reservoirs emit 17 g of CO 2 per kWh, considering the construction and operation phases (CIRAIG 2014). Although not negligible, emissions during the construction phase are not considered to be a major contribution to GHG emissions. A comparison with other renewable energy technologies is provided in Section 7.

6.3 BIODIVERSITY 6.3.1 How does Hydro-Québec take biodiversity into account in its hydropower projects? SUMMARY Hydropower projects change the natural environment, as they involve flooding large areas of land upstream of the dams and modifying river flows downstream of them. The preservation of biodiversity being one of its priorities, Hydro-Québec conducts exhaustive impact assessments and special inventories in addition to implementing mitigation and compensation measures. The many studies carried out over the years show that the wildlife species that use the habitat areas affected by hydropower developments are able to adapt to the changes, complete their life cycles and maintain their populations. To date, no species’ survival has been compromised by Hydro-Québec’s hydropower structures and facilities.

DETAILED ANSWER The flooding of land, lakes, rivers and wetlands and the modification of river flows downstream of the dams are the two most significant changes to the biophysical environment brought about by a hydropower project (Trussart et al. 2002; World Energy Council 2016; Moran et al. 2018). In some cases, such changes may lead to a decrease in biodiversity (Moran et al. 2018). Following the Rio Summit in 1992, Hydro-Québec made a commitment to preserve biodiversity in carrying out its hydropower projects. With a view to protecting plant and wildlife species, the company adopted its 2015–2020 corporate strategy on biodiversity and a new sustainable development action plan in 2015. In the same vein, the company has adopted an annual engagement plan for the preservation of biodiversity and publishes an annual report on the plan’s accomplishments (Hydro-Québec 2016, 2017a). Hydro-Québec addresses biodiversity by assessing the effects of its structures and facilities on the habitat of species that are rare, vulnerable or prized by the users of the resource or the scientific community. As detailed in the following sections of this chapter, maintaining biodiversity is one of the company’s priorities. The commitments made by Hydro-Québec in carrying out impact assessments include conducting inventories specific to species potentially affected by its projects, incorporating mitigation measures and structures designed to protect plant and wildlife species—particularly those at risk—and implementing major monitoring programs that may extend over a period of several years. First of all, it should be noted that much of the current knowledge of ecosystems in northern Québec has been developed through the exhaustive inventories of plant and wildlife species conducted by Hydro-Québec as part of its projects (Hayeur 2001). These surveys have allowed for a better understanding of the ranges of many previously little-known species in these regions. A number of studies have also helped increase our knowledge of the habitats of highly prized or at-risk wildlife species.

6-26

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Through the extensive monitoring carried out over the years, it has thus been possible to conduct a detailed evaluation of the impact of habitat loss on ungulates (i.e., moose and caribou). The data collected during the program to tag and telemetrically track woodland caribou (Groupe DDM 2019 ) is currently undergoing analysis. In regard to the aquatic environment, special efforts were made to locate essential habitats such as spawning grounds, predict changes through hydrodynamic modeling and design replacement habitats where necessary (Environnement Illimité Inc. 2009; Hydro-Québec Production 2004a, 2004b, 2007c). To protect plants and wildlife, Hydro-Québec implements a number of measures to effectively correct, mitigate or compensate for impacts stemming from the construction and operation of its hydropower facilities. Hydro-Québec applies the following three types of measures designed to mitigate the effects of its project on the environment: • MITIGATION MEASURES, which eliminate the adverse effects of a project or reduce them to an acceptable level. These measures essentially apply to the area directly affected by a structure. • COMPENSATION MEASURES, which compensate for project-related adverse effects that cannot be eliminated or reduced through mitigation measures. Compensation measures are implemented near affected sites or in the same region. • ENHANCEMENT MEASURES, which improve the condition of a biophysical environment not directly affected by a project and which may be applicable to a situation outside a project’s study area. Enhancement measures most often consist in rehabilitating existing habitats or creating new ones. Each project has its own program of measures which, in most cases, are implemented in concert with the Indigenous communities involved. Although the measures are too numerous to all be listed here, following are several examples: AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT: • Maintaining ecological instream flows • Establishing rules for flow management • Building hydraulic structures (weirs and spurs) to maintain water levels • Developing artificial spawning and rearing grounds and creating fish shelters

• Supporting and restoring fish populations through egg incubation and stocking. For example, see the program to maintain lake sturgeon populations in the Rivière Rupert by stocking larvae and young-of-the-year in Map 6-3

Passage channel in the dike closing bay BE-07, on the perimeter of Paix des Braves reservoir (formerly Eastmain 1 reservoir)

• Catching fish and transferring them to lakes without fish (Figure 6-8 provides an example of the transfer of Arctic char in the Romaine complex in the Côte-Nord region) • Building fishways or passage channels (Map 6-4 shows the example of the passage channel built at KP 207 of the Rivière Eastmain)

Bay BE-07 dike with weir and passage channel

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-27

Incubation of lake sturgeon eggs prior to stocking in Rivière Rupert

View of spillway used to maintain ecological instream flow at KP 314 of Rivière Rupert

Spur at KP 49 of Rivière Rupert

Weir (in construction) and migration channels at KP 223 of Rivière Rupert

Fish passage channel at KP 207 of Rivière Eastmain (Baie-James region)

6-28

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-8 – Movement of Arctic char from a donor lake to a lake with no fish in the Romaine complex (Côte-Nord Region of Québec)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-29

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-31

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-33

LANDS AND WETLANDS : • Diking bays to protect certain areas from reservoir drawdown • Trapping out beavers prior to impoundment

• Using riprap (Map 6-2), gabions or bioengineering techniques to protect stream banks (see program to seed the banks of the reduced-flow section of the Rupert in Map 6-1) • Transplanting rare plant species prior to impoundment

• Using various means to improve wildlife habitat, including vegetation control, seeding and planting, selective land clearing, the creation of vegetation islands and waterfowl ponds, the installation of nesting platforms for birds of prey, etc.

Granular blanket on Grande Rivière banks (Baie-James region)

Nest installed for great grey owl in Baie-James region (EM-1-A project)

The following sections provide various examples demonstrating the effectiveness of these measures. Lastly, the studies conducted by Hydro-Québec conclude that at no time have its hydropower developments compromised the survival of any plant or wildlife species.

6-34

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6.4 FISHERIES RESOURCES AND FISH HABITAT 6.4.1 Are Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower dams in northern Québec impeding fish migration and interrupting their life cycle? SUMMARY Since Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower dams in northern Québec are generally constructed at the sites of impassable waterfalls, they are not preventing fish species such as Atlantic salmon, American eel, rainbow smelt and sea trout from migrating between salt and fresh water to complete their life cycle. However, dams and hydraulic structures can affect movement between the habitat types (e.g., spawning, hatching and rearing areas) of resident fish species that complete their life cycle in fresh water. In these cases, mitigation measures such as the construction of weirs, fishways, passage channels and additional spawning grounds, as well as the implementation of instream flow regimes, are effective in offsetting the impacts on fish movements by providing access to the habitat they need to complete their life cycle.

DETAILED ANSWER Diadromous (migratory) fish species In Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric complexes in northern Québec, the first dam (i.e., the farthest downstream) that diadromous (migratory) fish may encounter during their upstream migration from the ocean to fresh water is almost always built at a site of historically impassable waterfalls. Hydro-Québec’s hydropower dam sites are carefully analyzed during the planning process and are selected to maximize energy production and minimize environmental impacts. Hence, Hydro-Québec’s large dams do not impede the upstream migration of diadromous fish, as these species were already naturally limited to the downstream reaches of the harnessed rivers. Hydro-Québec’s facilities have no impact on the downstream migration of diadromous species either, since there is no natural presence of diadromous fish species upstream of hydropower dams’. This is in contrast to several hydroelectric developments elsewhere in the world (including run-of-river generating facilities) not built at historically impassable waterfall sites. In these cases, the dams are causing habitat fragmentation and impeding fish migration, which often contributes to the decline of migratory fish populations (e.g., Atlantic salmon, sea trout, American eel, rainbow smelt, etc.) in many rivers throughout the world (e.g., Larinier 2001; Dauble et al. 2003; Tremblay et al. 2016).

Resident fish species However, dams, hydraulic structures and reduced flow can also affect the movement between habitats of resident fish completing their life cycle. Building on knowledge acquired from almost 40 years of monitoring surveys, Hydro-Québec developed effective mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of habitat fragmentation on fish populations. In reduced-flow sections, planned mitigation measures can offset these impacts by enabling resident fish species to access the habitats they require to complete their life cycle. These mitigation measures include the construction of: 1) weirs to maintain water levels and thus facilitate habitat connectivity; 2) fish passage channels at hydraulic structures (where feasible); 3) spawning habitats in reaches where the height of the hydraulic structures precludes the construction of passage channels; and 4) the establishment of an instream flow regime to allow fish to move freely between habitats (Section 6.4.3) (Génivar 2008; Kaweshekami Environnement Inc. 2017). Using lake sturgeon as a case study, Box 6-4-1 provides an example of the mitigation measures developed by Hydro-Québec to reduce the impacts of habitat fragmentation following the partial Rupert diversion. In conclusion, hydropower dams in northern Québec are not preventing migratory fish species from completing their life cycle, as these species were already limited to the river’s downstream reaches by the presence of impassable waterfalls. In addition, a number of mitigation measures such as weirs, fishways, passage channels, spawning grounds and instream flow regimes are applied to ensure that fish can move freely between habitat areas.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-35

Box 6-4-1 Example of mitigation measures on Rivière Rupert The effectiveness of the planned mitigation measures for lake sturgeon affected by the partial diversion of the Rupert was evaluated jointly by Hydro-Québec and the Crees (McAdam et al. 2018; Environnement Illimité Inc. 2012, 2013; Kaweshekami Environnement Inc. 2017). During the pre-project phase, lake sturgeon spawning habitat requirements and baseline habitat conditions were thoroughly documented. Mitigation and enhancement measures were then developed in concert with the Crees and included: 1) establishment of an instream flow regime; 2) construction of eight hydraulic structures, 3) construction of fish passage channels at the weir at river kilometre point (KP) 290; and 4) construction of a 2,060-m2 spawning ground downstream of the weir. The spawning ground’s design criteria were developed based on a review of 41 studies (Environnement Illimité Inc. et al. 2009, 2012, 2013). Hydraulic conditions at the spawning ground were also modeled to ensure sufficient water depth and flow velocity for larvae survival (McAdam et al. 2018). Following its construction in 2010, the spawning ground’s effectiveness was monitored from 2011 to 2014. The monitoring program confirmed that hydraulic conditions met the design criteria and the spawning ground’s physical integrity (e.g., substrate cleanliness and stability) was maintained. The results from adult, egg and larval monitoring all demonstrate that the instream flow regime and man-made spawning ground in the Rupert have been effective in enabling lake sturgeon to complete their life cycle (Environnement Illimité Inc. 2012, 2013; McAdam et al. 2018) and that lake sturgeon remains one of the most abundant fish species in the reduced-flow section of the Rupert (McAdam et al. 2018; Consortium Waska-Génivar 2018).

Weir, fish migration channel and lake sturgeon spawning ground at KP 290 of Rivière Rupert

6-36

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6.4.2 What are the consequences of fish entrainment through the turbines of Hydro-Québec’s large hydroelectric generating stations? SUMMARY Migratory fish species are not at risk of being entrained because impassable natural waterfalls already prevented their movement at future hydropower dam sites prior to construction. Furthermore, over 40 years of monitoring programs conducted at Hydro-Québec’s hydropower developments have shown that resident fish species populations are not affected.

DETAILED ANSWER While fish mortality due to entrainment through turbines or spillways is inevitable, the effects on fish populations are considered minimal. Only a small fraction of the fish community is exposed to entrainment. Migratory fish species are not at any risk of being entrained since, as stated in Section 6.4.1, the dams were built at the sites of waterfalls that were already impassable to fish. However, resident fish species moving between spawning, rearing and feeding habitats or in reservoirs may be vulnerable to entrainment mortality (Brouard and Doyon 1991; Therrien and Lemieux 2001). Nonetheless, the proportion of entrained fish is considered low. The increase in fish abundance due to favorable feeding and rearing conditions in reservoirs (Section 6.4.3) indicates that the loss of biomass attributable to entrainment has no adverse effect on fish populations (Bilodeau et al. 2016; Turgeon et al. 2016, 2019a). Furthermore, the absence of species at risk in these northern reservoirs eliminates the possibility of significantly endangering these small fish populations. It is important to acknowledge that entrainment occurs naturally at impassable waterfalls and fish populations are maintained despite this downstream loss of a small proportion of the population. Overall, more than 40 years of monitoring programs conducted at Hydro-Québec’s hydropower developments have shown that resident fish species populations are not affected.

6.4.3 Are reservoirs productive aquatic ecosystems? SUMMARY Reservoirs in northern Québec sustaincommunities of aquatic organisms that are similar to those in nearby large lakes. Even though pre-existing terrestrial and aquatic habitats are transformed by flooding, their aquatic habitat features and water quality are favorable for the development of viable, diverse and productive aquatic communities. Aquatic productivity in reservoirs is often similar and sometimes slightly greater than in surrounding natural lakes. Although fishing yields have increased for some species and declined for others, no net changes in fish diversity have been observed in Québec reservoirs.

DETAILED ANSWER Reservoirs modify the landscape by flooding terrestrial habitats, wetlands, rivers and lakes. Terrestrial habitats are lost and transformed into aquatic habitats having features similar to those of nearby large lakes, although their shores often have less littoral vegetation due to higher fluctuations in water levels. For the first few years after flooding, several water quality parameters are temporarily altered by the decomposition of organic material. However, they remain within a range favorable to aquatic organisms (even though low oxygen levels occurred in some cases in deep areas and bays at the end of the first few winters [Section 6.1.2]).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-37

Despite these changes, impoundments generally undergo a temporary increase in aquatic productivity during the first ten years or so after flooding (Hayeur 2001). Such increases, often called “trophic surges” or “trophic upsurges” (Figure 6-9), are caused by the sudden influx of large quantities of nutrients, especially phosphorus, brought about by the decomposition of organic material in the flooded area (Duthie and Ostrofsky 1982; Grimard and Jones 1982). A decline in productivity then follows several years later, once the pool of readily decomposable material is exhausted. A recent review by Turgeon et al. (2016) suggests that a new trophic equilibrium is attained after the depression phase. Productivity would then stabilize at levels that may be higher, lower or similar to pre-impoundment conditions, after a period of approximately 15 years or more in the case of boreal reservoirs. Figure 6-9 – Schematic representation of trophic surge in newly impounded reservoirs

Source: Kimmel and Groeger 1984.

In some reservoirs, excessive productivity during the surge phase has caused eutrophication (Deemer et al. 2016), a severe water quality issue (Wetzel 2001). However, no eutrophication has ever been observed in Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs. During the peak of the trophic surge, chlorophyll a and phosphorus concentrations remained below levels known to cause eutrophication (Section 6.1.2). Monitoring of aquatic organisms and physicochemical conditions in Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs revealed that productive aquatic communities were maintained in all cases. Phytoplankton and zooplankton were monitored for several years in reservoirs in the La Grande complex. In later development, monitoring programs were optimized and fish communities and populations were retained as the sole indicators of aquatic diversity and production. Fish represent the highest aquatic trophic levels and thus reflect changes occurring at lower trophic levels. Fish have been systematically monitored in all developments since the mid -1970’s. Fish surveys are first conducted prior to impoundment to establish baseline conditions. Once the reservoirs are filled, monitoring is typically conducted every two or three years for periods of five to twenty years, depending on the potential effects of the projects. In reservoirs in the La Grande complex, the production of phytoplankton increased temporarily by a factor of 3 for the first few years, before returning to baseline values after 10 to 15 years (Hayeur 2001). Zooplankton organisms feeding on phytoplankton also showed an increase in abundance, with a lag of one year, before stabilizing at lower levels. The increase in primary and secondary production likely explains the increase in fish yields observed in most Hydro-Québec reservoirs (Bilodeau et al. 2016, Turgeon et al. 2016, Génivar 2010a, Génivar 2006; see also Section 6.1.2).

6-38

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-10 illustrates the changes in fish yields in Robert-Bourassa reservoir from 1977 to 1996 (Therrien et al. 2004). In the two upper figures, fish yields in a natural lake during the same period are displayed for comparison purposes. The impoundment of the reservoir was completed in 1979 and caused an immediate decrease in fish yields. This decrease can be explained by the sudden and major increase in the volume of aquatic habitats after flooding (“dilution effect”). In the following years, fish yields increased sharply, in terms of fish numbers and weight of catch. This phase corresponds to the trophic surge during which aquatic production is greater than in baseline conditions. Fish production had to increase greatly for fishing yields to exceed the baseline level, considering the major increase in the volume of habitat resulting from impoundment. After 1988, fish yields began to decrease, as commonly observed once the amount of nutrients stabilizes at lower levels. The results from Robert-Bourassa reservoir provide another illustration of the trophic surge phenomenon in reservoirs, although it is apparent that not all fish species benefited from the impoundment. Figure 6-10 – Fish yields in Robert-Bourassa reservoir from 1977 to 1996

Source: Therrien et al. 2004.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-39

The impoundment of Manicouagan reservoir on Québec’s north shore was conducted from 1970 to 1971. A scientific fishing campaign in 2018 (AECOM and Groupe Conseil Nutshimit-Nippour 2019) showed that fishing yields have remained similar since at least 1990, both in terms of fish numbers and biomass. This result is yet another indication that aquatic production in reservoirs may persist for several decades after flooding. Sustained aquatic production is by no means unique to Québec reservoirs. Jenkins (1982) found that fish yields in reservoirs in the United States were greater than in northern temperate lakes. The potential loss of fish species diversity in reservoirs is another subject to be examined when assessing the impacts of reservoirs on aquatic ecosystems. Figure 6-10 shows that 17 years after the impoundment of Robert-Bourassa reservoir, the yield of lake whitefish and northern pike remained higher than before impoundment, while a decline occurred in other species such as longnose and white suckers. A similar pattern was observed in other reservoirs in the La Grande complex (Therrien et al. 2004). Despite significant shifts in species abundance, the diversity of fish species was not affected. Diversity indices such as species richness, evenness and diversity underwent similar variations over time in reservoirs and control lakes (Turgeon et al. 2019a). No loss of species occurred and no invasive fish species were introduced into the La Grande complex. These results differ markedly from those seen in many tropical reservoirs, where the disappearance of some native species and invasions by non-native species caused a significant loss in fish diversity and altered food webs (see Turgeon at al. 2019a, 2019b for a review). These losses in tropical reservoirs can be explained in part by the scarcity of lakes in the tropics (Wetzel 2001) and a corresponding rarity of fish species adapted to lake conditions (Turgeon et al. 2019b). In contrast, the number of fish species in boreal Québec is very limited and most species are naturally found in both lakes and rivers. This may facilitate their adaption to reservoir conditions.

CONCLUSION Hydro-Québec reservoirs are generally considered productive aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic productivity increases immediately after flooding due to an influx of nutrients from decomposing flooded organic material. After some 10 to 12 years, aquatic productivity returns to values closer to baseline levels. Reservoirs nonetheless continue to produce aquatic organisms of all trophic levels. Fish yields similar or greater to those of natural lakes have been observed in numerous reservoirs, notably in Canada and in the United Stated. No loss in fish species diversity has been observed in Québec boreal reservoirs.

6.4.4 What measures is Hydro-Québec taking to protect fish populations and habitat in rivers downstream of the dams? SUMMARY The measures implemented by Hydro-Québec to reduce or compensate for the effects brought about by modifications to the hydrological regime in rivers downstream of the dams include maintaining ecological instream flows, establishing flow management rules, building hydraulic structures to maintain water levels (i.e., weirs and spurs), developing new habitat (spawning and rearing grounds, etc.), as well as stocking fish to support vulnerable or struggling populations. The monitoring carried out by the company shows that these measures are effective in providing fish populations with conditions suitable for their development.

DETAILED ANSWER The presence of dams and operational hydroelectric generating stations inevitably changes the natural flow regime downstream of the dams. The typical operating conditions of a river where the flow is regulated for the purpose of generating power are characterized by spring and fall runoffs that are levelled off compared to natural conditions, and by less pronounced summer and winter low-water periods. This flow regime also comprises more frequent daily—if not hourly—fluctuations, depending on power demand. Therefore, the flows in regulated-flow rivers usually fluctuate more often than under natural conditions, but remain within a more limited range of values.

6-40

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

This operating regimen may affect the aquatic ecosystem in rivers. Among other things, regulating flows can cause changes in riparian vegetation (Young et al. 2005), the species composition and abundance of benthic fauna (Céréghino and Lavandier 1996; Garcia de Jalon et al. 1994; Cushman 1985) and fish habitat and, consequently, the abundance and composition of fish communities (Gibson 1993; Ward and Stanford 1983). Rivers that have been partially or totally diverted undergo a drop in water level, exposure of their banks and a decrease in the area and volume of water. This results in aquatic habitat losses and occasionally, in habitat fragmentation if the decrease in water level exposes obstacles to the free movement of fish.

Mitigation and compensation measures Hydro-Québec implements various measures to minimize the impacts from modifications to the hydrological regime downstream of the dams and compensate for them where required, by: • • • • •

maintaining ecological instream flows, establishing rules for flow management, building weirs to maintain water levels, developing new fish habitat, and supporting and rehabilitating vulnerable or at-risk fish populations by stocking.

Hydro-Québec also conducts major environmental follow-up studies to monitor the condition of fish populations downstream of the dams and verify the effectiveness of the mitigation or compensation measures implemented.

Ecological instream flows Ecological instream flows are the minimum flows required to maintain fish habitats at a level considered acceptable (FAPAQ 1999). This degree of acceptability corresponds to a sufficient quantity and quality of habitats to allow for the normal biological activities of fish that complete all or part of their life cycles in rivers with modified flow. Such activities may relate to spawning, feeding and rearing of juveniles. In Québec, ecological instream flows are governed by the Politique de débits réservés écologiques pour la protection du poisson et de ses habitats [policy on instream flow for the protection of fish and their habitat], adopted in 1999 (FAPAQ 1999). The policy recommends using a scientific approach to establish ecological instream flows and refers to various types of methods recognized within the scientific community. It also stipulates that if ecological instream flows cannot be maintained as part of a project, measures must be implemented to compensate for habitat losses. Hydro-Québec has been applying these principles and recommendations since the policy was adopted and even a few years prior to that. In fact, the company has been making concerted efforts to establish ecological instream flows as part of its projects since the early 1990s. Hydro-Québec has also participated in research to improve existing methods and adapt them to the specific context of Québec’s rivers (Ahmadi-Nedushan et al. 2008; Bérubé et al. 2002; Leclerc et al. 1995, 1994). The company considers ecological instream flows to constitute a major technical component of its projects that must be taken into account right from the design and planning stage, much like the aspects related to configuring and sizing the structures and facilities, for example. In addition, Hydro-Québec not only sets a fixed annual ecological instream flow value, but also modulates it in accordance with the various biological periods (i.e., spawning, feeding, egg incubation, etc.) to ensure that fish habitat is maintained throughout the year. In short, for over 25 years, Hydro-Québec has included the detailed analysis of ecological instream flows in hydropower projects involving flow regulation or diversion. This was the case for the Rupert, Romaine and Toulnustouc rivers, among others. The ecological instream flow regime implemented in the Rupert is provided in Figure 6-11 as an example. This 565-km river was partially diverted at KP 314 to increase electricity generation at four existing hydroelectric generating stations and power two new facilities. Downstream of the diversion point a seasonally modulated instream flow is maintained at all times to preserve fish populations. Box 6-4-4 provides the main results of monitoring conducted on the Rupert. Lastly, it should be noted that instream flows not only maintain fish habitats, but also preserve riparian areas, landscape quality and the various anthropogenic uses of rivers (i.e., pleasure boating, canoeing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, traditional Indigenous activities, etc.). QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-41

Jan. 01 Jan. 29 Feb. 26 Mar. 26 Apr. 23 May 21 Jun. 18 Jul. 16 Aug. 13 Sep. 10 Oct. 08 Nov. 05. Dec. 03 Dec. 31

Date B – KP 0 1,400

Figure 6-11 – Natural hydrograph and 1,200ecological instream flows in Rivière Rupert at diversion point (A) and river mouth (B)

Flow (m3/s)

1,400

1,200

Flow (m3/s)

1,000

A118AL_f6_11_geq_008_derivation_200512a.ai

1,000

A – KP 314

800

600

400

800

200

600

Jan. 01 Jan. 29 Feb. 26 Mar. 26 Apr. 23 May 21 Jun. 18 Jul. 16 Aug. 13 Sep. 10 Oct. 08 Nov. 05. Dec. 03 Dec. 31 400

Date

200

Mean flow before diversion Mean flow after diversion Minimum daily flow before diversion

Jan. 01 Jan. 29 Feb. 26 Mar. 26 Apr. 23 May 21 Jun. 18 Jul. 16 Aug. 13 Sep. 10 Oct. 08 Nov. 05. Dec. 03 Dec. 31

Date B – KP 0 1,400

Figure 6-11 Titre 1 Titre 2

1,200 Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec Innovation, équipement et services partagés

A118AL_f6_11_geq_008_derivation_200512a.ai

Flow (m3/s)

1,000

800

600

400

200

Jan. 01 Jan. 29 Feb. 26 Mar. 26 Apr. 23 May 21 Jun. 18 Jul. 16 Aug. 13 Sep. 10 Oct. 08 Nov. 05. Dec. 03 Dec. 31

Date Mean flow before diversion Mean flow after diversion Minimum daily flow before diversion

Figure 6-11 Titre 1 Titre 2 Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec Innovation, équipement et services partagés

6-42

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Flow management In addition to maintaining ecological instream flows, Hydro-Québec sometimes implements flow management rules in certain regulated rivers, including those containing fish species that are particularly vulnerable to fluctuating flows. The purpose of these rules is to limit or entirely eliminate sudden variations in flow during periods deemed critical for fish. For example, the Romaine complex involves building four generating stations upstream of KP 50, three of which have been commissioned in the past few years. The lower reach of the Rivière Romaine is home to a small population of Atlantic salmon, which varied between 150 and 300 spawners under natural conditions, prior to construction of the complex (Aubé-Maurice et al. 2019). Romaine-1, the generating station farthest downstream, is operated under constraints designed to protect Atlantic salmon populations, as the species is particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in flow (Hydro-Québec Production 2007c ; Halleraker et al. 2003; Salveit et al. 2001). Thus, during salmon spawning season (October 15 to November 15), the flow is kept stable (except in case of force majeure) to avoid disrupting reproduction activities (i.e., nest building) on the spawning grounds. Moreover, during the cold season (mid-November to late May), sudden increases and decreases in flow are proscribed at certain times of the day to avoid salmon juveniles from being washed ashore or carried downstream. Lastly, a substantial minimum ecological instream flow must be maintained downstream of Romaine-1 generating station at all times, without exception. The monitoring carried out since commissioning of the complex in 2014 shows that, although the Romaine’s Atlantic salmon population is subject to interannual variations, it remains within the range of values observed prior to construction of the project (Aubé-Maurice et al. 2019).

Openings in the Romaine-3 spillway gates that control the instream flow

Instream flow at the outlet of the Romaine-3 spillway

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-43

Construction of weirs To maintain a water level comparable to the mean summer level that prevailed under natural conditions, Hydro-Québec has built weirs and spurs in some reduced-flow rivers. Like the ecological instream flows, these structures not only protect fish habitats and riparian environments, but also maintain the various anthropic uses of the rivers such as navigation, fishing, hunting and traditional Indigenous activities. For example, eight hydraulic structures (weirs and spurs) were built along the 314-km reduced-flow stretch of the Rupert (Figure 6-3). The partial Rupert diversion in 2009 meant that the river’s flow was reduced 70% at the diversion point and 52% at the river mouth because of the inflows from tributaries. The hydraulic structures maintain water levels over more than half this stretch of the river (Hydro-Québec Production 2004a) and have limited losses of aquatic areas to 8%. They also help maintain the quality of the river’s landscape and its use by the Cree communities concerned.

Development of spawning and rearing grounds Spawning and rearing grounds have been developed in several regulated- or reduced-flow rivers to compensate for habitat loss and enable the fish to complete their life cycles. Following are two examples: • Downstream of the diversion point on the Rupert, about a dozen multispecies 9 spawning grounds were developed in 2010 in collaboration with Cree stakeholders to compensate for the loss of spawning habitat due to the partial reduction in flow. They were built immediately downstream of the dams and hydraulic structures installed to maintain water levels (Box 6-4-1) to enable resident species, whose movement is limited by the structures, to access reproduction areas and thus complete their life cycles. Monitoring carried out over five years (2010 to 2015) revealed that the spawning grounds are effective, as they are all used by the target fish species they were designed for (Consortium Waska-Génivar 2016a). • In the Rivière Romaine, where the flow was regulated, Hydro-Québec developed two spawning grounds and two rearing areas for Atlantic salmon in 2013 and 2014 downstream of the Romaine-1 facility. A ten-year follow-up program to monitor these developments was initiated in 2010. So far, the results of the program are promising, as the spawning grounds are being used by Atlantic salmon (Aubé-Maurice et al. 2019), with several dozen salmon redds observed there every year. The rearing areas are also being used by young salmon, but the densities observed remain low (Aubé-Maurice et al. 2019).

Multispecies spawning ground developed for walleye, longnose sucker, white sucker and lake whitefish in Rivière Nemiscau, a Rupert tributary (Baie-James)

9. The new spawning grounds were designed for five target species, i.e., walleye (Sander vitreus), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), white sucker (C. commersonii), lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens).

6-44

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Multispecies spawning ground developed downstream of a dam in Ruisseau Arques, a Rupert tributary (Baie-James)

Vertical aerial view of a rearing ground developed for juvenile Atlantic salmon at KP 49 of Rivière Romaine (Côte-Nord du Québec)

Support for populations through stocking Hydro-Québec has a number of measures it can apply to protect and enhance fish populations considered vulnerable or at risk, including stocking programs. This was the option selected for the Romaine’s Atlantic salmon population, which was considered at risk prior to the start of the hydropower project on that river. Thus, Hydro-Québec established and funded an independent company with the mission to rehabilitate the salmon population in the Romaine. Hydro-Québec participates in the company’s management in partnership with the communities affected by the project who are concerned with preserving the fish populations. The company has agreed upon an annual stocking program to be carried out over fifteen years, with a view to bringing the river’s salmon population (Hydro-Québec 2019a) up to levels that will allow for its sustainable harvesting. Another example is that of lake sturgeon in the Rupert. Between 2008 and 2012, 176,611 larvae and 71,886 young-of-the-year were stocked in the river (Map 6-3).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-45

Box 6-4-4 Environmental monitoring in Rivière Rupert, downstream of the dam A follow-up study of the fish communities downstream of Rupert dam was conducted in collaboration with the Crees to evaluate the effects of the partial diversion and the effectiveness of the mitigation and compensation measures applied. These measures consisted in implementing an ecological instream flow regime (Figure 6-11), building eight structures (weirs and spurs) to maintain water levels and developing about a dozen multispecies spawning grounds. First, scientific fishing surveys were carried out under natural conditions (prior to the partial diversion) in three stretches of the river (i.e., the lower Rupert, Lac Nemiscau and the upper Rupert). Similar surveys were then conducted after diversion, in 2011 and 2016 (Consortium Waska-Génivar 2018). Fishing yields after the partial diversion were significantly higher in two of the three river stretches (upper and lower Rupert, Figure 6-12). These increases may have been due to nutrient enrichment of the water in the flooded sections upstream of the dam, construction of the weirs, which stimulated biological productivity, and more effective fishing gear (experimental nets) in reduced-flow conditions. The most abundant species, i.e., walleye, lake sturgeon and northern pike, remained the same before and after diversion. The results obtained since the beginning of the study have shown that the post-diversion conditions were favorable for the maintenance and spawning of these fish populations. Maintaining the aquatic grass beds in the Rupert represented another issue, due to the importance of the grass beds to northern pike for spawning and to other small fish species (prey species). Monitoring of these environments revealed that they remain favorable for northern pike spawning and for the development of several fish species it feeds on (Consortium Waska-Génivar 2018). The Cree community of Waskaganish traditionally fishes for anadromous cisco at the mouth of the Rupert. In concert with the community, the anadromous cisco population was monitored every year from 2008 to 2014 to establish the initial conditions and identify the potential impacts of the diversion. Based on the annual estimate of the total abundance of cisco larvae drifting downstream in the river and the estimated number of spawners, the survey showed that the population remained stable after diversion (Consortium Waska-Génivar 2017). A follow-up of Cree traditional fishing activities was also carried out in collaboration with the Niskamoon Corporation (a joint Cree–Hydro-Québec company). In summary, as a result of the mitigation and compensation measures implemented in the Rivière Rupert downstream of the dam, the results of the follow-up of Cree traditional fishing revealed that the river’s fish communities and aquatic ecosystem have been maintained. Figure 6-12 – Fishing yields in Rivière Rupert before (2005 and 2009) and after (2011 and 2016) the partial Rupert diversion Lac Nemiscau (KP 170 to 200)*

0 2005

2009

2011

2016

Longnose sucker White sucker

* Lac Nemiscau: one station in 2005, three in 2009, 2011 and 2016.

6-46

Upper Rupert (KP 200 to 314)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

2005

2009

Lake cisco Lake whitefish

2011

2016

Northern pike Walleye

A118AL_f6_12_geq_009_peche_200512.ai

CPUE (fish/net-day)

Lower Rupert (KP 0 to 170) 25

0 2005

2009

Lake sturgeon Other

2011

2016

6.4.5 How are coastal and estuarine ecosystems affected by Hydro-Québec’s large hydropower projects? SUMMARY The operation of hydropower developments modifies the hydrological regime in rivers downstream of dams, as well as the quantity and temporal distribution of freshwater inflows in estuarine and coastal environments. These changes affect the extent of the freshwater plume at river mouths and the pattern of saltwater intrusion which, in turn, can modify the dynamics of estuarine and coastal ecosystems. Hydro-Québec has conducted follow-up studies of various environmental components that are representative of these ecosystems, including primary productivity, eelgrass beds, fish communities and certain species of mollusks. The results of these studies show that the operation of hydroelectric developments changes the physical conditions in coastal and estuarine environments, although these environments remain largely influenced by the ocean environment. Observations show that communities of aquatic organisms adjust to the new conditions, a new equilibrium is established and eventually, the spatial distribution of certain species changes as a result of the new conditions. On the east coast of Baie James (James Bay), studies are currently under way to gain a more in-depth knowledge of coastal environments, including the distribution and growth of eelgrass and its use by the Crees.

DETAILED ANSWER Physical changes The operation of hydropower developments modifies the hydrological regime of rivers and therefore, the quantity and temporal distribution of freshwater inflows in estuarine10 and coastal environments. As a result, physical conditions such as temperature, salinity and hydrodynamics undergo changes which, in turn, can change the estuarine and coastal ecosystem dynamics. In the case of regulated rivers where the flow is neither increased, nor decreased (such as the Romaine, for example), the annual water balance at the river mouth remains unchanged, but the inflows are distributed differently over time. The flow usually decreases during periods of low power demand (spring and summer) and increases when the power demand is higher (fall and winter). In reduced-flow rivers (such as the Rupert, Eastmain and Koksoak), the decrease in freshwater inflows causes the freshwater-saltwater interface to move upstream and the freshwater plume in the estuary to shrink in size (Messier 1985; Lepage and Ingram 1986; Massicotte et al. 2019). In addition, in the case of rivers that have undergone a major reduction in flow (such as the Eastmain), the net downstream current can no longer expel the fine sediments suspended in the water and the estuary may become a sedimentary deposit zone, whereas it was eroding under natural conditions (Messier 1985). Conversely, in increased- and regulated-flow rivers (the Grande Rivière in particular), the increase in freshwater inflows causes the freshwater plume to expand and the freshwater-saltwater interface to retreat. For example, in the case of the Grande Rivière, the higher flow in winter (especially in the presence of an ice cover) causes the freshwater plume to increase in size, which results in a decrease in coastal salinity within the top six metres of the water column to the north and south of the river mouth (Messier and Anctil 1996; Messier et al. 1987; Ingram and Larouche 1987). These changes can have an impact on estuarine and coastal ecosystems. Hydro-Québec has carried out numerous studies to assess the scope and actual consequences of these changes, some of which extended over more than three decades. More specifically, the company monitored changes in a few biological indicators, i.e., primary productivity, eelgrass beds, fish communities and certain mollusk species. These indicators were selected because they are considered representative of estuarine and coastal ecosystems. Furthermore, most of them correspond to environmental components that are highly prized by local communities (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous).

10. Estuaries are defined here as the lower stretches of rivers influenced by the tide.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-47

Primary productivity Primary productivity (phytoplankton) in estuarine ecosystems is influenced by hydrodynamic processes (Legendre and Demers 1984). These processes are mainly determined by wind, tides and freshwater and nutrient salt inflows in rivers. The changes to the hydrological regime of rivers caused by the operation of large hydropower complexes are likely to affect primary productivity. Follow-up studies conducted by Hydro-Québec have shown that the changes in the hydrological regime of rivers harnessed for hydropower have had relatively little effect on primary production in coastal and estuarine environments, particularly because of the specific conditions in the estuaries concerned. In the case of the Romaine (a regulated river with no increase or decrease in the annual water balance), the oceanographic surveys conducted from 2013 to 2017 led to the conclusion that the inflows of nutrient elements from the Romaine, both before and after flow regulation, were not significantly contributing to salinity and primary productivity in the Romaine’s estuarine section and adjacent coastal environment (Chenal de Mingan). Rather, it was the water masses coming in from offshore that determined salinity, nutrient concentrations and consequently, phytoplankton abundance in the study area (Tremblay, Deblois et al. 2019; Demarty et al. 2018; Deblois et al. 2018). In short, the regulation of the flow in the Romaine did not have any significant effect on estuarine and coastal environments because the river’s freshwater inflows are small compared to the saltwater masses coming in from the Golfe du Saint-Laurent (Gulf of St. Lawrence). In the case of the Rivière Sainte-Marguerite, since the two turbines at Sainte-Marguerite-3 generating station were commissioned in 2008, the chlorophyll concentrations in the estuary and freshwater plume have been lower than under baseline conditions. However, this decrease is likely due to factors such as browsing by phytoplankton or senescence, rather than a decrease in productivity (Environnement Illimité inc. 2009). In the case of the Rivière Eastmain, the decrease in flow (in 1980) resulted in slower flow velocities in the river’s estuary, longer water resident time and an increase in nutrients. This led to an increase in primary productivity, due to the fact that the combination of the new sediment regime and saltwater intrusion created favorable conditions for an increase in phytoplankton and the development of more abundant and diversified benthic organisms (Messier et al. 1986).

Grass beds and eelgrass There are eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) in the intertidal zones along the east coast of Baie James (James Bay) (Curtis 1975; Lalumière 1987; Lalumière et al. 1992). Eelgrass is also found at the mouths of the large rivers in Québec’s Côte-Nord region (Michaud 1985; Lemieux et Lalumière 1995). The abundance and distribution of eelgrass beds are influenced by a number of factors, including salinity, temperature and turbidity (amount of light). Climate change, the presence of new plant species, substrate type, ice action, currents, wind, sunshine and waterfowl browsing can also influence eelgrass abundance and distribution. Eelgrass beds constitute essential habitat for marine organisms and the waterfowl that feed on them. They are particularly important as feeding grounds for Canada geese, brant and lesser snow geese during migration season. The Baie-James Crees are particularly concerned about the condition of eelgrass, as any change in the plant’s abundance is likely to have an impact on their traditional goose hunting activities. For this reason, eelgrass has been the subject of specific studies and monitoring by Hydro-Québec. Since 1988, as part of the environmental follow-up of the La Grande complex and, more recently since 2007, as part of the environmental follow-up of the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex, Hydro-Québec has been studying the eelgrass beds along the east coast of Baie-James (James Bay). The results of these studies show that, although these hydroelectric developments have changed salinity levels in the estuaries of developed rivers and adjacent coastal areas, the ocean environment is still by far the main influencing factor (Messier 1985; Lepage and Ingram 1986). Furthermore, there are still eelgrass beds along this coast (Lalumière and Lemieux 2002; Consortium Waska-Génivar 2016b). However, it is difficult to assess exactly how these changes have affected the eelgrass, as other determining factors also play a role (including weather conditions, ice action and climate change). The follow-up studies conducted in the late 1990s revealed a sudden, large-scale decline in eelgrass beds along the entire east coast of James and Hudson bays (Lemieux et al. 1999). According to Lemieux and Lalumière (2000), this may have been caused by the proliferation of micro-organism due to abnormally high spring temperatures. 6-48

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Observations since 1998 indicate that the eelgrass beds have recovered gradually but at varying rates, depending on the area (Génivar 2010b; Consortium Waska-Génivar 2016b). The surveys conducted in summer 2004 show that already at the time, the density of the eelgrass beds at most (75%) of the sites sampled was similar to that found prior to the decline (Lemieux and Lalumière 2004). However, the plant’s abundance, stem length and distribution along the coast have still not recovered to pre-decline levels. The studies on eelgrass along the coast of Baie James (James Bay) will continue for the next few years. In 2016, the Cree Nation Government, Niskamoon Corporation and Hydro-Québec initiated an extensive research program in collaboration with the Canadian Wildlife Service and several universities specializing in oceanography and social studies. The program aims to identify the various factors that may influence eelgrass distribution and growth, as well as its use by geese. The study results, which will be known in 2022, will help improve our knowledge of this marine plant and confirm, or explain, the trends observed to date. The results of the follow-up studies conducted at the mouth of the Rivière Romaine in Québec’s Côte-Nord region revealed that the size of the eelgrass beds had increased slightly (5.2%) in 2015 compared to the baseline (2013), whereas it has increased in the two control areas studied (Massicotte et al. 2017). However, the study year (2015) was marked by more frequent periods of low salinity throughout the study area, which demonstrates the influence of weather conditions on a regional scale (Massicotte et al. 2017). At the mouth of the Romaine, the eelgrass beds varied considerably in size between 1948 and 2004, i.e., before the Romaine complex was built (Hydro-Québec Production 2007d; Environnement Illimité inc. 2014). The changes observed in the eelgrass beds during the generating station’s operation phase were likely due to natural factors (i.e., length of growth season, degree of exposure to tides and wind, duration of freeze-up, etc.) and were comparable to the variations observed in the control areas studied.

Fish community Generally speaking, the main effect of changes in flow associated with hydroelectric developments is the readjustment of the spatial distribution of fish populations due to changes in the freshwater plume. In increasedflow rivers, the increase in size of the freshwater plume will expand the freshwater fish habitat and cause saltwater species to retreat. In the Grande Rivière, for example, the increase in the freshwater plume expanded the habitat of freshwater species, thereby pushing saltwater species like Arctic cod farther offshore (Hayeur 2001). The opposite was observed at the mouths of reduced-flow rivers, where saltwater species have easier access to the river and freshwater species are pushed upstream (Hayeur 2001). Thus, since the river’s flow was reduced, the Eastmain estuary is more heavily influenced by saltwater forces. Saltwater intrusion into the first 10 or 12 kilometres of the river mouth has allowed saltwater species such as fourhorn sculpin and capelin to get farther upriver. For approximately 10 km upstream, freshwater species are, nonetheless, still abundant because of their capacity to make a slight adjustment to their diet (Jacquaz et al. 1984).

Softshell clam Softshell clam (Mia arenaria) is found along the shores of Québec’s Côte-Nord region,11 particularly at the mouth of the Rivière Romaine. This edible mollusk is highly prized by local populations, as it is harvested both recreationally and commercially. A study of this species undertaken as part of the Romaine complex was initiated in 2013 and will be completed in 2029 (Hydro-Québec Production 2010). The study currently indicates that there has been a decline in abundance (density) and yield (mass per unit area) since 2013, which is the baseline year (Massicotte et al. 2017). However, the same phenomenon was observed, albeit to a lesser extent, in a control stretch of the Romaine not influenced by the modified hydrological regime. It is also important to note that over the past few years, softshell clam populations throughout the Côte-Nord region have experienced low recruitment and frequent, marked interannual fluctuations in harvesting yields (Giguère et al. 2004). Although several physicochemical and biological factors have been examined to determine whether they might have played a role in the interannual fluctuations observed in this species, no significant correlation has been noted (Massicotte et al. 2017). In summary, there is nothing so far to indicate that the regulation of flow in the Romaine has had any significant impact on softshell clam. The next few years of monitoring should enable Hydro-Québec to make a better determination in this regard. 11. No softshell clam has been found along the east coast of Baie James (James Bay). QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-49

6.5 WETLANDS AND VEGETATION 6.5.1 What are the residual impacts of large hydropower projects on riparian and non-riparian wetlands? SUMMARY The creation of reservoirs can cause loss of riparian wetlands. Some of the loss is temporary, as natural processes, coupled with appropriate mitigation and compensation measures, lead to development of wetlands along stretches of reservoir shoreline and a new equilibrium. Reservoir impoundment also causes loss of non-riparian wetlands, mainly peatlands. This loss is permanent: unlike riparian wetlands, these ecosystems are not naturally reestablished in the new water bodies. Special measures are taken to compensate for this loss. Downstream of dams, the impacts on riparian wetlands vary depending on how the flow regime has been altered. In streams where the flow has been reduced, these wetlands migrate to the new shoreline and can thus be maintained. Data available on rivers where the flow has been regulated suggests that riparian wetlands along these rivers are only mildly affected despite flow regime modifications caused by generating station operation. Lastly, in rivers with increased flows, riparian wetlands have a harder time staying intact and there can be losses. Hydro-Québec has accordingly developed measures and practices over the last forty years that can partially compensate for the loss of riparian and non-riparian wetlands. In the long run, large hydropower projects in Québec have a residual impact on wetlands whose magnitude varies depending on the size and ecological value of the wetland and the specific conditions of each project.

DETAILED ANSWER Riparian wetlands Subject to natural seasonal fluctuations in water level, the shoreline of lakes and streams in the boreal forest is generally occupied by a narrow strip of riparian vegetation dominated by shrubs that rapidly gives way to terrestrial vegetation. The succession of plant communities depends mainly on the slope, the nature of the deposits and the fluctuation in water level (Bouchard et al. 2004; Bouchard and Chouinard 2010). The upper shore is occupied by a shrub swamp that tolerates seasonal variations in water level. The central shore consists in a marsh colonized by herbaceous plants that tolerate frequent fluctuations in water level. The lower shore is flooded most of the time and is only suitable for shallow open water wetlands. The geomorphological context of the Canadian Shield and the northern climate create conditions that are not very favorable to the development of riparian wetlands. In fact, the steep topography, the rocky nature of the geological basement and the surface deposits considerably limit the size of riparian wetlands, which generally cover less than 2% of the surface of study areas (Table 6-3). Though scarce, these wetlands play a crucial ecological role, notably because of the diversity of the plant life they harbour and their use by wildlife. Table 6-3 – Areas and percentages of the terrestrial parts of study areas for three hydropower projects that are occupied by riparian wetlands, non-riparian wetlands and terrestrial environments Hydropower project

Bioclimatic domain

Size of study areaa (km2)

Riparian wetlands % (km2)

Non-riparian wetlands % (km2)

Terrestrial environments % (km2)

Péribonkab

East spruce-moss

359

4.8 (30.3)

0.8 (2.6)

94.5 (326.4)

Eastmain-SarcelleRupert complex c

West spruce lichen

1,814

<0.1 (<0.1)d

11.7 (213.1)

88.3 (1,600.9)

Romainee

East spruce-moss

3,790

1.2 (44.2)

9.2 (350.2)

89.6 (3,395.6)

a. The study area included the land that would be flooded plus a strip of variable width around it: 3 km for the Péribonka development and 5 km for the other two projects. b. Hydro-Québec Production 2003.

6-50

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

c. Hydro-Québec Production 2004a. d. Many of the wetlands were too small to be mapped, hence the small values. e. Hydro-Québec Production 2007d.

Reservoirs Impounding of reservoirs causes loss of riparian wetlands along the shores of flooded lakes and streams. Monitoring conducted over the last 40 years shows that new riparian wetlands gradually form naturally around the reservoirs (Bouchard et al. 2001; Bouchard and Chouinard 2010; Maloney and Bouchard 2013). However, the development of these new wetlands does not always fully compensate for the losses. In fact, vegetation regrowth may be hampered by a number of factors, including reservoir drawdown, slope, wind exposure, the nature of in-situ materials and ice dynamics (Bouchard et al. 2001; Bouchard and Chouinard 2010; Maloney and Bouchard 2013). To limit the losses, Hydro-Québec developed mitigation measures that foster and accelerate the establishment of vegetation and riparian wetlands. The measures that have proved most effective are partial shoreline clearing, diking bays and wetland creation in alluvial plains (Bouchard et al. 2001; Maloney and Bouchard 2007; AECOM 2015a). Clearing a certain portion of the reservoir shoreline before impoundment accelerates the post-impoundment shoreline revegetation process. This measure is generally applied to a strip of land three metres wide above the reservoir’s maximum operating level,12 and it promotes development of the shrub and herbaceous layers as well as vegetation diversification. Clearing yielded good results at the La Grande complex, where the riparian environments that were created support a rich diversity of animal and plant life. This measure has been widely used since then (Bouchard et al. 2001; AECOM 2015a; Hydro-Québec Production 2007d). Diking bays (Box 6-5-1) involves using dikes to close off certain reservoir bays in order to eliminate drawdown in these bays. By stabilizing the water level in these bays, more favorable conditions can be maintained, not only for riparian wetlands (Maloney and Bouchard 2007) but also for benthic fauna and fish (Hayeur 2001). Lastly, the wetlands naturally present in the alluvial plains bordering the rivers can be enlarged by reshaping existing water channels. Restoring hydraulic connections creates ponds and bodies of water, some of which can serve has goose hunting spots for Indigenous communities. In addition, this increases the area covered by shallow water, suitable for the establishment of aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation as well as a varied wildlife composed of amphibians, fish, birds and semi-aquatic mammals (AECOM 2015b). Though these mitigation measures have been shown to be effective, they cannot always fully compensate for the losses of riparian wetlands. However, they support the re-creation of habitats that are naturally scarce in northern Québec and help to maintain the diversity and ecological value of wetlands across the region.

Downstream of the dams Reduced-flow rivers13 Some hydropower projects require total or partial diversion of rivers to supply the generating stations. The reduced flow in these rivers causes partial dewatering of the shoreline and its exposure to erosion. This was the case, for example, in the Rupert, Eastmain, Opinaca and Caniapiscau rivers, whose upper reaches were diverted towards the La Grande complex. Monitoring of these rivers shows that riparian wetlands are reestablished naturally and move towards a new equilibrium appropriate for the new water regime. In effect, strips of vegetation associated with shallow open water wetlands, marshes and swamps migrate towards the new shoreline (Bouchard et al. 2001). This migration of the riparian vegetation occurs more or less rapidly depending on the substrate and the intensity of erosion, and the strips can be narrower. Over the last few decades, major mitigation measures have been developed and implemented to speed up the shoreline revegetation process. These measures consist mainly in seeding the shoreline with herbaceous species, building weirs and maintaining an ecological instream flow.

12. Maximum reservoir water level, corresponding to the reservoir’s maximum storage capacity. 13. See definitions of regulated-flow, reduced-flow and increased-flow rivers in Appendix F.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-51

Seeding the shoreline with herbaceous species rapidly establishes a plant cover that stabilizes the soil, reduces erosion and promotes wildlife. In just a few years, a succession is established leading to replacement of the species seeded by indigenous plants. Weirs are built to maintain a minimum water level in the river in order to maintain conditions that are comparable to those before flow reduction and thus reduce the effects of dewatering. This prevents erosion and allows preservation of some of the existing riparian vegetation. For example, along the Rivière Eastmain and its tributary the Opinaca (diverted in 1980 and 1979 respectively), five weirs maintain a water level almost equivalent to pre-diversion conditions over about a third of the dewatered sections of these rivers, that is, over about 90 km (Bouchard et al. 2001). Finally, though first introduced largely to maintain fish habitats (see Section 6.4.4), ecological instream flows also make it possible to maintain riparian vegetation and wetlands. Partially diverted in 2009, the Rivière Rupert is one example where excellent results were obtained through application of these measures. Thanks to an instream flow regime (Figure 6-11) coupled with seeding of herbaceous species and construction of eight hydraulic structures (6 weirs and 2 spur dikes) (Figure 6-3), the exposed shoreline of the Rupert was gradually colonized by vegetation and a new equilibrium was installed (Biofilia 2016). These measures also ensure that a variety of water uses, including navigation and fishing, can be maintained. In sum, in reduced-flow rivers, natural regrowth of vegetation coupled with mitigation measures generally results in migration of strips of vegetation towards the new shoreline and modifications in wetland size depending on variations in flow.

Regulated-flow rivers14 Few monitoring studies of riparian vegetation have been conducted downstream of generating stations on rivers where the flow has been regulated (but neither reduced nor increased). Monitoring of the Romaine-1 generating station in 2018 suggests the riparian vegetation had not changed much three years after commissioning of the power plant in 2015. Size and species composition of the riparian wetlands were comparable to the baseline established in 2005. It was concluded that the recent hydroelectric developments had little or no impact in the short term on the riparian shallow open water wetlands, marshes and swamps or their floral composition (Hernandez et al. 2019). Increased-flow rivers15 Hydropower projects can require that flow be increased in certain rivers to boost their hydroelectric potential. The risks of erosion are then higher compared to river stretches where the flow is regulated or reduced (see Section 6.1.4), and the impacts on riparian vegetation are greater. In addition, the warmer water temperature (see Section 6.1.1), coupled with stronger winter flows, limits formation of an ice foot that protects the shoreline against erosion. Riparian vegetation gets crushed or stripped away as a result. This is what happened at certain spots along the La Grande Rivière, where flow was increased by diversion of the Eastmain, Opinaca and Caniapiscau rivers in the 1980s (Bouchard et al. 2001). This process is not favorable for natural reestablishment of riparian wetlands. In certain hydroelectric developments, it may be possible to maintain a water level fluctuation pattern comparable to that of natural streams. This was done, for example, in the Boyd-Sakami diversion, which should promote development of riparian wetlands in the long term (Bouchard et al. 2001).

14. See definitions of regulated-flow, reduced-flow and increased-flow rivers in Appendix F. 15. See definitions of regulated-flow, reduced-flow and increased-flow rivers in Appendix F.

6-52

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Non-riparian wetlands The topography, climate and type of surface deposits in northern Québec fostered the development of a particular type of wetland: peatland, that is, fens and bogs (Payette and Rochefort 2001). Peatland can constitute more than 10% of the land affected by reservoirs (Table 6-3). Other types of wetlands (shallow open water wetlands, marshes and swamps) are far more rare, due to lack of conditions suitable for their development. Reservoir impoundment causes flooding of these wetlands, with losses generally greater than gains. In fact, the creation of reservoirs does not allow for development of numerous extensive riparian or non-riparian wetlands. Peatland formation, for example, would require particular conditions (such as the reservoirs becoming filled with sediment) and would take a very long time, because the rate of accumulation of the peat forming the soil in peatlands is less than 1 mm per year. The measures that Hydro-Québec applies to compensate for losses of wetlands are basically designed to create new wetlands with high wildlife value, such as shrub swamps, marshes or shallow open water wetlands. For the Péribonka hydroelectric development, for example, impounded in 2007, the first large-scale wetlands creation project was undertaken, with 40 ha of wetlands created in a sand pit used to build the dam (Maloney and Bouchard 2013). This project is described in Box 6-5-2. For the Romaine complex, Hydro-Québec set up a compensation program that called for creation of 60 ha of marsh and swamp to compensate for the loss of 649 ha of peatland (the Mista pond development, Figure 6-13, is one example). Such wetlands are rarer wildlife habitats at these latitudes, whereas peatland is abundant in the Romaine watershed. In other words, the goal is not to recreate the same amount of peatland as was lost but rather to replace it with high quality habitats that contribute to greater biodiversity (WSP 2019b). Transforming sandpits into wetlands, digging canals in alluvial plains (AECOM 2015b) and building weirs on small streams (WSP 2019b) are other ways to promote the development of shallow open water bodies, marshes and swamps. In all, given that non-riparian wetlands (mainly peatland) are abundant and not threatened, that programs to create high quality wetlands (marshes and swamps) have been introduced and that riparian wetlands reestablish naturally around reservoirs, it is deemed that hydroelectric projects have only a small residual impact on the wetlands in these regions as a whole.

Mista pond

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-53

Non-native invasive plant species With climate change, some non-native invasive plant species (NNIS) have extended their range into the wetlands of southern Québec (Lavoie 2019). However, studies of riparian vegetation for large hydropower projects have not demonstrated the presence or proliferation of such species in the boreal environment. This is undoubtedly due to the bioclimatic and geomorphological context of northern Québec, which makes the aquatic portions of boreal riparian wetlands (the shallow open water wetlands) unsuitable for development of these species. In addition, because large hydropower projects are located in sparsely populated regions, problems stemming from human activity, such as nutrient input, are virtually absent. Lastly, the reservoirs created by the dams remain dynamic bodies of water. For all these reasons, presence and proliferation of non-native invasive species are not threats or issues in the case of hydroelectric developments.

CONCLUSION Reservoir impoundment can lead to loss of wetlands. With respect to riparian wetlands, the loss is partly compensated by the natural development of riparian wetlands along the shores of the reservoirs and by specific mitigation and compensation measures. The main measures are 1) clearing of parts of the reservoir shoreline to speed up revegetation of the shoreline and 2) a variety of compensation measures (canals, weirs, sand pit redevelopment and diked bays) to maintain or create riparian wetlands. Alteration of the hydraulic regime downstream of the dams can also affect riparian wetlands. Where river flows are regulated, riparian environments are affected in a limited way, at least in the short term. Where river flows are reduced, a strip of vegetation associated with shallow open water wetlands, marshes and swamps migrates to the new shoreline. Lastly, where river flows are increased, it is more difficult to maintain the riparian vegetation. When reservoirs are impounded, non-riparian wetlands (mainly peatland) are flooded. Hydro-Québec’s approach to offset this is to create wetlands of high ecological value (marshes and swamps) rather than compensate based on the area of wetland lost. Thanks to experience acquired with its different hydroelectric development projects, Hydro-Québec has developed and fine-tuned methods for creating high-value-added environments that include wetlands and wildlife habitats.

Box 6-5-1 Diking reservoir bays Bays are diked to exclude expanses of water from reservoir drawdown and allow them to develop in accordance with natural fluctuations in water level. At the La Grande complex, three bays were diked in this way and enhanced as a mitigation measure. The work, performed in 2004 and 2005, included building a dike, a fishway and a weir at the mouth of the bay, clearing, scarifying and seeding the riparian zone, creating small islands for waterfowl and a spawning ground at the foot of the fish pass and building a shelter for small mammals. Follow-up in 2007 showed that the riparian vegetation was already in the establishment phase just two years after the work was performed (Maloney and Bouchard 2007). By 2009, expansion of the moss layer was observed as well as spontaneous establishment of new plant species that replaced the species initially introduced. The wildlife habitats created in this way are used by species such as Canada goose (Waska Ressources 2010).

6-54

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Diked bay BE-07 on the perimeter of Paix des Braves reservoir (La Grande complex, Baie-James region)

Figure 6-13 – Development of Mista pond in Romaine complex

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-55

Box 6-5-2 Wetlands created for the Péribonka hydroelectric development The Péribonka hydroelectric development was the testing ground for a project to create wetlands that could serve as waterfowl habitats. Over 39 ha of swamp, marsh and shallow open water wetlands were created in a decommissioned borrow pit along the Rivière Manouane between 2005 and 2008. The work involved site shaping to create environments with different submersion periods, seeding herbaceous species, planting shrubs, transplanting plants harvested from the site of the future reservoir before impoundment and installing nesting boxes for dabbling and tree-nesting ducks. Monitoring shows that the vegetation in the wetlands created has evolved to resemble that of the richest natural wetlands in the region (Maloney and Bouchard 2013). The site is used by diverse wildlife, including several species of birds, mammals and amphibians. The nesting boxes have been used since their installation, in particular by common goldeneye.

Wetland created for the Péribonka hydroelectric development

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-57

6.6 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE 6.6.1 How are mammals and birds affected by the flooding when reservoirs are created? SUMMARY Creation of reservoirs results in permanent loss of forest habitats as well as loss or alteration of riparian habitats and wetlands. In the short term, these habitat losses or alterations have an impact on mammal and bird populations. Loss of a terrestrial environment inevitably entails displacement of the animals that occupy it, or their death for species with limited mobility. However, wetlands and riparian environments are gradually reestablished naturally. In other words, riparian environments lost to flooding are replaced, at least in part, by those that form along the exposed shoreline of reduced-flow rivers. In addition, natural habitats available around the reservoirs serve as alternative habitats for many species. Such replacement habitats are generally abundant, given the homogeneity of habitats and the relatively low wildlife densities in northern Québec. In the medium and the long term, mammal and bird populations adapt to these modifications and colonize alternate habitats. Furthermore, to reduce the impacts on birds and terrestrial wildlife numerous mitigation measures are implemented to protect and restore favorable habitats and even to create new ones.

DETAILED ANSWER Mammals Although the diversity and density of animal populations are generally lower in northern than in southern Québec, 39 species of land mammals have been identified in the area where the large dams are located: small mammals present include beaver, muskrat, lynx, otter, red fox, mink, snowshoe hare, red squirrel and American marten, and large mammals include moose, caribou and black bear (Hayeur 2001). The flooding of terrestrial habitats, wetlands, lakes and streams when a reservoir is impounded is the main biophysical impact of a hydroelectric project (Trussart et al. 2002; World Energy Council 2016; Moran et al. 2018). In effect, the transformation of a terrestrial environment into an aquatic environment is a major alteration that necessarily entails displacement of the nonmigratory terrestrial wildlife species that inhabited these lands before the impoundment, including small mammals (Hayeur 2001; Hydro-Québec Production 2003, 2007d). These displacements render certain species more vulnerable to predators and require a greater expenditure of energy on their part, which can have an impact on their survival and lead to deaths among species unable to travel easily or for whom shelter is essential to survival (Hydro-Québec Production 2003; Groupe DDM 2007, 2010). These impacts are nonetheless mitigated by the fact that inland habitats, at the latitude of the reservoirs impounded in northern Québec, are rather homogeneous and the animal populations are generally less diverse and less dense than in southern Québec (Hayeur 2001). This means there is generally an abundance of habitats available around the reservoirs that can serve as replacement habitats, given the homogeneity of the habitats and the relatively low wildlife density. In addition, some of the riparian environments lost to flooding are replaced by those that gradually form along the shores of the reservoirs and the exposed banks of the reduced-flow rivers (Hayeur 2001; Maloney and Bouchard 2013; see Section 6.5.1). The following subsections discuss first small mammals (land and semi-aquatic) and then large mammals (caribou, moose and black bear).

6-58

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Small wildlife Small land mammals Reservoir impoundment can cause changes in the local distribution of certain land animals (Hayeur 2001; Hydro-Québec Production 2003; 2007b). Snowshoe hare, for example, which is generally distributed quite evenly, has to move and occupy a much smaller territory, where competition and predation establish a new balance (Hayeur 2001). For micromammals (shrews, voles and mice), which have a limited capacity for travel, reservoir impoundment inevitably means deaths. The impact on micromammal populations nonetheless remains limited, as most micromammals have a very high reproductive potential (Desrosiers et al. 2002) and populations are thus rapidly restored. During the monitoring of the impoundment of the Romaine 2 reservoir in 2014, 19 observations of small mammals were recorded (including grey wolf, American porcupine and red fox) without any intervention being required to rescue or move the animals (Groupe DDM 2015). For the Sainte-Marguerite-3 hydroelectric development, surveys of snowshoe hare tracks around the reservoir before the impoundment and several years after it did not demonstrate any differences in relative abundance of the species (Tecsult 2005a). In fact, an increase in snowshoe hare abundance was actually recorded after construction of the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex (Consortium Otish 2015a). On the other hand, this same land mammal follow-up study showed reduced abundance of three of the seven species or groups of small land mammals (43%) following construction of the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex: small weasels, red fox and American porcupine. Relative abundance of American marten, squirrels and Canada lynx, however, remained similar after the impoundment of the diversion bays and the partial diversion of the Rivière Rupert to what it was before (Consortium Otish 2015a). The fluctuations noted may not necessarily be attributable to construction or operation of the hydroelectric facilities, however. Major fluctuations in abundance of the different species are found even in undisturbed environments, with some species increasing and others declining (Krebs 1996; Gudmundson et al. 2015; Myers 2018). Predatory species, such as wolf, lynx and fox, generally adapt their territory size and travel patterns to the abundance of their prey (Schmidt 2008; Kittle et al. 2015). To compensate for the loss of terrestrial habitats, shelters especially designed for small wildlife are built using some of the wood debris from partial clearing of the reservoir banks and the shores of selected bays (Hydro-Québec Production 2007d; Hydro-Québec 2019a). A number of species, such as ruffed grouse, snowshoe hare, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, in fact often take refuge under piles of branches or rocks or overturned tree trunks to escape predators or shelter from inclement weather or disturbance (Paquet and Jutras 1996). These shelters offset the loss of natural shelters and, by providing refuge, make it possible for small terrestrial wildlife species to use the cleared areas until the natural appearance of the vegetation is restored (Hydro-Québec Production 2007d). Semi-aquatic mammals For semi-aquatic species, such as muskrat and beaver, the impact of reservoir impoundment and the resulting habitat loss can be less significant, as the habitats made available by the impoundment are generally more favorable to these species (Hayeur 2001; Fortin 2010). Monitoring of beaver at the La Grande complex has demonstrated that some beavers can survive reservoir impoundment, even juveniles (Nault 1983; Nault and Courcelles 1984), thanks to their ability to travel long distances (Chubbs and Phillips 1994; Groupe DDM 2003). Some beavers gradually moved along the edges of stands of flooded deciduous trees, whereas others traveled for kilometres to find new habitats (Nault 1983; Nault and Courcelles 1984; Hayeur 2001). This ability to travel also leaves this species less vulnerable to predators (Boyce 1974; Groupe DDM 2007). Flooding of active beaver sites during the impoundment of the Romaine 2 reservoir in 2014 led to abandonment of the disturbed sector, and no new signs of beaver presence were observed nearby (Groupe DDM 2015). To ensure Indigenous communities the benefit of this valued resource, Hydro-Québec supports trapping out of beaver by affected trappers before reservoir impoundment.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-59

Hydro-Québec’s monitoring for its hydropower projects indicates that within a few years of impoundment, beaver densities in natural habitats around the reservoir are similar to those prior to project construction (Hayeur 2001; Consortium Otish 2016). The banks of reduced-flow rivers are also a favorable habitat for beavers. Monitoring of beaver use of the Manouane, Opinaca and Eastmain rivers showed a regular increase in signs of presence afterthe reduction in flow (Hayeur 2001; Fortin 2014; Consortium Otish 2016). In a study of the RobertBourassa and Opinaca reservoirs, telemetry monitoring of a number of beavers showed that the animals adapted their behavior to the new seasonal variations imposed by the hydroelectric development (Nault 1983; Nault and Courcelles 1984; Hayeur 2001). In the fall, the beavers were found around the edge of the reservoirs, in deciduous stands. The winter drop in water level, however, prompted the beavers to move to the drawdown zone, where they made use of the empty spaces formed under the ice. It was even observed that a lodge was extended by a tunnel several metres long which enabled the beavers to reach the surface of the water in complete safety (Nault 1983; Nault and Courcelles 1984; Hayeur 2001). In general, beavers avoid building lodges on the banks of reservoirs where fluctuations in water level are sudden (even if of small amplitude), because they prefer bodies of water where there is little variation in water level (Banfield 1977). If they do set up there for the winter, the adaptability observed in the different monitoring programs (Nault 1983; Nault and Courcelles 1984) suggests they can survive until the spring. Where the drawdown is substantial, the lodges and food caches of beaver colonies established on the banks of the reservoir will be dewatered. Beavers can survive such conditions, but they will generally leave when spring arrives to set up a lodge along a natural body of water (Nault and Courcelles 1984). These behavioral observations must, nonetheless, be considered with caution, to the extent that use of these less favorable habitats may possibly have negative effects on the animals’ health or reproductive capabilities. Monitoring for the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex showed a decrease in abundance of American mink and river otter (Consortium Otish 2015a). The dispersal of aquatic prey following the impoundment followed by a decline in its availability due to the increase in the ice cover may have contributed to this phenomenon (Consortium Otish 2015a).

Large mammals Caribou The report of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) established a national consensus on designatable units for caribou in Canada. Québec is home to a substantial portion of designatable unit 6, boreal caribou (COSEWIC 2011), which occupy the boreal forest from Labrador, through Québec, Ontario and the prairie provinces right to the Rockies and the Northwest Territories. Boreal caribou are also known as woodland caribou in Québec. Woodland caribou are distinct from eastern migratory caribou, which includes the Rivière George and Rivière aux Feuilles populations. Woodland caribou occupy close to 644,000 km2 between the 49th and the 55th parallels (ERCFQ 2013). A single animal’s home range is about 1,000 km2 (Bastille-Rousseau et al. 2012; ERCFQ 2013). Migratory caribou (the Rivière George and Rivière aux Feuilles herds) have had a distinct range and demography since 2008 (Taillon et al. 2016). These herds occupy a range of several hundred thousand square kilometres mainly north of the 53rd parallel. They undertake long-distance migrations between their wintering grounds in the boreal forest and their calving grounds in the tundra, travelling an average of 2,000 to 6,000 km a year (MFFP 2020). They use traditional calving grounds, where the females remain together (Bergerud et al. 2008; Gunn et al. 2011). It is mainly in the winter, when they occupy the southern portion of their range, that these caribou are likely to be found around Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs. From several thousand animals in 1958, the Rivière George herd rapidly grew to almost 800,000 head in 1993 (Couturier et al. 1996; Russell et al. 1996; Rivest et al. 1998). The Rivière aux Feuilles herd counted more than 600,000 caribou in 2001 (MFFP 2020). However, the current eastern migratory caribou population estimate of 170,000 mature animals indicates that there has been an 80% overall decline in number over three generations (18–21 years) (COSEWIC 2017). In fact, in April 2017, COSEWIC recommended that eastern migratory caribou be designated as endangered. Woodland caribou has been designated vulnerable in Québec (MFFP 2019) and threatened in Canada (Canada 2019). Exact causes behind the marked decline of the caribou population in northern Québec are not known, and research is ongoing. The potential causes are numerous: an overuse of the environment (the grazing on and trampling

6-60

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Female caribou wearing a radio collar (Romaine project follow-up program)

of lichen, the caribou's main food source), climate change, hunting, predation, disease and parasites, and land development (COSEWIC 2017; Courtois 2003; Courtois et al. 2001). However, it appears that the situation in Québec is not exceptional, as the population of most herds of caribou in northwestern Canada and Europe have also markedly decreased over the last 20 years (ENR n.d.; Kolpaschikov et al. 2015; Mallory and Boyce 2018). Vast areas that were once part of the migratory caribou’s wintering ground were flooded when the reservoirs of the hydroelectric developments in Québec and Labrador-Newfoundland were impounded (COSEWIC 2017). Only a few scientific studies document the impact of hydroelectric reservoirs on the ecology of caribou and reindeer (ERCFQ 2013). Among the main findings noted with respect to Scandinavian reindeer were modification of migration routes because of the substantial winter drawdown on the shores of the reservoirs (Klein 1971), desertion of areas along the shores of reservoirs under construction, loss of functional habitat, fragmentation of the herd and decline in reproduction (Nellemann et al. 2003). Among caribou, a temporary desertion of habitats near the reservoir and the dam as well as disruption of migrational timing among females was noted in Newfoundland (Mahoney and Schaefer 2002). There is abundant scientific documentation, on the other hand, of the particular sensitivity of caribou, especially with respect to forest ecotype and to anthropogenic disturbances such as infrastructure, construction or forestry activities, noise and air, road and all-terrain vehicle traffic (Courtois et al. 2004; Dyer 1999; Dyer et al. 2002; Mahoney and Schaefer 2002; Plante et al. 2018). This sensitivity of woodland caribou is also known to and emphasized by the Innus (Hydro-Québec Production 2007d ). However, once the reservoirs are impounded, their presence has a more moderate impact on caribou. In fact, caribou seem to be able to adapt to certain human activities if they are of limited disruption (Huot and Paré 1986; Mahoney and Schaefer 2002; Plante et al. 2018). A study by Vachon (2009) suggests that impounding the La Grande 4 reservoir in the 1980s did not affect the movements of migratory caribou or have any major long-term effect on them. Likewise, a telemetry study of woodland caribou by Paré (1987) indicates that impounding the Caniapiscau reservoir had few measurable effects, in the short term, on their survival and land use, though use of new habitats could have effects in the medium or long term, especially on breeding success. In summer, the caribou feed mainly on lichen, shrubs and herbaceous plants. In winter, their main food source is lichen. Plant communities with lichen along the edges of frozen rivers and large bodies of water are thus sources of food for caribou in winter (Paré 1987; Hayeur 2001). These frozen expanses also provide easy access to favorable habitats and are frequent routes of travel for caribou. In fact, the reservoir shorelines become new winter feeding areas for caribou, as their banks and islands are partly occupied by spruce-lichen stands (Paré 1987; Hayeur 2001; Vachon 2009). In addition, as observed at the Sainte-Marguerite 3 reservoir, the creation of large bodies of water facilitates winter movements by woodland caribou (Paré 1987; Tecsult 2005b). Hydro-Québec has collaborated on numerous studies and has instituted a major program for monitoring caribou movements by satellite. The program contributes to a better understanding of migration patterns based on habitats available and is of great value in managing the species (Hayeur 2001). In addition, Hydro-Québec performed telemetry monitoring of woodland caribou for the Romaine complex from 2009 to 2019 (AECOM 2016a).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-61

Moose and black bear Over the last decade, some moose populations in North America have declined, whereas others have remained stable or even increased (Timmermann and Rodgers 2017). In Québec, moose populations have been on the rise for the last 30 years. An especially substantial increase was noted between 1998 and 2003, when the population grew from less than 80,000 to more than 100,000 animals (Lefort and Massé 2015). Impoundment of reservoirs does not seem to have had a significant impact on moose in the medium or long term. Hydro-Québec monitored a moose population from 1995 to 2001 to investigate the effect of impounding the Sainte-Marguerite 3 reservoir (Côte-Nord) on the movements of the population, its use of space and of habitats available, and its fertility, productivity and mortality rates (Leblanc 2002). The monitoring showed that the impoundment had no detectable effects on the annual or seasonal movements of this population, as average distances travelled during the impoundment were the same as before it. In addition, the reservoir did not prove a barrier to movement: in fact, more than fifty crossings were documented during the monitoring, even during periods deemed critical, such as the spring thaw and the fall freeze-up. Home ranges remained the same size during impoundment as before it, and similar to those of the moose population in the adjacent watershed of the Rivière Moisie (Leblanc 2002). In fact, average fertility noted during the impoundment period was among the highest in North America (Leblanc 2002). In other words, the monitoring of moose for the Sainte-Marguerite-3 project did not demonstrate any impact of the project on the moose population (Tecsult 2005b). The same was true of the follow-up on the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex, where moose density measured in 2014 was four times higher than beforeconstruction of the project, in 2002—seeming to indicate that impounding the Rupert diversion bays did not have a negative effect on moose occupation of the area (Consortium Otish 2015b). Regeneration of the burns of 2002 and 2006 may explain this increased density, as this meant a more favorable environment for moose in 2014 than in 2002. In fact, forest fires have a positive effect for moose in the early stages of plant succession, since food availability for moose increases (Crête et al. 1995; Courtois and Beaumont 2002). Lastly, with respect to black bear, a study of the wildlife biodiversity of the reservoirs of the La Grande complex demonstrated that black bear frequent reservoir drawdown zones (Doucet and Giguère 1991). Likewise, in a study monitoring land mammals after impoundment of the Paix des Braves reservoir, black bear, along with moose, was the species most often observed on the edges of the reservoir (Groupe DDM 2007).

Birds The coastal environments of the Baie-James region and the Côte-Nord offer a wide range of habitats suitable for migratory birds. Inland, however, habitats with waterfowl potential are generally few and far between (Hayeur 2001). Among the bird species found along the coasts are geese (Canada goose and snow goose), dabbling ducks (mallard and black duck), diving ducks (scaup, goldeneye and merganser), sea ducks (common eider and scoter) and small wading birds (sandpiper, plover, etc.) (Hayeur 2001). Often a richer diversity of bird species is found where there is a mosaic of habitats that can meet the needs of many different species. Québec’s large hydropower projects are located in the Canadian Shield (see Chapter 3), a region where biological productivity is known to be low (Hayeur 2001) and the habitat is considered to be fairly homogeneous. Here, spruce-moss and spruce-lichen forests cover a very large territory. These woodlands are nonetheless intercut by different types of wetlands, which add to the habitat diversity. Bird species diversity in the regions where large hydropower projects have been built is not, however, comparable to that of regions further south. There are far fewer breeding species in northern environments (Figure 6-14; AONQ 2017). This means that birds displaced by habitat modification can relocate to similar habitats nearby. Regionally, many boreal forest bird species are not very sensitive to clearing, as they are used to frequent natural disturbances and modifications to their habitat, by forest fires, for example. This has been reported in a number of studies (Venier et al. 2014; Bayne and Hobson 2002; Whitaker et al. 2008; Dalley et al. 2009) and suggested in others (Schmiegelow et al. 1997; Niemi et al. 1998; Imbeau et al. 2001; Lampila et al. 2005). These displacements can, however, lead to an increase in the risks of predation and a decline in reproduction in certain species or even direct mortality in less mobile species (Hayeur 2001; Hydro-Québec Production 2003; 2007b).

6-62

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Rare and at-risk bird species are few in the boreal region. However, right from the preliminary studies, bird inventories targeted these species to evaluate possible direct and indirect project impacts on them. Specific inventories were conducted for species such as Barrow’s goldeneye, the golden eagle and the bald eagle, which are protected under provincial legislation. Mitigation measures have been applied (protection perimeters and nesting boxes, for example) and environmental monitoring is conducted when necessary. Figure 6-14 – Diversity of breeding birds of Québec, per survey square

Source: AONQ 2017.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-63

Raptors During clearing and impoundment of new reservoirs, trees where raptors nest are sometimes felled or submerged and nesting sites abandoned (Morneau 2003). Nonetheless, monitoring often demonstrates an increase in the population of these birds about ten years later (Morneau 2004; Benoit et al. 2016a). At the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex, for example, breeding populations of bald eagle, osprey, red-tailed hawk and Northern harrier were overall more abundant several years after impoundment than before (Benoit et al. 2016a). Likewise, the results of environmental monitoring show short-eared owl populations in the operation phase similar to those prior to project construction (Benoit et al. 2016b). Many of these species feed on fish, amphibians or other birds, including waterfowl. Accordingly, reservoir impoundment creates sites favorable for hunting this prey in the medium and the long term. The availability of perches along the reservoirs is another factor that may explain the increase in populations of certain species (Benoit et al. 2016a). Among the mitigation measures that the monitoring studies have shown to be effective is installation of osprey nesting platforms (Trussart et al. 2002).

Osprey platform on the perimeter of Paix des Braves reservoir

Waterfowl Waterfowl, which includes geese and ducks, is an important wildlife resource for local communities. It is also a wildlife resource of international interest by virtue of its migratory nature. Waterfowl has been the subject of numerous studies and inventories in northern Québec. The studies carried out by the Canadian Wildlife Service and by Hydro-Québec quite likely represent the largest and richest body of information on the distribution of nesting waterfowl species in eastern North America (Hayeur 2001). Monitoring has demonstrated that clearing during the construction phase to recover merchantable timber before reservoir impoundment can affect waterfowl reproduction and abundance, especially in tree-nesting ducks. During impoundment, the breeding sites of waterfowl and other aquatic birds are flooded, and reproductive success often declines in the following year (Morneau 2003; 2005; AECOM 2016b; Sénéchal 2018). However, once the impoundment is over, the banks of the new reservoirs may prove favorable environments for waterfowl nesting and moulting, and they are used as a migratory stopover area by many species (Morneau 1998; 1999; Hayeur 2001; AECOM 2011; Sénéchal 2018; Benoit et al. 2019). Also, breeding pair density can be high along stretches where flow has been modified (Morneau 2005; AECOM 2011). In fact, the number of broods on the reservoirs generally increases in the years following impoundment (Sénéchal and Morneau 2009; AECOM 2014; 2016b; Sénéchal 2018). Emergent flooded woodland seems to provide favorable conditions for raising of young and the search for food, in addition to providing shelter, as the number of observations of waterfowl in these habitats indicates (Morneau 1998; 2004; 2005; Benoit et al. 2019).

6-64

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Lastly, nesting boxes can be installed for tree-nesting species (golden-eye, merganser, etc.). The effectiveness of this mitigation measure has been confirmed by waterfowl follow-up studies (Trussart et al. 2002; Sénéchal 2018).

Nest box for tree-nesting ducks in enhanced bay BE-05 on the perimeter of Paix des Braves reservoir

CONCLUSION In conclusion, the creation of reservoirs causes habitat losses and alterations that necessarily have an impact on the mammal and bird species that use them. In the short term, these losses mean disturbance and displacement of wildlife, causing an increase in the risks of predation or a drop in reproduction in certain species, even direct death in less mobile species (Hayeur 2001; Hydro-Québec Production 2003; 2007b). However, monitoring conducted for Hydro-Québec projects indicates that in the medium and the long term most mammal and bird populations are able to adapt to the modifications and gradually colonize the new habitats available (Nault 1983; Nault and Courcelles 1984; Hayeur 2001; Morneau 2003; Tecsult 2005b; Benoit et al. 2016a; 2016b). In addition, a variety of mitigation measures implemented to protect and restore terrestrial and riparian environments, and sometimes to even create new ones, have been demonstrated effective in reducing the impacts of large hydroelectric projects (Trussart et al. 2002).

Northern pitcher plant in a bog (Baie-James region)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-65

6.7 LAND USE, INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND THE ECONOMY 6.7.1 Have the large hydroelectric development projects in Québec caused population displacements? SUMMARY Hydro-Québec takes care when developing its hydropower project to take into consideration use of the land by local populations. As a result, none of its large hydroelectric development projects have required major displacement or forced resettlement of populations. This is attributable to the approach Hydro-Québec takes with respect to hydroelectric development as well as the fact that the land selected for its large projects is in northern Québec, a vast sparsely populated region. However, even though no population relocations have been undertaken by Hydro-Québec since its founding, the resettlement of Fort George is often mentioned. When the La Grande complex was built in the Baie-James region in the early 1970s, members of the community of Fort George (located on Île de Fort George, an island at the mouth of the La Grande Rivière) feared the problem of erosion which the village already faced would be aggravated by construction of the project, and they asked to be moved. Though this voluntary move enabled the community to improve its infrastructure, the members of the community are still deeply attached to the site of the old village and still meet there annually. The hydroelectric projects built by Hydro-Québec can cause displacement or loss of buildings, including camps used for trapping, cottages and rough shelters used for recreational purposes or fishing and hunting activities. In such cases, Hydro-Québec applies best practices for compensation of their owners.

DETAILED ANSWER From the construction in 1953 of the Bersimis complex, the very first hydroelectric project Hydro-Québec built at a site remote from major urban centers, none of its hydropower projects have required major population displacement or forced resettlement of local communities. Today, Hydro-Québec is more interested in northern Québec for development of its projects, as the hydroelectric potential there is greater (Hydro-Québec 2017b). Because this land is only sparsely populated (see Section 3.5), the projects do not affect watersheds occupied by large populations, as would be the case in southern Québec. It is thus not necessary to plan for displacement of entire communities. Beyond that, Hydro-Québec tries to minimize disturbance of local populations in executing its projects. In making development decisions, the hydroelectric potential of a river is not Hydro-Québec’s only criteria: land use is also considered. In this respect, a favorable reception of the project by the local communities is a key consideration for Hydro-Québec (see Section 5.3). Thus, the La Grande complex in the Baie-James region, built in the early 1970s, was planned to avoid displacement of populations. However, the Cree community of Fort George, located on an island (Île de Fort George) at the mouth of the La Grande Rivière, was already facing serious issues that threatened its development in the long term: erosion along the shores of the island, inadequate housing (size and quality), drinking water supply problems and an antiquated road system (Kastelberger 2009). In addition, it was known that the project would have an impact on erosion of the shores of the island. Though Hydro-Québec’s plan was to control future erosion of the island, the members of the community, after reviewing a study coordinated by the Grand Council of the Crees (GCC), decided in a general meeting of community members to relocate the community inland (Daniel Arbour & Associés 1976). To give effect to this decision, the Fort George Band Council, the GCC, the Government of Canada, the Gouvernement du Québec, Hydro-Québec and two crown corporations signed the Chisasibi Agreement in 1978. Following this agreement, the Cree community of Fort George was relocated to the right bank of the La Grande Rivière about 9 km upstream of Île de Fort George (Fort George Island). The site was named Chisasibi, which means “big river” in Cree. 6-66

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The sums allocated by the federal government, the government of Québec and Hydro-Québec to resettle the community at the new location enabled a highly innovative method of planning to be used that incorporated consultation and participation of the members of the community. The goal was for Chisasibi to offer new options for the inhabitants of Fort George, such as new or renovated homes supplied with drinking water and a territory large enough for future expansion of the community. In fact, the population has doubled since that time, and today there are about 4,500 residents (Kastelberger 2009; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 2015). At the time of the resettlement, which took place from 1979 to 1981, more than 200 homes were moved and renovated at the new site. In addition, some 100 new homes and a number of community buildings were constructed (Makivik Corporation). The Chisasibi experience is considered an exceptional land-use planning process: at the time, it was a rare example of municipal planning that took into consideration the traditional way of life of Indigenous peoples (Kastelberger 2009). That said, the residents of this community continue to visit the island, in particular for an annual cultural event called Mamoweedow. Chisasibi is thus a unique case. It is important to mention that although northern Québec has few communities and is sparsely populated, it is used by Indigenous peoples for traditional pursuits and subsistence activities. It is also used, to a lesser extent, by non-Indigenous people for vacationing and sport hunting and fishing. As a result, there are buildings (cottages, camps and shelters) in the areas where hydroelectric projects are planned. When flooding of these buildings is inevitable, Hydro-Québec comes to an agreement with the owners to compensate them or move the buildings elsewhere on the territory. With respect to Indigenous camps in particular, Hydro-Québec makes an agreement with the users concerned to fund the construction of another camp on a site selected by the user outside the area where the project is to be built. Regarding compensation, if this is the option chosen by the owner, it is calculated considering the replacement cost of the infrastructure concerned plus some compensation for damages, in particular the cost to the owner for demolition, moving personal effects and searching for a new site. Should it prove impossible to come to an agreement, Hydro-Québec may, after obtaining government authorization, exercise its right of expropriation. However, in the vast majority of cases, Hydro-Québec arrives at an agreement. Note as well that in addition to the compensation paid to owners of buildings that will be affected by its hydropower development projects, Hydro-Québec also pays compensation for flooding of the land under agreements between the company and local communities. Also, hydroelectric development sometimes provides an opportunity for owners to upgrade their vacationing facilities, as they often choose to rebuild in newly accessible areas. Lastly, Hydro-Québec works closely with Indigenous communities to preserve knowledge of Indigenous burial sites affected by its projects through a program to locate and mark such sites before the work starts. These activities are conducted in accordance with the wishes of the families concerned and allow close relatives to choose between a symbolic (religious ceremony) or real transfer of the remains, the goal to ensure that family members buried at these sites are remembered. At the same time, an archaeological inventory is conducted of areas affected by the project and within future reservoirs. Thanks to these programs, which also include numerous digs, there has been a significant increase in our knowledge of Indigenous occupation of the northern part of Québec.

Archaelogical digs on the shore of the Rivière Eastmain (KP 310)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-67

6.7.2 Have the agreements concluded with Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in relation to the hydroelectric development projects had concrete and lasting spinoffs? SUMMARY To render its projects and activities acceptable to host communities, Hydro-Québec enters into agreements with Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. One of the objectives of these agreements, in addition to payment of compensation to host communities, is to optimize project economic spinoffs through employment, training and awarding of local contracts. The agreements include mechanisms for ongoing dialogue that facilitate the examination and handling of issues as they arise and that help maintain the project’s social acceptability throughout its life cycle. While favoring continued land use by populations affected, agreements with Indigenous peoples take into account their values, their established or claimed rights and interests, and the cultural and environmental issues they deem important. These agreements also serve to improve community infrastructure and develop local businesses, so the communities concerned will be able to tackle issues related to other development projects in which they may be involved with greater confidence.

DETAILED ANSWER Hydro-Québec ensures that its hydropower projects benefit the host region. To do this, the company concludes agreements with Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities from the very first stages of a project in order to maximize the socioeconomic spinoffs within the community of the project’s construction and operation as well as to identify mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures. Agreements with Indigenous peoples also take into account their values, their claimed and established rights and interests and the cultural and environmental issues they deem important. These agreements are also an opportunity to determine together with these communities the measures that would best suit their needs. These agreements include different mechanisms to promote local economic spinoffs, the following among others: • • • •

Priority hiring of local labor Establishment of regional economic spinoff committees Development of customized training in cooperation with community organizations Institution of contracting practices that encourage awarding of local contracts— including contract splitting, so that local contractors (often smaller than outside contractors) can handle them • Granting of different funds to Indigenous communities concerned to facilitate their adaptation to the changes caused by the project and contribute to their socioeconomic development These agreements16 ensure host regions a fair share of project spinoffs. The examples of agreements with Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities described below give an idea of the scope and content of these agreements.

Agreements with Indigenous communities Since the early 1970s, Hydro-Québec has signed nearly 50 agreements with Indigenous nations in Québec in connection with hydroelectricity generating and transmission projects (Appendix G). The first agreement that Hydro-Québec signed with Québec’s Indigenous peoples was the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA), executed in 1975. The parties to the JBNQA agreed on the need for ongoing dialogue between the Crees and Hydro-Québec so that the impacts of the project on the Cree and Inuit way of life could be determined and measures to mitigate these impacts could be applied. Under the JBNQA, the forum for this dialogue was a joint non-profit corporation called the La Grande Complex Remedial Works Corporation (SOTRAC, La Société des Travaux de correction du Complexe La Grande). Since that time, maintaining ongoing dialogue with Indigenous stakeholders through joint forums has been an integral part of Hydro-Québec practice not only in the Baie-James region covered by the JBNQA but also south of it (see Appendix G).

16. Amounts associated with financial commitments in most of these agreements are not public.

6-68

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Right from the design phase of its projects, Hydro-Québec engages in a process of exchange and dialogue with Indigenous communities to ensure their expectations and concerns are taken into account. If necessary, the exchanges lead to negotiations from which stem agreements that meet various objectives such as: • To promote favorable reception of the project by host communities • To ensure that Indigenous communities benefit from economic spinoffs and to promote their participation in environmental studies and monitoring • To minimize project impacts on the traditional way of life of Indigenous communities so they can continue the hunting, fishing and trapping activities crucial to their subsistence and as a supply of food • To build long-term relations (Hydro-Québec 2017d). It is based on this approach that Hydro-Québec signed two agreements with the Crees in connection with the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex at the turn of the millennium: the Nadoshtin Agreement and the Boumhounan Agreement. The Nadoshtin Agreement provided a framework for the construction and operation of the Eastmain-1 generating station and its reservoir. The agreement included implementation of a variety of remedial and mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the project on the Cree communities affected, including incentives making it possible for Crees wanting to work on project-related studies or project construction to meet hiring requirements. Provisions were made for different funds for remedial and mitigation measures and for a target amount for negotiation of contracts with the Crees, an amount that was not only reached but surpassed (Hydro-Québec 2002). The spinoffs from this agreement exceeded the expectations of the parties concerned. Between 2002 and 2007, Cree labor accounted on average for 12% of the monthly labor force working on construction of the Eastmain-1 project, that is, an average of 124 Cree workers. Between 2002 and 2005, 1,039 different Cree community members spent time at the jobsite: 835 men and 204 women. Furthermore, Crees executed 66 contracts, their combined value equivalent to 31% of the value of all contracts awarded. The Boumhounan Agreement provided a framework for the execution of the Eastmain-1-A/Sarcelle/Rupert project. Among other things, it enabled the Crees to participate in project-related studies and work and to be involved in the feasibility stage and the permitting process for construction of the project. Like the Nadoshtin Agreement, this agreement provided for diverse environmental, remedial and mitigation measures to reduce project impacts on the Cree communities concerned. For example, Hydro-Québec built a new drinking water treatment plant equipped with cutting-edge technology for the Waskaganish community (located at the mouth of the Rivière Rupert). This plant would meet growth in the community’s drinking water needs for the next 30 years. The plant was built by a Cree company and has been operated by the Waskaganish community since 2011. Significant funds were allocated for the community and land users to participate in the impact studies and to adapt to the changes caused by the project. A target amount was also allocated under the agreement for negotiation of contracts with the Crees (Hydro-Québec 2002). Between 2007 and 2011, a monthly average of 183 Crees were working on the jobsites, constituting about 6% of the total labor force on the jobsite. Some 37 Cree companies and independent workers participated in executing 316 contracts, surpassing the spinoff commitments undertaken in the Boumhounan Agreement. All of which is to say that between 2002 and 2011, the Nadoshtin and Boumhounan agreements resulted in the creation of hundreds of jobs for the Crees and significant spinoffs in the form of contracts for dozens of Cree enterprises and independent workers (Baba et al. 2016). These spinoffs are equivalent to almost 20% of the total cost of building the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex (about $7 billion). With the different agreements concluded with Hydro-Québec and government authorities, the Cree Nation gained confidence and became organized. It took charge of its own socioeconomic development (Baba et al. 2016). The Crees gained experience at the bargaining table and are now better prepared to negotiate with developers of other development projects—in the forestry and mining industries, for example. The establishment of political structures stemming from the JBNQA also fostered improvement in the quality of life of the Crees. In fact, compared to other groups of Status Indians living on reserves, the Crees have experienced a greater improvement in socioeconomic indicators and a higher level of preservation of their traditional pursuits (Tremblay 2009).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-69

All of the mechanisms introduced under the agreements with Hydro-Québec help to increase the experience and employability of workers from the communities where the company’s projects are located, Indigenous workers in particular. Their participation in Hydro-Québec projects renders them qualified for other jobs. A survey of Cree workers at the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex, for example, showed that 81% found new work when the project was completed, mainly in construction, maintenance or food service. Note that specific programs were introduced under the JBNQA and subsequent agreements to foster long-term employment and training of the Crees of the Baie-James region. For example, from 2003 through 2019, the Cree Employment Agreement enabled 138 Crees to obtain diplomas from recognized educational institutions in four skilled trades related to operation of the La Grande complex. In addition, 122 Crees were hired by Hydro-Québec as permanent employees. In September 2019, 93 of these employees were still working for Hydro-Québec. The others had quit for personal reasons. Furthermore, Hydro-Québec grants funds to concerned Cree communities and land users so generations to come will be able to deal with the changes caused by its projects for as long as the company continues to operate its facilities in the Baie-James region. These are examples of concrete and long-lasting spinoffs. Agreements have also been concluded with the Innus of the Côte-Nord. For example, for the construction work alone on the Romaine complex (from 2009 to 2022), Hydro-Québec signed three Impact and Benefit Agreements with four Côte-Nord Innu communities involving tens of millions of dollars. Thanks to the relations Hydro-Québec has built in the Indigenous communities, the company can today rely on the expertise of Indigenous companies active in different sectors of economic activity: • • • •

The Cree Construction and Development Company, among the largest construction companies in Québec Gestion ADC, which provides catering and janitorial services at the La Grande complex Air Inuit and Air Creebec, which transport Hydro-Québec employees to the Baie-James region and the Côte-Nord Kepa Transport, which provides transport services in the Baie-James region as well in the rest of Québec, Ontario and western Canada • The Société des entreprises innues d’Ekuanitshit (SEIE), which provides general excavation, catering, janitorial and technical maintenance services at the work camps of the Romaine complex project (Hydro-Québec 2018b) In addition, in recent years, more and more Indigenous companies specializing in the environment have been created and been awarded contracts with Hydro-Québec. Today, Hydro-Québec views itself as a partner with Indigenous communities, its goal to position itself as a leader in the field of relations with Indigenous peoples. To this end, it became a member of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (CCAB) in December 2018 and is committed to the CCAB’s Progressive Aboriginal Relations (PAR) certification program. As a PAR-committed organization, Hydro-Québec has undertaken to reflect on its ways of doing things in a continued effort to do the following: • • • •

Provide a work environment that is open and receptive to Indigenous employees Be an excellent business partner for Indigenous companies Meet the highest expectations of its Indigenous customers as a supplier of electricity Take care to harmonize its facilities and activities with Indigenous communities

For Hydro-Québec, PAR certification is an opportunity to continue to improve its approach and practices with respect to Indigenous peoples. The company’s collaborative approach with Indigenous communities has been formalized through the adoption of a policy on Indigenous relations.

6-70

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Agreements with non-Indigenous communities With the development of agreements with non-Indigenous communities, the content of which improved with time, the portion of the economic spinoffs that remained in host regions increased. For example, during the construction phase for the Sainte-Marguerite-3 project (on the Côte-Nord), which began in 1994, more than 70% of the labor power was from the host region, compared to about 50% for the Manic-Outardes complex, built more than two decades earlier, between 1959 and 1978 (Les Consultants Dominique Égré Inc. 2004). Agreements with host communities contribute to local activity and vitality by promoting investment in community infrastructure. For example, thanks to an agreement concluded with Hydro-Québec for the Eastmain-1-A/Sarcelle/ Rupert project, the Baie-James municipality (now the municipality of Eeyou Istchee Baie-James) today benefits from a fund it can use to invest in initiatives (sports, cultural or tourism projects) likely to benefit the region’s current population and its future generations or improve the municipal infrastructure. For the Romaine complex project, Hydro-Québec signed an agreement in 2008 with the regional county municipality (MRC) of Minganie that provided for creation of several funds to support economic, recreational/ tourism, social and cultural projects on the MRC’s territory. Amounts paid out since 2008 have mainly been used to improve or add to infrastructure and facilities. They have been used, for example, to build a concert hall, an aquatic complex and a new fire station in Havre-Saint-Pierre (Hydro-Québec 2018a). We must also mention the positive impact of Hydro-Québec’s decision to establish the administrative center for the Romaine complex in the small town of Havre-Saint-Pierre, a decision which has enabled a region facing persistent out-migration to attract or maintain 50 families.

Sculpture to commemorate the Cree presence on a site on the perimeter of Paix des Braves reservoir

Air transportation of Hydro-Québec and SEBJ workers by Air Creebec

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-71

6.7.3 How does Hydro-Québec take the unique nature of Indigenous populations into account in the environmental review process for its projects? SUMMARY Hydro-Québec pays particular attention to Indigenous communities in the environmental review process for its hydropower projects. In fact, the review process includes assessment of the social impacts on Indigenous communities and incorporates consultation and participation of the Indigenous communities. From the project planning stage, Hydro-Québec sets up an information and consultation process tailored to these communities. They are given the information necessary to understand the project and the alterations to the land—sometimes in their native language, depending on the needs expressed. Their feedback and concerns are gathered and incorporated in the environmental studies to improve the project and minimize its impacts. When carrying out impact assessments, considerable effort is devoted to evaluating the impact on Indigenous communities. This involves numerous information gathering activities to get a better understanding of the communities, their values, their established or claimed rights and interests, and their use of the land and its resources. These activities can take the form of group interviews or workshops with land users or representatives of social groups. The in-depth portrait obtained helps Hydro-Québec to clearly identify sensitive environment components and possible project impacts on the communities concerned and to design mitigation measures accordingly. Mitigation measures are above all designed to promote continuation of traditional hunting and fishing activities. More generally, the goal is for Indigenous communities to benefit from the hydropower development not only during the planning and construction phases but also during the operation phase.

Cree camp in the Baie-James region (trapline R11)

6-72

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DETAILED ANSWER As mentioned, Indigenous peoples constitute a substantial portion of the population in northern Québec, where the large hydropower complexes are located (see Section 3.5). They constitute a particularly significant portion of the population in the Baie-James region. Hydro-Québec’s approach to its relations with the Indigenous communities is to take into consideration their values, their culture and their claimed or established rights and interests. Building such relationships takes time and human resources (Alliman 2014). Hydro-Québec has a team of advisors with training in a wide variety of fields, including biology, anthropology, law and geography, who work daily to establish and maintain good relations with Indigenous peoples across Québec. Some have been doing this for more than 30 years. These specialists ensure that Hydro-Québec is present at all times for these communities—above and beyond the construction of hydropower projects—and is taking part in an ongoing conversation with them. For its hydroelectric development projects, this team negotiates agreements that promote social acceptability and ensures implementation and follow-up of these agreements (Hydro-Québec 2018b). Considering Indigenous peoples in the environmental assessment of a hydropower project happens on two levels: first when the social impacts on Indigenous communities are assessed (in Québec, this is an integral part of the environmental assessment and review process); and second in a consultation and participation process designed for the Indigenous communities. Right from a project’s planning stage, Hydro-Québec establishes an information and consultation process with the Indigenous communities concerned through joint committees. Information necessary to understand the project and the alterations to the land is disseminated throughout the communities concerned, via public meetings and information sessions, among other ways. These meetings also provide an opportunity for Hydro-Québec to gather feedback and hear community concerns, which are then incorporated in the impact assessment process and help to improve the project and minimize its impacts on the communities. As needed, exchanges are translated into the language spoken in the community so that all participants can take part in the discussions.

Drying beaver pelts (Baie-James region)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-73

In the impact studies stage, Hydro-Québec devotes considerable effort to assessing the impact on the human environment and, incidentally, on the Indigenous communities and their practices. In this respect, Hydro-Québec relies on the expertise of advisors trained in anthropology, sociology and human geography who know how to bring the methods and ethics of the social sciences to environmental analysis. This involves, first and foremost, a good knowledge of the main interests and values of each of the communities affected by the project. These efforts include the following: • Consulting archival material and databases concerning Indigenous peoples (for example, ATRIS,17 Statistics Canada, Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones du Québec, band councils, etc.) • Holding numerous information and discussion meetings • Holding workshops on particular concerns with land users and representatives of communities and social groups • Conducting individual or group interviews with land users The establishment of joint committees offers communities an ethical, participatory approach. From the information gathered, detailed portraits of the communities are obtained, notably concerning the following: • • • •

The history of their land occupation Their demographic and socioeconomic profiles Their governance (political institutions, community administration, etc.) Their use of the land and its resources (hunting and fishing periods and sites, the location of camps, means of land access in winter and summer, navigation conditions, snowmobiling conditions, etc.)

These portraits make it possible for Hydro-Québec to clearly identify valued land uses and sensitive environmental components so that possible project impacts can be determined and satisfactory measures developed to mitigate the scope of negative impacts or maximize positive impacts. Once again, working with a joint committee ensures participation of the Indigenous communities at these stages. The major role played by joint committees in promoting participation of Indigenous communities goes beyond assessment of social impacts. These committees help in establishing mechanisms that make it possible for Indigenous communities to be involved in all environmental studies. The communities participate not only in the data gathering stage in the field but also in the analysis, ensuring the best use is made of Indigenous ecological knowledge. Such knowledge has helped to improve our scientific knowledge of the physical and biological components of the environment. It is also used to guide our data-gathering efforts in the field (Box 6-7-3), improve our impact assessments and help in selecting the most appropriate mitigation and compensation measures. The Eastmain-1 generating station and the Paix des Braves reservoir, as well as the Eastmain-1-A / Sarcelle / Rupert project (built between 2007 and 2013), are more recent examples of Hydro-Québec’s approach to Indigenous peoples. Even before construction began on these projects, Hydro-Québec worked in cooperation with 34 tallymen and the band councils of six Cree communities. Thanks to the involvement of the tallymen, each in charge of the trapping of fur-bearing animals on a particular tract of land, it was possible to document Cree land use, gather traditional knowledge and optimize the project based on traditional activities. To develop and maintain this collaboration, Hydro-Québec set up several committees. One of these, the monitoring committee, on which representatives of Hydro-Québec and of the Cree communities sat, played an especially important role in integrating traditional knowledge and the environmental concerns of the Crees in the project (Alliman 2014).

17. ATRIS: Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System

6-74

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Different means of communication were used to inform the Cree population about the project. A radio show, Hydlo & Friends, was broadcast monthly by the James Bay Cree Communications Society (JBCCS), a Cree language radio broadcaster. In addition, advertorials were included in the magazine The Nation, and a calendar showing the monitoring activities was distributed in the communities. Also, a website, Hydlo and Friends Online, was created especially for the Crees. A variety of short videos in which many Crees take part can be viewed on this website, with reportage on environment studies in the Cree language (Consortium Génivar-Waska 2019). Appendix H includes an example of the types of publications available on the website. As use of the land and its resources plays a key role in the cultural identity of Indigenous communities and in the intergenerational transmission of their knowledge, mitigation measures are instituted to protect natural habitats and promote the pursuit of hunting, fishing, trapping and other traditional activities on ancestral lands. Among these measures are the following: • Implementation of ecological instream flow regimes and construction of weirs to maintain water level and human usages (navigation, hunting, fishing, etc.) in the reduced-flow river stretches. These measures are also designed to protect fish habitats, maintain productive riparian environments and reduce the risks of erosion • Development of fishing sites and ponds for waterfowl hunting • Relocation of camps or community infrastructure affected by the project • Creation of joint committees to manage the hunting and fishing activities of workers during the construction work, the goal to limit disturbance and overfishing in lakes and streams valued by Indigenous communities • Construction of boat ramps and access roads to certain parts of the territory • Archaeological digs and Indigenous heritage enhancement • Development of sites suitable for traditional fishing and preservation of habitats of valued fish species • Creation of funds to promote continuation of traditional pursuits, which can be used, among other things, to set up and maintain camps and snowmobile trails The ultimate goal of these measures is to ensure that the Indigenous communities can use the land as much, if not more, than before project construction and to contribute to the transmission of knowledge and to cultural continuity within these communities (Hydro-Québec 2018b). They are also meant to ensure that the Indigenous communities will benefit from the presence of the hydroelectric facilities, not only during the planning and construction phases of the projects but also during the operation phase. The studies of Indigenous land use are not limited to the projects’ construction phases but continue after the reservoirs have been impounded. They make it possible to document not only the continuity of practices in areas unaffected by projects but also the adaptation of certain practices to the new environmental conditions in areas affected by a project (Castonguay et al. 2017).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-75

Box 6-7-3 Taking into account traditional knowledge in collecting information For the Romaine complex project, Hydro-Québec conducted a study of Indigenous land use. In the investigation of the collection of medicinal plants along stretches of the Rivière Romaine that would be flooded, the women of the Ekuanitshit Innu community (the women are the knowledge-holders with respect to this activity) suggested a project: a family plant gathering activity that would be confidential. Hydro-Québec funded the project. The plant gathering activity took place over a four-year period, during which time Hydro-Québec was able to gain a much better knowledge of the riparian flora of the Rivière Romaine. The project was also an opportunity for participants to distribute medicinal plants harvested within the community and to spend time along river stretches that would soon become a reservoir. The project proved an especially important cultural and spiritual experience for the Innu, and a report on it was presented by its organizer at a scientific conference (Lavoie and Mestokosho 2017). The Innu land use study began in 2009 and is to continue until 2024. Innu women collecting medicinal plants along the Rivière Romaine

6.7.4 Is it possible to pursue recreational and tourism activities on Hydro-Québec reservoirs used for hydropower generation? SUMMARY Almost all of the more than one hundred reservoirs and bodies of water managed by Hydro-Québec are used for recreation and tourism, albeit to a lesser extent in northern Québec. Hydro-Québec takes these activities into consideration in managing reservoir water levels. As required, it disseminates information on how it manages its facilities to ensure the safe use of its reservoirs. In addition, the company takes measures to showcase its reservoirs, including developing infrastructure to promote recreation and tourism.

DETAILED ANSWER Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs cover a total area of approximately 20,000 km2. Their average size is about 114 km2, with the exception of the five large reservoirs in the La Grande complex, which cover a total of 11,355 km2. In addition to electricity generation, the reservoirs and their related structures and facilities are also used for recreational activities (Les Consultants Dominique Égré Inc. 2004). Note that this is more the case in southern Québec than in the north. The southern reservoirs are located closer to large urban centers and in a milder climate zone, which makes it easier to develop their recreational potential.

6-76

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In cooperation with regional tourism agencies, Hydro-Québec works to inform the public about its hydropower developments and their recreational infrastructure and services, namely: • Water access and boat ramps • Water sports such as pleasure boating, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, sailing, windsurfing, swimming, jet skiing, cruising and diving • Small game, big game and waterfowl hunting • Fishing and ice fishing • Fur trapping • Recreational ATV trails, snowmobiling, cycling, dogsledding and hiking In regard to wildlife activities, for example, there are over a hundred outfitters scattered over 26 reservoirs, the largest concentrations being on Baskatong reservoir in the northern Outaouais region and Gouin reservoir in Haute-Mauricie (GDG Conseil Inc. 2001).

Boat ramp and floating dock, Waskaganish (Baie-James)

ATV trail in Baie-James territory

Spur with observation platforms and footpath, Waskaganish (Baie-James)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-77

Since recreational activities are a major source of revenue for the regions where they are practiced, Hydro-Québec occasionally receives requests from the communities to adapt its reservoir management to certain activities (such as canoe/kayak competitions, fishing, boating, etc.). The company addresses these requests through agreements designed to strike a balance between its electricity generation needs and those of land users. Hydro-Québec adheres to stringent operating regulations that allow it to safely set minimum and maximum reservoir levels. As required, it provides rights holders and land users with information about its water management operations. It should be noted that Hydro-Québec has produced an inventory of sensitive elements in the areas around most of its reservoirs, which enables it to ascertain how they are affected by increases or drops in water level. For over 20 years, Hydro-Québec has sought to showcase the heritage of its structures and facilities and promote the various uses of its reservoirs. The lessons it has learned from developing recreation and tourism activities in its older reservoirs have proved invaluable to Hydro-Québec in planning new hydropower projects. The company now incorporates plans for recreation and tourism infrastructure (such as the construction of boat ramps and portage trails) right from the project design phase, along with appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures designed to encourage the use of its reservoirs for recreation and tourism. Hydro-Québec’s plans for the Romaine complex, which began construction in 2009 and is scheduled for completion in 2022, included the following: • Construction of boat ramps along the shores of each of the complex’s four reservoirs to provide user access. • Enhancement of two fish species—lake trout and ouananiche (landlocked salmon)—in some reservoirs (particularly through stocking and habitat development) to improve the quality of sport fishing. • Development of portage trails with signage to enable canoeists and kayakers to get past the structures and facilities in certain stretches of the Rivière Romaine. • Clearing of certain sections of reservoir shoreline (before impoundment) to improve navigation conditions after impoundment. • Construction of bridges to allow snowmobilers to cross the Rivière Romaine slightly downstream of the first dam. • Development of a snowmobile parking area near the generating station farthest downstream.

Snowmobile bridge at KP 30.5 of Rivière Romaine (distant view)

Snowmobile bridge at KP 30.5 of Rivière Romaine (close-up)

6-78

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

A navigation chart was developed to encourage use of the new Paix des Braves reservoir (Eastmain-1 hydroelectric development). The chart showed the locations of boat ramps, rest areas and scenic lookouts, as well as the cleared sections of the reservoir. Navigation charts were also produced for the Rupert diversion bays (forebay and tailbay) and signs were erected to help boaters navigate the new water body. The effectiveness of the mitigation measures implemented for Hydro-Québec projects is evaluated through environmental monitoring programs that vary in duration, depending on the component being assessed, the impacts anticipated and the mitigation measure being applied. Where appropriate, corrective measures or adjustments to the flow and water-level management method may be proposed as a result of these monitoring programs. Note that Hydro-Québec’s free guided tours of its generating stations and dams attract some 140,000 visitors every summer. Some Hydro-Québec facilities, including the Robert-Bourassa development in Baie-James and Daniel-Johnson dam and Manic-5 generating station in the Côte-Nord region, are major tourist attractions in their respective regions.

6.7.5 What measures has Hydro-Québec put in place to mitigate the impact of construction and operation of large hydroelectric developments on the landscape? SUMMARY Large hydropower projects result in changes to the landscape, due to the impoundment of reservoirs and the presence of permanent or temporary infrastructure such as generating stations, dams, dikes, access roads, workcamps and Hydro-Québec employees’ permanent residences. The various measures Hydro-Québec implements to mitigate the visual impact of these structures and facilities include planting disturbed sites and partially clearing future reservoir shorelines. Reservoirs are new water bodies with an intrinsic, scenic value that is often comparable to that of surrounding natural lakes. Hydro-Québec implements measures to enhance the visual quality of these new landscapes and pays special attention to the architectural qualities of built elements in a view to integrating them as harmoniously as possible into the environment. In addition, for a number of years, the company has participated in reflection and analysis initiatives relating to the landscape issue and has helped develop the most innovative practices in the field.

DETAILED ANSWER Hydro-Québec’s power generation activities often call for actions that may have significant repercussions on the landscape (Paquette et al. 2008). Some of the changes are temporary, as they relate to the construction sites required to build the facilities, while others are more permanent, since they stem from the flooding of large areas of land and the presence of the infrastructure needed to produce energy (i.e., generating stations, dams, dikes, etc.). The result is a loss of natural landscape components such as waterfalls, valleys, rivers and wetlands. However, reservoirs constitute new water bodies with an intrinsic, scenic value comparable to that of many of the surrounding lakes. Reservoirs often differ from lakes by virtue of their greater size and exceptional waterpower (Hydro-Québec Production 2007c). Furthermore, the waterfalls created by some facilities add to the landscape with the spectacular spray they produce due to their height. In this regard, Hydro-Québec develops measures designed to highlight the newly created landscapes. For the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex, for example, the various infrastructure developed in the six Cree communities concerned included four interpretation sites, three observation areas, two scenic lookouts, two vantage points, a picnic area and a hiking trail (Consortium Waska-Génivar 2019).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-79

For a long time now, the company has been systematically applying various measures designed to encourage revegetation after construction. For example, after the La Grande complex in the Baie-James region was completed in the 1970s, a meticulous cleanup was undertaken of all the work areas used, which involved leveling the ground, consolidating steep slopes and loosening the soil to facilitate regrowth of the ground cover. Seeding was also carried out and more than 11 million trees and shrubs were planted (Hayeur 2001). As part of the more recent Romaine complex project, construction of which began in 2009, Hydro-Québec committed to planting at least 2,500 seedlings per hectare in an effort to revegetate the areas disturbed by the work. In concrete terms, this meant that 647,452 trees or shrubs were planted over an area of more than 250 ha in 2018 (Hydro-Québec 2019a). Following the commissioning of its power generating facilities, Hydro-Québec carries out environmental monitoring to see whether the measures it has applied to facilitate regrowth of the ground cover have proven effective and whether any adjustments are necessary. In the case of the Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert complex, the company conducted a follow-up study of the landscape in collaboration with Indigenous land users to evaluate changes in the banks of the Rivière Rupert after diversion. Since observations showed that some of the seeded sections were not recovering as anticipated, additional seeding was carried out to remedy the situation. It should also be noted that certain hydraulic structures are of heritage or symbolic interest and thus add historical and cultural value to the landscape. Through its Our Social Role policy, Hydro-Québec has undertaken to inventory, protect and highlight its vast heritage, which consists not only of sites, structures, facilities, buildings and equipment, but also of expertise. Hydro-Québec’s facilities are valued as tourist attractions in the regions in which they are located. The free guided tours the company offers of its facilities, dams and generating stations attract approximately 140,000 visitors every year. Hydro-Québec has focused on the landscape issue for a number of years. The company has always tried to blend its projects into the built and natural heritage as harmoniously as possible (Hydro-Québec 2019b). In 1996, it helped establish the Université de Montréal’s Chaire en paysage et environnement [Chair on Landscape and Environment], the only research group in Québec to specialize in this field. The company is still involved in the academic chair’s work as a project partner. Along with the experience of Hydro-Québec’s landscape specialists and the many landscape-related think-tank sessions the company has held since the 1970s, these research efforts have resulted in the development of a series of measures designed to prevent, mitigate, correct or compensate for adverse effects on the landscape from construction and the presence of hydropower infrastructure (Paquette et al. 2008). In brief, hydropower structures and facilities modify the landscape. While some impacts can be mitigated, it would be impossible to reduce them all. Hydro-Québec makes every effort to enhance the new landscapes and ensure they are harmoniously integrated to create new visual landmarks and new types of man-made landscapes (Hydro-Québec 2019b).

6-80

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6.8 MERCURY 6.8.1 How is mercury released in reservoirs and what are its effects on aquatic organisms? SUMMARY The release of mercury in reservoirs has been studied extensively for decades in Québec and in other parts of the world. Mercury may occur naturally in vegetation, bedrock and soil. Fallout from anthropogenic atmospheric pollution (e.g., coal combustion) and volcanic eruptions adds to mercury levels on land and in water bodies. Reservoirs do not add to pre-existing mercury pools. After impoundment, inorganic mercury is transformed into organic methylmercury, which is more readily assimilated by aquatic organisms (increased bioavailability). Mercury concentrations in organisms increase with trophic levels and culminate in predatory fish. In HydroQuébec reservoirs, mercury concentrations in fish generally increase over several years after flooding and then slowly return to values equivalent to natural levels 10 to 35 years after impoundment. Although concentrations in fish in Hydro-Québec reservoirs typically peak at values 2 to 8 times those of found in natural water bodies, no adverse effects on fish abundance, growth or reproduction have been observed in Québec reservoirs. It should be further noted that no case of mercury toxicity resulting from the consumption of fish from reservoirs has ever been reported to Hydro-Québec.

DETAILED ANSWER The release of mercury in reservoirs Mercury occurs naturally in elemental form in vegetation, as well as in soil and bedrock. In addition, a significant part of the mercury found in the environment originates from atmospheric pollution (mostly from fossil fuel combustion) and volcanic eruptions (Health Canada 2007). Reservoir impoundment does not cause an increase in the amount of mercury in the environment. Existing mercury is rather released from soil and vegetation and partly transformed into methylmercury, mostly through a bacterial process. The methylation of mercury is a result of natural bacterial decomposition of flooded organic material (Figure 6-15). Once transformed into methylmercury, mercury is much more available for uptake by aquatic organisms. In most fish species, mercury levels in tissues increase (bioaccumulation) over the organism’s life. Similarly, mercury concentrations increase with trophic levels (bioamplification), i.e., from zooplankton to benthic invertebrates (Tremblay, Cloutier et al. 1998; Tremblay, Lucotte et al. 1998) to prey fish and piscivorous fish species (Bilodeau et al. 2017). The presence of methylmercury in fish and fish predators is taken very seriously by Hydro-Québec in its hydropower projects, because of the potential health risks to sport and subsistence fishers (Section 6.8.2). Yet, no case of mercury toxicity resulting from the consumption of fish from reservoirs by sport or subsistence fishers has ever been reported to Hydro-Québec. Since the late 1970s, Hydro-Québec has been making every effort to understand this phenomenon and predict as accurately as possible its evolution over time in existing and future reservoirs as accurately as possible.

Environmental monitoring of mercury in Hydro-Québec reservoirs Over a period of 35 years (1978–2012), Hydro-Québec, in concert with the Cree through the Mercury Agreement (1986), conducted an extensive program to monitor mercury levels in fish in seven reservoirs in the La Grande complex. The program, which involved analyzing more than 37,000 individual fish of three piscivorous species (northern pike, walleye and lake trout) and two non-piscivorous species (lake whitefish and longnose sucker), was undoubtedly one of the most extensive fish mercury monitoring programs ever conducted. Its objectives were to determine the extent and duration of elevated mercury levels in fish (Verdon et al. 1991; Lucotte et al. 1999; Schetagne and Therrien 2013), as well as to provide public health agencies with the necessary data to properly manage the health risks related to fish consumption by local subsistence and sport fishers (Girard et al. 1996; Chevalier et al. 1997). Such health risk management, which is implemented for all recent Hydro-Québec reservoirs, is achieved by issuing fish consumption advisories (in collaboration with local public health agencies) based on mercury levels in consumption-size fish, thus enabling consumers to enjoy the health benefits of eating fish while ensuring safe levels of mercury exposure (Schetagne et al. 2005). For example, the effectiveness of these advisories was shown by a study conducted with local sport and subsistence fish consumers before and after impoundment of Saint-Marguerite reservoir. The study showed no post-impoundment increase in mercury exposure, despite increases in fish mercury levels comparable to those in La Grande complex reservoirs. QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-81

Figure 6-15 – Mercury cycle following impoundment of a reservoir

It should be noted that various processes other than the creation of hydroelectric reservoirs may also cause an increase in fish mercury levels, including coal burning, waste incineration, effluents from wastewater treatment plants, metal smelting and run-of-river hydroelectric projects. In this context, fish consumption advisories concerning mercury and other contaminants are regularly issued and updated in Canada, the United States and other countries (for example, see U.S. EPA18 and Health Canada19 ). Hydro-Québec also participated in research programs with scientific and medical institutions to better understand and predict the evolution of mercury in reservoirs and its effects on wildlife and human health (Box 6-8-1). These studies have led to the publication of several scientific articles, a monograph, and numerous presentations at scientific conferences. The monograph on mercury (Lucotte et al. 1999), in the form of 14 peer-reviewed articles, presents a comprehensive analysis of the sources and fate of mercury in natural environments and reservoirs in northern Québec.

18. https://www.epa.gov/mercury/guidelines-eating-fish-contain-mercury 19. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/chemical-contaminants/environmental-contaminants/ mercury/mercury-fish.html

6-82

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Box 6-8-1 Hydro-Québec research program on mercury Since the late 1970s, Hydro-Québec has been studying the mercury phenomenon in both natural lakes and environments modified by hydroelectric development. As part of its environmental monitoring network at the La Grande complex, Hydro-Québec’s research was pursued through a unique institutional mercury research program, the activities of which were carried out intensively in collaboration with the Crees from 1977 to 2012. During this period, more than 37,000 measurements of fish mercury levels were taken in the La Grande complex (Baie-James region) alone. This institutional program was designed and carried out in concert with the Crees to meet the needs of the company and to address issues important to the Crees (Section 6.8.2). The overall objectives of this program were to better understand the mechanisms responsible for increasing mercury levels in fish in hydropower reservoirs and to identify health risks, not only to humans, but also to piscivorous fish, birds and mammals. This program, the only one of its kind in the world, has led to major scientific advances that are now being applied to Hydro-Québec hydropower projects. To carry out the research program, Hydro-Québec collaborated with several partners, including Université du Québec à Montréal (study on the fate of mercury in natural and modified environments in northern Québec), Université de Sherbrooke (studies on modeling mercury in fish in hydroelectric reservoirs), the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Université de Montréal (clinical study on the effects of mercury exposure on mink), the Canadian Wildlife Service (study on the effects of mercury on the reproductive success of osprey), the Freshwater Institute of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (study of the rate of mercury methylation in experimental reservoirs), the Public Health Research Unit of the Centre hospitalier universitaire [university hospital] of Université Laval (on the development of fish consumption guides) and the Cree Board of Health and Social Services of James Bay (on the production of a fish nutrition guide for the Baie-James region). In concrete terms, this research program has clearly identified the extent, duration and main mechanisms responsible for the increase in fish mercury concentrations in reservoirs. It has also: (i) demonstrated that this increase does not endanger fish, bird or mammal populations that eat fish; (ii) allowed for the development of a model for predicting the evolution of mercury in future reservoirs; (iii) helped develop compensation measures; and (iv) identified risks and health benefits associated with fish consumption.

Results from this monitoring program showed that concentrations in fish generally peak after 4 to 11 years in non-piscivorous fish and after 9 to 14 years in piscivorous species (Figure 6-16, Bilodeau et al. 2017). During this period, fish mercury levels reached values 2 to 8 times those measured in the same fish species in natural lakes. The maximum mercury concentrations observed in non-piscivorous fish species ranged from 0.33 to 0.72 mg/kg of total mercury, while those in piscivorous species were significantly higher, at 1.65 to 4.66 mg/kg (Schetagne and Therrien 2013). After an initial increase, fish mercury levels begin to go back down and gradually return to natural values 10 to 35 years after impoundment (Figure 6-16). Although the increase in fish mercury levels in reservoirs is an extended phenomenon, it is nonetheless temporary, due to the depletion of readily decomposable flooded material (soil and the green parts of vegetation), which fuels the bacterial transformation of inorganic mercury into methylmercury. As stated in Section 6.1.2, the subsequent decomposition of the wooded parts (shrub and tree trunks, branches and roots) is so slow that it does not play a significant role in the increase of mercury levels in fish.

Downstream of reservoirs Monitoring of mercury levels in fish at the La Grande complex also showed that mercury is exported downstream from reservoirs (mostly by plankton and small fish). Downstream fish mercury levels showed patterns of increase and subsequent decrease similar to those of upstream reservoir fish (Schetagne and Therrien 2013; Schetagne et al. 2000). Peak levels downstream were also usually similar to those measured in reservoir fish. However, for usually non-piscivorous species such as lake whitefish and longnose sucker, greater increases in mercury levels were often observed immediately downstream of reservoirs because of the consumption of small fish rendered vulnerable to predation following their entrainment through turbines or flow control structures (Brouard et al. 1994). This change in diet was only observed immediately downstream of generating stations with high water heads, where small fish were temporarily stunned by differences in water pressures while passing through turbines. QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-83

Environmental effects and management measures Methylmercury is known to have toxic effects on aquatic life at concentrations higher than those found in reservoirs, as shown in laboratory studies and in a few severe cases of industrial contamination. For example, fish mortality from methylmercury was observed at concentrations ranging from 6 to 20 mg/kg (Wiener and Spry 1996). Bilodeau et al. (2016) observed that no noticeable toxic effects of mercury on fish were detected in three large reservoirs in northern Québec, after some 20 years of monitoring. As stated in Section 6.4.3, fish health indicators, including fishing yields, fish growth, condition and recruitment actually increased temporarily after impoundment. These increases were likely due to concomitant increases in nutrients (also caused by the decomposition of flooded organic material) and their subsequent effects on primary (phytoplankton) and secondary (zooplankton) production, showing that increases in mercury concentrations had no adverse effects on populations of aquatic organisms at any trophic level, from plankton to fish. Given the importance of this issue for sport and subsistence fish consumers, mercury in fish has also been monitored in all Hydro-Québec hydropower projects involving the creation of reservoirs, including the EastmainSarcelle-Rupert and Romaine complexes, as well as the Sainte-Marguerite-3, Toulnustouc, Péribonka and LacRobertson hydroelectric facilities. These monitoring programs have consistently yielded similar results, i.e., that mercury levels gradually increase after impoundment and values peak earlier in non-piscivorous species than in piscivorous species before returning to levels equivalent to those in control lakes in the same area. Since the mid-1980s, Hydro-Québec has been developing and refining mathematical models to predict the evolution of the mercury content in fish (Hydro-Québec Production 2007c). A model based on the release of phosphorus in reservoirs was initially developed (Schetagne et al. 2003) and then gradually refined into a more complex and more detailed model (HQHG) that incorporated the main physical and biological processes involved in the production and bioaccumulation of methylmercury in reservoirs (Thérien 2005, 2006). Environmental monitoring has made it possible to verify the accuracy of this model and adjust it to better predict the increase of mercury concentrations in fish.

CONCLUSION The transformation of inorganic mercury into bioavailable methylmercury in reservoirs is a well-known phenomenon that has been studied for many decades. Results from a major mercury monitoring program showed that mercury concentrations in fish generally peak 4 to 11 years after the creation of new impoundments in non-piscivorous fish and 9 to 14 years in piscivorous species. During this period, levels in fish may attain values 2 to 8 times those of the same fish species in natural lakes. Concentrations then slowly return to natural levels within 35 years of impoundment. As mentioned in previous sections, the monitoring of fish populations in reservoirs showed that fishing yields either remained the same or increased, which indicates that mercury concentrations are not sufficient to have deleterious effects on aquatic organisms at the population level. As fish mercury represents a human health concern, Hydro-Québec has made concerted efforts to monitor mercury levels and develop predictive models of its evolution over time. Hydro-Québec has worked with local public health agencies to produce fish consumption guides to ensure that local sport and First Nations fishers may continue to profit from the health benefits of eating fish while ensuring that their mercury exposure remains well below safe standards (more information is provided in Section 6.8.2).

6-84

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-16 – Temporal evolution of total mercury concentrations at standardized lengths of main fish species in La Grande complex reservoirs

Source: Bilodeau et al. 2017.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-85

6.8.2 Does the increase in fish mercury in reservoirs put the health of nearby populations at risk? SUMMARY Mercury has been a priority issue for Hydro-Québec and public health authorities since the late 1970s, well before impoundment of the Baie-James reservoirs in northern Québec. In addition to conducting an intensive, corporate mercury research program from 1977 to 2012, Hydro-Québec signed back-to-back mercury agreements with the Cree communities and the Québec government in 1986 and 2002. Among other stipulations, these agreements provided for adequate mercury management with the Cree communities and made it possible to scientifically document the phenomenon’s most significant aspects. It is now a well-established fact that the creation of hydropower reservoirs causes a temporary increase in fish mercury, which reverts to normal levels 10 to 35 years after impoundment. There are currently no known measures to mitigate this phenomenon. Although the increase in fish mercury in reservoirs is well documented, there is no evidence to indicate that it has caused any significant increase in mercury exposure within the local populations concerned. As is the case with sport fishers, most cases of mercury exposure in the overall Québec population remain below the limits recommended by Health Canada. According to Hydro-Québec data, no cases of mercury poisoning have been recorded in sport or subsistence fishers in Québec as a result of eating fish from reservoirs.

DETAILED ANSWER In carrying out all its hydropower projects, Hydro-Québec monitors mercury levels in its reservoirs both before and after impoundment, for periods of up to 30 years after the facilities are built. Consumption guidelines adapted to each community are produced in collaboration with public health authorities. The guidelines provide fish consumption recommendations based on the species and catch location (see example in Appendix I ). Nutrition guides for the Baie-James, Côte-Nord, Mauricie and Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean regions are published on Hydro-Québec’s website.20 The recommendations are based on fish mercury levels anticipated during environmental impact assessments and validated by monitoring in the field. This approach enables consumers to continue to enjoy the health benefits of eating fish, while avoiding any mercury-related effects. For more than 30 years and in concert with regional public health authorities, Hydro-Québec has periodically and methodically monitored mercury exposure in large samples of populations potentially affected by hydropower projects. Mercury exposure in certain human populations was monitored whenever fish mercury levels in reservoirs were high. In some cases, it was even possible to compare pre- and post-impoundment mercury exposure in these populations. Monitoring was conducted by analyzing mercury levels in human hair (Dumont et al. 1998). Although the increase in fish mercury in reservoirs is well documented, no increase in exposure level has been observed in the populations concerned. In fact, the rate of mercury exposure in the Crees of the Baie-James territory significantly decreased, both during and after impoundment of the reservoirs. This decrease, which may appear paradoxical, is the result of a change in the diet of the Crees, who are eating less fish. This change, which began in the 1970s, is attributable to a number of factors, the main one being the Crees’ means of subsistence. Indeed, paid employment has increasingly become the norm (Imrie 1997), to the detriment of subsistence fishing. The fear of mercury contamination, a concern circulated throughout the Cree population and prevalent in the 1980s, may also have played a role in the decline in fishing. Since then, Hydro-Québec and the Grand Council of the Crees (through the signed mercury agreements) have worked to revive interest in local fisheries by subsidizing fishing in the territory’s natural lakes and encouraging the passing down of traditional Cree fishing knowledge from generation to generation. A survey conducted in 2010 revealed that 60% of Crees believed that eating fish from Eeyou Istchee had no adverse effect on health (Hydro-Québec and SEBJ 2013).

20. https://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/specialized-documentation/mercury.html

6-86

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In the case of Sainte-Marguerite 3 reservoir in the Côte-Nord region, no increase in mercury exposure was observed in the local populations after impoundment. This was true for the both the Innu and non-Indigenous populations concerned. In fact, a slight decrease was found in the Innu communities. In the context of the impact assessment conducted for the Romaine hydroelectric complex, construction of which began in 2008, an innovative health risk analysis method was developed at the request of Health Canada and the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de la Côte-Nord [north shore health and social services agency]. The approach consisted in measuring mercury exposure in local populations and identifying the main sources and levels of mercury in their diet prior to impoundment of the reservoirs. The local populations’ future exposure was calculated using the future levels in the mercury sources affected by the project (obtained by simulation model), according to various fish consumption scenarios and based on the populations’ stated intention to fish in the new reservoirs. The additional health risk for fish consumers was then assessed based on recognized thresholds for health effects. The results of the analysis, which was favorably received by Health Canada, show that the Romaine hydroelectric complex would not pose any additional health risk related to mercury. During the public hearings held for the project, Health Canada filed a paper in which experts concluded that future mercury exposure levels in local populations are not a health concern. Despite this low risk, Hydro-Québec will measure exposure levels in three local populations in the area of the Romaine complex in 2023 and 2030 to ascertain whether the forecasts are accurate and make corrections, if required. Although it is impossible for Hydro-Québec to prevent mercury from increasing in reservoirs, the company works to reduce the impact on public health by disseminating information on the risks associated with mercury exposure and the health benefits of eating fish. To do so, it develops communication tools adapted to the communities they are intended for, in collaboration with local public health agencies and representatives of the Indigenous communities concerned. As is the case for sport fishers, most cases of mercury exposure in the general population in Québec remain below the limits recommended by Health Canada. According to Hydro-Québec data, no cases of mercury poisoning have been recorded in sport or subsistence fishers in Québec after eating fish from reservoirs.

CONCLUSION Exposure to mercury in Québec populations, including Indigenous communities, is generally low. Furthermore, the increase in fish mercury due to the impoundment of reservoirs has not significantly affected the exposure of nearby populations. The risk to these populations from eating fish from reservoirs remains low, given the practices Hydro-Québec has implemented in collaboration with local public health agencies: i) monitoring changes in fish mercury levels over long periods, ii) monitoring exposure in communities through hair analysis, when required, iii) development and dissemination of communication tools adapted to local communities and iv) validation of the effectiveness of such tools.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-87

6.9 IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION 6.9.1 What measures does Hydro-Québec implement to limit the environmental impact from construction of its hydropower projects? SUMMARY During the construction phase of its projects, Hydro-Québec uses several methods to protect the environment. The company has developed a series of standard environmental clauses, which apply to the various stakeholders at its jobsites. In addition, environmental compliance monitoring teams are mobilized on a permanent basis to ensure the clauses are being applied and to identify cases of non-compliance as part of an ISO 14001 accredited program. Special mitigation measures may also be implemented to protect wildlife or plant species. Moreover, upon completion of a project, Hydro-Québec restores and revegetates the areas disturbed by construction to reduce the footprint of the work on the natural environment.

Eastmain workcamp with canals channeling clarified water in a bog in winter

DETAILED ANSWER Building hydropower projects requires large-scale construction sites, where work can extend over periods of three years or more. In Québec, projects are typically built in remote areas, which requires opening access roads and setting up temporary construction camps to house several hundred workers. The main work includes the following: • • • • • •

Clearing of access roads and work areas Partial clearing of reservoirs and recovery of merchantable timber Excavation and earthwork Operation of sand pits and quarries Manufacturing of concrete Work in water such as creating temporary diversion channels and building cofferdams, dams, spillways, dikes, water intakes and tailraces • Building generating stations and surge chambers

6-88

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Various related structures and facilities are also required, including: • • • •

Power lines to supply electricity to the jobsite and construction camp Fuel and explosives depots Drinking water and sewage treatment facilities Waste management facilities

The main potential effects on the environment during construction are temporary. They relate to atmospheric emissions (machinery exhaust and particles), soil erosion in cleared areas, input of suspended matter in rivers and streams, and contamination of the soil and water in the event of accidental fuel spills. Hydro-Québec ensures that a number of measures are implemented to protect the environment throughout its projects. As part of the impact assessments it carries out, the company identifies the mitigation measures it plans to put in place during the construction phase. The government approvals required for the various work may necessitate additional measures to reduce the impact on the environment. Under the ISO 14001 standard,21 Hydro-Québec implements an environmental compliance monitoring program, which includes a series of standard contractual environmental clauses that must be adhered to at all jobsites. In an additional effort to prevent impacts, the company ensures that contractors and workers are aware of the environmental protection measures being applied and what they involve. Lastly, as soon they are no longer required, the company dismantles the temporary structures and facilities (quarries, sand pits, etc.) and revegetates the work areas (temporary construction camps). Work monitoring includes ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and the standard environmental clauses, as well as with specific, environment-related obligations and undertakings. Monitoring begins with the incorporation of mitigation and other environmental protection measures into the plans and specifications and continues throughout all phases of a project. The environmental protection measures recommended by Hydro-Québec are an integral part of the contract conditions imposed on the companies it mandates to perform work. These companies are also obliged to: • Comply with Hydro-Québec’s environmental policies and directives. • Submit the plans of their jobsite facilities to Hydro-Québec so that it can verify their compliance with current environmental protection laws, regulations and directives. The standard environmental clauses apply to all large-scale work, structures and facilities that may have an impact on the environment and are subject to standards or regulations. These clauses, which may be combined with special conditions set out by Hydro-Québec based on the type of work to be done, are measures the company takes to ensure compliance with all current environmental legislation. As an example, the construction of the recent Romaine hydroelectric complex was subject to the standard environmental clauses (Hydro-Québec Production 2007f ). Compliance monitoring teams are always on site to verify that the environmental clauses are adhered to. Where a case of environmental non-compliance has been identified, Hydro-Québec notifies the contractor in writing. The notice of non-compliance sets out the nature of the violation, the corrective measures to be taken and the deadline for doing so. If the corrective measures are not applied in a satisfactory manner within the specified timeframe, Hydro-Québec may apply them itself or have them carried out by a third party, at the contractor’s expense.

21. ISO 14001 (International Organization for Standardization): This standard specifies the requirements relative to an environmental management system that may be used by an entity to improve its environmental performance. This standard is intended for use by entities that wish to systematically manage their environmental responsibilities and contributes to the environmental pillar of sustainable development.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

6-89

Outlet of the transfer tunnel to the Rupert tailbay and C4 canal (in construction)

Furthermore, construction sites are subject to spot inspections by the various government authorities concerned (i.e., Québec’s Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs and Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques [departments of forests, wildlife and parks and of the environment and the fight against climate change] and Fisheries and Oceans Canada), which monitor compliance with the environmental laws they are responsible for enforcing. Depending on the local issues to be addressed, special measures may be implemented to preserve wildlife and plant species. Such measures may include protecting raptor nests, installing perches and nesting platforms and stocking lakes with fish to mitigate the effects of recreational fishing by workers. Hydro-Québec also implements measures to ensure that its projects blend harmoniously into their host communities and contribute to local economic development as much as possible. Noteworthy examples of such measures include creating committees for local economic spinoffs and community relations, training and hiring local community members and publishing an annual report on the environmental activities carried out for each project.

CONCLUSION Hydropower project sites involve large-scale construction over a period of several years. Various environmental protection mechanisms are implemented, including the application of Hydro-Québec’s standard environmental clauses and the implementation of an ISO 14001 accredited environmental compliance monitoring program designed to prevent, identify and correct any instance of non-compliance. In addition, temporary work areas are restored as soon as they are no longer required, which helps reduce the footprint of the work on the natural environment.

6-90

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

CIRAIG Comparative Study and Analysis of Key Indicators 7.1 INTRODUCTION Few studies have evaluated and compared the environmental performance of the various energy generating technologies in any detail. The study Hydro-Québec considers the most comprehensive is the one conducted in 2014 by the International Reference Center for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services (CIRAIG previously known as the Interuniversity Research Center on the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services ). Established in 2001, the CIRAIG was created as a research group and center for expertise on life cycle thinking. It is recognized throughout the world for its work and initiatives, which are based on a strong scientific foundation. The center has almost two decades of applied experience. It supports industries, governments, organizations and consumers in their efforts to achieve sustainable development. The CIRAIG comparative study was based on life cycle assessment (LCA). The main advantage of this method is that it assesses the environmental impacts generated by most, if not all, stages of a product’s life cycle, from raw material extraction to energy production (in the case of energy generation technologies). Another feature of LCA is that it compares the overall environmental performance of the various products or services (e.g., the quantity of GHGs emitted per kWh produced), which is something few or no previous impact assessments for specific projects have done. This chapter presents the main results of the CIRAIG study, by focusing first on the brief description of renewable and non-renewable power generation technologies provided and subsequently on the comparison of their environmental performance.

7.2 OVERVIEW OF GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES The generating technologies covered in the CIRAIG study (2014) are divided into renewable (i.e., hydropower and marine, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy) and non-renewable (thermal sources including natural gas, coal, oil and nuclear power) options. Renewable energy is playing an increasingly significant role in the global energy mix (i.e., the various sources available for the distribution of electricity to consumers worldwide). In fact, the installed capacity for the production of renewable energy has more than doubled since 2000 (IRENA 2019) and now accounts for more than 30% of the world’s power generation. This installed capacity increased significantly in the United States over the last few years, reaching 264 GW in 2018 (Table 7-1), which represents an increase of 100% since 2000. Renewable energy sources now represent over 17% of the U.S. energy mix. Wind and solar generating technologies have experienced the greatest growth over the 2000–2018 period, their installed capacities having increased from 2,377 MW to 94,295 MW and from 176 MW to 51,450 MW, respectively (EIA 2019; IRENA 2019).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-1

Table 7-1 – Distribution of installed capacity of renewable energy technologies worldwide, in North America and in the United States – 2018 Technology

Installed Capacity (MW) Worldwide

Hydraulic

United States

1,293,127

52.3%

196,567

51.0%

103,034

39.0%

1,171,612

47.4%

177,313

46.0%

84,007

31.8%

120,983

4.9%

19,231

5.0%

19,027

7.2%

532

0.0%

—

0.0%

563,726

22.8%

111,986

29.0%

94,295

35.7%

Onshore wind power

540,370

21.9%

111,957

29.0%

94,266

35.7%

Offshore wind power

23,356

0.9%

0.0%

485,826

19.7%

57,118

14.8%

51,450

19.5%

480,357

19.4%

55,346

14.3%

49,692

18.8%

5,469

0.2%

1,772

0.5%

1,758

0.7%

115,730

4.7%

16,563

4.3%

12,948

4.9%

Solid biocombustibles and renewable waste

95,686

3.9%

13,713

3.6%

10,431

3.9%

• Bagasse (pulpy residue from sugar cane)

18,533

0.7%

865

0.2%

—

0.0%

• Renewable municipal waste

12,624

0.5%

1,156

0.3%

1,117

0.4%

• Other solid biofuels

64,529

2.6%

11,692

3.0%

9,314

3.5%

Liquid biofuels

2,352

0.1%

155

0.0%

155

0.1%

Biogas

17,692

0.7%

2,695

0.7%

2,362

0.9%

13,329

0.5%

3,496

0.9%

2,546

1.0%

2,471,438

100%

385,730

100%

264,273

100%

Hydropower Pumped storage Marine energy

Wind

Solar Photovoltaic solar power Concentrating solar thermal power

Bioenergy

Geothermal Total Percentage of worldwide renewable energy generation

Source: IRENA 2019.

7-2

North America

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

15.6%

10.7%

7.2.1 Renewable energy technologies Hydropower Hydroelectric generating stations generally have long service lives of at least 100 years. These facilities convert the kinetic energy of flowing water into mechanical energy, and then into electrical power. There are two types of generating stations in Hydro-Québec’s fleet: reservoir and run-of-river. Reservoir generating stations are supplied by water accumulated in an artificial lake created by a dam, occasionally along with additional retaining structures (dikes). This type of facility involves flooding land areas of more or less substantial size. The advantage of a reservoir is that it can store water during low-demand periods and allows for the supply of large quantities of electricity during peak periods. Generation at these facilities can be modulated on a seasonal, daily, or even hourly basis, depending on demand; at power plants that implement an ecological instream flow regime, it can also be adjusted to the biological periods of fish (Section 6.4.4). The flow downstream of the generating station is thus artificially regulated and does not necessarily follow natural seasonal cycles any longer. Power generation during daily peak periods may cause sudden hour-to-hour fluctuations in flow and water level downstream of the power plant. Due to inflows from the river’s tributaries, these fluctuations gradually abate as the water flows farther and farther away from the station. This category also includes pumped storage hydropower facilities. This type of generating station uses a pumping mode that requires power generated by other types of plants to store water in reservoirs when demand is low, such as at night. The water is run through the turbines to generate power during peak periods. Although there are no generating stations of this kind in Québec, they generate about 8% of the hydropower in the United States. Run-of-river generating stations are directly supplied by rivers and store almost no water at all. In this case, there is little water catchment or flooded land, because a system of dikes and channels maintains the water levels in the natural riverbed. The power generated varies with the fluctuations in flow. In the event that several generating stations are planned on the same river, it can be advantageous to build a high-storage facility (i.e., one with a large reservoir) in the upper reach and smaller-storage or run-of-river facilities farther down. The downstream stations would thus benefit from the flows regulated by the upstream storage structures. This method, which is used by Hydro-Québec, makes it possible to optimize electricity generation within the watersheds harnessed. It also reduces the land area affected by the facilities over the option of building multiple generating stations on several rivers. Hydropower generation usually has a high utilization factor—65% in the case of Hydro-Québec’s generating stations, for example—as it is a continuous and controllable energy source (i.e., the energy is produced by the rivers’ flow). Hydropower can thus be combined with intermittent energy sources such as solar or wind power. In Québec, combining hydroelectricity with wind power improves the environmental performance of the province’s energy mix. Building large-scale structures and facilities like dams, dikes and generating stations involves using heavy machinery that produces particulates and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Nonetheless, hydropower generating stations offer advantages in terms of air quality and GHGs, at least in the boreal region. However, reservoir power plants and to a lesser degree, run-of-river facilities generate other environmental impacts such as the flooding of large areas of land, which leads to a temporary increase in mercury and CO2 levels in reservoirs and changes in land use (Chapter 6).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-3

Marine energy Marine energy (also called ocean energy or sea energy) involves harnessing the natural energy flows in the oceans. Not yet widely used, this generating technology encompasses the following: • Tidal energy, which involves generating power using the rising and falling motion of the huge masses of water that move with the ocean tides. Tidal power plants generate electricity from drawdown, using the difference in height between two storage ponds separated by a dam. An ocean inlet or estuary in a large drawdown zone is equipped with infrastructure that uses low-head turbines activated by the flow of seawater between the two storage ponds (at different levels) (Planète énergies 2014c). • Wave energy, in which the movement of waves is used to generate power (Planète énergies 2014b). • Osmotic energy, where power is generated using the salt concentration in seawater (Planète énergies 2014d ). • Hydrokinetic energy, which harnesses the kinetic power of ocean or river currents. Experiments currently focus on the use of underwater turbines, which are large propellers or turbines tethered in arrays to the seabed or riverbed, or floating mid-water. However, the technology is still in the experimental stage (Planète énergies 2014a). This chapter only covers tidal and wave energy, since osmotic and hydrokinetic generating technologies are not yet widely used and are still in the experimental stage in North America.

Wind power Wind power is generated by the force the wind exerts on the blades of a turbine, causing the turbine’s shaft to rotate at a speed of 10 to 20 revolutions per minute. The rotor shaft is connected to a generator that transforms mechanical energy into electrical energy. The amount of energy produced depends on wind speed, air density and the size of the area swept by the blades. Wind turbines require a minimum wind speed (generally 12 to 14 km/h) to begin to turn and generate electricity, but need strong winds of 50 to 60 km/h to generate at full capacity. At wind speeds beyond 90 km/h, the turbines must be stopped to avoid damage (Hydro-Québec 2015). This technology constitutes an intermittent source of power as it depends on favorable wind conditions. The utilization factor of wind power fluctuates between 25% and 40% and is thus slightly lower than that of most other energy technologies (i.e., on the order of 35%). Therefore, wind power must be combined with more continuous and controllable energy sources to meet demand and ensure power transmission system stability. This is why wind power is used as a complement to hydropower in Québec’s energy mix. Wind farms change landscapes and land use. They can also have environmental impacts, especially on birds and bats. In addition, since manufacturing wind turbines requires large quantities of metals and energy, the main impacts of electricity generated from wind power relate to the manufacture of components throughout the turbines’ service life. Wind turbines can be installed on land or in water and both types come with different issues. There is also a distinction between high-capacity wind farms, which are connected to the main grid, and private, off-grid turbines. This report deals with high-capacity, land-based wind farms, as offshore wind power technology is still not highly developed in North America.

Solar power There are two types of solar power technologies: thermal and photovoltaic. The former consists in transforming the sun’s energy into heat and involves using pumps or fans to ensure the heat is actively transferred for storage or directly distributed for a specifically planned use (Natural Resources Canada 2016). The solar panel absorbs the sun’s energy and transforms it into usable heat. Thermal solar technology ensures a more constant supply of electricity than its photovoltaic counterpart, as thermal energy can be stored and then used at night to supply a power-generating turbine. This type of system requires specific storage equipment such as a storage tank containing a eutectic mixture of salts (or molten salt). Thermal solar technology also requires circulating a fluid that carries heat from the solar panels to the turbine and then, into the heat storage tank. Synthetic oil is generally used for this purpose.

7-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

A thermal solar power generating system requires fossil fuel to maintain the molten salt at a high temperature so that it remains in liquid form and keeps the synthetic oil hot enough to ensure the system operates properly. Lastly, thermal facilities are also equipped with a water-based, dry or hybrid cooling system. The second type of solar generating technology is based on the photovoltaic effect, which is the direct conversion of photons into electric current by means of a semiconducting material (Hydro-Québec 2014). Photovoltaic collectors, or solar panels, are usually based on monocrystalline or polycrystalline silicon (Hydro-Québec 2014; IEPF 2008). The service lives of the various components of photovoltaic systems can vary from 20 to 30 years for solar panels and 7 to 10 years for the regulator. Photovoltaic systems can be used for various applications, whether directly on a building using electricity, in a system incorporated into a structure connected to a transmission system (such as street lighting or a noise barrier), or in the case of a centralized generating system supplying an electric grid, in a series-connected array of panels. Although photovoltaic technology has very few impacts on the environment in the operation phase other than modifying land use in areas occupied by wind farms, large quantities of mineral and energy resources are required to build solar panels. Therefore, photovoltaic solar power generation produces more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than most other renewable energy technologies. Moreover, the utilization factors of photovoltaic and thermal solar power facilities are among the lowest of all technologies considered, i.e., on the order of 20% to 25% in the United States (EIA 2019). As is the case with wind power, solar power generation is intermittent because of the alternation between day and night. Therefore, to meet demand and ensure system stability, solar power needs to be paired with other, more continuous and controllable forms of energy such as hydropower. The requirement to combine solar power with storage or other forms of electricity generation is not covered in this comparison.

Bioenergy Bioenergy makes it possible to recover and recycle organic waste. While producing the required material is relatively inexpensive in terms of input, large quantities are required since this technology generates relatively little power and is mainly advantageous when the necessary resources are available in large quantities in proximity to the plants. In addition, contrary to fossil fuels, burning organic material does not add to the carbon pool already circulating in the biosphere. However, machinery that runs on fossil fuels may be required to transform or transport it.

Biomass Power can be generated from various sources of biomass, including waste from forestry, agriculture and livestock farming, short-rotation forest plantations, cultivation reserved for energy production, the organic portion of municipal waste and any other input of organic material. Through various procedures, these raw materials can be used to generate electricity or heat, or to produce gaseous, liquid or solid fuel (IPCC 2011). The heat value of the organic material may serve to generate electricity through thermal processes (i.e., pyrolysis, gasification or direct combustion) or biochemical means (anaerobic digestion or methanization). Biomass combustion generally involves burning woody biomass such as forest residues. The disadvantage of this is that it produces potentially harmful atmospheric pollutants like carbon monoxide and particulates. In many regions, it plays a significant role in the creation of smog. These processes sometimes require the use of fossil fuels to stabilize biomass combustion. Burning the residues in a boiler produces steam and electricity (biomass cogeneration).

Biogas In the case of biogas combustion, fermentable biomass (such as manure, liquid residues and waste) is first converted into biogas by microorganisms. This decomposition in the absence of oxygen generates a gas that resembles fossil natural gas, due to its composition (mainly methane and carbonic gas). It can then be burned in a specially adapted generating unit (like those found in thermal power plants) to generate electricity.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-5

Geothermal energy Geothermal energy involves extracting the heat accumulated in very deep rock formations (up to a dozen kilometers below ground) and converting it into usable electric and thermal energy. It is akin to creating an artificial geothermal deposit within a crystalline rock formation. A coolant is injected under pressure into the rock a few kilometers below the surface. The liquid warms as it flows through the crevices in the rock and the resulting steam is pumped into a heat exchanger to generate electricity. This technology produces few pollutants and has a limited footprint since a portion of the generating facilities are located below ground. It also provides stable power generation and higher utilization factors than most other renewable energy technologies (70% to 80%). However, since access to the resource is limited, geothermal technology still makes up a minimal part of the energy mix, i.e., about 0.6% globally and 1% in the United States.

7.2.2 Non-renewable energy technologies Thermal energy – coal Power is produced by a coal-burning thermal generating station. For the purposes of this study, lignite—a brown to black fossil coal with a woody or peaty appearance, which has a carbon content of 65% to 75% and is intermediate between bituminous coal and peat—is considered coal.

Thermal energy – natural gas Electricity is generated by a thermal power plant that burns natural gas. Some of these are combined cycle plants, where a cycle is made up of a combustion turbine and a gas turbine (for increased output). The combustible gas is sent into the combustion turbine, which generates electricity and extremely hot exhaust gases (fumes). The heat from the exhaust is recovered by a boiler, which produces steam, some of which is used to generate additional electricity. One of the issues with this technology relates to fugitive gas emissions (mainly methane) released during gas extraction and transport.

Thermal energy – oil In this case, a thermal power plant generates electricity by burning a hydrocarbon in one or several diesel engines that run a generator, or in a conventional boiler that produces steam which, in turn, runs a turbine.

Thermal energy – nuclear This involves generating electricity in a thermal plant that uses a boiler as a nuclear reactor. As is the case with hydropower, nuclear energy is a continuous and controllable source of energy that can be combined with intermittent sources such as wind or photovoltaic solar power. However, compared to hydropower, nuclear energy offers less flexibility in terms of production level.

7.3 TECHNOLOGY COMPARISON BASED ON LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS 7.3.1 Sources of information and method As previously stated, the CIRAIG (2014) study financed by Hydro-Québec is the main source of information used to compare energy generation technologies. Based on life cycle analysis (LCA), the study examines the environmental impacts of a product or service throughout its life cycle (Figure 7-1), from the extraction of the natural resources required to manufacture the components of the product or service to its ultimate disposal (including reuse and recycling, where appropriate), including manufacturing, assembly, packaging, distribution, consumption, use and operation of the product or service.

7-6

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 7-1 – Life cycle analysis stages

Manufacturing and processing

Distribution and transportation

End-of-life processing and recycling Use and consumption

A118AL_f7_1_geq_032_cycle_200519a.ai

Extraction of resources

The CIRAIG conducted a comprehensive LCA of the electricity generated, purchased and distributed by Hydro-Québec. The results provided below compare the environmental footprint of Hydro-Québec’s hydropower generating stations (run-of-river and reservoir) to that of other types of electricity generating facilities. LCA is one of the most comprehensive and efficient methods for comparing the environmental impacts of products or services that may be quite different but perform similar functions, even if these impacts occur in various locations throughout the world or at different stages of a product’s life cycle. It is particularly useful in comparing the environmental footprint of electricity generation by taking a power plant’s service life expectancy, installed capacity and operating efficiency into consideration, and in expressing the impacts it produces per amount of power generated. Each stage of a product’s life cycle consumes inputs such as energy and resources, both renewable (water, wood, sunlight, etc.) and non-renewable (petroleum, natural gas, metal, etc.), and generates outputs such as emissions (like greenhouse gases, waste and effluents). These inputs and emissions constitute a source of environmental impacts that are global (climate change and ozone layer depletion), regional (river acidification and eutrophication and smog) and local (toxicological and ecotoxicological impacts). To carry out its comparative analysis, the CIRAIG gathered all the available data in the scientific literature concerning the impacts of the various electricity generation technologies. Over 60 relevant reports or articles, published between 2007 and 2012, were identified and analyzed. Figure 7-1 New studies on the topic have been published since 2012, particularly concerning GHG emissions from Titre 1hydropower generating stations with reservoirs or fugitive emissions associated with the extraction and transport of natural gas. Although the results of these Titre 2 recent studies are not included in the CIRAIG’s comparative tables, it is important to note that GHG emissions from Québec hydropower remain representative. The CIRAIG also used environmental product declarations Document for information only. For any other2.2 use,database please contact and consulted thepurposes ecoinvent version (www.ecoinvent.org/database/). Géomatique at Hydro-Québec Innovation, équipement et services partagés

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-7

Appendix J provides detailed description of the methodology the CIRAIG used to conduct the analysis. In brief, the following seven indicators for which the literature had sufficient available data were used to compare energy generation technologies: • Climate change: examines the warming potential associated with GHG emissions throughout the life cycle. The results are expressed in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatthour of electricity generated (g CO2 eq./kWh). • Ozone layer depletion: examines emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) throughout the life cycle. This indicator is expressed in micrograms of trichlorofluoromethane equivalent per kilowatthour (µg CFC-11 eq./kWh). • Acidification: examines emissions of acidifying substances throughout the life cycle. This indicator is expressed in grams of sulphur dioxide equivalent per kilowatthour (g SO2 eq./kWh). • Eutrophication: measures emissions of nutrients, particularly nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), which cause destabilization and degradation of the aquatic environment throughout the life cycle. This indicator is expressed in milligrams of phosphate equivalent per kilowatthour (mg PO4 eq./kWh). • Human toxicity: examines emissions of substances that have toxic effects on human health throughout the life cycle. This indicator is expressed in grams of dichlorobenzene (1.4-DB) equivalent per kilowatthour (g 1.4-DB eq./kWh). • Photochemical oxidation (smog): measures substances that contribute to the formation of tropospheric ozone (O3 ) (summer smog) throughout the life cycle. This indicator is expressed in milligrams of ethylene equivalent per kilowatthour (mg C2H4 eq./kWh). • Resource depletion: measures the use of non-renewable, fossil or mineral resources throughout the life cycle. This indicator is expressed in milligrams of antimony equivalent per kilowatthour in the case of mineral extraction (mg Sb eq./kWh) and in megajoules of non-renewable energy per kilowatthour (MJ/kWh) in the case of the use of fossil energy sources. Since the publications identified used different evaluation methods to measure mineral extraction, the results cannot be combined. On the basis of current knowledge, LCA is subject to certain limitations in terms of data availability. For example, the CIRAIG did not include the end of the service life of Hydro-Québec’s dams and other retaining structures in its analysis, since the databases it used did not contain any accurate information on the subject. However, relevant data taken from another study published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was provided as a supplement. Nor did the technology-wide life cycle analysis examine the impacts associated with the intermittent nature of certain energy sources (such as wind and solar power) which, in practice, must be combined with other, more continuous and controllable generating technologies. In regard to the indicator related to climate change, in addition to the CIRAIG study, Hydro-Québec also consulted the study published by the IPCC in 2011 (Arvizu et al. 2011), which is a review of the literature covering relevant studies published after 1980. As is the case with the CIRAIG study, the IPCC’s graphs do not include the most recent publications on the carbon footprint of several energy technologies.

7.3.2 Results by indicator Figures 7-2 to 7-9 present the comparison of the environmental performance of the energy technologies for each indicator. It is important to note that the number of energy sources considered in the comparisons varies depending on the indicator. This is attributable to data availability, which differs from one indicator to another. In specific regard to the Climate Change indicator, the CIRAIG data makes it possible to compare the hydropower produced at Hydro-Québec’s generating stations (with or without reservoirs) to that produced from other energy sources.

Climate change The results of the CIRAIG’s energy technology comparison for the Climate Change indicator are shown in Figure 7-2.

7-8

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 7-2 – Comparison of energy technologies for climate change indicator 878

Thermal energy – fuel oil

835

Thermal energy – coal

798

Thermal energy – natural gas

234

Biogas 107

Biomass 77

Photovoltaic solar energy

Solar thermal energy

Geothermal energy

A118AL_f7_2_geq_040_200617.ai

Nuclear energy

Wave energy

Hydroelectricity – HQ, reservoir

Wind power

Minimum Mean Maximum

Tidal energy 6

Hydroelectricity – HQ, run-of-river 0

100

200

300

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

g eq. CO2/kWh

* Gram of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) equivalent per kilowatthour Source: CIRAIG 2014. The comparison led to the following main conclusions: • Hydropower (run-of-river and reservoir generating stations) produces very low GHG emissions. Most of these emissions are produced by the machinery used to build the structures and facilities and transport the materials, concrete manufacturing and the natural decomposition of the organic material in flooded areas during the first years following reservoir impoundment. • Along with hydropower, wind, nuclear and marine energies emit the least amount of GHGs, mainly because the generating process uses little or no fossil fuel and does not generate any direct GHG emissions. In this case, GHG emissions are mostly related to the building of equipment and infrastructure. • Thermal energy technologies that use oil, coal and natural gas have more of an impact, as these generating processes produce direct CO2 emissions. Fugitive1Figure methane emissions may occur during the extraction and 7-2 transport of combustibles. Natural gas is mostly made Titre up of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. In the case of 1 natural gas generating stations, GHG emissions are released as the gas is burned, as well as during its extraction Titre 2 and transport. Liquefied natural gas generates additional emissions related to the gas liquefaction process and its transport over generally greater distances (Turconi et al. 2013). Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact • Biomass and atbiogas technologies higher emissions than the other renewable energy options Géomatique Hydro-Québec TransÉnergieproduce et Équipement. (i.e., wind, marine and hydropower) due the combustion or fermentation of organic matter. • Solar power produces emissions that are slightly lower than biomass and biogas but higher than the other renewable energy technologies (i.e., wind, marine and hydropower), due to the energy required to manufacture the materials that make up the photovoltaic cells and panels. The quantities of GHGs produced by solar power depend largely on the sources of energy used to make the panels (Turconi et al. 2013). • The performance of nuclear power is relatively efficient; it is better than that of the other thermal energy technologies and of several renewable energy options such as solar, biomass and biogas.

1. Pollutants released into the air after escaping from a fume hood, gasket, or any other system or apparatus designed to capture and contain them. Fugitive emissions include leaks from various equipment (piping systems, pumps, compressors, etc.), storage facilities for gaseous, liquid or solid products, the specific part of a process such as the opening of tanks during loading and unloading, open-air facilities for storing powdery products, oil-water settling tanks, vents, etc.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-9

Note that methane emissions from reservoir hydropower generating stations may be higher in tropical and temperate zones (Deemer et al. 2016; Turconi et al. 2013 – see Section 6.2.1). Due to the cold climate and well-oxygenated water, the methane emissions produced by Québec’s reservoirs are very low (Tremblay et al. 2010). As is the case for those produced by biomass combustion, GHG emissions from reservoirs are biogenic. Unlike fossil carbon, biogenic carbon 2 does not contribute to the quantity of carbon circulating in the biosphere. The results of the IPCC study shown in Figures 7-3 and 7-4 are in line with the findings of the CIRAIG study. Figure 7-3 compares the various energy technologies, while Figure 7-4 compares the different types of hydropower generation, i.e., reservoir, run-of-river and pumped storage power plants. Note that the results shown in Figure 7-3 do not include GHG emissions associated with changes in land use brought about by electricity generating facilities. Such changes can be particularly significant in the cases of biomass and hydropower generation. In regard to the latter, land use changes include the flooding of land areas by reservoirs, which produce GHG emissions due to decomposition of organic matter (see Section 6.2.1). However, these emissions are included in the results shown in Figure 7-4. It should also be noted that additional estimates have been produced since the results of the IPCC study were published. An examination of figures 7-3 and 7-4 reveals the following: • The classification of the various technologies is similar to that in the CIRAIG study (Figure 7-3), i.e., thermal technologies that use natural gas, coal and oil produce the highest GHG emissions, while wind power, marine energy and hydropower produce the lowest ones. • Hydropower (which includes reservoir and run-of-river generating stations) is among the technologies that produce the lowest GHG emissions (Figure 7-3). • Most of the GHG estimates for the life cycle of hydropower reservoirs, taking their construction, operation and dismantling into consideration, vary between 4 and 14 g CO2 eq./kWh. These values are similar to those the CIRAIG calculated for Hydro-Québec generating stations. • In specific regard to hydropower, the median values of the GHG emissions from reservoir and run-of-river generating stations are similar, both being approximately 6 g CO2 eq./kWh (Figure 7-4). However, there is significant variation where reservoirs are concerned. Some studies show that reservoir emissions can sometimes exceed 40 g CO2 eq./kWh, particularly in tropical zones (Turconi et al. 2013). Only two of the studies identified by the IPCC provided estimates of GHG emissions produced by the dismantling of facilities (Figure 7-4). According to the IPCC, these estimates may reflect the GHG emissions produced by large quantities of silt and organic material accumulated during the life cycle of the reservoirs. However, the authors state that this explanation cannot be applied to other cases of dam dismantling because of the diverse characteristics of the various developments (e.g., dam size, reservoir surface area, dismantling methods, etc.). Therefore, there is still uncertainty concerning emissions during the dismantling phase. In summary, life cycle analyses show that GHG emissions from Hydro-Québec generating stations (i.e., 6 g CO2 eq./kWh for run-of-river facilities and 17 g CO2 eq./kWh reservoir stations) are comparable to those produced by wind power (14 g CO2 eq./kWh) and lower than those from photovoltaic solar power (64 g CO2 eq./kWh) (CIRAIG 2014).

2. Biogenic carbon comes from soil and vegetation and is part of the natural carbon cycle. Fossil carbon is carbon that has been trapped in the earth’s crust for millions of years and is released when extracted and used as a source of energy.

7-10

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Electricity generation technologies powered by renewable resources

Electricity generation technologies powered by non-renewable resources

2,000 1,750 1,500

Maximum 75th percentile Median

Maximum

1,500 250

75th percentile

1,250

25th percentile

222(+4)

126

52(+0)

42 13

Coal Coal

Oil Oil

Natural gas

Nuclear energy

Wind energy

Tidal energy

Hydropower

126

125

83 (+7)

169 (+12)

36 (+4)

50 (+10)

-1,250 * Avoided emissions, removal of GHGs from atmospheregeneration technologies, plus some technologies Figure TS.9.4 | Estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions (g CO eq./kWh) fornobroad categories ofthe electricity 2 -1,500 with CCS. Land-use-related net changes in carbon stocks (mainly applicable to biopower and hydropower from reservoirs) and land manageintegrated 1 ment impacts are excluded; negative estimates for biopower are based on assumptions about avoided emissions from residue and waste at landfill sites and byproducts. Review methods and references are provided in Annex II. The number of estimates is greater than the number of references because many studies considered multiple scenarios. Numbers reported in parentheses pertain to additional references and estimates that evaluated technologies with CCS. Distributional information relates to estimates currently available in LCA literature, not necessarily to underlying theoretical or practical extrema, Estimate 222(+4) 42 8 28 10 9.8] 126 125 83 (+7) 24 169 (+12) or the true central tendency 126 when considering all deployment conditioncs. [Figure count Reference Note: 1. count

52(+0) estimates’ 26 within the 13 11 5 32 to avoided 36 (+4)emissions.10Unlike the 50 (+10) ‘Negative terminology of6 lifecycle assessments presented in49this report refer case of bioenergy combined with CCS, avoided emissions do not remove GHGs from the atmosphere.

Source: Arvizu et al. 2011. Figure TS.9.4 | Estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions (g CO2 eq./kWh) for broad categories of electricity generation technologies, plus some technologies integrated with CCS. Land-use-related net changes in carbon stocks (mainly applicable to biopower and hydropower from reservoirs) and land management impacts are excluded; negative estimates1 for biopower are based on assumptions about avoided emissions from residue and waste at landfill sites and byproducts. Review methods and references are provided in Annex II. The number of estimates is greater than the number of references because many studies considered multiple scenarios. Numbers reported in parentheses pertain to additional references and estimates that evaluated technologies with CCS. Distributional information relates to estimates currently available in LCA literature, not necessarily to underlying theoretical or practical extrema, or the true central tendency when considering all deployment conditioncs. [Figure7-3 9.8] Figure

Titre presented 1 Note: 1. ‘Negative estimates’ within the terminology of lifecycle assessments in this report refer to avoided emissions. Unlike the case of bioenergy combined with CCS, avoided emissions do not remove GHGs from the atmosphere. Titre 2

Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie et Équipement.

Figure 7-3 Titre 1 Titre 2 Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie et Équipement.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-11

A118AL_f7_3_geq_033_200618.aiA118AL_f7_3_geq_033_200618.ai

-750 Estimate count -1,000 Reference count

* Avoided emissions, no removal of GHGs from the atmosphere

Natural gas

-500

Nuclear energy

-250 -1,500

Wind energy

0 -1,250

Photovoltaics

250 -1,000

Tidal energy

500 -750

Hydropower

Single estimates with CCS*

Geothermal energy

750 -500

Minimum

Geothermal energy

1,000 -250

Median

Biopower

Concentrating solar power

1,750 500

Electricity generation technologies powered by non-renewable resources

Single estimates with CCS

Concentrating solar power

2,000 750

Minimum

Electricity generation technologies powered by renewable resources

Photovoltaics

1,000

Biopower

Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (g Lifecycle CO2 eq. / kWh) greenhouse gas emissions (g CO2 eq. / kWh)

Figure technology comparison results for climate change indicator 1,2507-3 – Energy 25th percentile

Figure 7-4 – GHG emissions from various hydropower generation technologies

Maximum

160

180

75th percentile

140

160

Median

120

25th percentile Minimum

100

140

120

60 40

100

LUC-related emissions – reservoir

Estimates: References:

16 7

LUC-related emissions – decommissioning 3 2

All other lifecycle emissions 16 7

40 20 0

Estimates: References:

All values

Reservoir

27 11

18 9

Run-of-river 8 2

Pumped storage 1 1

* LUC: land use change Source: Arvizu et al. 2011.

Ozone layer depletion The energy technology comparison for the Ozone Layer Depletion indicator (Figure 7-5) reveals the following: • Hydropower and wind power have the least impact on the ozone layer, as they use little fuel during the generating phase. • Along with nuclear, oil and natural gas thermal technologies release the most ODS, mainly because these options require the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. In the case of nuclear power, Figure 7-4 uranium enrichment is what produces large quantities of ODS. Titre 1 • Coal thermal, photovoltaic solar, biomass and biogas power all produce more or less comparable values of µg CFC-11 eq./kWh, which is ten times lower Titre 2 than the emissions produced by thermal plants that burn coal and natural gas. However, they are also less efficient from an environmental standpoint than either hydropower or wind power. Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie et Équipement.

7-12

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

A118AL_f7_4_geq_034_lifecycle_200618.ai

Lifecycle GHG emissions [g CO2 eq./kWh]

200

Figure 7-5 – Energy technology comparison results for ozone layer depletion indicator 107.0

Thermal energy – fuel oil 67.0

Thermal energy – natural gas

10.0

Photovoltaic solar energy Biogas

8.0

Solar thermal energy

6.0

Thermal energy – coal

6.0 6.0

Biomass

Minimum Mean Maximum

0.6

Wind power

0.23

Hydroelectricity – HQ 0

100

150

A118AL_f7_5_geq_013_ozone_200605a.ai

29.0

Nuclear energy

200

µg CFC-11 eq./kWh * Microgram of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) equivalent per kilowatthour Source: CIRAIG 2014.

Soil and water acidification The main results of the comparison for the Acidification indicator (Figure 7-6) are as follows: • The value of g SO2 eq./kWh for Hydro-Québec hydropower is among the lowest and is generally similar to that of nuclear and wind power. This efficient performance is due to the low use of combustible fuels during generation. SO2 and NOx emissions are mainly limited to the construction phase, during the supply of materials required to build the dam and other structures (Turconi et al. 2013). • Thermal oil, coal and natural gas and biogas technologies all produce the highest g SO2 eq./kWh values and the most variable results. This variability is due to the diversity of the sources and production methods of the combustibles used and the various types of technologies used to treat stack emissions. • Biomass values are highly variable and are, on average, higher than those of other renewable energy options. Most of these emissions are associated with the combustible material supply phase, which includes production 7-5 and transport (Turconi et al. 2013). The stackFigure emission treatment technology and type of biomass used have a significant impact on acidifying substance emissions Titre (NO 1 x and SO2).

Titre 2

Figure 7-6 – Energy technology comparison results for acidification indicator Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec Trans-Énergie et Équipement. Thermal energy – fuel oil

6.3

Thermal energy – coal 2.3

Biogas 1.6

Thermal energy – natural gas 0.9

Biomass 0.4

Solar thermal energy

0.4

Geothermal energy 0.3

Photovoltaic solar energy Wind power Nuclear energy Hydroelectricity – HQ

0.08

Minimum Mean Maximum

0.05 0.013 0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

A118AL_f7_6_geq_014_acidification_200605a.ai

3.5

g SO2 eq./kWh * Gram of sulphur dioxide (SO2 ) equivalent per kilowatthour Source: CIRAIG 2014. QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-13

Eutrophication The technology comparison pertaining to eutrophication provided in Figure 7-7 reveals the following: • Renewable energy technologies (hydropower, geothermal, solar and wind) and nuclear power have the least impact on eutrophication, since eutrophying substances are only marginally present in the secondary processes for construction of the generating stations and their infrastructure. • Coal, oil and natural gas thermal energy and biogas, biomass and photovoltaic solar energy are the least efficient technologies. This stems from the manufacture of the materials that make up the photovoltaic panels, in the case of solar power, and from the nitrogenous substance emissions resulting from the production and burning of combustibles, in the other cases. Figure 7-7 – Energy technology comparison results for eutrophication indicator 9,176.0

Thermal energy – coal Thermal energy – fuel oil 254.0

Biogas

209.0

Thermal energy – natural gas

203.0

Photovoltaic solar energy

189.0

Biomass 57.0

Geothermal energy

31.0

Solar thermal energy

17.0

Wind power

Minimum Mean Maximum

13.0

Nuclear energy

3.7

Hydroelectricity – HQ 0

200

400

500

1,000

1,500

25k

50k

A118AL_f7_7_geq_015_eutrophisation_200605a.ai

412.0

70k

mg PO4 eq./kWh * Milligram of phosphate (PO4) equivalent per kilowatthour Source: CIRAIG 2014.

Human toxicity The technology comparison for the Human Toxicity indicator (Figure 7-8) shows the following: • Hydropower and natural gas thermal energy have the lowest potential for toxicity to human health. • Coal thermal power has the highest potential by far for toxicity to humans, as well as the greatest variability. The latter is attributable to the diverse technologies and the type and source of combustibles used. • Note that the poor efficiency of coal-burning thermal generation is due to the fact that it produces a large quantity of mercury. In the United States, 44% of all anthropogenic mercury emissions come from this technology (EPA 2018). Other toxic substance emissions produced during coal combustion the respiratory include nitrogen oxides (NOx ), which attack Figure 7-7 system (Canada 2013) and contribute to acidification and eutrophication (see preceding sections).

Titre 1 Titre 2

Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec Trans-Énergie et Équipement.

7-14

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 7-8 – Energy technology comparison results for human toxicity indicator 213

Thermal energy – coal 70

Solar thermal energy

Thermal energy – fuel oil

Photovoltaic solar energy

Biomass 38

Wind power

Biogas

Minimum Mean Maximum

Thermal energy – natural gas

Hydroelectricity – HQ 0

200

400

600

A118AL_f7_7_geq_015_eutrophisation_200605a.ai

Nuclear energy

800

g 1.4-DB eq./kWh * Gram of 1.4-dichlorobenzene (1.4-DB) equivalent per kilowatthour Source: CIRAIG 2014.

Photochemical oxidation (smog) The main conclusions from the technology comparison (Figure 7-9) for the Photochemical Oxidation (Smog) indicator are as follows: • Hydropower and nuclear energy are the most efficient technologies in terms of mg C2H4 eq./kWh. Their values are one hundred times lower than those of fuel-based technologies (i.e., coal, oil, natural gas and biogas). This favorable result is due to low emissions of NOx, SO2 and particulates. • Biomass, solar and wind power technologies produce values ten times lower than those of combustion-based technologies (i.e., natural gas, oil and coal), but are slightly less efficient than hydropower and nuclear energy. Figure 7-9 – Energy technology comparison results for photochemical oxidation (smog) indicator Figure 7-8

Titre 1 Titre 2

Thermal energy – coal

2,261.0

368.0

Biogas

Thermal energy – natural gas

30.0

Biomass

20.0

Photovoltaic solar energy

18.0

Solar thermal energy

15.0

Wind power

Minimum Mean Maximum

3.0

Nuclear energy

0.8

Hydroelectricity – HQ 0

100

1,000

2,000

3,000

22k

A118AL_f7_9_geq_017_oxydation_200605.ai

296.0

Thermal energy –purposes fuel oil only. For any other use, please contact Document for information Géomatique at Hydro-Québec Trans-Énergie et Équipement. 220.0

24k

mg C2H4 eq./kWh * Milligram of ethylene (C2H4) equivalent per kilowatthour Source: CIRAIG 2014.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-15

Resource depletion — mineral extraction The technology comparison based on the Mineral Extraction indicator provided in Figure 7-10 reveals the following: • Hydropower, coal thermal and natural gas thermal are the most efficient technologies for this indicator, as they require the least amount of mineral extraction. • Photovoltaic solar is the least efficient energy technology. This is attributable to the extraction of specific minerals (e.g., silicon and rare earth elements) used to manufacture photovoltaic cells. • Wind power is one of the less efficient technologies, as it requires the extraction of minerals to manufacture the components. Figure 7-10 – Energy technology comparison results for mineral extraction indicator 14.0

Photovoltaic solar energy

A118AL_f7_10_geq_018_ressources_200513a.ai

0.3

Wind power 0.09

Biomass

0.07

Nuclear energy

0.04

Thermal energy – fuel oil

0.031

Hydroelectricity – HQ

Minimum Mean Maximum

0.016

Thermal energy – coal

0.016

Thermal energy – natural gas 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

mg Sb eq./kWh * Milligram of antimony (Sb) equivalent per kilowatthour Source: CIRAIG 2014.

Resource depletion — use of fossil fuels In regard to the Use of Fossil Fuels indicator (Figure 7-11), the technology comparison reveals the following: • Biogas, hydropower, marine energy and nuclear power are the most efficient technologies in terms of this indicator. This is due to the fact very little fossil fuel is used during the operation phase. The use of fossil fuels is mainly limited to the material supply and component manufacturing phases and to building and maintaining the infrastructure. • Conversely, coal, gas and oil thermal technologies, which run entirely on fossil fuels, are the least efficient options. • Although fossil fuels are used to a much lesser extent in solar, biomass, geothermal and wind power generation than in the above-mentioned technologies, they are still more widely used than in nuclear, hydropower, marine energy and biogas generating facilities.

Figure 7-10 Titre 1of the results for certain technologies (including wind, Moreover, the CIRAIG states that the significant variability Titre 2of the input materials considered in the analysis. gas thermal and oil thermal) is likely due to the diversity

Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact Géomatique at Hydro-Québec Innovation, équipement et services partagés

7-16

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 7-11 – Energy technology comparison results for use of fossil fuel indicator 13.00

Thermal energy – coal

11.00

Thermal energy – fuel oil 9.00

Thermal energy – natural gas

0.86

Photovoltaic solar energy 0.44

Solar thermal energy

0.37

Biomass

0.33

Wind power 0.11

Nuclear energy

0.04

Tidal energy Hydroelectricity Hydroelectricity – HQ Biogas

0.04

Minimum Mean Maximum

0.03 0.01

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

A118AL_f7_11_geq_019_climat_200903.ai

0.54

Geothermal energy

MJ per unit of volume or mass * MJ: millijoule Source: CIRAIG 2014.

7.4 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS RESULTING FROM THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Based on the CIRAIG analyses, it appears that for all seven environmental impact indicators studied, Hydro-Québec hydropower generation ranks among the highest performing energy technologies from an environmental standpoint, particularly in terms of climate change (GHG emissions), resource depletion and human toxicity. This is mainly due to the fact that hydropower uses few resources (other than water) and does not produce GHGs while generating electricity. Conversely, fossil fuel energy facilities (i.e., those based on coal, oil and natural gas) are the least efficient, as they involve extracting, transforming and using combustibles during the Figure 7-11 various phases of their life cycles.

Titre 1

As it covers the entire life cycle of each of the energy technologies it examines, the CIRAIG study highlights Titre 2 the significant environmental impacts associated with wind and photovoltaic solar power generation, particularly in terms of the Mineral Extraction indicator. Nonetheless, these renewable energy technologies remain among Document for information purposes only. For any other use, please contact those with the best environmental Géomatique at Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie et performance. Équipement. In brief, the analyses conducted by the CIRAIG in 2014 clearly show the extent to which the energy produced by Hydro-Québec constitutes an environmentally renewable, efficient source of energy, which compares favorably with other generating technologies.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

7-17

General Discussion and Conclusion Québec hydropower: clean, renewable and reliable energy As this report demonstrates, the energy Hydro-Québec produces with its large hydropower facilities is clean as well as renewable. In fact, when the entire life cycle of energy sources is considered, Hydro-Québec’s hydropower is among the best performing electricity generation technologies when it comes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (carbon dioxide and methane in particular), comparing favorably with the technologies recognized as generating clean energy (see Chapter 7). Like all forms of energy, Hydro-Québec’s reservoir hydropower is a source of GHG emissions (including carbon dioxide and methane) during a project’s construction and operation phases. However, this hydropower generates far fewer emissions (17 g CO2 eq./kWh) than thermal technologies (620 to 879 g CO2 eq./kWh) and about the same amount as run-of-river hydropower, nuclear, wind and tidal power (3 to 14 g CO2 eq./kWh; CIRAIG 2014). In addition, Québec hydropower produces fewer GHG emissions than many other energy sources that are recognized as being clean, including wave, solar, geothermal, biomass and biogas (22 to 247 g CO2 eq./kWh; CIRAIG 2014). Furthermore, for the six other environmental impact indicators studied by CIRAIG in 2014—ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, resource use and photochemical oxidation (smog)—Hydro-Québec’s hydropower ranked among the top energy generation technologies due to its low use of resources during the production phase. In sum, with Québec hydropower, a very large amount of energy can be produced while maintaining a strong environmental performance on a global scale. Hydro-Québec’s hydropower is also known for its reliability, stability and predictability, which makes it ideal to pair with other clean, renewable energies. Electric power systems must maintain a balance between energy generation (supply) and consumption (demand) at all times and be able to supply energy immediately when the customer needs it. Some clean energies (wind and solar, for example) are intermittent, only partially predictable and have no storage capacity. These energies must, accordingly, be paired with an available source of flexible energy that can be easily controlled to meet customer needs. For example, countries like Germany that are large producers of wind power use thermal plants to balance high wind and solar penetrations with fluctuating demand. In Québec, where major investments have been made in the transmission system, hydropower and wind power are perfectly integrated and complementary. Thanks to its reservoirs, which act like huge storage batteries, hydropower can meet energy needs during periods when winds are low or have died down completely, which helps to reduce GHG emissions.

Known and controlled environmental impacts Like all energy generation technologies, large hydropower has an impact on the environment. After many decades of studies and environmental monitoring, Hydro-Québec can justifiably claim that it has a good understanding of the environmental issues associated with its hydroelectric developments and can effectively control them (see Appendix B). Large hydropower causes physical changes to the environment that are specific to the technology, such as flooding of large land areas, alteration of landscapes and an increase in fish mercury levels. However, as demonstrated in Chapter 6, the impacts of these changes on the human and biological environments can be predicted with a relatively high degree of accuracy through impact studies, and they can be effectively mitigated, corrected or compensated with appropriate measures.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

8-1

Clean, renewable energy: a growing trend worldwide The use of renewable energies is growing steadily across the planet, doubling since 2000 (IRENA 2019). In many countries there is a political will to reduce GHG emissions. Renewable energy technologies now supply more than 30% of the energy used worldwide. With more than 99% of the electricity it supplies generated by renewable technologies, Hydro-Québec contributes to this trend to the fullest extent possible. The use of renewable energies has also grown significantly in the United States in recent years, renewable energies today representing more than 17% of the U.S. energy mix, with some states setting nation-leading clean energy goals to reduce their GHG emissions by 2030 and 2050. Canada and Québec are certainly contributing to this global trend. In fact, renewable energy sources currently represent 17% of Canada’s total primary energy supply (NRCAN 2017). Canada’s ultimate goal is to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2020). In addition, under the terms of the Paris Accord, Canada has committed to reducing its GHG emissions to less than 30% of 2005 levels by 2030 (in 2019, the 2005 GHG level was estimated at 730 Mt CO2 eq.). Similarly, Québec plans to bring its GHG emissions to below 1990 levels with a 37.5% reduction by 2030, and further reduce them by 80% to 95% by 2050 (MELCC 2020).

The environment: a priority at Hydro-Québec The environment is a top priority at Hydro-Québec. The company is committed to responsible use of resources, sustainable development and the generation of electricity from renewable resources. Accordingly, virtually all the energy Hydro-Québec supplies is produced using renewable energy technologies: hydropower first and foremost (94%), followed by wind power, biomass and solar power. Fossil fuels (oil and gas) are the source of only 0.04% of the electricity Hydro-Québec supplies. Hydro-Québec’s hydropower projects are optimized for environmental protection and enhancement and subject to strict and complex environmental regulations from our provincial and federal governments. In addition to complying with effective laws and regulations, Hydro-Québec is proactive with respect to the environment, as illustrated below: • Hydro-Québec is committed to the principles of sustainable development. Its policies and guidelines make it one of Canada’s greenest companies. • In accordance with its internal policies and guidelines, Hydro-Québec adheres to the following three basic conditions for projects with a significant impact: – Environmental acceptability and sustainability – Favorable reception by the host communities – Profitability under market conditions • In the early 1970s, Hydro-Québec created an Environment unit. Since then, this function has been integrated into all actions related to generation development across the company, contributing to operations as well as infrastructure projects and playing a role at every project stage, from design to operation. The Environment unit’s staff includes experts in all environment-related disciplines. • In 1984, Hydro-Québec adopted an environment policy affirming the company’s responsibility to protect and enhance natural resources (see Appendix D). On the strength of this policy, Hydro-Québec was deemed a trailblazer by Environment Canada. • In 1985, Hydro-Québec created an Amerindian and Inuit Affairs unit, and in 2019 it adopted a policy on Indigenous relations, with the goal to build long-lasting and mutually beneficial relations with Indigenous communities based on respect for the values and culture of all. This has led to agreements enabling Indigenous communities to participate actively in executing the company’s projects, contribute to environmental monitoring programs and benefit from economic spinoffs. • Hydro-Québec attaches great importance to conducting detailed impact assessments that meet the most demanding quality standards. Accordingly, the surveys performed for these assessments are often cited in other scientific studies meant to further our knowledge of biodiversity in the province of Québec. 8-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

• Through impact assessment studies and monitoring over decades, Hydro-Québec has built up an impressive body of knowledge about the physical, biological and human components of the boreal environment. This knowledge is used to improve impact predictions for new hydropower projects and to develop effective mitigation and compensation measures. • Hydro-Québec participates in scientific environmental research through grants and joint projects with research institutes. • The information gathered by Hydro-Québec over close to half a century is invaluable, to the Canadian as well as the international scientific community, and Hydro-Québec encourages its specialists to write articles for prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals in addition to writing study reports. In sum, there is a great deal to be said for Hydro-Québec’s hydropower: • Large hydropower is among the best performing electricity generation technologies when it comes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, generating fewer GHG emissions (particularly carbon dioxide and methane) per kilowatthour than most other technologies. As a result, large hydropower contributes little to climate change, and helps to decarbonate the electricity industry and the economy where it is consumed. • After many decades of gathering information, Hydro-Québec can state that it has a good understanding of the impacts of its large hydroelectric developments and that it can predict them with great accuracy. • Hydro-Québec can also affirm that it has the impacts associated with reservoir hydropower well under control. These impacts can be avoided, corrected, compensated or mitigated with the application of appropriate measures. • Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric developments produce a large amount of energy continuously and predictably. In addition, they have tremendous storage capacity and can thus be easily integrated with other clean technologies, which often offer only intermittent production and don’t have large energy storage capabilities. Hydro-Québec has thus been able to avoid the use of fossil resources. Hydro-Québec believes that the energy produced by its large hydropower projects should be recognized as clean and renewable, like the other sources of electricity generation now considered as such.

Sarcelle generating station and control structure (Baie-James)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

8-3

References AECOM. 2011. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Toulnustouc. Suivi environnemental 2010 en phase exploitation. Inventaire de la sauvagine et des oiseaux de proie [Toulnustouc Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2010. Inventory of Waterfowl and Raptors]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. AECOM. 2014. Complexe de la Romaine. Inventaires de sauvagine – Réservoir de la Romaine-2 [Romaine Complex. Waterfowl Inventories – La Romaine 2 Reservoir]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Final report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. AECOM. 2015a. Aménagements hydroélectriques de la Chute-Allard et des Rapides-des-Cœurs. Suivi environnemental 2014 en phase exploitation. Inventaire des écotones riverains [Chute-Allard and Rapides-des-Cœurs Hydroelectric Facilities. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2014. Inventory of Riparian Ecotones]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. AECOM. 2015b. Aménagements hydroélectriques de la Chute-Allard et des Rapides-des-Cœurs. Suivi environnemental 2014 en phase exploitation. Suivi des milieux humides aménagés dans la plaine alluviale de Wemotaci et le secteur du ruisseau RDC-04 [Chute-Allard and Rapides-des-Cœurs Hydroelectric Facilities. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2014. Monitoring of Constructed Wetlands in the Wemotaci Alluvial Plan and the Ruisseau RDC-04 Sector]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. AECOM. 2016a. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi du caribou forestier. Inventaire hivernal et autres activités de terrain en 2015 [Romaine Complex. Monitoring of Woodland Caribou. Winter Inventory and Other Field Activities in 2015]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. AECOM. 2016b. Complexe de la Romaine. Inventaires de sauvagine. Réservoirs de la Romaine 1, 2 et 3 [Romaine Complex. Waterfowl Inventories. La Romaine 1, 2 and 3 Reservoirs]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. AECOM. 2019. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental 2018 en phase exploitation. Suivi des débris ligneux et des tourbières flottantes des réservoirs de la Romaine 1, 2 et 3 [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2018. Monitoring of Floating Wood Debris and Peat in La Romaine 1, 2 and 3 Reservoirs]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Final report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. AECOM and Groupe conseil Nutshimit-Nippour. 2019. Complexe Manicouagan. Caractérisation des communautés de poissons du réservoir Manicouagan. Rapport d’étude – 2018. Version finale [Manicouagan Complex. Characterization of Fish Communities in Manicouagan Reservoir. Study Report – 2018. Final version]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Ahmadi-Nedushan, B., A. St-Hilaire, M. Bérubé, T. B. M. J. Ouarda and É. Robichaud. 2008. Instream Flow Determination Using a Multiple Input Fuzzy-Based Rule System: A Case Study. River Research and Applications 24 (3): 279–292. Alliman, M. 2014. Partnering with First Nations. Hydro-Québec. Big Business and Corporate Social Responsibility 2014, 40–43. Montréal: NOVAE. AONQ (Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec). 2017. Diversité des oiseaux nicheurs par parcelles inventoriées [Diversity of Nesting Birds by Survey Squares]. Accessed April 22, 2020. https://www.atlas-oiseaux.qc.ca/ donneesqc/cartes.jsp?lang=fr. Arvizu, D., T. Bruckner, H. Chum, O. Edenhofer, S. Estefen, A. Faaij, et al. 2011. Technical Summary. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, edited by O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, et al., 27–158. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press. Aubé-Maurice, B., L. Belzile, G. Jeanmoye-Turcotte and J.-C. Guay. 2019. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental 2018 en phase exploitation. Suivi de la population de saumon atlantique [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2018. Monitoring of Atlantic Salmon Population]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-1

AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). 2020. Offshore Wind. Accessed April 22, 2020. https://www.awea.org/ policy-and-issues/u-s-offshore-wind. Baba, S., E. Raufflet, J. P. Murdoch and R. Courcelles. 2016. Reconstruire des relations: Hydro-Québec et la Nation crie (1994-2015) [Reconstructing Relations: Hydro-Québec and the Cree Nation (1994–2015)]. Éthique publique 18 (1). Accessed November 12, 2019. https://journals.openedition.org/ethiquepublique/2375. Bally, A. W., and A. R. Palmer. 1989. The Geology of North America: An Overview. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America. In Landry and Mercier 1992. Banfield, A. W. F. 1977. Les mammifères du Canada [The Mammals of Canada]. 2nd ed. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval. Bare, J. C. 2002. Traci: The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6 (3–4): 49–78. Bastille-Rousseau, G., C. Dussault, S. Couturier, D. Fortin, M.-H. St-Laurent, P. Drapeau, C. Dussault and V. Brodeur. 2012. Sélection d’habitat du caribou forestier en forêt boréale québécoise [Woodland Caribou Habitat Selection in Québec’s Boreal Forest]. Québec: Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction générale de l’expertise sur la faune et ses habitats. Bayne, E. M., and K. A. Hobson. 2002. Apparent Survival of Male Ovenbirds in Fragmented and Forested Boreal Landscapes. Ecology 83 (5): 1307–1316. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1307:ASOMOI]2.0.CO;2. Belzile, L., R. Lalumière and J.-F. Doyon. 2000. Réseau de suivi environnemental du complexe La Grande. Suivi des communautés de poisons du secteur est (1980-1999). Rapport synthèse [La Grande Complex Environmental Monitoring Network. Monitoring of Fish Communities in Eastern Sector (1980–1999). Summary Report]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Benoit, R., and J. Ibarzabal. 2004. Centrale de l’Eastmain-1-A et dérivation Rupert. Avifaune. Oiseaux de proie [Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion. Avifauna. Raptors]. Prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Québec: FORAMEC inc. Benoit, R., G. Bourguelat and J.-P. Gilbert. 2016a. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation. Suivi des oiseaux de proie 2015 [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Monitoring of Raptors – 2015]. Prepared by Consortium Otish for Hydro-Québec. Study report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Benoit, R., G. Bourguelat and J.-P. Gilbert. 2016b. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation. Suivi du hibou des marais, de la chouette lapone et de la mouette de Bonaparte 2015 [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Monitoring of Short-Eared Owl, Great Gray Owl and Bonaparte’s Gull – 2015]. Prepared by Consortium Otish for Hydro-Québec. Study report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Benoit, R., G. Bourguelat and J.-P. Gilbert. 2019. Complexe de l’Eastmain–Sarcelle–Rupert. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation. Suivi de la sauvagine 2017. Inventaires des couples nicheurs et des couvées [EastmainSarcelle-Rupert Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Monitoring of Waterfowl – 2017. Inventories of Nesting Pairs and Broods]. Prepared by Consortium Otish for Hydro-Québec. Study report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Bergerud, A.T., S.N. Luttich and L. Camps. 2008. The Return of Caribou to Ungava. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Bérubé, P., M. Leclerc and L. Belzile. 2002. Presentation of an Ecohydrological Method for Determining the Conservation Flow for Fish Habitat Protection in Québec’s Rivers (Canada). In Proceedings 4th IAHR International Symposium on Ecohydroaulics, Capetown, South Africa, edited by J. King. Bilodeau, F., J. Therrien and R. Schetagne. 2017. Intensity and Duration of Effects of Impoundment on Mercury Levels in Fishes of Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Northern Québec (Canada). Inland Waters 7 (4): 493–503. Bilodeau, F., R. Schetagne, J. Therrien and R. Verdon. 2016. Absence of Noticeable Mercury Effects on Fish Populations in Boreal Reservoirs Despite Threefold to Sevenfold Increases in Mercury Concentrations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 73 (7): 1104–1125.

9-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Biofilia. 2012. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Ensemencement des berges exondées du tronçon à débit réduit de la Rupert et aménagement de 10 ha de milieux humides dans le secteur des biefs Rupert, travaux 2012. Rapport d’activité 2012. Volume 1 [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Seeding of Exposed Banks of the Reduced-Flow Stretch of the Rupert and Development of 10 ha of Wetlands in the Area of the Rupert Diversion Bays, 2012 Work. Activity Report – 2012. Volume 1]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec and Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Final version. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Biofilia. 2016. Complexe de l’Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert. Suivi de la végétation riveraine et aquatique 2015. Rapport final. Volume 1 [Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert Complex. Monitoring of Riparian and Aquatic Vegetation – 2015. Final Report. Volume 1]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Bolduc, F. 1991. Aménagement hydroélectrique d’Eastmain-1. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Avant-projet. Qualité de l’eau. Rapport sectoriel n° 4 [Eastmain-1 Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Impact Study. Draft-Design Study. Water Quality. Sectorial Report No. 4]. Prepared by Groupe Roche Boréal for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Bouchard, D., and A. Chouinard. 2010. Développement des milieux humides riverains après la mise en eau d’un réservoir. Validation du modèle de prévision. Réservoir Pipmuacan [Development of Riparian Wetlands after Impoundment of a Reservoir. Validation of Prediction Model. Pipmuacan Reservoir]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Lévis: FORAMEC (division of SNC-Lavalin Environnement inc.). Bouchard, D., J. Deshaye and C. Fortin. 2004. Centrale de l’Eastmain-1-A et dérivation Rupert. Étude de la végétation et des espèces floristiques et fauniques à statut particulier [Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion. Study of Vegetation and Special-Status Plant and Animal Species]. Prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Québec: FORAMEC inc. Bouchard, D., J. Ouzilleau, R. Denis and S. Besner. 2001. Complexe La Grande. Suivi environnemental de la végétation riveraine et aquatique. Rapport synthèse pour la période 1979-1999 [La Grande Complex. Environmental Follow-Up of Riparian and Aquatic Vegetation. Summary Report for the Period 1979–1999]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Québec: FORAMEC inc. Boyce, M. S. 1974. Beaver Population Ecology in Interior Alaska (Master’s thesis, University of Alaska). Brouard, D., and J.-F. Doyon. 1991. Recherches exploratoires sur le mercure au complexe La Grande (1990) [Exploratory Studies on Mercury at the La Grande Complex (1990)]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Brouard, D., J.-F. Doyon and R. Schetagne. 1994. Amplification of Mercury Concentration in Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) Downstream from Robert-Bourassa Reservoir, James Bay, Québec. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mercury Pollution: Integration and Synthesis, edited by C. Watras and J. W. Huckabee, 369–380. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Canada. 2013. Principaux contaminants atmosphériques: oxydes d’azote [Common Air Pollutants: Nitrogen Oxides]. Accessed May 6, 2020. https://www.canada.ca/fr/environnement-changement-climatique/services/pollutionatmospherique/polluants/principaux-contaminants/oxydes-azote.html. Canada. 2019. Canadian Navigable Waters Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-22. Accessed November 2019. https://laws-lois.justice. gc.ca/eng/acts/N-22/. Canada. 2019. Fisheries Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14. Accessed November 2019. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ acts/f-14/. Canada. 2019. Impact Assessment Act, S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 1. Accessed November 2019. https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/ acts/I-2.75/. Canada. 2019. Registre public des espèces en péril [Species at Risk Public Registry]. Accessed November 2019. http:// www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_f.cfm. Canada. 2019. Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29. Accessed November 2019. https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/ acts/S-15.3/. Castonguay, Dandenault et associés. 2017. Bilan des études de suivi du milieu humain en phase exploitation. Utilisation du territoire par les autochtones (Phase 2 – Analyse) [Report on Follow-Up Studies of the Human Environment in the Operation Phase. Use of Territory by Indigenous People (Phase 2 – Analysis)]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec Production. QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-3

Cattanéo, F., P. Breil, N. Lamouroux and H. Capra. 2002. The Influence of Hydrological and Biotic Processes on Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) Population Dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59 (1): 12–22. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Freshwater, Marine. Dissolved Gas Supersaturation. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg: CCME. Céréghino, R., and P. Lavandier. 1996. Influence of Hydropeaking on the Structure and Dynamics of Invertebrate Populations in a Mountain Stream. In Ecohydraulics 2000: Proceedings of the Second IAHR Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, edited by M. Leclerc, H. Capra, S. Valentin, A. Boudreault and Y. Côté, A699–A709. Sainte-Foy: INRS. Chevalier, G., C.-L. Dumont and A. Penn. 1997. Mercury in Northern Québec: Role of the Mercury Agreement and Status of Research and Monitoring. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 97: 75–84. Chubbs, T. E., and F. R. Phillips, 1994. Long Distance Movement of a Transplanted Beaver, Castor canadensis, in Labrador. Canadian Field-Naturalist 108 (3): 366. CIRAIG (Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur le cycle de vie des produits, procédés et services). 2014. Rapport technique: comparaison des filières de production d’électricité et des bouquets d’énergie électrique [Technical Report: Comparison of Power Generation Options and Electricity Mixes]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: École polytechnique de Montréal. Accessed May 2020. https://www.hydroquebec. com/data/developpement-durable/pdf/comparaison-filieres-et-bouquets.pdf. Cole, J. J., Y. T. Prairie, N. F. Caraco, W. H. McDowell, L. J. Tranvik, R. G. Striegl, C. M. Duarte, P. Kortelainen, J. A. Downing, J. J. Middelburg and J. Melack. 2007. Plumbing the Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Inland Waters into the Terrestrial Carbon Budget. Ecosystems 10: 171–184. Consortium Otish. 2015a. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Suivi de la petite faune 2014. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Monitoring of Small Wildlife – 2014. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Study report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Consortium Otish. 2015b. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Suivi de l’orignal 2014. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Monitoring of Moose – 2014. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Study report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Consortium Otish. 2016. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Suivi du castor 2014. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Monitoring of Beaver – 2014. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Study report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Consortium Waska-Génivar. 2016a. Complexe de l’Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert. Suivi de l’intégrité et de l’utilisation des frayères multispécifiques aménagées dans la rivière Rupert. Rapport d’études 2015 et bilan du suivi (2011-2015) [Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert Complex. Monitoring of the Integrity and Use of Multispecies Spawning Grounds Developed in the Rupert River. Report on 2015 Studies and Follow-Up Report (2011–2015)]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Consortium Waska-Génivar. 2016b. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Suivi de la zostère marine de la côte nord-est de la baie James. Rapport d’étude 2014 [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Monitoring of Eelgrass on the Northeast Coast of James Bay. Study Report – 2014]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Consortium Waska-Génivar. 2017. Complexe de l’Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert. Suivi environnemental du cisco anadrome. Rapport d’études 2014-2015 et bilan du suivi (2008-2015) [Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert Complex. Environmental Monitoring of Anadromous Lake Cisco. Report on 2014–2015 Studies and Monitoring Report (2008–2015)]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Consortium Waska-Génivar. 2018. Complexe de l’Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert. Suivi des communautés de poissons et de la dynamique des populations dans la Rupert. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation. Rapport d’étude 2016 [Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert Complex. Monitoring of Fish Communities and Population Dynamics in the Rupert. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Study Report – 2016]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. 9-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Consortium Waska-Génivar. 2019. Complexe de l’Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert – Suivi de l’utilisation du territoire par les Cris 2015-2016 [Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert Complex – Monitoring of Territory Use by the Crees – 2015–2016]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2011. Unités désignables du caribou (Rangifer tarandus) au Canada [Designatable Units for Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada]. Ottawa: COSEWIC. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2017. Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le caribou (Rangifer tarandus), population migratrice de l’Est et population des monts Torngat, au Canada [COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou, Rangifer tarandus, Eastern Migratory Population, Torngat Mountains Population, in Canada]. Ottawa: COSEWIC. Courtois, R. 2003. La conservation du caribou forestier dans un contexte de perte d'habitat et de fragmentation du milieu [Woodland Caribou Conservation in a Context of Loss of Habitat and Fragmentation of the Environment]. (PhD diss., Université du Québec à Rimouski), https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/documents/faune/these_car_fores.pdf. Courtois, R., and A. Beaumont. 2002. A Preliminary Assessment on the Influence of Habitat Composition and Structure on Moose Density in Clear-Cuts of North-Western Québec. Alces 38: 167–176. Courtois, R., J.-P. Ouellet, A. Gingras, C. Dussault, L. Breton and J. Maltais. 2001. Changements historiques et répartition actuelle du caribou au Québec [Historical Changes and Current Distribution Area of the Caribou in Québec]. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Ministère des ressources naturelles du Québec. Courtois, R., J.-P. Ouellet, C. Dussault and A. Gingras. 2004. Forest Management Guidelines for Forest-Dwelling Caribou in Québec. The Forestry Chronicle 80 (5): 598–607. Couturier, S., R. Courtois, H. Crépeau, L. Rivest and S. Luttich. 1996. Calving Photocensus of the Rivière George Caribou Herd and Comparison with an Independent Census. Rangifer 16 (9) (special issue): 283–296. Cowx, I. G., and R. A. Gould. 1989. Effects of Stream Regulation on Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L., and Brown Trout, Salmo trutta I., in the Upper Severn Catchment, U.K. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 3 (1): 235–245. Crête, M., B. Drolet, J. Huot, M.-J. Fortin and G. J. Doucet. 1995. Chronoséquence après feu de la diversité de mammifères et d’oiseaux au nord de la forêt boréale québécoise [Post-Fire Chronosequence of the Diversity of Mammals and Birds in Québec’s Northern Boreal Forest]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25 (9): 1509–1518. Cunha, D. G. F., M. D. Lamparelli and M. Condé. 2013. A Trophic State Index for Tropical/Subtropical Reservoirs (TSItsr). Ecological Engineering 60: 126–134. In Deemer et al. 2016. Curtis, S. G., and R. R. Audet. 1975. Répartition de la zostère marine, côte-est de la baie-James [Distribution of Eelgrass, East Coast of James Bay]. 1:125,000 scale map. Fisheries and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. Cushman, R. M. 1985. Review of Ecological Effects of Rapidly Varying Flows Downstream from Hydroelectric Facilities. North America Journal of Fisheries Management 5 (3A): 330–339. Dalley, K. L., P. D. Taylor and D. Shutler. 2009. Success of Migratory Songbirds Breeding in Harvested Boreal Forests in Northwestern Newfoundland. The Condor 111 (2): 314–325. doi:10.1525/cond.2009.080104. Daniel Arbour & Associés. 1976. Fort George Relocation Study. Dauble, D. D., T. P. Hanrahan, D. R. Griest and M. J. Parsley. 2003. Impacts of the Columbia River Hydroelectric System on Main-Stem Habitats of Fall Chinook Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23 (3): 641–659. doi:10.1577/M02-013. Deblois, C., M. Demarty and A. Tremblay. 2018. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental 2017 en phase exploitation. Océanographie physique et biologique. Volume 2 – Production planctonique en milieu marin [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2017. Physical and Biological Oceanography. Volume 2 – Plankton Production in Marine Environments]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-5

Deemer, B. R., J. A. Harrison, L. Siyue, J. J. Beaulieu, T. DelSontro, N. Barros, J. F. Bezerra-Neto, S. M. Powers, M. A. dos Santos and J. Arie Vonk. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Reservoir Water Surfaces: A New Global Synthesis. BioScience 66 (11): 949–964. Demarty, M. 2010. Aménagement hydroélectrique de l’Eastmain-1. Suivi environnemental en phase d’exploitation. Suivi de la qualité de l’eau 2010. Rapport final [Eastmain-1 Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Water Quality Monitoring – 2010. Final Report]. Prepared by Environnement Illimité inc. for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Demarty, M., C. Lalumière, M. Belles-Isles, C. Deblois, A. Tremblay, J.-P. Gilbert and M. Levasseur. 2018. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental 2017 en phase exploitation. Océanographie physique et biologique. Volume 1 – Caractéristiques physiques de la zone de l’embouchure de la Romaine, herbiers de zostère, populations et habitat de la mye commune et frayères à capelan [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2017. Physical and Biological Oceanography. Volume 1 – Physical Characteristics of the Romaine Estuary, Eelgrass Beds, Soft-Shell Clam Populations and Habitat and Capelin Spawning Grounds]. Final report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Denis, R., M. Foisy, M. Desmarais, J. Marcoux and P. Côté. 1991. Érosion des berges des réservoirs hydroélectriques [Erosion of Banks of Hydroelectric Reservoirs]. Final Report (Volume I). Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Desrosiers, N., R. Morin and J. Jutras. 2002. Atlas des micromammifères du Québec [Atlas of Micromammals of Québec]. Québec: Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. Doucet, J., and M. Giguère. 1991. Étude de la biodiversité faunique dans les zones riveraines des réservoirs du complexe La Grande: rapport de terrain, septembre 1991 [Study of Fauna Biodiversity in the Riparian Zones of Reservoirs in the La Grande Complex: Field Report, September 1991]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Doyon, J.-F., and L. Belzile. 1998. Réseau de suivi environnemental du complexe La Grande (1977-1996). Suivi des communautés de poissons et étude spéciale sur le doré (secteur ouest du territoire) [La Grande Complex Environmental Monitoring Network (1977–1996). Monitoring of Fish Communities and Special Study of Walleye (Western Sector of Territory)]. Prepared by Groupe conseil Génivar for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Doyon, J.-F., and L. Belzile. 2000. Rivières Eastmain et Opinaca en aval des ouvrages de dérivation. Bilan du suivi des communautés de poissons (1978-1998) [Eastmain and Opinaca Rivers Downstream from By-Pass Structures]. Prepared by Groupe conseil Génivar for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Dumont, C., M. Girard, F. Bellavance and F. Noël. 1998. Mercury Level in the Cree Population of James Bay from 1988 to 1993/94. Canadian Medical Association Journal 158 (11): 1439–1445. Duthie, H. C., and M. L. Ostrofsky. 1982. Use of Phosphorus Budget Models in Reservoir Management. Canadian Water Resources Journal 7 (1): 337–348. doi:10.4296/cwrj0701337. Dyer, S. J. 1999. Movement and Distribution of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Response to Industrial Development in Northeastern Alberta (Master’s thesis, University of Alberta). Dyer, S. J., J. P. O’Neil, S. M. Wasel and S. Boutin. 2002. Quantifying Barrier Effects of Roads and Seismic Lines on Movements of Female Woodland Caribou in Northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 839–845. Ecoinvent. n.d. The Ecoinvent Database. Zurich: Ecoinvent. Accessed April 24, 2020. http://www.ecoinvent.org/ database/. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2019. Energy around the World. International, Data. Accessed April 24, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/electricity/electricity-capacity. Englobe. 2015. Centrale Mercier. Suivi environnemental 2015 en phase exploitation. Analyse du régime thermique [Mercier Generating Station. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2015. Analysis of Thermal Regime]. Prepared by M. Simoneau and M. Gendron for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. ENR (Government of the Northwest Territories, Environment and Natural Resources). n.d. Barren-ground Caribou. Yellowknife: Government of the Northwest Territories. Accessed July 5, 2020. https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/en/ services/barren-ground-caribou.

9-6

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Environment and Climate Change Canada 2020. Indicateurs canadiens de durabilité de l’environnement: progrès vers la cible de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre du Canada [Canadian environmental sustainability indicators: Progress towards Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target]. 15 p. Accessed in October 2020. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/cesindicators/progresstowards-canada-greenhouse-gas-reduction-target/2020/progress-ghg-emissions-reduction-target.pdf. Environment Canada. 1991. Aperçu des politiques environnementales adoptées par l’industrie canadienne [Overview of Environmental Policies Adopted by Canadian Industry]. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environnement Illimité inc. 2009. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Aménagement d’une frayère à esturgeon jaune au PK 290 de la rivière Rupert: énoncé d’envergure [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Development of a Lake Sturgeon Spawning Ground at KP 290 of the Rupert River: Scope Statement]. Prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Montréal: SEBJ. Environnement Illimité inc. 2012. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Synthèse des connaissances acquises sur l’esturgeon jaune [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Summary of Acquired Knowledge of Lake Sturgeon]. Report prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Environnement Illimité inc. 2013. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation. Suivi de l’intégrité et de l’utilisation des frayères aménagées pour l’esturgeon jaune. Travaux 2012 [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Monitoring of the Integrity and Use of Spawning Grounds Developed for Lake Sturgeon. 2012 Work]. Prepared by G. Guay and M. Gendron for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Environnement Illimité inc. 2014. Complexe de la Romaine. État de référence en océanographie physique et biologique. Volume 1 – Caractéristiques physiques de la zone de l’embouchure de la Romaine, herbiers de zostères, population et habitat de la mye commune et frayères à capelan. Travaux 2013 [Romaine Complex. Baseline Conditions for Physical and Biological Oceanography. Volume 1 – Physical Characteristics of the Romaine Estuary, Eelgrass Beds, Soft-Shell Clam Populations and Habitat and Capelin Spawning Grounds. 2013 Work]. Prepared by Y. Le Clainche, I. Lefebvre, S. Dubosq and C. Debois for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2018. 2014 National Emissions Inventory, version 2. Technical Support Document. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Emissions Inventory and Analysis Group, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Washington, DC: EPA. ERCFQ (Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec). 2013. Plan de rétablissement du caribou forestier (Rangifer tarandus caribou) au Québec – 2013-2023 [Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Québec – 2013–2023]. Prepared for Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec. Québec: ERCFQ. FAPAQ (Faune et Parcs Québec). 1999. Politique des débits réservés écologiques pour la protection du poisson et de ses habitats [Policy on Ecological Instream Flows to Protect Fish and Their Habitats]. Québec: Direction de la faune et des habitats. Accessed March 2020. https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/faune/habitats-fauniques/pdf/poli_debits_ reserves.pdf. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2020. The Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program. Accessed March 2020. https://www. dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/ffhpp-ppph-eng.html. FORAMEC inc. 2008. Raccordement du complexe de la Romaine. Étude des espèces floristiques et des micromammifères à statut particulier [Connection of Romaine Complex. Study of Special-Status Plant and Micromammal Species]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Québec: FORAMEC inc. Fortin, C. 2010. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Péribonka. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation. Colonies de castors [Péribonka Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Beaver Colonies]. Lévis: SNC-Lavalin, Environnement. Fortin, C. 2014. Dérivation partielle de la rivière Manouane. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation. Colonies de castors [Partial Diversion of Manouane River. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Beaver Colonies]. Lévis: SNC-Lavalin, Environnement et eau.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-7

Fortin, C., J. Deshaye and F. Long. 2007. Raccordement du complexe de La Romaine. Espèces floristiques et fauniques à statut particulier [Connection of Romaine Complex. Special-Status Plant and Micromammal Species]. Report presented to Hydro-Québec Équipement. Québec: FORAMEC inc. Garcia de Jalon, D., P. Sanchez and J. A. Camargo. 1994. Downstream Effects of a New Hydropower Impoundment on Macrophyte, Macroinvertebrate and Fish Communities. Regulated Rivers Research and Management 9 (4): 253–261. GDG Conseil inc. 2001. Les réservoirs d’Hydro-Québec et les activités nautiques, de villégiature et d’exploitation faunique [Hydro-Québec’s Reservoirs and Boating, Tourism and Wildlife Harvesting Activities]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Génivar. 2006. Aménagement hydroélectrique Sainte-Marguerite-3. Suivi environnemental 2005. Évolution des communautés de poissons et du mercure [Sainte-Marguerite-3 Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Follow-Up – 2005. Changes in Fish Communities and Mercury]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Génivar. 2008. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Aménagement pour l’ichtyofaune. Ouvrage de restitution de la Nemiscau-2. Énoncé d’envergure [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Development for Ichthyofauna. Nemiscau-2 Instream Flow Release Structure. Scope Statement]. Prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Montréal: SEBJ. Génivar. 2010a. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Toulnustouc. Suivi environnemental 2009. Évolution des communautés de poissons et du mercure [Toulnustouc Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Follow-Up – 2009. Changes in Fish Communities and Mercury]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Génivar. 2010b. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Suivi de la zostère marine de la côte nord-est de la baie James – État de référence 2009 [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Monitoring of Eelgrass on the Northeast Coast of James Bay – 2009 Baseline Conditions]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec et Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Study report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Génivar. 2011. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude environnementale en phase projet. État de référence de la population de saumon atlantique. Suivi 2010 [Romaine Complex. Environmental Study in Project Phase. Baseline Conditions for Atlantic Salmon. Follow-Up – 2010]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Final report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Génivar. 2012. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude environnementale en phase projet. État de référence de la population de saumon atlantique. Suivi 2011 [Romaine Complex. Environmental Study in Project Phase. Baseline Conditions for Atlantic Salmon. Follow-Up – 2011]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Génivar. 2013. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude environnementale en phase projet. État de référence de la population de saumon atlantique. Suivi 2012 [Romaine Complex. Environmental Study in Project Phase. Baseline Conditions for Atlantic Salmon. Follow-Up – 2012]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Giannico, G. R., and M. C. Healy. 1998. Effects of Flow and Food on Winter Movements of Juvenile Coho Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127 (4): 645–651. Gibson, R. J. 1993. The Atlantic Salmon in Fresh Water: Spawning, Rearing and Production. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 3: 39–73. Giguère, M., S. Brulotte and D. Leblanc. 2004. Aperçu de l’exploitation de la mye commune (Mya arenaria) entre la rivière Betsiamites et Baie-Trinité, Côte-Nord, Québec [Overview of Exploitation of the Soft-Shell Clam (Mya arenaria) between the Betsiamites River and Baie-Trinité, Côte-Nord, Québec]. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2539. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Girard, M., F. Noël and C. Dumont. 1996. Varying Mercury Exposure with Food Source in a James Bay Cree Community. Arctic Medical Research 55 (2): 69–74. Goedkoop, M. J., and R. Spriensma. 2001. The Eco-indicator 99. A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report, 3rd ed. Amersfoort, Netherlands: Pré Consultants B.V. Goedkoop, M. J., R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. Schryver, J. Struijs and R. Zelm. 2009. ReCiPe 2008. A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level, 1st ed. The Hague: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer.

9-8

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Grimard, Y., and H. G. Jones. 1982. Trophic Upsurge in New Reservoirs: A Model for Total Phosphorus Concentrations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39 (11): 1473–1483. Groupe DDM. 2003. Aménagement hydroélectrique de l’Eastmain-1. Étude d’aménagement faunique en milieu terrestre. Essai de relocalisation et de suivi télémétrique de castors [Eastmain-1 Hydroelectric Development. Study of Terrestrial Wildlife Management. Beaver Relocation and Telemetric Monitoring Test]. Prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Technical report, final version. Montréal: SEBJ, Hydro-Québec. Groupe DDM. 2007. Aménagement hydroélectrique de l’Eastmain-1. Suivi de la faune terrestre après la mise en eau du réservoir Eastmain 1, avril 2006 à mars 2007 [Eastmain-1 Hydroelectric Development. Terrestrial Wildlife Monitoring Following Impoundment of Eastmain 1 Reservoir, April 2006 to March 2007]. Prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Supplementary final report. Montréal: SEBJ. Groupe DDM. 2010. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Surveillance de la faune terrestre lors de la mise en eau des biefs Rupert [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Terrestrial Wildlife Monitoring During Impoundment of Rupert Diversion Bays]. Prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Monitoring report. Final version. Montréal: SEBJ, Hydro-Québec. Groupe DDM. 2015. Complexe de la Romaine. Phase construction. Étude environnementale. Surveillance des déplacements de la faune terrestre lors de la mise en eau du réservoir de la Romaine 2 au printemps 2014 [Romaine Complex. Construction Phase. Environmental Study. Monitoring of Terrestrial Wildlife Movements During Impoundment of Romaine 2 Reservoir in Spring 2014]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Study report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Groupe DDM. 2019. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi du caribou forestier. Rapport d’activités de terrain en 2019 [Romaine Complex. Monitoring of Woodland Caribou. Report of Field Activities – 2019]. Report presented to Hydro-Québec. Groupe EDF. 2012. Une technologie dévoilée. Le solaire thermodynamique à concentration [A Technology Revealed. Concentrated Solar Power]. Paris: Groupe EDF. Accessed April 24, 2020. https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/ Lot 3/CHERCHEURS/Publications/technologiedevoilee01internet.pdf. Groupe EDF. 2013. La biomasse [Biomass]. Paris: Groupe EDF. Accessed April 24, 2020. http://energie.edf.com/ energies-nouvelles/biomasse-47908.html. Groupe HBA. 1998. Dérivation partielle de la rivière Mégiscane. Étude de faisabilité. Rapport sectoriel. Morphosédimentologie des berges actuelles et futures des plans d’eau. Volume 1 [Partial Diversion of Mégiscane River. Feasibility Study. Sectorial Report. Morphosedimentology of Current and Future Banks of Bodies of Water]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Groupe HBA. 1999. Approche globale sur la gestion environnementale des réservoirs d’Hydro-Québec. Étude morphosédimentologique des berges du réservoir Taureau et de leur dynamique en relation avec les modalités de la gestion de ce plan d’eau [General Approach to Environmental Management of Hydro-Québec’s Reservoirs. Morphosedimentological Study of the Banks of Taureau Reservoir and Their Dynamics in Relation to the Management of the Body of Water]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Gudmundson, S., A. Eklöf and U. Wennergren. 2015. Environmental Variability Uncovers Disruptive Effects of Species’ Interactions on Population Dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences 282 (1812): 20151126. Guinée, J. B., M. Gorée, R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, R. Kleijn, A. de Koning, et al. 2001. Life Cycle Assessment. An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Leiden, Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science – Leiden University (CML). Gunn, A., D. Russell and J. Eamer. 2011. Tendances des populations de caribou des zones septentrionales du Canada [Northern Caribou Population Trends in Canada]. Technical Thematic Report No. 10. Ottawa: Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers. Halleraker, J. H., S. J. Saltveit, A. Harby, J. V. Arnekleiv, H.-P. Fjeldstad and B. Kohler. 2003. Factors Influencing Stranding of Wild Juvenile Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) During Rapid and Frequent Decreases in an Artificial Stream. Rivers Research and Applications 19 (5–6): 589–603. Hasnain, S. S, C. K. Minns and B. J. Shuter. 2010. Key Ecological Temperature Metrics for Canadian Freshwater Fishes. Climate Change Research Report: CCRR-17. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario: Ministry of Natural Resources. Accessed April 24, 2020. http://www.climateontario.ca/MNR_Publications/stdprod_088017.pdf. QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-9

Hauschild, M., and J. Potting. 2003. Spatial Differentiation in Life Cycle Impact Assessment: The EDIP 2003 Methodology. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency. Hayeur, G. 2001. Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern Environments from 1970 to 2000. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Health Canada. 2007. Human Health Risk Assessment of Mercury in Fish and Health Benefits of Fish Consumption. Ottawa: Bureau of Chemical Safety, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch. Heggenes, J., and T. Traaen. 1988. Downstream Migration and Critical Water Velocities in Stream Channels for Fry of Four Salmonid Species. Journal of Fish Biology 32 (5): 717–727. Hernandez, S., E. Maltais, Y. Leblanc and J.-P. Gilbert. 2019. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental 2018 en phase exploitation. Suivi du développement naturel des milieux humides en aval de la centrale de la Romaine-2 [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2018. Monitoring of the Natural Development of Wetlands Downstream from the Romaine-2 Generating Station]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Huot, J., and M. Paré. 1986. Surveillance écologique du complexe La Grande. Synthèse des études sur le caribou de la région de Caniapiscau [Ecological Monitoring of the La Grande Complex. Summary of Studies of Caribou in the Caniapiscau Region]. Québec: Université Laval; Montréal: Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Hydro-Québec. 2002. Ententes entre Hydro-Québec, la Société d’énergie de la Baie James et les Cris du Québec. Résumés [Agreements between Hydro-Québec, the Société d’énergie de la Baie James and the Crees of Québec. Summaries]. Accessed November 21, 2019. http://www.hydroquebec.com/data/loi-sur-acces/ pdf/c-5351-document.pdf. Hydro-Québec. 2014. Filière d’énergie renouvelable. L’énergie solaire photovoltaïque [A Renewable Energy Option. Photovoltaic Solar Power]. Accessed April 28, 2020. http://www.hydroquebec.com/data/developpementdurable/pdf/fiche-solaire.pdf. Hydro-Québec. 2015. Énergie éolienne. Comment ça fonctionne? [Wind Power. How Does It Work?]. Accessed April 28, 2020. http://www.hydroquebec.com/comprendre/eolienne. Hydro-Québec. 2016. Biodiversity Performance Report. 2015. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec. 2017a. Faits saillants des réalisations en biodiversité. 2016 [Biodiversity Performance Highlights – 2016]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec. 2017b. Facts on Hydro-Québec’s Environmental and Social Footprint. The Relationship between Hydro-Québec and First Nations. PowerPoint presentation, Marie-France McSween, April 11. Hydro-Québec. 2017c. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Suivi de l’hydrologie, de l’hydraulique et du régime thermique en milieu continental – 2016 [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Monitoring of Hydrology, Hydraulics and the Thermal Regime in a Continental Environment – 2016]. Prepared by I. Thériault for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec. 2018a. Complexe de la Romaine. Bilan des activites environnementales 2017 [Romaine Complex. Report on Environmental Activities – 2017]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec. 2018b. Hydro-Québec et les communautés autochtones. Plus de 40 ans de partenariat [Hydro-Québec and Indigenous Communities. Partners for Over 40 Years]. Accessed April 28, 2020. http://www.hydroquebec. com/data/a-propos/pdf/partenariat-communautes-autochtones-2017g422f.pdf. Hydro-Québec. 2018c. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental 2017 en phase d'exploitation. Suivi de l'hydrologie, de l'hydraulique et du régime thermique de la rivière Romaine. [Romaine Complex. 2017 Environmental Follow-Up during Operation Phase. Follow-up of Hydrology, Hydraulics and Thermal Regime of the Rivière Romaine]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec. 2019a. Complexe de la Romaine. Bilan des activités environnementales 2018 [Romaine Complex. Report on Environmental Activities – 2018]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec. 2019b. Les installations électriques d’Hydro-Québec et l’aménagement du territoire [Hydro-Québec’s Electricity Facilities and Land Use Management]. Accessed October 23, 2019. https://www.hydroquebec.com/ data/administrations-municipales/pdf/20190326-installations-amenagement-territoire.pdf. 9-10

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Hydro-Québec. 2020. Rapport annuel 2019. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Accessed June 2020. http://www.hydroquebec. com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/rapport-annuel-2019-hydro-quebec.pdf. Hydro-Québec and SEBJ (Société d’énergie de la Baie James). 2013. Centrale de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Évaluation de l’efficacité des outils d’information sur le mercure et la consommation de poisson [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Assessment of Effectiveness of Information Tools on Mercury and Fish Consumption]. Report prepared by Consortium Waska-Génivar for Hydro-Québec and Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Montréal. Hydro-Québec Production. 2003. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Péribonka. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Volume 1. Rapport [Péribonka Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Impact Study. Volume 1. Report]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2004a. Centrale de l’Eastmain-1-A et dérivation Rupert. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Volume 2. Chapitres 10 à 12 [Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion. Environmental Impact Study. Volume 2. Chapters 10 to 12]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2004b. Centrale de l’Eastmain-1-A et dérivation Rupert. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Volume 3. Chapitres 13 à 15 [Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion. Environmental Impact Study. Volume 3. Chapters 13 to 15]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2004c. Centrale de l’Eastmain-1-A et dérivation Rupert. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Volume 4. Chapitres 16 à 24 [Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion. Environmental Impact Study. Volume 4. Chapters 16 to 24]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2007a. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Programme de suivi environnemental 2007-2023 [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Environmental Monitoring Program – 2007–2023]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2007b. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Volume 2. Milieu physique [Romaine Complex. Environmental Impact Study. Volume 2. Physical Environment]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2007c. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Volume 3. Milieu biologique (1 de 2) [Romaine Complex. Environmental Impact Study. Volume 3. Biological Environment (1 of 2)]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2007d. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Volume 4. Milieu biologique (2 de 2) [Romaine Complex. Environmental Impact Study. Volume 4. Biological Environment (2 of 2)]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2007e. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Volume 6. Milieu humain – Communautés innues et archéologie [Romaine Complex. Environmental Impact Study. Volume 6. Human Environment – Innu Communities and Archaeology]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2007f. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude d’impact sur l’environnement. Volume 7. Bilan des impacts et des mesures d’atténuation [Romaine Complex. Environmental Impact Study. Volume 7. Report on Impacts and Mitigation Measures]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2008. Complexe de la Romaine. Résumé de l’étude d’impact sur l’environnement [Romaine Complex. Summary of Environmental Impact Study]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec Production. 2010. Complexe de la Romaine. Programme de suivi environnemental 2009-2040 [Romaine Complex. Environmental Monitoring Program – 2009–2040]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. IEPF (Institut de l’Énergie et de l’Environnement de la Francophonie). 2008. L’énergie solaire photovoltaïque. Fiche technique PRISME, Thématique: Les énergies nouvelles et renouvelables, no 3 [Photovoltaic Solar Power. PRISME Factsheet, Topic: New and Renewable Energies, no. 3]. Québec: IEPF. Imbeau, L., M. Mönkkönen and A. Desrochers. 2001. Long-Term Effects of Forestry on Birds of the Eastern Canadian Boreal Forests: A Comparison with Fennoscandia. Conservation Biology 15 (4): 1151–1162. Imrie. R. 1997. Mercury Survey – The Education Campaign 1995. Chisasibi: Cree Board of Health and Social Services of James Bay. QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-11

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. 2015. Cree Nation of Chisasibi. The Nations Map of Quebec. Accessed July 5, 2020. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/Mobile/Nations/profile_chisasibi-eng.html. Ingram, G., and P. Larouche. 1987. Changes in the Under-Ice Characteristics of La Grande Rivière Plume Due to Discharge Variations. Atmosphere-Ocean 25 (3): 242–250. Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2019a. Profils statistiques par région et MRC géographiques [Statistical Profiles by Region and Geographical RCM]. Accessed June 2, 2020. https://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/profils/ region_00/region_00.htm. Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2019b. 10 – Le Nord-du-Québec ainsi que ses municipalités régionales de comté (MRC) [10 – Nord-du-Québec and Its Regional County Municipalities (RCMs)]. Accessed June 2, 2020. https:// www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/profils/region_10/region_10_00.htm. Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2019c. 09 – La Côte-Nord ainsi que ses municipalités régionales de comté (MRC) [09 – Côte-Nord and Its Regional County Municipalities (RCMs)]. Accessed June 2, 2020. https://www.stat.gouv. qc.ca/statistiques/profils/region_09/region_09_00.htm. IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). 2011. Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Accessed April 28, 2020. http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report. IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). 2019. Renewable Capacity Statistics 2019. Abu Dhabi: IRENA. Jacquaz, B., P. Champagne and D. Messier. 1984. Étude des conséquences de la réduction des débits fluviaux de la rivière Eastmain sur l’écosystème estuarien. Physico-chimie et pigments chlorophylliens dans l’estuaire de la rivière Eastmain de 1979 à 1981 [Impact Study of the Reduction of River Flow in the Eastmain River on the Estuarine Ecosystem. Physical Chemistry and Chlorophyll Pigments in the Eastmain River Estuary from 1979 to 1981]. Montréal: SEBJ. Jenkins, R. M. 1982. The Morphoedaphic Index and Reservoir Fish Production. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111 (2): 133–140. Kastelberger, L. 2009. Planning with Native Communities: An Evaluation of Participatory Planning Practices in Québec’s Communities. School of Urban Planning. Montréal: McGill University. Accessed November 22, 2019. http:// digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1574363920567~978. Kaweshekami Environnement inc. 2017. Complexe de l’Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation 2015. Suivi des aménagements pour l’omble de fontaine et des chenaux de montaison dans la rivière Rupert. 3e année de suivi [Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in the Operation Phase – 2015. Monitoring of Structures for Brook Trout and Upstream Migration Channels in the Rupert River. 3rd Year of Monitoring]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Kimmel, B. L., and A. W. Groeger. 1984. Factors Controlling Primary Production in Lakes and Reservoirs: A Perspective. Lake and Reservoir Management 1 (1): 277–281. In Turgeon et al. 2016. Kittle, A. M., M. Anderson, T. Avgar, J. A. Baker, G. S. Brown, J. Hagens, E. Iwachewski, S. Moffatt, A. Mosser, B. R. Patteron, D. E. B. Reid, A. R. Rodgers, J. Shuter, G. M. Steet, I. D. Thompson, L. M. Vander Vennen, J. M. Fryxell. 2015. Wolves Adapt Territory Size, Not Pack Size to Local Habitat Quality. Journal of Animal Ecology 84 (5): 1177–1186. doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12366. Klein, D. R. 1971. Reaction of Reindeer to Obstructions and Disturbances. Science 173 (3995): 393–398. Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes. A New Perspective. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. Kolpaschikov, L., V. Makhailov, and D. E. Russell. 2015. The Role of Harvest, Predators, and Socio-Political Environment in the Dynamics of the Taimyr Wild Reindeer Herd with some Lessons for North America. Ecology and Society 20 (1): 9. doi: 10.5751/ES-07129-200109. Kondolf, G. M., and R. Schmitt. 2018. Dams, Sediment Discontinuity, and Management Responses. Hydrolink 3: 68–71. Krebs, C. J. 1996. Population Cycles Revisited. Journal of Mammalogy 77 (1): 8–24.

9-12

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Kumar, A., T. Schei, A. Ahenkorah, R. Caceres Rodriguez, J.-M. Davernay, M. Freitas, D. Hall, Å. Killingtveit and Z. Liu. 2011. Hydropower. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, edited by O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer and C. von Stechow, 437–496. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press. Lalumière, R. 1987. Répartition de la zostère marine (Zostera marina) sur la côte est de la baie James – été 1987 [Distribution of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) on the East Coast of James Bay – Summer 1987]. Prepared by Gilles Shooner et Associés inc. for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Montréal: SEBJ. Lalumière, R., and C. Lemieux. 2002. Suivi environnemental des projets La Grande-2-A et La Grande-1. La zostère marine de la côte nord-est de la baie James. Rapport synthèse pour la période 1988-2000 [Environmental Follow-Up of the La Grande-2-A and La Grande-1 Projects. Eelgrass on the Northeast Coast of James Bay. Summary Report for the Period 1988–2000]. Prepared by Génivar for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Lalumière, R., L. Belzile and C. Lemieux. 1992. Étude de la zostère marine le long de la côte nord-est de la Baie James (été 1991) [Study of Eelgrass Along the Northeast Coast of James Bay (Summer 1991)]. Prepared by Groupe Environnement Shooner inc. for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Montréal: SEBJ. Lampila, P., M. Mönkkönen and A. Desrochers. 2005. Demographic Responses by Birds to Forest Fragmentation. Conservation Biology 19 (5): 1537–1546. Landry, B., and M. Mercier. 1992. Notions de géologie. 3e éd. [Concepts of Geology, 3rd ed.]. Montréal: Modulo Éditeur. Larinier, M. 2001. Environmental Issues, Dams and Fish Migration. In Dams, Fish and Fisheries. Opportunities, Challenges and Conflict Resolution, edited by G. Marmulla, 45–90. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, no. 419. Rome: FAO. Lavoie, C. 2019. 50 plantes envahissantes. Protéger la nature et l’agriculture [50 Invasive Plants. Protecting Nature and Agriculture]. Québec: Les publications du Québec. Lavoie, K., and G. Mestokosho. 2017. Innu-Natukana. Description of an Experience with Hydro-Québec (2011–2014). Romaine Complex. Hydro-Québec. Presentation at the Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), April. Leblanc, Y. 2002. Aménagement hydroélectrique Sainte-Marguerite-3. Suivi environnemental. Orignal/Bilan du suivi 1995-2001 [Sainte-Marguerite-3 Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Follow-Up. Moose/Monitoring Report 1995–2001]. Prepared by Poulin Thériault inc. (TECSULT) for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Leclerc, M., A. Boudreault, T. A. Bechara and G. Corfa. 1995. Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling: A Neglected Tool in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124 (5): 645–662. Leclerc, M., P. Boudreau, J. Bechara, L. Belzile and D. Villeneuve. 1994. Modélisation de la dynamique de l’habitat des jeunes stades de saumon atlantique (Salmo salar) de la rivière Ashuapmushuan (Québec, Canada) [A Model of Habitat Dynamics Applied to Landlocked Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Juveniles of the Ashuapmushuan River (Québec, Canada)]. Bulletin français de la pêche et de la pisciculture 332: 11–32. Lefort, S., and S. Massé. 2015. Plan de gestion de l’orignal au Québec 2012-2019 [Québec Moose Management Plan 2012–2019]. Québec: Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs. Legendre, L., and S. Demers. 1984. Towards Dynamic Biological Oceanography and Limnology. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41 (1): 2–19. doi:10.1139/f84-001. Lemieux, C., and R. Lalumière. 1995. Répartition de la zostère marine (Zostera marina) dans l’estuaire du fleuve Saint-Laurent et dans la baie des Chaleurs (1994) [Distribution of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the St. Lawrence River Estuary and Baie des Chaleurs (1994)]. Prepared by Groupe Conseil Génivar inc. and presented to Department of the Environment Canada. Sainte-Foy: Environment Canada. Lemieux, C., and R. Lalumière. 2000. Complexe La Grande. Suivi environnemental 2000. Les habitats côtiers de la Baie James [La Grande Complex. Environmental Follow-Up – 2000. The Coastal Habitats of James Bay]. Prepared by Groupe conseil Génivar inc. for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-13

Lemieux, C., and R. Lalumière. 2004. État des zostéraies de la côte est de la baie James (été 2004) [Status of Eelgrass Beds on the East Coast of James Bay (Summer 2004)]. Prepared by Groupe Conseil Génivar inc. for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Lemieux. C., R. Lalumière and M. Laperle. 1999. Complexe La Grande. Suivi environnemental 1999. Les habitats côtiers de la Baie James et la végétation aquatique de La Grande Rivière [La Grande Complex. Environmental Follow-Up – 1999. The Coastal Habitats of James Bay and Aquatic Vegetation of the La Grande River]. Prepared by Groupe Conseil Génivar inc. for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Leonardo Academy. 2012. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Framework and Guidance for Establishing Public Declarations and Claims. Madison, WI: Leonardo Academy. Lepage, S., and R. G. Ingram. 1986. Salinity Intrusion in the Eastmain River Estuary Following a Major Reduction of Freshwater Input. Journal of Geophysical Research 91 (C1): 909–915. doi:10.1029/JC091iC01p00909. Les Consultants Dominique Égré inc. 2004. Valeur ajoutée à l’eau par les projets hydroélectriques [Value Added to Water by Hydroelectric Projects]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Lucotte, M., R. Schetagne, N. Thérien, C. Langlois and A. Tremblay, eds. 1999. Mercury in the Biogeochemical Cycle. Natural Environments and Hydroelectric Reservoirs of Northern Québec (Canada). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Magnin, E. 1977. Écologie des eaux douces du territoire de la Baie James [Freshwater Ecology in the James Bay Territory]. Montréal: Société d’Énergie de la Baie James. Mahoney, S. P., and J. A. Schaefer. 2002. Hydroelectric Development and the Disruption of Migration in Caribou. Biological Conservation 107 (2): 147–153. Makivik Corporation. 2019. Chisasibi. Section Les communautés [Nunavik Communities Section]. Accessed November 12, 2019. https://www.makivik.org/fr/chisasibi/ Mallory, C. D. and M. S. Boyce. 2018. Observed and Predicted Eﬀects of Climate Change on Arctic Caribou and Reindeer. Environmental Reviews 26 (1): 13–25. doi:10.1139/er-2017-0032. Maloney, A., and D. Bouchard. 2007. Aménagement hydroélectrique de l’Eastmain-1. Milieux terrestres et humides. Suivi environnemental 2007. Baies endiguées et végétalisation des aires affectées [Eastmain-1 Hydroelectric Development. Terrestrial Environments and Wetlands. Environmental Follow-Up – 2007. Dammed Bays and Planting of Affected Areas]. Prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Québec: FORAMEC inc. Maloney, A., and D. Bouchard. 2013. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Péribonka. Suivi 2012 des habitats riverains du réservoir de la Péribonka et des milieux humides aménagés pour la sauvagine (dépôt H) [Péribonka Hydroelectric Development. 2012 Monitoring of Riparian Habitats of Péribonka Reservoir and Wetlands Constructed for Waterfowl (Depot H)]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Lévis: SNC-Lavalin Environnement inc. Massicotte, B., B.-A. Maurice, É. Racine, A. Tremblay and J.-P. Gilbert. 2017. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental 2015 en phase exploitation. Océanographie: herbiers de zostère marine et populations et habitat de la mye commune [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2015. Oceanography: Eelgrass Beds and Soft-Shell Clam Populations and Habitat]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Final report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Massicotte, B., V. Métivier, A. Tremblay and C. Durocher. 2019. Complexe de l’Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert. Suivi de l’intrusion saline dans la baie de Rupert. Rapport d’étude – 2017 [Eastmain-Sarcelle-Rupert Complex. Monitoring of Saline Intrusion in Rupert Bay. Study Report – 2017]. Report presented to Hydro-Québec. McAdam, S. O., J. A. Crossman, C. Williamson, I. St-Onge, R. Dion, B. A. Manny and J. Gessner. 2018. If You Build It, Will They Come? Spawning Habitat Remediation for Sturgeon. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 34 (2): 258–278. doi:10.1111/jai.13566. MELCC (Québec, Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques). 2020. Engagements du Québec. Nos cibles de réduction d’émissions de GES. [Québec’s commitments. Our GHG emission reduction targets.]. Accessed in October 2020. http://www.environnement.gouv.qc.ca/ changementsclimatiques/engagement-quebec.asp.

9-14

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Messier, D. 1985. Modifications physiques dans l’estuaire de la rivière Koksoak à la suite de la coupure de la rivière Caniapiscau [Physical Modifications in the Koksoak River Estuary Following the Cutoff of the Caniapiscau River]. In Environment: Proceedings of the Kativik Environment Conference, December 1–12, 1984, Fort Chimo, edited by P. Jacobs and H. Chatagnier, 261–280. Outremont, QC: Les éditions Boulard. Messier, D., and F. Anctil. 1996. On Under-Ice River Plumes in James and Hudson Bays. In Ecohydraulics 2000: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Québec, June, edited by M. Leclerc, H. Capra, S. Valentin, A. Boudreault and Y. Côté, 447–458. Québec: Institut national de la recherche scientifique. Messier, D., R. G. Ingram and D. Roy. 1986. Physical and biological modifications in response to La Grande hydroelectric complex. Canadian Inland Seas, Elsevier Oceanography Series 44, edited by I. P. Martini. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company. Messier, D., S. Lepage and S. Margerie. 1987. Influence du couvert de glace sur l’étendue du panache de La Grande Rivière (baie James) [Influence of Ice Cover on the Extent of the La Grande River Plume (James Bay)]. Arctic 42 (3): 278–284. MFFP (Québec, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs). 2018. Cartographie du 5e inventaire écoforestier du Québec méridional. Méthodes et données associées [Mapping of 5th Ecoforest Inventory of Southern Québec. Methods and Associated Data]. Québec: MFFP, Secteur des forêts, Direction des inventaires forestiers. Accessed April 29, 2020. https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/forets/inventaire/pdf/carto_5E_methodes_donnees.pdf. MFFP (Québec, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs). 2019. Liste des espèces désignées comme menacées ou vulnérables au Québec [List of Species Designated as Threatened or Vulnerable in Québec]. Accessed November 2019. http://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/faune/especes/menacees/liste.asp. MFFP (Québec, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs). 2020. Suivi des déplacements du caribou par télémétrie satellitaire [Monitoring Caribou Movements with Satellite Telemetry]. Accessed in January 2020. https://mffp. gouv.qc.ca/la-faune/chasse/suivi-des-deplacements-du-caribou-par-telemetrie-satellitaire/. Michaud, R. (1985). La mousse de mer de L’Isle-Verte à la Baie des Chaleurs [Sea Grass in L’Isle-Verte, Baie des Chaleurs]. Montréal: Les éditions Léméac inc. Moran, E. F., M. C. Lopez, N. Moore, N. Müller and D. W. Hyndman. 2018. Sustainable Hydropower in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (47): 11891–11898. doi:10.1073/pnas.1809426115. Morneau, F. 1998. Utilisation des réservoirs par la sauvagine [Laforge-1 et Robertson] [Reservoir Use by Waterfowl (Laforge-1 and Robertson)]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Morneau, F. 1999. Utilisation des réservoirs par la sauvagine. Réservoir Caniapiscau [Reservoir Use by Waterfowl. Caniapiscau Reservoir].Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Morneau, F. 2003. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Sainte-Marguerite-3. Suivi de l’avifaune 1994-2002 – Phase construction [Sainte-Marguerite-3 Hydroelectric Development. Avifauna Monitoring 1994–2002 – Construction Phase]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Summary report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Morneau, F. 2004. Aménagement hydroélectrique Sainte-Marguerite-3. Suivi environnemental 2004 en phase exploitation. Suivi de l’avifaune aquatique et des espèces aviaires d’intérêt particulier [Sainte-Marguerite-3 Hydroelectric Development. 2004 Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Monitoring of Waterfowl and Special-Status Bird Species]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Morneau, F. 2005. Impacts des aménagements hydroélectriques sur la sauvagine [Impacts of Hydroelectric Developments on Waterfowl]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Morneau, F. 2008. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A, de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert. Avifaune. Suivi de la nidification de la mouette de Bonaparte [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion. Avifauna. Monitoring of Nesting of Bonaparte’s Gull]. Prepared for Société d’énergie de la Baie James. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. MRNF (Québec, Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune). 2007. Portrait territorial – Côte-Nord [Territorial Portrait – Côte-Nord]. Québec: MRNF, Direction générale de la mission et de la coordination et Direction du soutien aux opérations Mines, Énergie et Territoire. Accessed April 29, 2020. https://mern.gouv.qc.ca/ documents/territoire/portrait-cote-nord.pdf.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-15

Myers, J. H. 2018. Population Cycles: Generalities, Exceptions and Remaining Mysteries. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 285 (1875): 20172841. doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.2841. Natural Resources Canada. 2016. Comment fonctionnent les technologies solaires thermiques. Énergie solaire thermique [How It Works. How Solar Thermal Technologies Work]. Accessed June 2, 2002. https://www.rncan.gc. ca/energie/sources-denergie-et-reseau-de-distribution/energies-renouvelables/energie-solaire-thermique/ comment-cela-fonctionne-t-il/7334. Nault, R. 1983. Complexe hydroélectrique de La Grande Rivière. Le castor dans la région de La Grande 3 et son comportement durant le remplissage du réservoir [La Grande River Hydroelectric Complex. Beavers in the Region of La Grande 3 and Their Behavior During Impoundment of the Reservoir]. Montréal: Société d’énergie de la Baie James and SOTRAC. Nault, R., and R. Courcelles. 1984. Complexe hydroélectrique de La Grande Rivière. Comportement du castor durant l’exploitation des réservoirs hydroélectriques de La Grande 2 et Opinaca [La Grande River Hydroelectric Complex. Beaver Behavior During Operation of the La Grande 2 and Opinaca Hydroelectric Reservoirs]. Montréal: Société d’énergie de la Baie James and SOTRAC. Nellemann, C., I. Vistnes, P. Jordhøy, O. Strand and A. Newton. 2003. Progressive Impact of Piecemeal Infrastructure Development on Wild Reindeer. Biological Conservation 113 (2): 307–317. Niemi, G., J. Hanowski, P. Helle, R. Howe, M. Mönkkönen, L. Venier and D. Welsh. 1998. Ecological Sustainability of Birds in Boreal Forests. Conservation Ecology 2 (2): 17. http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss2/art17/. Paquet, G., and J. Jutras. 1996. Guides techniques. Aménagement des boisés et terres privés pour la faune. 9. Installation de structures pour favoriser la petite faune [Technical Guides. Development of Woodlots and Private Land for Wildlife. 9. Installation of Structures for Small Wildlife]. Québec: Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec. Paquette, S., P. Poullaouec-Gonidec and G. Domon. 2008. Guide de gestion des paysages au Québec. Lire, comprendre et valoriser le paysage [Guide to Managing Québec’s Landscapes. Reading, Understanding and Valuing the Landscape]. Accessed October 10, 2019. https://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/documents/publications/ guide-gestion-paysage.pdf. Paré, M. 1987. Effets du remplissage d’un réservoir hydro-électrique sur la population de caribous de Caniapiscau [Effects of Impoundment of a Hydroelectric Reservoir on the Caniapiscau Caribou Population] (Master’s thesis, Université Laval). Payette, S., and L. Rochefort. 2001. Écologie des tourbières du Québec-Labrador [Ecology of Peat Bogs in Québec and Labrador]. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Planète énergies. 2014a. La mer, une réserve de chaleur inexploitée. Décryptages. Dossier Les énergies marines, énergies bleues [The Ocean, an Underused Heat Reservoir. Close-Up. Feature Report: Ocean Energy]. Accessed June 2, 2020. https://www.planete-energies.com/fr/medias/decryptages/la-mer-une-reservede-chaleur-rarement-exploitee. Planète énergies. 2014b. L’énergie houlomotrice: l’utilisation du mouvement perpétuel. Décryptages. Dossier Les énergies marines, énergies bleues [Wave Energy: Harnessing the Motion of Waves. Close-Up. Feature Report: Ocean Energy]. Accessed June 2, 2020. https://www.planete-energies.com/fr/medias/ decryptages/l-energie-houlomotrice-l-utilisation-du-mouvement-perpetuel. Planète énergies. 2014c. L’énergie marémotrice. Décryptages. Dossier Les énergies marines, énergies bleues [Tidal Energy. Close-Up. Feature Report: Ocean Energy]. Accessed May 1, 2020.https://www.planete-energies. com/fr/medias/decryptages/l-energie-maremotrice. Planète énergies. 2014d. L’eau salée, moteur de l’énergie osmotique. Décryptages. Dossier Les énergies marines, énergies bleues [Salt Water, Driving Osmotic Energy. Close-Up. Feature Report: Ocean Energy]. Accessed June 2, 2020. https://www.planete-energies.com/fr/medias/decryptages/l-eau-salee-moteurde-l-energie-osmotique. Plante, S., C. Dussault, J. H. Richard and S. D. Côté. 2018. Human Disturbance Effects and Cumulative Habitat Loss in Endangered Migratory Caribou. Biological Conservation 224: 129–143.

9-16

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Poly-Géo inc. 2004. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Péribonka. Étude de la géomorphologie [Péribonka Hydroelectric Development. Geomorphology Study]. Prepared by Guy Pâquet and Léon Hardy for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Poly-Géo inc. 2006. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Toulnustouc. Suivi environnemental 2005 – Érosion des rives [Toulnustouc Hydroelectric Development. 2005 Environmental Follow-Up – Erosion of Banks]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Poly-Géo inc. 2014. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Péribonka. Suivi environnemental en phase d’exploitation – Stabilité des rives (2013) [Toulnustouc Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – Stability of Banks (2013)]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Final report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Poly-Géo inc. and Biofilia. 2016. Centrales de l’Eastmain-1-A et de la Sarcelle et dérivation Rupert – Suivi 2015 de la dynamique des rives de la rivière Rupert [Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion – 2015 Monitoring of Rupert River Bank Dynamics]. Final report presented to Hydro-Québec Production, Direction régionale – La Grande Rivière. Québec. 2009. Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, R.S.Q., c. C-61.1. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed November 2019. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/ cs/C-61.1/20091204. Québec. 2010. Sustainable Forest Development Act, R.S.Q., c. A-18.1. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed November 2019. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/A-18.1/20100401. Québec. 2020a. Act respecting land use planning and development, R.S.Q., A-19.1. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed April 2020. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/A-19.1. Québec. 2020b. Act respecting the lands in the domain of the State, R.S.Q., T-8.1. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed April 2020. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showDoc/cs/T-8.1. Québec. 2020c. Act respecting the Régie de l’énergie, R.S.Q., R-6.01. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed April 2020. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/R-6.01. Québec. 2020d. Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species, R.S.Q., E-12.01. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed April 2020. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/E-12.01/. Québec. 2020e. Cultural Heritage Act, R.S.Q., c. p-9.002. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed April 2020. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/P-9.002. Québec. 2020f. Dam Safety Act, R.S.Q., c. S-3.1.01. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed April 2020. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/S-3.1.01. Québec. 2020g. Environment Quality Act, R.S.Q., c. Q-2. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed April 2020. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/Q-2/. Québec. 2020h. Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains, R.S.Q., c. Q-2, r. 35. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed April 2020. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/ cr/Q-2,%20r.%2035. Québec. 2020i. Watercourses Act, R.S.Q., c. R-13. Québec, Publications officielles du Québec. Accessed April 2020. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/R-13. Québec, Ministère de l’Environnement. 2001. Rapport d’analyse environnementale. Projet d’aménagement hydroélectrique de la rivière Toulnustouc. Modification de décret. Dossier 3211-12-61 [Environmental Analysis Report. Toulnustouc River Hydroelectric Development Project. Amendment of Order in Council. File 3211-12-61]. Accessed November 12, 2019. http://environnement.gouv.qc.ca/evaluations/decret/toulnustouc-2.pdf. Randall, R. G., J. R. M. Kelso and S. K. Minns. 1995. Fish Production in Freshwaters: Are Rivers More Productive Than Lakes? Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Sciences 52 (3): 631–643. Rivest, L. P., S. Couturier and H. Crépeau. 1998. Statistical Methods for Estimating Caribou Abundance Using Postcalving Aggregations Detected by Radio Telemetry. Biometrics 54 (3): 865–876. doi:10.2307/2533841.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-17

RNCA (Canada, Ministere des Forets, de la Faune et des Parcs). 2017. About Renewable Energy. Accessed in October 2020. www.rnca.gc.ca/nos-ressources-naturelles/sources-denergie-et-reseau-de-distribution/ energie-renouvelable/propos-lenergie-renouvelable/7296. Robitaille, P. 1998. Qualité des eaux des rivières aux Outardes, Manicouagan et Moisie, 1979 à 1996 [Water Quality of Outardes, Manicouagan and Moisie Rivers, 1979 to 1996]. Envirodoq no. EN980963. Report no. QE-116. Québec: Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune. Russell, J. H., S. Couturier, L. G. Sopuck and K. Ovaska. 1996. Post-Calving Photo-Census of the Rivière George Caribou Herd in July 1993. Rangifer 16 (9) (special issue): 319–330. Salveit, S. J., J. H. Halleraker, J. V. Arnekleiv and A. Harby. 2001. Field Experiments on Stranding in Juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) and Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) During Rapid Flow Decreases Caused by Hydropeaking. Regulated Rivers Research and Management 17 (4–5): 609–622. Schetagne, R., 1981. Physico-chimie et pigments chlorophylliens [Physical Chemistry and Chlorophyllous Pigments]. Réseau de surveillance écologique du complexe La Grande : Analyse des données de 1979 [Ecological Monitoring Network – La Grande Complexe: Analysis of the 1979 Data]. Montréal: SEBJ. Schetagne, R. 1994. Water Quality Modifications after Impoundment of Some Large Northern Reservoirs. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 40: 223–229. Schetagne, R. and J. Therrien. 2013. Environmental Monitoring at the La Grande Complex. Evolution of Fish Mercury Levels. Summary Report 1978–2012. Montréal: GENIVAR inc. and Hydro-Québec Production. Schetagne, R., J. Therrien and R. Lalumière. 2003. Environmental Monitoring at the La Grande Complex. Evolution of Fish Mercury Levels. Summary Report 1978–2000. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Schetagne, R., Doyon, J.-F. and J.-J. Fournier. 2000. Export of Mercury Downstream from Reservoirs. The Science of Total Environment 260 (2000): 135-145. Schetagne, R., R. Lalumière and J. Therrien. 2005. Suivi environnemental du complexe La Grande. Évolution de la qualité de l’eau. Rapport synthèse 1978-2000 [Environmental Monitoring at the La Grande Complex. Evolution of Water Quality. Summary Report 1978–2000]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Schmidt, K. 2008. Behavioural and Spatial Adaptation of the Eurasian Lynx to a Decline in Prey Availability. Acta Theriologica 53: 1–16. Schmiegelow, F. K. A., C. S. Machtans and S. J. Hannon. 1997. Are Boreal Birds Resilient to Forest Fragmentation? An Experimental Study of Short-Term Community Responses. Ecology 78 (6): 1914–1932. doi:10.1890/00129658(1997)078[1914:ABBRTF]2.0.CO;2. Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada, 1st ed. Bulletin 184. Ottawa: Fisheries Research Board of Canada. SEBJ (Société d’énergie de la Baie James). 1988. The La Grande River Hydroelectric Complex. Phase One Development. Montréal: SEBJ. Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones du Québec. 2019. Statistiques des populations autchtones du Québec 2015 [Aboriginal Population in Québec 2015]. Accessed June 9, 2020. https://www.autochtones.gouv.qc.ca/nations/ population_en.htm. Sénéchal, H. 2018. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la Péribonka. Suivi environnemental en phase exploitation 2018. Utilisation du réservoir par la sauvagine [Péribonka Hydroelectric Development. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2018. Use of Reservoir by Waterfowl]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Lévis: SNC-Lavalin Environnement inc. Sénéchal, H., and F. Morneau. 2009. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la rivière Péribonka – Suivi de la sauvagine 2008 [Péribonka Hydroelectric Development – Monitoring of Waterfowl – 2008]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Lévis: FORAMEC (division of SNC-Lavalin Environnement inc.). Sénéchal, H., and R. Benoit. 2007. Raccordement du complexe de la Romaine. Étude des espèces d’oiseaux à statut particulier [Connection of Romaine Complex. Study of Special-Status Bird Species]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Québec: FORAMEC inc.

9-18

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Taillon, J., V. Brodeur and S. Rivard. 2016. État de la situation biologique du caribou migrateur, troupeau de la rivière aux Feuilles [Report on Biological Situation of Migratory Caribou, Rivière aux Feuilles Herd]. Québec: Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec. TECSULT. 2005a. Suivi environnemental 2004 en phase exploitation. Aménagement hydroélectrique Sainte-Marguerite-3. Suivi de la petite faune terrestre autre que le castor [Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2004. Sainte-Marguerite-3 Hydroelectric Development. Monitoring of Small Terrestrial Wildlife Other Than Beavers]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. TECSULT. 2005b. Suivi environnemental 2004 en phase exploitation. Aménagement hydroélectrique Sainte-Marguerite-3. Suivi des populations d’orignaux [Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2004. Sainte-Marguerite-3 Hydroelectric Development. Monitoring of Moose Populations]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Québec: TECSULT. Teodoru, C. R., J. Bastien, M.-C. Bonneville, P. A. del Giorgio, M. Demarty, M. Garneau, J.-F. Hélie, L. Pelletier, Y. T. Prairie, N. T. Roulet, I. B. Strachan and A. Tremblay. 2012. The Net Carbon Footprint of a Newly Created Boreal Hydroelectric Reservoir. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 26 (2). doi:10.1029/2011GB004187. Thériault, I., J.-P. Saucet and W. Taha. 2010. Validation of the MIKE-ICE Model Simulating River Flows in Presence of ice and Forecast of Changes to the Ice Regime of the Romaine River Due to Hydroelectric Project. 20th IAHR International Symposium on Ice 2010. Lahti, Finland. 14–15 June 2010. Volume 1 of 2, 1125–1141. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki University. Thérien, N. 2005. Modèle prévisionnel du mercure applicable aux réservoirs hydroélectriques du Moyen-Nord québécois. Volet modélisation du mercure dans les poissons. Nouvelle version du logiciel HQHG, version révisée du logiciel HQEAU et création du logiciel HQRIV [Prediction Model of Mercury Applicable to Hydroelectric Reservoirs in the Mid-North Region of Québec. Section on Modeling of Mercury in Fish. New Version of HQHG Software, Revised Version of HQEAU Software and Creation of HQRIV Software]. Final report presented to R. Schetagne, October 28, 2005. Thérien, N. 2006. Modèle prévisionnel du mercure applicable aux réservoirs hydroélectriques du Moyen-Nord québécois. Volet modélisation du mercure dans les poissons. Validation et consolidation des logiciels HQEAU, HQHG et HQRIV [Prediction Model of Mercury Applicable to Hydroelectric Reservoirs in the Mid-North Region of Québec. Section on Modeling of Mercury in Fish. Validation and Consolidation of HQEAU, HQHG and HQRIV Software]. Final report. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Therrien, J., and C. Lemieux. 2001. Suivi de l’entraînement des poissons à la centrale hydroélectrique de la Chute-Bell en 2000 [Monitoring of Fish Entrainment at Chute-Bell Hydroelectric Generating Station in 2000]. Prepared by Groupe conseil Génivar inc. for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Therrien, J., R. Verdon and R. Lalumière. 2002. Suivi environnemental du complexe La Grande. Évolution des communautés de poissons. Rapport synthèse 1977-2000 [Environmental Monitoring at the La Grande Complex. Changes in Fish Communities. Summary Report 1977–2000]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Therrien, J., R. Verdon and R. Lalumière. 2004. Environmental Monitoring at the La Grande Complex. Changes in Fish Communities. Summary Report 1977–2000. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Timmermann, H. R., and A. R. Rodgers. 2017. The Status and Management of Moose in North America – circa 2015. Alces 53: 1–22. Tremblay, A., and J. Bastien. 2009. Greenhouse Gases Fluxes from a New Reservoir and Natural Water Bodies in Québec, Canada. Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen 30 (6): 866–869. Tremblay, A., C. Deblois and M. Demarty. 2019. Monitoring Freshwater Plume of La Romaine Estuary after Impoundment. Tremblay, A., J. Bastien, M. Demarty and C. Demers. 2010. Greenhouse Gases: Measuring Net Emissions from Eastmain 1 Reservoir. Hydro Review 29 (5): 22–29. Tremblay, A., J. Therrien, B. Hamlin, E. Wichmann and L. Ledrew. 2019. Evaluating Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions from La Romaine Hydroelectric Complex. Canada.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-19

Tremblay, A., L. Cloutier and M. Lucotte. 1998. Total Mercury and Methylmercury Fluxes via Emerging Insects in Recently Flooded Hydroelectric Reservoirs and a Natural Lake. Science of the Total Environment 219 (2–3): 209–221. Tremblay, A., L. Varfalvy, C. Roehm and M. Garneau, eds. 2005. Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Fluxes and Processes, Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Natural Environments. New York: Springer. Tremblay, A., M. Lucotte and R. Schetagne. 1998. Total Mercury and Methylmercury Accumulation in Zooplankton of Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Northern Québec (Canada). Science of the Total Environment 213 (1): 307–315. Tremblay, É. 2009. L’impact de la Convention de la Baie-James et du Nord québécois sur la santé des Cris de l’Iiyiyiu Aschii [Impact of the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement on the Health of the Crees of Iiyiyiu Aschii] (Master’s thesis, Université de Montréal). Accessed November 12, 2019. https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/ handle/1866/3350. Tremblay, V., C. Cossette, J.-D. Dutil, G. Verreault and P. Dumont. 2016. Assessment of Upstream and Downstream Passability for Eel at Dams. ICES Journal of Marine Science 73 (1): 22–32. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv106. Trussart, S., D. Messier, V. Roquet and S. Aki. 2002. Hydropower Projects: A Review of Most Effective Mitigation Measures. Energy Policy 30 (14): 1251–1259. Turconi, R., A. Boldrin and T. F. Astrup. 2013. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Electricity Generation Technologies: Overview, Comparability and Limitations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 28: 555–565. doi:10.1016/j. rser.2013.08.013. Turgeon, K., C. Turpin and I. Gregory-Eaves. 2019a. Boreal River Impoundments Caused Nearshore Fish Community Assemblage Shifts but Little Change in Diversity: A Multiscale Analysis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 76 (5): 740–752. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0561. Turgeon, K., C. Turpin and I. Gregory-Eaves. 2019b. Dams Have Varying Impacts on Fish Communities across Latitudes: A Quantitative Analysis. Ecology Letters 22 (9): 1501–1516. doi:10.1111/ele.13283. Turgeon, K., C. T. Solomon, C. Nozais and I. Gregory-Eaves. 2016. Do Novel Ecosystems Follow Predictable Trajectories? Testing the Trophic Surge Hypothesis in Reservoirs Using Fish. Ecosphere 7 (12): e01617. doi:10.1002/ecs2.1617. UNESCO-RED. 2008. Resolving the Water-Energy Nexus – Assessment Recommendations. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization – International Hydropower Program and Red Ethique. International Symposium on Resolving the Water-Energy Nexus. Paris, France. In Kumar et al. 2011. Vachon, M. 2009. Analyse dendroécologique de l’activité du caribou migrateur (Rangifer tarandus) à proximité des réservoirs hydroélectriques du complexe La Grande, Baie-James, Québec subarctique [Dendroecological Analysis of the Activity of Migratory Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) Near Hydroelectric Reservoirs of the La Grande Complex, James Bay, Subarctic Québec] (Master’s thesis, Université Laval). Van Coillie, R., S. A. Visser, P. G. C. Campbell and H. G. Jones. 1983. Évaluation de la dégradation du bois de conifères immergés durant plus d’un demi-siècle dans un réservoir [Study of the Breakdown of Conifer Wood Submerged for Over Half a Century in a Reservoir]. Annales de Limnologie 19 (2): 129–134. Venier, L. A., I. D. Thompson, R. L. Fleming, J. W. Malcolm, I. Aubin, J. A. Trofymow, D. Langor, R. Sturrock, C. Patry, R. O. Outerbridge, S. B. Holmes, S. Haeussler, L. De Grandpré, H. Y. H. Chen, E. Bayne, A. Arsenault and J. P. Brandt. 2014. Effects of Natural Resource Development on the Terrestrial Biodiversity of Canadian Boreal Forests. Environmental Reviews 22 (4): 457–490. Verdon, R. 2001. Répartition géographique des poissons du territoire de la Baie James et du Nord québécois [Geographic Distribution of Fish in the James Bay and Northern Québec Territory]. Montréal: Hydro-Québec, Hydraulique et Environnement. Verdon, R., D. Brouard, C. Demers, R. Lalumière, M. Laperle and R. Schetagne. 1991. Mercury Evolution (1978-1988) in Fishes of the La Grande Hydroelectric Complex, Québec, Canada. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 56: 405–417. Ward, J., and J. Stanford. 1983. The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems. Dynamic of lotic ecosystems. In Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems, edited by T.D. Fontaine and S.M. Bartell, 29–42. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers.

9-20

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Waska Ressources. 2010. Aménagement hydroélectrique de la centrale de l’Eastmain-1. Suivi des habitats riverains et de la végétalisation des aires affectées et des baies endiguées 2010 [Eastmain-1 Hydroelectric Development. Monitoring of Riparian Habitats and Planting of Affected Areas and Dammed Bays – 2010]. Final report presented to Hydro-Québec. WETO (United States Department of Energy’s Wind Energy Technologies Office). 2020. Offshore Wind. Accessed May 1, 2020. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/offshore-wind-research-and-development Wetzel, R. 2001. Limnology. Lake and River Ecosystems, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Whitaker, D. M., P. D. Taylor and I. G. Warkentin. 2008. Survival of Adult Songbirds in Boreal Forest Landscapes Fragmented by Clearcuts and Natural Openings. Avian Conservation and Ecology 3 (1): 37–62. doi:10.5751/ ACE-00223-030105. Wiener, J. G. and D. J. Spry. 1996. Toxicological Significance of Mercury in Freshwater Fish. In Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations, edited by W. N. Beyer, G. H. Heinz and A. W. Redmon, 297–339. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publications. World Energy Council. 2016. World Energy Resources. London: World Energy Council. Accessed June 10, 2020. https:// www.worldenergy.org/assets/images/imported/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Full-report-2016.10.03.pdf. WSP. 2014. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude environnementale en phase projet. État de référence de la population de saumon atlantique. Suivi 2013 [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Project Phase. Baseline Conditions for Atlantic Salmon Population. 2013 Follow-Up]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Final version. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. WSP. 2015. Complexe de la Romaine. Étude environnementale en phase projet. État de référence de la population de saumon atlantique. Suivi 2014 [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Project Phase. Baseline Conditions for Atlantic Salmon Population. 2014 Follow-Up]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Final version. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. WSP. 2016. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental 2015 en phase exploitation. Suivi de la population de saumon atlantique [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2015. Monitoring of Atlantic Salmon Population]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Final version. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. WSP. 2017. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental 2016 en phase exploitation. Suivi de la population de saumon atlantique [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase – 2016. Monitoring of Atlantic Salmon Population]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Final version. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. WSP. 2019a. Complexe de la Romaine. Suivi environnemental en phase d’exploitation. Suivi de la qualité granulométrique des frayères à saumon naturelles. Suivi 2016-2017 [Romaine Complex. Environmental Follow-Up in Operation Phase. Monitoring of Granulometric Quality of Natural Salmon Spawning Grounds. 2016–2017 Follow-Up]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. WSP. 2019b. Programme général – Aménagement de milieux humides. Complexe de la Romaine [General Program – Development of Wetlands. Romaine Complex]. Prepared for Hydro-Québec. Montréal: Hydro-Québec. Young, T. P., D. A. Petersen and J. J. Clary. 2005. The Ecology of Restoration: Historical Links, Emerging Issues and Unexplored Realms. Ecology Letters 8 (6): 662–673. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00764.x.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

9-21

Appendices A

Hydro-Québec’s directive on the acceptability of company projects and activities (directive 21)

Summary of the often-stated generic impacts of hydropower and the actual impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities

List of Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric generating stations

Hydro-Québec’s policy with regards to the environment: Our Environment

Hydro-Québec’s policy with regards to its relations with Indigenous people: Our Indigenous Relations

Definitions of a regulated-flow river, reduced-flow river and increased-flow river

Agreements between Hydro-Québec and various Indigenous communities

Example of an information bulletin addressed to Indigenous communities

Excerpt from the Northern Fish Nutrition Guide – James Bay Region

Life cycle assessment methodology

APPENDIX A Hydro-Québec’s directive on the acceptability of company projects and activities (directive 21)

Confidentiality level: Public

Directive Policy

Page 1 of 2

Number Title

Revision  yes  no Effective

Acceptability of Company Projects and Activities Issuing unit

Vice-présidence – Affaires corporatives et Secrétariat général

DIR-21

2013-10-01

Approval

Thierry Vandal President and CEO

Date

2013-08-19

Activities concerned

tio

Company projects and activities (construction and refurbishment projects and operation and maintenance activities) This directive stems from the commitments undertaken under the company’s different policies, particularly Our Environment, Our Social Role and Our Management. It sets out the requirements for achieving the environmental, social and economic acceptability of projects and activities that have a significant environmental impact, while promoting sustainable development. These requirements apply to all the company’s units, including the Société d’énergie de la Baie James.

2 Definitions

•

Environmental issue Major concern related to the components of the biophysical environment (water, air, soil, plants and wildlife) and/or the human environment (quality of life, land use and landscape, economic activities, social organization, and public health and safety) identified by the host community or by experts. This concern can affect the planning, design and completion of the company’s projects and activities.

•

Environmental assessment Assessment designed to determine if a project or activity, from planning to operation, is likely to alter the quality of the environment. In particular, environmental assessments aim to: o identify and assess all significant environmental issues or impacts; o prescribe measures to manage impacts at source, mitigate negative impacts and maximize positive impacts.

•

Significant environmental impact Any significant modification to the biophysical environment (water, air, soil, plants and wildlife) and/or the human environment (quality of life, land use and landscape, economic activities, social organization, and public health and safety), whether negative or beneficial, resulting from the company’s projects and activities.

rte

tra

1 Purpose

Host community

•

Stakeholder

•

Stakeholders directly affected by one of the company’s projects or activities.

•

Individual or group with an interest in the company’s projects or activities covered by this directive.

Company’s projects and activities covered by this directive o Construction projects

Construction of facilities or structures, including hydroelectric facilities, generating stations, transmission substations and lines, distribution lines, administrative buildings and related facilities.

o Rehabilitation work

Work designed to restore or modify the state of a facility, structure, equipment or property. This work includes refurbishment, modification, automation, refitting, reconstruction, expansion and decommissioning or dismantling.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

A-1

APPENDIX A (continued)

Confidentiality level: Public

Directive Policy

Page 2 of 2

o Operation and maintenance activities All activities required to ensure the proper operation of the company’s equipment and facilities. These activities include day-to-day management and maintenance activities for buildings, materials and equipment, as well as facility operation and vegetation control activities.

All projects and activities that have a significant environmental impact must be environmentally acceptable, favorably received by host communities, and profitable. To ensure that these three conditions are met, the company’s units must: Adopt a global vision when projects or activities are inter-related to measure the overall and cumulative environmental impacts.

•

Define and analyze the environmental issues from the planning phase of the activity or project so as to select the best options and methods for managing them. Once environmental assessments have been completed, ensure continuous improvement and efficiency by considering the information obtained from monitoring and environmental follow-ups of similar projects or work.

•

Carry out an environmental assessment adapted to the scope of the project or activity. This assessment must be compliant with the legal requirements in effect. When the project or activity is not subject to any legal requirements but the anticipated impacts are still significant, the environmental assessment shall be based on best practices and the company’s guidelines.

•

Before, during and after work, incorporate measures to manage significant environmental impacts at the source, mitigate negative impacts, maximize positive ones and, if needed, compensate for residual impacts.

•

Plan for and, if needed, carry out environmental monitoring before, during and after any work or activity, in line with legal and other requirements.

•

Plan for and, if needed, ensure environmental follow-up to compare real and anticipated impacts, assess the effectiveness of the measures recommended in the environmental assessments or set out in agreements, and make any necessary adjustments.

•

Ensure ongoing communication with the host community and continue to consult them and to take their concerns and expectations into account throughout the decision-making process. When required, inform the stakeholders of the different stages of the activity or project. Adapt the scope of the communications approach and the means used based on the specific characteristics of the activity or project and the community.

tra

tio

•

rte

3 Rules and measures

When appropriate, establish an agreement between company representatives and those of a representative community or organization to promote common purposes, such as the harmonious integration of facilities and equipment into the environment, the region’s socioeconomic development, and the joint enhancement of the territory’s resources.

•

In addition, business units must ensure that projects and activities are carried out in compliance with laws, regulations and other requirements. Other requirements are those applicable to specific facilities or activities that are not set out in laws or regulations but based on other sources (documents issued by government or municipal authorities, agreements reached with HydroQuébec, other agreements or voluntary commitments, internal guidelines).

4 Monitoring mechanisms

The Direction principale – Environnement et affaires corporatives is in charge of the monitoring and reporting for this directive, which it carries out primarily through Hydro-Québec’s sustainability report. The application of this directive is ensured by the units involved, who also provide the information needed for its monitoring.

A-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX B Summary of the often-stated generic impacts of hydropower and the actual impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities Issue

Often-stated generic impacts of hydropower

Real impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities

Water and sediment quality (Section 6.1) Water temperature (Section 6.1.1)

Dams can cause thermal stratification in reservoirs, as the temperature of the surface layer of water may increase when the flow of water is slowed. If the hydroelectric generating station’s intake structure is located on the surface, this warmer water can increase the temperature of the water in the river downstream. Similarly, if the intake structure is at a depth, downstream temperatures may become colder. These changes in the thermal regime can impact the habitat, growth rate or survival of certain fish and other species.

Thermal stratification occurs in Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs. Compared to pre-impoundment conditions, the temperature of the surface layer is generally 1°C to 5°C warmer in winter and 3°C to 6°C cooler in summer. The bottom layer remains cool all year (approximately +4°C). Twice a year, a vertical mixing of the water column occurs and the temperature once again becomes more uniform. The magnitude of the variation in temperature throughout the year is also reduced. In spring, the heating of the water mass is slightly delayed, as is its cooling in fall. In rivers, the changes are generally most significant directly downstream of the dams, since the water temperature is progressively balanced by the air temperature as the water flows further downstream. The environmental follow-ups conducted by Hydro-Québec for over 40 years have shown that the changes in the thermal regime caused by Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities are not significant enough to lead to a decrease in the productivity of aquatic systems (see Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.4).

Water quality (Section 6.1.2)

Dams can cause the stratification of nutrients and dissolved oxygen in reservoirs due to the lack of natural mixing of the water in winter and summer. Dissolved oxygen levels can often fall below minimal standards, exposing organisms to hypoxic or anoxic conditions. When the intake structure is located at the bottom of the reservoir, problems with low dissolved oxygen levels may occur downstream, impacting aquatic biota.

The rivers and lakes of northern Québec are generally nutrient-poor. Reservoir impoundment therefore leads to an influx of nutrients, which stimulates phytoplankton growth leading to positive effects on the food chain (see Section 6.4.3). Stratification of the parameters of water quality (including temperature and dissolved oxygen) occurs in summer and winter in Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs, as it does in deep natural lakes. Although low oxygen levels can sometimes be observed in certain bays or deep zones at the end of winter, the water quality in the productive water layer (0 to 10 m in depth) remains favorable to aquatic life. Dissolved oxygen is rarely a problem downstream of the dam, where its levels are quickly increased by turbulence.

Gas bubble disease (Section 6.1.3)

As water flows out of the spillways, it can create a condition of dissolved gas supersaturation, which can cause gas bubble disease in certain species of fish and lead to their death.

No notable mortalities linked to gas bubble disease have been observed downstream of either the reservoir-based or run-of-river hydroelectric generating stations operated by Hydro-Québec.

Sedimentary regime (Section 6.1.4)

Hydroelectric dams cause variations in the sedimentary regimes of rivers. Reservoirs slow down flow velocity, leading to the sediment deposits. The water released through turbines is sediment-deficient, which leads to scouring downstream and greater erosion of channels. Conversely, sediments settle in reservoirs, reducing the reservoir’s depth and modifying its shape.

No major sedimentation cases have been reported upstream of the dams operated by Hydro-Québec, as the natural sediment load of Québec’s northern rivers is generally low. Downstream of the dams, sediment load is globally reduced and varies based on the type of modification made to the hydrological regime.

The settled sediments may also contain chemical or industrial residues from sources upstream.

To reduce the potential effects of erosion on the rivers downstream of its dams, Hydro-Québec implements a number of mitigation measures that have proven to be effective. These measures include applying instream flows, building weirs or spurs to maintain water levels, installing riprap and seeding banks. Sediment contamination is not an issue for reservoirs in northern Québec because these reservoirs are built in remote regions, far from any significant source of anthropogenic pollution. QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

B-1

APPENDIX B (continued) Issue

Often-stated generic impacts of hydropower

Real impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Section 6.2) GHG emissions from reservoirs (Section 6.2.1)

GHG emissions are often identified as an impact of large hydropower on climate. In fact, impounding reservoirs involves flooding large areas of land. The ensuing decomposition of submerged vegetation and organic matter produces GHGs, including methane, which may contribute to climate change.

Hydro-Québec’s studies have shown that after the first few years following reservoir impoundment, when decomposition processes are especially active, GHG emissions decrease very sharply over a period of 5 to 10 years and then return to levels comparable to those of natural lakes and rivers. Low water temperatures and well-oxygenated water combined with low organic material input result in very low methane emissions and low overall GHG emissions in Hydro-Québec reservoirs. This is in contrast to tropical reservoirs, which are known to emit much greater amounts of GHGs (particularly methane) over a longer period of time. Based on a life cycle analysis, Hydro-Québec reservoirs emit average GHG emissions of 17 grams of CO2 equivalent per KWh. These emissions are lower than those from most other electricity generating technologies (both renewable and non-renewable), similar to those from wind farms and lower than those from photovoltaic power sources.

GHG emissions during construction (Section 6.2.2)

During the construction of hydroelectric dams, the main sources of GHG emissions are the production and transportation of materials such as concrete and steel, and the use of civil engineering equipment and material.

A life-cycle analysis study on Hydro-Québec's facilities concludes that the GHG emissions attributable to construction of a hydroelectric generating station’s infrastructure of are low, representing between 10% and 20% of its carbon footprint.

Biodiversity (Section 6.3) Biodiversity and special-status species (Section 6.3.1)

B-2

Large-scale hydropower projects may threaten biodiversity and even lead to species extinction due to a number of factors, including the loss or modification of land and aquatic habitats, changes in water quality, fish mortality due to entrainment through turbines, and obstacles to the free movement of migratory fish.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Hydroelectric projects alter the natural environment by flooding large areas upstream of dams and by modifying the flows in downstream watercourses. In the midst of these changes, preserving biodiversity is one of Hydro-Québec’s priorities. We conduct numerous comprehensive impact studies, carry out a range of specialized surveys, implement mitigation measures and install compensatory structures to protect plants and wildlife. The numerous studies conducted in relation to Québec’s hydroelectric facilities have shown that the species that use these habitats are able to adapt to the changes involved, and to complete their life cycles and maintain their populations in the new environment. Monitoring has demonstrated that Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric developments pose no threat to the survival of any species.

APPENDIX B (continued) Issue

Often-stated generic impacts of hydropower

Real impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities

Fish resources and habitat (Section 6.4) Fish migration (Section 6.4.1)

Entrainment mortality (Section 6.4.2)

Dams can block the passage of migrating fish, preventing them from reaching their reproduction habitats, in the case of anadromous species, or feeding habitats in the case of catadromous species.

In northern Québec, the vast majority of large hydroelectric dams have been built at the sites of natural impassable waterfalls. Therefore, they do not impede diadromous fish migration between salt and fresh water.

Fish passing through turbines or spillways are likely to experience stress, injury or death.

In northern Québec, the vast majority of large hydroelectric dams have been built at the sites of natural impassable waterfalls. Therefore, migrating species are not exposed to the risk of death by entrainment into turbines.

However, the movement of resident freshwater fish species between different types of habitat (e.g., spawning, nursing and rearing habitats) may be impeded. In such cases, mitigation measures—such as the construction of weirs equipped with fish passes and migration channels, the addition of spawning grounds, and the maintenance of ecological instream flows— have proven to be effective at allowing the free movement of fish between the different habitats.

Although death by entrainment remains an inevitable risk for resident species, the impacts on fish communities are considered low. In fact, over 40 years of follow-up programs have shown that the abundance of fish populations has been maintained, both upstream and downstream of the dams. Spawning success and the survival rates of individuals at early stages of development have also been maintained. These observations indicate that the biomass loss attributed to entrainment is minor and does not have adverse consequences on fish populations. Impacts on fish and aquatic habitats in reservoirs (Section 6.4.3)

Damming rivers permanently disrupts the balance of ecosystems. Upstream of the dams, free-flowing river ecosystems are transformed into artificial slack-water reservoir habitats. Changes in temperature, chemical composition, dissolved oxygen levels and the physical properties of a reservoir are often not suited to the aquatic communities that have evolved with a given river system.

Long-term environmental monitoring has shown that reservoirs in northern Québec sustain communities of aquatic organisms that are similar to those in large surrounding lakes. Even though pre-existing land and aquatic habitats are deeply transformed by flooding, their aquatic habitat features and water quality are favorable for the development of viable, diverse and productive aquatic communities. Aquatic productivity in reservoirs is often similar and sometimes slightly greater than in surrounding natural lakes. Although fishing yields have increased for some species and declined for others, no net changes in fish diversity have been observed in Québec reservoirs.

Impacts on fish and aquatic habitats downstream of dams (Section 6.4.4)

Hydroelectric facilities modify the hydrological regime of the rivers downstream of dams. When water is diverted toward hydroelectric generating stations, there is less water available to maintain ecosystems in watercourses.

To reduce or compensate for the impacts caused by modifications to hydrological regimes, Hydro-Québec implements a number of measures, such as maintaining ecological instream flows, establishing flow management rules, building hydraulic structures (weirs and spurs) to maintain water levels, creating habitats (spawning and rearing grounds), and supporting vulnerable or struggling populations through fish stocking.

Downstream of hydroelectric generating stations, fish habitats can be altered during peak hours. The rapid change in the water levels of rivers can cause many invertebrates to become trapped in dry areas, reducing both the quantity of food and the usable habitat available for fish. These changes to habitat and food availability can harm fish resources downstream of the dam.

The environmental follow-ups carried out by Hydro-Québec have shown that these measures are effective at maintaining aquatic habitats and providing fish communities with conditions favorable to their development.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

B-3

APPENDIX B (continued) Issue Estuarine environments (Section 6.4.5)

Often-stated generic impacts of hydropower The operation of hydroelectric facilities modifies the temporal distribution of freshwater inflows in estuarine and coastal environments. These changes affect the extent of the freshwater plume at river mouths and the saltwater intrusion profile, which, in turn, may alter estuarine and coastal ecosystem dynamics.

Real impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities Hydro-Québec has been monitoring several environmental components representative of these ecosystems, including primary productivity, eelgrass beds, fish communities, and certain species of mollusks. Monitoring in estuarine and coastal areas shows that despite the new physical conditions brought about by the operation of hydropower facilities, aquatic organism communities adapt to them and a new equilibrum is established. Local communities are also able to continue harvesting wildlife resources in these areas. We are currently conducting studies on the eastern coast of the Baie James (James Bay) to expand our knowledge on coastal environments and on the distribution and growth of eelgrass and its use by the Cree.

Wetlands and vegetation (Section 6.5) Riparian wetlands (Section 6.5.1)

The creation of reservoirs in a river system can lead to the loss of riparian vegetation, as riparian fluvial-type plant communities are replaced by lacustrine aquatic vegetation. The impacts of this change are mixed: healthy riparian vegetation may potentially emerge, but reservoirs can also be colonized by noxious weeds, such as Eurasian watermilfoil and purple loosestrife. Riparian vegetation downstream of a dam can be affected by the fluctuations in water flows during peak and off-peak periods. Aquatic plants that depend on a constant flow cannot grow along the wetted perimeter, while other plants may be subjected to very high levels of stress due to the changes in water level. In extreme cases, when no mitigation measures have been taken and no minimum instream flow is maintained, downstream flow can be almost entirely eliminated during low-flow summer conditions, destroying riparian habitats.

B-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Reservoir creation results in the loss of riparian wetlands. In many cases, this loss is temporary as natural processes, combined with appropriate mitigation and compensation measures, will lead to the development of wetlands on some of the reservoir’s banks and a new balance will be established. In the case of non-riparian wetlands (e.g., peatlands), the losses are permanent. Downstream of the dams, the impacts on riparian wetlands vary depending on the type of modifications made to the flow regime. For the past 40 years or so, Hydro-Québec has been developing measures and practices for partially compensating the loss of riparian and other wetlands, including special measures for creating new wetlands of high ecological value. Ultimately, large hydroelectric facilities in Québec have a residual impact on wetlands, the extent of which varies based on the specific conditions of each project and on whether the criterion is surface area or ecological value. In the follow-ups of riparian vegetation carried out by HydroQuébec, no invasive or non-native plant species were found in the boreal environment. The spread of invasive non-native species is therefore not a threat or issue related to Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities.

APPENDIX B (continued) Issue

Often-stated generic impacts of hydropower

Real impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities

Land animals (Section 6.6) Mammals and birds (Section 6.6.1)

The effects on bird habitats are mixed. The reservoir creates a new habitat for ducks and geese. However, the fluctuations in downstream flows can disrupt fish resources, impacting fishing birds—such as eagles, herons and kingfishers—and potentially decreasing their ability to prosper in a given community. The creation of a reservoir in a river system can kill off riparian vegetation and other sessile organisms, as well as juvenile birds and small mammals. Wildlife species such as beaver, otter and white-tailed deer can experience a net loss of habitat as a result of reservoir creation and flow fluctuations downstream of the dam. The loss of vegetation and fish caused by hydroelectric facilities may also represent a loss of food for many animals.

Reservoir creation leads to a permanent loss of forest habitats, as well as a loss or modification of riparian habitats and wetlands. In the short term, these losses or modifications have an impact on mammal and bird populations. However, new wetlands and riparian habitats will gradually develop naturally. In addition, many species will use the natural habitats available around the reservoir as replacement habitats. In northern Québec, these replacement habitats tend to be numerous due to the habitat homogeneity and relatively low wildlife density that characterize the region. In the medium and long term, mammal and bird populations adapt to the modifications and colonize the new habitats.

Impacts on land use, the economy and recreational and tourism activities (Section 6.7) Population displacement (Section 6.7.1)

Building dams and impounding reservoirs that flood large land areas can result in the displacement or forced relocation of entire populations.

No large hydroelectric generation project carried out by HydroQuébec has ever required a major displacement or forced relocation of a population. In the early 1970s, the members of the Cree community of Fort George (a village located on an island in the mouth of the Grande Rivière) were concerned that the construction of a hydroelectric project would amplify the erosion problem their village was facing and, after studies and consultations, requested to move. The governments, Hydro-Québec, the Grand Council of the Crees of Québec and the Fort George Band Council worked together to select a new location on the mainland near the existing village, and the new village was built in collaboration with the community of Fort George. To give effect to the Fort George community’s decision to move, the parties signed the Chisasibi Agreement in 1978. The construction of hydroelectric facilities (including reservoirs) may require the displacement or destruction of certain buildings such as trapping camps, cottages or temporary shelters used for recreational purposes or for the practice of traditional hunting or fishing activities. In such cases, Hydro-Québec applies best practices to compensate the building owners.

Agreements with local and Indigenous communities (Section 6.7.2)

Large hydroelectric projects often have negative impacts on local communities, such as forced resettlement (with or without compensation), loss of livelihoods, loss of cultural heritage artefacts or a deterioration in quality of life.

To ensure that its projects and activities are acceptable to the residents of the host region, Hydro-Québec establishes agreements with local Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. In addition to offering compensation to host communities, these agreements aim to optimize a project’s economic spinoffs through job creation, training, and the awarding of local contracts. They include mechanisms for ongoing exchanges to monitor the implementation of the agreement and to address issues as soon as they arise in order to foster the continued social acceptability of the project throughout its entire life cycle. Agreements with Indigenous communities promote ongoing land use by affected communities and take into account their values and rights, and their cultural and environmental priorities. These agreements also enable Indigenous communities to improve infrastructure and bolster the development of local businesses.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

B-5

APPENDIX B (continued) Issue Specificity of Indigenous populations (Section 6.7.3)

Often-stated generic impacts of hydropower

Real impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities

Indigenous populations may be particularly affected by hydropower development. Specific to their communities might be impacts on cultural practices, direct or indirect impacts on traditional lands, impacts on community cohesion, public health risks, disturbance of customary practices, and impeded access to natural resource-based livelihoods.

Hydro-Québec pays particular attention to Indigenous communities in the environmental review process for its hydropower projects. Joint committees are set up from the project planning phase to inform and consult Indigenous stakeholders. We also adapt ourconsultation approach to the needs of Indigenous communities and provide them with all the information they need to understand the project and the planned modifications to the territory. Their comments and concerns are collected and integrated into our impact statements to enhance the project and reduce its impacts. When impact studies are being carried out, we invest considerable effort on data collection aimed at better understanding the communities and their different uses of the land and its resources. Since use of the land and its resources is central to the cultural identity of Indigenous people and to the intergenerational transmission of their knowledge, Hydro-Québec and the representatives of the affected Indigenous communities set up mitigation measures which, in addition to protecting natural habitats, foster the re-appropriation and ongoing use of the territory by Indigenous communities. These measures are also designed to ensure that Indigenous communities benefit from hydroelectric facilities not only during the planning and construction phases but also during the operation phase.

Recreational and tourism activities (Section 6.7.4)

The impacts of a hydroelectric generating station on local leisure activities are generally linked to the water level fluctuations and changes in water quality caused by the facility. Reservoirs can have both positive and negative impacts on recreational activities. A reservoir may represent a new water body for activities such as fishing or recreational boating. However, fish resources downstream of a hydroelectric facility can become severely compromised, decreasing fishing quality, particularly for trout. In addition, hydroelectric facilities can eliminate the potential for whitewater boating in specific stretches of a river.

Landscape (Section 6.7.5)

The visual intrusion caused by a new hydroelectric facility—specifically dams, hydroelectric generating stations and electricity transmission facilities—could hinder certain recreational activities such as hiking or wildlife watching.

The substantial majority of the reservoirs operated by Hydro-Québec are used for recreational and tourism purposes, though less actively in northern Québec. For some of these reservoirs, Hydro-Québec takes recreational and tourism activities into account in its water level management process. When needed, we will disseminate information on our hydroelectric facility operations to promote the safe use of our reservoirs. We also take measures to enhance reservoirs, such as building recreational and tourism infrastructure, so that users can enjoy these new water bodies. To reduce or compensate the impacts on boating downstream of dams, Hydro-Québec uses measures such as applying minimum instream flows and flow management rules, and building hydraulic structures (weirs, spurs) to maintain water levels (see Section 6.4.4). Major hydroelectric projects alter the landscape through the creation of reservoirs and the presence of permanent or temporary infrastructure (e.g., power plants, dams, dikes, workcamps, borrow pits). To mitigate the visual impact of its facilities, Hydro-Québec implements a number of measures, such as restoring vegetation on disrupted sites and partially clearing the banks of future reservoirs. In addition, as new water bodies, reservoirs have an intrinsic scenic value that can be comparable to that of the natural lakes in the surrounding area. Hydro-Québec applies measures to enhance these new landscapes. The company has also been actively involved for many years in initiatives of reflection and analysis on the issue of landscape and in the development of the most innovative practices for limiting landscape-related impacts.

B-6

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX B (continued) Issue

Often-stated generic impacts of hydropower

Real impacts observed in Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric facilities

Mercury (Section 6.8) Mercury in the environment (Section 6.8.1)

Reservoir impoundment leads to a significant increase in mercury levels in water, sediment and living organisms, including fish.

Mercury is naturally present in vegetation, rocky substrate and soil. In addition, part of the mercury found in the environment is a result of human activities, such as coal combustion. Hydro-Québec has carried out long-term monitoring of mercury levels in several reservoirs, which has made it possible to describe and understand this phenomenon. Reservoirs do not add mercury to the environment; however, after impoundment, inorganic mercury present in the flooded soils and vegetation is converted into organic methylmercury, which is more easily assimilated by aquatic organisms (increased bioavailability). The mercury levels in organisms increase with every trophic level and are highest in predatory fish. There are no measures that can prevent this phenomenon. It is now well established that in Hydro-Québec reservoirs, fish mercury levels will generally increase after impoundment and slowly return to natural levels within 10 to 35 years. Although increased fish mercury levels in our reservoirs reach values that are between two and eight times higher than natural values, no negative impact has been observed on the fish’s abundance, growth or reproduction.

Mercury and risk to the health of riparian populations (Section 6.8.2)

Mercury in reservoirs, particularly in fish, poses a risk to human health, including that of Indigenous populations for whom fish is a major food source.

In the late 1970s, even before the impoundment of reservoirs in the Baie-James region in northern Québec, mercury was identified as a priority issue for Hydro-Québec and public health authorities. In addition to an intensive institutional research program on mercury carried out between 1977 and 2012, two consecutive agreements on mercury were produced and signed in 1986 and 2001 between Hydro-Québec, the Cree communities and the Québec government. The agreements were designed to ensure the adequate management of this issue, particularly with regard to its impact on Cree communities, while the research provided a scientific analysis of the most significant aspects of this phenomenon. To prevent risks to human health, Hydro-Québec, in collaboration with local authorities, produces consumption guidelines adapted to each community. These guidelines provide fish consumption recommendations based on the species and catch location. Since the start of mercury monitoring in Hydro-Québec reservoirs, no significant increase in the exposure levels of affected local populations has been found.

Impacts during the construction phase (Section 6.9) Impacts of the construction of hydroelectric facilities (Section 6.9.1)

Substantial environmental impacts can result from the construction activities required to build the different components of a new hydroelectric generating station. These activities generally include clearing, access road construction, excavation and dredging. Some examples of likely impacts are: soil erosion and increased turbidity and sedimentation downstream (which can also degrade the visual quality of the river and harm land and aquatic species), dust emissions and increased noise.

During the construction phase of its projects, Hydro-Québec implements several mechanisms to protect the environment. The company’s contracts include a set of standard environmental clauses that are mandatory for our jobsites. In addition, we have permanent environmental monitoring teams in place to verify whether these clauses are being applied and identify any areas where lack of compliance might be an issue, in line with our ISO 14001 certification. Wherever necessary, we also implement specific mitigation measures to protect special-interest plants or wildlife. Finally, at the end of construction, we restore and reforest disturbed areas to reduce the work’s impact on the natural environment.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

B-7

APPENDIX C List of Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric generating stations Watershed

River (or other watercourse)

Type

Installed capacity1 (MW)

Number of generating units

Head2 (m)

Commissioned3

Robert-Bourassa

La Grande

Reservoir

5,616

137.16

1979-1981

La Grande-4

La Grande

Reservoir

2,779

116.7

1984-1986

La Grande-3

La Grande

Reservoir

2,417

1982-1984

La Grande-2-A

La Grande

Reservoir

2,106

138.5

1991-1992

Beauharnois

Saint-Laurent

Lac Saint-François and Beauharnois canal

Run-of-river

1,853

24.39

1932-1961

Manic-5

Manicouagan

Reservoir

1,596

141.8

1970-1971

La Grande

Run-of-river

1,436

27.5

1994-1995

René-Lévesque (Manic-3)

Manicouagan

Run-of-river

1,326

94.19

1975-1976

Jean-Lesage (Manic-2)

Manicouagan

Run-of-river

1,229

70.11

1965-1967

Bersimis-1

Betsiamites

Reservoir

1,178

266.7

1956-1959

Manic-5-PA

Manicouagan

Reservoir

1,064

144.5

1989-1990

Outardes-3

Aux Outardes

Run-of-river

1,026

143.57

1969

Sainte-Marguerite

Reservoir

882

330

2003

Laforge-1

La Grande

Laforge

Reservoir

878

57.3

1993-1994

Bersimis-2

Betsiamites

Run-of-river

845

115.83

1959-1960

Outardes-4

Aux Outardes

Reservoir

785

120.55

1969

Bernard-Landry (Eastmain-1-A)

La Grande

Eastmain

Reservoir

768

2011-2012

Carillon

Outaouais (lower)

Outaouais

Run-of-river

753

17.99

1962-1964

Romaine-2

Romaine

Reservoir

640

156

2014

Toulnustouc

Manicouagan

Toulnustouc

Reservoir

526

152

2005

Outardes-2

Aux Outardes

Run-of-river

523

82.3

1978

Eastmain-1

La Grande

Eastmain

Reservoir

480

2006

Name

La Grande-1

Sainte-Marguerite-3

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

C-1

APPENDIX C (continued)

Name

Watershed

River (or other watercourse)

Type

Installed capacity1 (MW)

Number of generating units

Head2 (m)

Commissioned3

Brisay

La Grande

Caniapiscau

Reservoir

469

37.5

1993

Romaine-3

Romaine

Reservoir

395

119

2017

Péribonka

Run-of-river

385

67.6

2007-2008

Laforge-2

La Grande

Laforge

Run-of-river

319

27.4

1996

Trenche

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

302

48.47

1950-1955

La Tuque

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

294

34.75

1940-1955

Beaumont

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

270

37.8

1958-1959

Romaine-1

Romaine

Run-of-river

270

61.5

2015

McCormick4

Manicouagan

Run-of-river

235

37.8

1952

Rocher-de-GrandMère

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

230

24.3

2004

Outaouais (lower)

Gatineau

Run-of-river

226

40.54

1928-1956

Rapide-Blanc

Saint-Maurice

Reservoir

204

32.92

1934-1955

Shawinigan-2

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

200

44.2

1911-1929

Shawinigan-3

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

194

44.2

1948-1949

Manic-1

Manicouagan

Run-of-river

184

36.58

1966-1967

Rapides-des-Îles

Outaouais (upper)

Outaouais

Run-of-river

176

26.22

1966-1973

Chelsea

Outaouais (lower)

Gatineau

Run-of-river

152

28.35

1927-1939

Sarcelle

La Grande

Eastmain

Run-of-river

150

8.7 to 16.1

2013

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

131

17.38

1924-1931

Outaouais (upper)

Outaouais

Run-of-river

131

22.26

1968-1975

Saint-Laurent

Run-of-river

113

9.14

1914-1924

Rapides-des-Quinze

Outaouais (upper)

Outaouais

Run-of-river

109

25.9

1923-1955

Rapides-Farmer

Outaouais (lower)

Gatineau

Run-of-river

104

20.12

1927-1947

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

25.61

1916-1930

Outaouais (lower)

Outaouais

Run-of-river

16.16

1931

Paugan

La Gabelle Première-Chute Les Cèdres

Grand-Mère Chute-des-Chats

C-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX C (continued)

Watershed

River (or other watercourse)

Type

Installed capacity1 (MW)

Number of generating units

Head2 (m)

Commissioned3

Rapide-des-Cœurs

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

22.69

2008-2009

Chute-Allard

Saint-Maurice

Run-of-river

17.83

2008-2009

Run-of-river

18.29

1925-1949

Name

Bryson

Outaouais (lower)

Mercier

Outaouais (lower)

Gatineau

Reservoir

2007

Rivière-des-Prairies

Saint-Laurent

Des Prairies

Run-of-river

7.93

1929-1930

Hart-Jaune

Manicouagan

Hart-Jaune

Reservoir

39.6

1960

Rapide-2

Outaouais (upper)

Outaouais

Run-of-river

20.43

1954-1964

Rapide-7

Outaouais (upper)

Outaouais

Reservoir

20.73

1941-1949

Saint-François

Run-of-river

14.64

1925

Sainte-Anne

Run-of-river

124.97

1916-1999

Saint-François

Run-of-river

9.1

1919-1925

Batiscan

Run-of-river

44.81

1926

Outaouais (lower)

Rouge

Run-of-river

17.8

1915-2011

Mitis-1

Mitis

Run-of-river

36.58

1922-1929

Mitis-2

Mitis

Run-of-river

22.86

1947

Chute-Hemmings Sept-Chutes Drummondville Saint-Narcisse Chute-Bell

Outaouais

Source: https://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/generating-stations.html 1. The installed capacity is the maximum allowed under the operating permit. 2. The head of water shown corresponds to the largest value (greatest height), if there are several values. The head varies with each generating unit. Refurbishment work may therefore change the water head value. 3. Year of commissioning of first and last generating unit in each facility 4. McCormick generating station is operated by a limited partnership between Hydro-Québec (60%) and Alcoa (40%).

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

C-3

APPENDIX D Hydro-Québec’s policy with regards to the environment: Our Environment

Confidentiality level: Public

Policy Page 1 of 2 Topic

Effective

DD/MM/YYYY

16/11/2018

Our Environment

Approval Resolution No.

Adopted

Secretary General

DD/MM/YYYY

Date of revision

Pierre Gagnon

Original signed and on file

Introduction

tio

Revised

DD/MM/AAAA

16/11/2018

HA-246/2018

This policy sets out Hydro-Québec’s guidelines and commitments with respect to the environment. Hydro-Québec is committed to responsible use of resources to ensure sustainable development.

General principles

Hydro-Québec takes all necessary measures to remain at the forefront in environmental protection. It does so through diligent and responsible management of all its activities, products and services.

tra

By using renewable resources to generate electricity, Hydro-Québec protects the environmental heritage of future generations. Hydro-Québec develops projects that create value for the people of Québec and are environmentally optimized. HydroQuébec also seeks to ensure its projects are well received by host communities.

In its activities in Québec and abroad, Hydro-Québec practices rigorous environmental management that complies with the ISO 14001 standard, striving for continuous improvement.

2.1 Environmental protection

rte

To help protect the environment, Hydro-Québec undertakes to do the following: Establish an eco-responsible corporate culture

•

Promote efficient and optimal use of electricity

•

Promote transportation electrification

•

Work towards supplying its customers electricity produced solely from renewable resources, such as hydropower Anticipate the impacts of climate change and take measures to adapt to them

•

2.2 Continuous improvement of environmental performance To improve its environmental performance, Hydro-Québec undertakes to do the following: •

Consider the environment in decision-making processes for selection of acquisitions and investments, starting with the establishment of strategic guidelines and at every stage in the life cycle of its projects, products, services and facilities, to prevent pollution and preserve the biodiversity and quality of the environment

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

D-1

APPENDIX D (continued)

Confidentiality level: Public

Policy (continued) Page 2 of 2

•

Be transparent and collaborate with stakeholders in environmental assessments of its activities, programs and projects

•

Specify to suppliers the applicable environmental criteria for responsible management of their activities, products and services with a view to sustainability

•

Use resources sustainably and whenever possible incorporate life-cycle analysis when making consumption choices

•

Conduct, support and promote research and innovation with respect to emerging issues and the environmental impacts of its operations

Accountability to the Board of Directors

3.1 Measures

tio

Prevent and manage the impacts of its activities at the source, mitigating negative impacts, maximizing positive impacts and monitoring its activities to improve its performance and evolve its practices

•

Any deviation in the application of one or more principles set forth in this policy must be reported in all recommendations submitted for approval.

tra

With respect to a specific concern, the Board of Directors or the President and CEO may at any time request a report on the application of any given general principles set out in this policy.

3.2 Responsibilities

Every manager is responsible for applying the general principles set out in this policy and for reporting the results to management. The Executive Vice President – Corporate Affairs and Chief Governance Officer submits a report each year to the Board of Directors on sustainable development. This report is also made public.

ou r

To promote continuous improvement of environmental performance, the Executive Vice President – Corporate Affairs and Chief Governance Officer periodically evaluates environmental compliance and the adequacy and effectiveness of environmental management.

D-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX E Hydro-Québec’s policy with regards to its relations with Indigenous people: Our Indigenous Relations

A Policy Page 1 of 2 In effect

Our Indigenous Relations

November 15, 2019

Theme

Resolution no

Date

November 15, 2019

Pierre Gagnon

ORIGINAL SIGNED AND KEPT

To come

Secretary General

Adoption

Introduction

This policy sets out Hydro-Québec’s undertakings with regard to its Indigenous relations. It presents the directions established by the company to guide its relations with Indigenous people and the services available to them.

General principles

Hydro-Québec is mindf ul of concerns regarding the acceptability of its activities within Indigenous communities. It recognizes that an approach adapted to Indigenous cultural characteristics and governance structures is necessary. The company is f ocused on building and maintaining relations based on mutual respect, partnership and the meaningful participation of Indigenous people. Therefore,

To f oster the acceptability and integration of its projects and activities within Indigenous communities, Hydro-Québec undertakes to:

Indigenous involvement

ou rte

• inf orm and involve Indigenous communities at all stages of the life cycles of its projects (planning, design, construction and operation) to ensure that their expectations and concerns are considered;

• engage in a public consultation and participation process that is adapted to and takes into account the social, cultural and political specificities of Indigenous communities as well as Indigenous knowledge;

• stimulate economic spinoffs f or Indigenous communities by

Spirit of collaboration

promoting the participation of Indigenous businesses in the company’s activities;

• encourage, where appropriate, the implementation of measures to

ensure Indigenous community support for its projects and activities.

To support the progression and maintenance of its relations with Indigenous people, Hydro-Québec undertakes to:

• contribute, as part of its projects and operations, to the economic,

social and cultural development of Indigenous peoples in a way that is distinct and respectful of their identity;

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

E-1

APPENDIX E (continued)

Policy (continued)

Page 2 of 2

• consider Indigenous rights, claims, interests, cultures, ways of life and governance when making business decisions;

• engage in dialogue and remain proactive in its communications at

all stages of the lif e cycles of its projects and in its day -to-day activities to ensure harmonious integration of these projects/activities with the activities of directly af fected Indigenous people;

• communicate in a transparent manner by providing information and

documentation in a f ormat that is accessible and understandable to Indigenous people;

• support the creation of joint committees and discussion f orums, when deemed appropriate or necessary;

• provide Indigenous customers with customer service that is adapted to their particularities.

To f oster a workplace that is open and receptive to Indigenous people and their realities, Hydro-Québec undertakes to:

Corporate culture

• Establish measures to increase the company’s attractiveness to Indigenous workers and promote their hiring and retention;

• Establish measures to ensure the cultural saf ety of Indigenous people;

• Raise awareness among its employees about Indigenous cultures, values and ways of life;

• Inf orm its employees of the company’s commitments and obligations

to Indigenous people under the agreements it has entered into with Indigenous communities.

Accountability

ou rte

Each manager is responsible for enf orcing the general principles set out in this policy and reporting to their line of authority.

Exceptions

Any deviation from one or more of the principles set out in this policy must be indicated in any recommendation submitted for approval.

Concerns

In the case of a specific concern, the Board of Directors or President and Chief Executive Officer may, at any time, request a report on the application of certain general principles set out in this policy.

Action

Every year, Hydro-Québec publishes various reports and documents, including the report on sustainable development, which set out its achievements and indicators that demonstrate its commitments to Indigenous communities.

Responsibility

E-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX F Definitions of a regulated-flow river, reduced-flow river and increased-flow river REGULATED-FLOW RIVER A regulated-flow river is a watercourse whose flow is controlled by a hydroelectric generating station in the context of hydropower generation. The river’s flow therefore varies according to the generating station’s operating regime. In general, a regulated-flow river’s hydrograph will show a lack of spring floods, less intense low-flow conditions in summer and winter, as well as hourly, daily and seasonal fluctuations in flow, based on energy demand. The river’s annual water balance is the same as in predevelopment conditions, but the temporal distribution of the flow during the year is different. For the purposes of this summary, we consider that the flow of a regulated-flow river is neither increased due to inflows diverted from another watercourse, nor reduced from being diverted into another watercourse. The Betsiamites and Romaine rivers, which are both in the Côte-Nord region, are examples of regulated-flow rivers.

REDUCED-FLOW RIVER A reduced-flow river is a watercourse whose flow has been diverted, either entirely or in part, to another watershed to increase power generation at one or more generating stations. The flow of this type of river is not regulated by a generating station; it is dependent on secondary inflows from tributaries located downstream of the diversion point. In some cases, the flow may also be ensured by a control structure that maintains an ecological instream flow, which can be adjusted based on the biological periods of fish (spawning, feeding, egg incubation, etc.). The Rupert, which is located in the Baie-James region, is an example of a reduced-flow river. Since 2009, part of the waters of the upper section of the Rupert’s watershed have been diverted to the La Grande complex. The ecological instream flow maintained in this river is equivalent to 48% of the mean annual flow at the river’s mouth.

INCREASED-FLOW RIVER An increased-flow river is a watercourse whose flow is increased by the waters of one or several other watercourses, in order to increase power generation at one or more generating stations. The annual water balance of an increased-flow river is therefore higher than in predevelopment conditions. In addition, the flow of an increased-flow river is controlled by the operation of a generating station, meaning it can vary frequently in response to energy demand. The Grande Rivière in the Baie-James region is an example of an increased-flow river. Since the early 1980s, its flow has been augmented by part of the waters of the Eastmain and Caniapiscau rivers and, since 2009, also by part of the Rupert’s waters.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

F-1

APPENDIX G Agreements between Hydro-Québec and various Indigenous communities Agreement

Year

Signatories

Purpose

ATTIKAMEKW Atikamekw/ Hydro-Québec agreement

1988

• Atikamekw Sipi – Atikamekw Nation Council • Obedjiwan Band (Opitciwan) • Weymontachie Band (Wemotaci) • Manouane Band (Manawan) • Hydro-Québec

• Take over responsibility for the generation and distribution of electricity in Obedjiwan and Manawan. • At least once a year, inform Atikamekw parties of work and contracts planned in Atikamekw territory. • Promote the awarding of contracts to the Atikamekw, based on their skills. • Twice a year, send Atikamekw Sipi the variations in the water level of the reservoirs in the Haute-Mauricie region. • Promote the hiring of the Atikamekw labor force.

Wemotaci agreement

2002

• Weymontachie Band (Wemotaci) • Hydro-Québec

• Promote the regional awarding of contracts and jobs related to the study and construction of the Chute-Allard and Rapides-des-Cœurs generating stations and the transmission line required to connect them.

Hydro-QuébecAtikamekw Nehirowisiw Agreement

2015

• • • • •

• Redefine the framework for relations between the Atikamekw and Hydro-Québec to reflect the changes that have taken place since the signing of the 1988 agreement. • Share with Wemotaci some of the telecommunication infrastructure located between the Chute-Allard generating station and La Tuque.

James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA)

1975

• Grand Council of the Crees (of Québec) • Northern Québec Inuit Association • Québec government • Société d’énergie de la Baie James • Société de développement de la Baie-James • Québec Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Québec) • Government of Canada

• Provide financial compensation and allow the Cree and Innu of Québec to exchange non-defined rights for defined rights over the land. Only 1 of the agreement’s 30 chapters (chapter 8) covers hydroelectric development. • Ensure that the water level of certain bodies of water is maintained, and keep commitments related to the permanent supply of water to Cree communities. • Implement preferential provisions for the Cree in relation to employment and contracts at the La Grande complex. • Establish a regime of environmental impact assessment in the territory and an income security program for Cree hunters and trappers.

Chisasibi Agreement

1978

• Grand Council of the Crees (of Québec) • Fort George Band • Société d’énergie de la Baie James • Société de développement de la Baie-James • Québec Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Québec) • Québec government • Government of Canada

• Build the village of Chisasibi and relocate the Cree community of Fort George to this village.

Atikamekw Nation Council Atikamekw Council of Wemotaci Atikamekw Council of Manawan Atikamekw Council of Opitciwan Hydro-Québec

CREES

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

G-1

APPENDIX G (continued)

Agreement

Year

Complementary Agreement No. 4 (to the Chisasibi Agreement)

1978

• Grand Council of the Crees (of Québec) • Société d’énergie de la Baie James • Québec Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Québec)

• Allow the signing and implementation of the Chisasibi Agreement. • Modify the La Grande‑1 project and some of the provisions in Chapter 8 of the JBNQA related to the water supply of Fort George and Eastmain.

Sakami Lake Agreement

1979

• • • • •

• Establish a new maximum operating level for the waters of Lac Sakami and determine remedial work.

Complementary Agreement No. 5

1979

• Cree Regional Authority • Société d’énergie de la Baie James • Québec Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Québec)

• Ensure that the maximum water level of Lac Sakami does not normally exceed 613 feet above mean sea level. • Ensure that the diverted flow from the Eastmain and Opinaca rivers does not exceed 70,000 ft3/s.

Agreement regarding the fund established under the Lake Sakami Agreement

1984

• • • • •

• Modify Section 3.5.3 of the Lake Sakami Agreement regarding the payment by the SEBJ at the end of 1983 of the undisbursed balance of the Appendix II funds provided for in the Sakami Agreement. • Allow the Cree Regional Authority and the Société d’énergie de la Baie James to jointly designate the Sakami Eeyou Corporation as the beneficiary of the undisbursed balance.

La Grande Agreement

1986

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Chisasibi Band • Eastmain Band • Whapmagoostui Band • Mistissini Band • Nemiscau Band • Waskaganish Band • Waswanipi Band • Wemindji Band • Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou • Québec government • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Establish the remedial and mitigation measures, community benefits, economic measures and other measures benefiting the Crees. • Have 150 Crees employed in permanent jobs within the La Grande complex by 1996. • Connect the Cree communities of Wemindji, Eastmain, Waskaganish and Oujé-Bougoumou to Hydro-Québec’s power system according to the schedule set out in the Agreement. • Negotiate an energy exchange program for the output of the Maquatua generating station, owned by the Wemindji Band. • Build an access road to the north bank of the Grande Rivière in the Chisasibi region. • Provide Chisasibi with a reliable and permanent water intake directly in the Grande Rivière. • Build and commission a sewer system for the Chisasibi community. • Improve the fishing site location at La Grande‑1. • Take other measures to promote the harvesting activities of Cree land users.

Complementary Agreement No. 7

1986

• Cree Regional Authority • Stakeholders: Chisasibi Band and Chisasibi Band Council • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Allow the signing and implementation of the La Grande Agreement (1986). • Facilitate the construction of the La Grande‑1, La Grande‑2‑A and Brisay facilities, and of the Radisson-Nicolet-des Cantons transmission line. • Create the James Bay Eeyou Corporation to replace the SOTRAC and take over its mission with regard to the remedial work at the La Grande complex.

G-2

Signatories

Cree Regional Authority Hydro-Québec Société d’énergie de la Baie James Québec government Government of Canada

Cree Regional Authority Old Factory Band (Wemindji) Hydro-Québec Société d’énergie de la Baie James Sakami Eeyou Corporation

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Purpose

APPENDIX G (continued)

Agreement

Year

Signatories

Purpose

Mercury Agreement

1986

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Chisasibi Band • Eastmain Band • Mistissini Band • Nemaska Band • Waskaganish Band • Waswanipi Band • Wemindji Band • Whapmagoostui Band • Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou • Québec government • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Determine the nature and scope of the problem caused by mercury in the environment within the territory, with particular attention to the La Grande complex watershed as defined in the La Grande Agreement (1986). • Limit the health risks due to mercury in the environment as much as possible. • Mitigate the existing and possible negative impacts on the Crees, their way of life and their harvesting activities, and establish remedial measures.

Opimiscow Agreement

1993

• Grand Council of the Crees (of Québec) • Cree Regional Authority • Cree Nation of Chisasibi • Cree Nation of Wemindji • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Establish the remedial and mitigation measures, community benefits, economic measures and other measures benefitting the Cree.

Complementary Agreement No. 11

1993

• Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Allow the signing of the Opimiscow Agreement.

Agreement regarding electricity supply to Wemindji village

1998

• Grand Council of the Crees • Cree Nation of Wemindji • Hydro-Québec

• Provide electricity to Wemindji by connecting the local distribution system and the mini Maquatua hydroelectric generating station to Hydro-Québec’s system. • Implement an electric energy exchange in line with the provisions of the La Grande Agreement (1986) by setting up an electricity sale contract for the community’s consumption and a purchase contract for the electricity generated by the mini generating station. • Apply a purchase price (for the electricity generated by the mini generating station) that is equal to the sale price for the village.

Mercury Agreement

2001

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Support public health authorities in the development and delivery of programs designed to manage the risks associated with human exposure to mercury. • Restore and strengthen the Cree fisheries. • Provide a more effective framework of cooperation between the Crees and Hydro-Québec with respect to the presence of mercury in the Baie-James region.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

G-3

APPENDIX G (continued) Agreement

Year

Nadoshtin Agreement

2002

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Eastmain Band • Cree Nation of Mistissini • Nemaska Band • Waskaganish Band • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Establish a framework for Cree participation in the Eastmain-1 project (which was provided for the in the JBNQA, and the authorizations for which were obtained in 1991). • Provide for the implementation of various environmental, remedial and mitigation measures.

Boumhounan Agreement

2002

• Provide a framework for Cree participation in the Eastmain‑1‑A and Rupert diversion project. • Provide for the implementation of various environmental, remedial and mitigation measures.

Complementary Agreement No. 13

2002

• Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Confirm that Hydro-Québec and the SEBJ renounce the development of the Nottaway, Broadback a nd Rupert rivers provided for in the JBNQA.

Cree Employment Agreement

2002

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Chisasibi Band • Eastmain Band • Mistissini Band • Nemaska Band • Waskaganish Band • Waswanipi Band • Wemindji Band • Whapmagoostui Band • Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Reiterate Hydro-Québec’s goal of hiring 150 Crees (who meet its hiring criteria) to permanent positions located in the Baie-James region. • Establish effective means and mechanisms for meeting this goal. • Focus Cree hiring efforts on the following jobs: automation technician, telecommunications technician, power system electrician and power system mechanic. Guarantee permanent jobs to the first 150 Crees who meet Hydro-Québec’s hiring requirements. • Allow Cree parties to take on a leadership role, including the responsibility of referring Cree candidates with the required skills to Hydro-Québec. • Implement incentives and temporary employment programs to mitigate the negative impacts of the La Grande complex on traditional Cree activities and to improve Cree use of affected areas.

Agreement on the Decommissioning of Hydro-Québec/SEBJ “work sites” or installations no longer in service

2002

• Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Ensure the decommissioning by Hydro-Québec or SEBJ of the sites where they carried out work and of the facilities that are no longer in service on the Baie-James territory.

G-4

Signatories

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Purpose

APPENDIX G (continued) Agreement

Year

Signatories

Purpose

Waskaganish Transmission Line Agreement

2002

• Waskaganish Band • Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Connect the village of Waskaganish to Hydro-Québec’s main power grid, by means of a transmission line. • Allow Hydro-Québec to take over the operation and maintenance of the Waskaganish electricity distribution system. • Ensure that Hydro-Québec assigns a substantial portion of the construction work to Cree companies, as long as these companies meet the utility’s requirements in terms deadlines, cost and quality.

Whapmagoostui Transmission Line Agreement

2002

• Whapmagoostui First Nation • Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Connect the village of Whapmagoostui to Hydro-Québec’s main power grid, by means of a transmission line.

Agreement Respecting Disputes and a Dispute Resolution Committee

2002

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Establish a Dispute Resolution Committee. • Resolve all outstanding disputes between the parties through this committee. • Suspend pending legal proceedings.

Agreement Concerning a New Relationship between Hydro-Québec/SEBJ and the Crees of Eeyou Istchee

2004

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Cree Nation of Chisasibi • Eastmain Band • Cree Nation of Mistissini • Cree Nation of Nemaska • Waskaganish First Nation • Waswanipi Band • Cree Nation of Wemindji • Cree Nation of Whapmagoostui • Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James • Québec government

• Resolve all outstanding disputes between Hydro-Québec and the Grand Council of the Crees, the Cree Regional Authority, the Crees of Québec and the Cree communities.

Agreement Concerning the Administration of Cree-Hydro-Québec Agreements

2004

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Cree Nation of Chisasibi • Eastmain Band • Cree Nation of Mistissini • Cree Nation of Nemaska • Waskaganish First Nation • Waswanipi Band • Cree Nation of Wemindji • Whapmagoostui First Nation • Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James • Québec government

• Entrust the Niskamoon Corporation with a large part of the administration and management of the agreements between the Crees and Hydro-Québec/SEBJ.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

G-5

APPENDIX G (continued)

Agreement

Year

Monitoring Committee Agreement

2007

• Niskamoon Corporation • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Set out the cooperation required for the joint implementation of the Environmental Monitoring Program for the Eastmain-Rupert complex (EMP‑EM‑1‑A/Rupert), designed to fulfill the conditions, requirements and obligations of Hydro-Québec in relation to this project. • Set up the Committee as a joint forum in charge of the EMP‑EM‑1‑A/Rupert to ensure the ongoing substantial participation of the Crees in the design and implementation of the EMP‑EM‑1‑A/Rupert.

Rupert River Water Management Agreement

2009

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Cree Nation of Waskaganish • Cree Nation of Nemaska • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Manage and maintain the ecological instream flow regime included in the project, with the goal of preserving and maintaining fish resources and habitats in the stretch of the Rupert downstream of Rupert dam.

Agreement concerning Sarcelle Powerhouse

2010

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Amend the Boumhounan Agreement and recommend that the Agreement’s signatories and the Cree Nation of Wemindji agree to the amendments.

Complementary Agreement No. 21

2010

• Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Amend paragraph 8.2.2 of the JBNQA concerning water levels in Lac Sakami.

Agreement to amend the Boumhounan Agreement

2010

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Eastmain Band • Cree Nation of Mistissini • Cree Nation of Nemaska • Cree Nation of Waskaganish • Cree Nation of Wemindji • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Amend the Boumhounan Agreement to add the Cree Nation of Wemindji as a party to the agreement.

Agreement regarding resumed use of the territory affected by the Eastmain-1-A/ Sarcelle/Rupert project

2012

• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) • Cree Regional Authority • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James • Québec government

• Allow the Cree to take over some of Hydro-Québec’s obligations in an effort to reduce the human impacts and ensure the resumed and ongoing use of the territory by the Cree.

G-6

Signatories

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Purpose

APPENDIX G (continued)

Agreement

Year

Signatories

Purpose

INNUS Mashteuiatsh/ Hydro-Québec Agreement

1990

• Lac-Saint-Jean Montagnais Band • Hydro-Québec

• Once a year, inform the Mashteuiatsh–Hydro-Québec joint committee (MHQJC) of the work and contracts planned in the territory claimed by the Innu of Mashteuiatsh. • Every year, send the MHQJC Hydro-Québec’s development plan.

Mashteuiatsh/ Hydro-Québec Agreement

1994

• Lac-Saint-Jean Montagnais Band • Hydro-Québec

• Take the measures necessary to train and hire as many Lac-Saint-Jean Montagnais as possible, particularly in the area covered by the agreement. • Submit to the MHQJC a list of the contracts Hydro-Québec plans to award in all fields of activity for the following year in the area covered by the agreement. • Finance the operations of the MHQJC’s secretariat for the next 10 years (1994 to 2003).

Uashat Mak ManiUtenam Agreement

1994

• Uashat-Maliotenam Innu Band • Hydro-Québec

• Study the best ways to promote the hiring of Innu from the community of Uashat-Maliotenam, within the context of Hydro-Québec’s existing activities in the area covered by the agreement. • Promote the awarding of contracts to Innu companies, within the context of Hydro-Québec’s existing activities in the area covered by the agreement.

Pesamit Agreement

1999

• Betsiamites Band • Hydro-Québec

• Establish a partnership between Betsiamites and Hydro-Québec. • Hire an Innu employment coordinator.

Essipit Agreement

1999

• Essipit Band • Hydro-Québec

• Establish a partnership between Essipit and Hydro-Québec.

Mashteuiatsh Agreement

2001

• Lac-Saint-Jean Montagnais Band

• Establish a partnership between Mashteuiatsh and Hydro-Québec.

Manitukapatakan Agreement

2003

• Lac-Saint-Jean Montagnais Band • Hydro-Québec

• Promote the local awarding of contracts, in the context of the project to build Péribonka generating station.

Agreement on restoring salmon in the Betsiamites

2005

• Betsiamites Band • Hydro-Québec

• Manage the flows downstream of Bersimis-2 generating station to help restore the salmon population in the Rivière Betsiamites.

NanemessuNutashkuan Agreement

2008

• Nutashkuan Band • Hydro-Québec

• Once a year, provide Nutashkuan with a five-year outlook of employment and contract opportunities in the regional county municipality (MRC) of Minganie.

Unamen-Pakua Agreement

2008

• Unamen Shipu Band • Pakua Shipi Band • Hydro-Québec

• Once a year, provide Unamen Shipu and Pakua Shipi with a five-year outlook of employment and contract opportunities in the MRC of Minganie.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

G-7

APPENDIX G (continued) Agreement

Year

Signatories

Purpose

Nishipiminan Agreement

2009

• Innu Band of Ekuanitshit • Hydro-Québec

• Once a year, provide Ekuanitshit with a five-year outlook of employment and contract opportunities in the MRC of Minganie. • Create an Innu employment advisor position to maximize Innu hiring during the construction of the Romaine complex.

Mashteuiatsh/ Hydro-Québec Agreement

2015

• Pekuakamiulnuatsh First Nation • Hydro-Québec

• Allow Mashteuiatsh to buy back the units in SOCOM Minashtuk held by Hydro-Québec. • Finance the operations of the Mashteuiatsh– Hydro-Québec joint committee secretariat for the next 10 years (2015 to 2026). • Change the indexation factor provided for in the Mashteuiatsh Agreement (2001).

James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA)

1975

• • • • •

Grand Council of the Crees of Québec Northern Québec Inuit Association Québec government Société d’énergie de la Baie James Société de développement de la Baie-James • Québec Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Québec) • Government of Canada

• Provide financial compensation and allow the Cree and Innu of Québec to exchange non-defined rights for defined rights over the land. Only 1 of the agreement’s 30 chapters (chapter 8) covers hydroelectric development. • Describe the hydroelectric facilities planned. • Establish a regime of environmental impact assessment in the territory and an income security program for Inuit hunters and trappers.

Kuujjuaq Agreement

1988

• Makivik Corporation • Municipal corporation of the northern village of Kuujjuaq • Nayumivik Landholding Corporation • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Obtain a release for any environmental impacts caused by the diversion of the Rivière Caniapiscau, and from the guarantee about fish harvesting provided for in Section 8.10 of the JBNQA. • Once a year, inform the Municipality of Kuujjuaq of the water levels in Caniapiscau reservoir and of possible and planned spills in the next year. • Establish a spill procedure at Duplanter spillway.

Complementary Agreement No. 9

1988

• Makivik Corporation • Hydro-Québec • Société d’énergie de la Baie James

• Allow the signing and implementation of the Kuujjuaq Agreement (1988). • Obtain a release for any environmental impacts caused by the diversion of the Rivière Caniapiscau, and from the guarantee about fish harvesting provided for in Section 8.10 of the JBNQA. • Do not apply this release to the possible effects of methylmercury production north of the 55th parallel caused by the construction of the La Grande complex (1975) or any other hydroelectric facility.

INUIT

G-8

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX G (continued) Agreement

Year

Signatories

Purpose

NASKAPI Northeastern Québec Agreement (NQA)

1978

• • • • • •

Schefferville Naskapi Band Grand Council of the Crees Northern Québec Inuit Association Québec government Société d’énergie de la Baie James Société de développement de la Baie-James • Québec Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Québec) • Government of Canada

• Establish the terms and conditions of the surrender of the rights referred to in the 1912 Québec Boundaries Extension Act.

Complementary Agreement No. 1

1978

• Allow the signing of the NQA with the Naskapi and include the rights granted to the Naskapi on the JBNQA territory in the NQA.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

G-9

APPENDIX H Example of an information bulletin addressed to Indigenous communities

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

H-1

APPENDIX H (continued)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

H-3

APPENDIX H (continued)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

H-5

APPENDIX H (continued)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

H-7

APPENDIX I Excerpt from the Northern Fish Nutrition Guide – James Bay Region

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

I-1

APPENDIX I (continued)

I-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX I (continued)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

I-3

APPENDIX I (continued)

I-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX I (continued)

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

I-5

APPENDIX J Life cycle assessment methodology This appendix describes the analysis performed for Hydro-Québec in 2014 by the Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services (now the International Reference Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services) and included in the following publication: Technical Report: Comparing Power Generation Options and Electricity Mixes.

A life cycle assessment consists in inventorying material and energy inputs and outputs over the life cycle studied and using models to translate them into potential environmental impacts, as shown in the following figure: Figure J-1 – Life cycle assessment phases

Source: CIRAIG 2014.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

J-1

APPENDIX J (continued) Environmental indicators can be of two types, depending on whether the cause-and-effect modeling method is problem-oriented or damage-oriented. Some methods of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) use both approaches (Table J-1). Problem-oriented (or “midpoint”) methods stop at the primary effects arising as a direct result of the activities studied: for example, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions and their negative impacts on the ozone layer. Damage-oriented (or “endpoint”) methods, on the other hand, seek to categorize environmental impacts according to their consequences identified as far as possible down the chain of cause and effect. In other words, they try to take secondary impacts into account. For example, rather than simply studying emissions of ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs, an endpoint method will attempt to quantify the potential impacts of ozone depletion on human health (cancer, cataracts, etc.). Such methods are therefore better at identifying potential impacts, but it can be difficult to follow the chain of cause and effect, especially when causality has not been clearly established. Table J-1 – Impact assessment methods Name

Problem-oriented or damage-oriented

Geographical context

Number of impact categories

Reference

Ecolndicator 99

Damage

Europe

Goedkoop et al. 2001

CML

Problem

Europe

Guinée et al. 2002

EDIP 2003

Problem

Europe

Hauschild et al. 2003

TRACI

Problem

U.S.A.

Bare et al. 2002

LIME

Both

Japan

Hayashi et al. 2004

Problem

U.S.A.

Leonardo Academy, 2012

IMPACT 2002+

Both

Europe

Jolliet et al. 2003

ReCiPe

Both

Europe

Goedkoop et al. 2009

IMPACT World+

Both

World, continents

www.impactworldplus.org

LEO-SCS-002

Source: CIRAIG 2014.

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS The impact categories, or midpoints and endpoints (which we will refer to as environmental indicators in the interest of simplicity), vary from one LCIA method to the next. An LCIA will typically cover about 15 indicators. For illustration purposes, Table J-2 lists the indicators found in CML and IMPACT 2002+, which are the methods most widely cited in the literature. IMPACT World+, mentioned in Table J-1, is the most recent method, officially available since May 2013. It is not yet fully documented, and not all life cycle assessment (LCA) software programs have incorporated it into their platforms yet, but it takes advantage of the latest advances in environmental modeling. In addition, it offers many scientific innovations and includes new impact categories of interest, such as water use.

J-2

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX J (continued) Table J-2 – Environmental indicators used in CML and IMPACT 2002+ methods Indicator Damage category (IMPACT 2002+)

Unit of measure

Indicator — Midpoint

Remarks

IMPACT 2002+ Climate change (kg C02 eq.)

Human health (DALY)

Ecosystem quality (PDF*m2*yr)

Global warming potential(GWP)

Global impact. IPCC models and factors are used in all methods. IMPACT 2002+ uses a 500-year time horizon, while other methods use a 100-year horizon.

kg CO2 eq.

kg 1.4-DB eq.

Local to global impact. Effects of toxic substances on the human environment.

kg C2H4 eq./ kg PM2.5

N/A

Local impact. “Inorganic” (winter smog): caused by fine particles (< 2.5 µm). “Organic”: caused by volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Carcinogens/ Non-carcinogens

kg C2H3Cl eq.

N/A

Local impact of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic substances on human health.

Ionizing radiation

Bq 14C eq.

N/A

Local impact caused by radiation-emitting substances.

Human toxicity

N/A

Respiratory effects (organic/inorganic)

Regional impact. Applies to aquatic environments but may also include terrestrial environments, depending on the method.

Acidification

kg S02 eq.

Eutrophication

kg PO4--eq.

Ozone layer depletion

kg CFC-11 eq.

Global impact. Reduction of the stratospheric ozone layer and increase in UV rays reaching the earth.

Photochemical oxidation (smog)

kg C2H4 eq.

Regional impact. Summer smog caused by ozone buildup in the troposphere, mainly due to VOC emissions.

Regional impact. Caused by an imbalance of nutrients in aquatic ecosystems.

Aquatic/terrestrial ecotoxicity (seawater and freshwater)

kg TEG ground/water

kg 1.4-DB eq.

Land use

m2 arable eq.

N/A

Non-renewable energy Resources (MJ)

CML

Mineral extraction/ Abiotic resource depletion

Regional impact. Loss of biodiversity due to human land use. Global impact. Measures the quantity of energy extracted in the form of fossil fuels or uranium.

additional MJ

Local impact. Effects of toxic substances on ecosystem biodiversity. Different methods use different models and measurement units for this indicator.

kg Sb eq.

Global impact. CML and Impact 2002+ use different models and measurement units for this indicator. “Mineral extraction” (IMPACT 2002+) refers to the additional energy needed to extract minerals from low-grade deposits. CML assesses the extraction rate and rarity of each mineral.

Source: CIRAIG 2014.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

J-3

APPENDIX J (continued) DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS SELECTED FOR COMPARISON Climate change The Climate Change (or Global Warming Potential) indicator measures the impacts of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Generally speaking, the impacts of GHG emissions are assessed using the method developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In this method, the global warming potential (GWP) of each GHG in relation to that of CO2 is calculated on the basis of its radiative forcing capacity, and characterization factors are used to convert the emissions into kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (kg CO2 eq.). The main substances impacting this indicator are CO2 and CH4, both of which come primarily from combustion— not only of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas but also of renewables (biomass and biogas). CO2 and CH4 emissions are also caused by changes in land use (land clearing, carbon sequestration or carbon loss from soil) and hydropower reservoirs. Reservoirs are in fact the leading source of GHG emissions for hydropower, although these emissions are not always measured in the studies. In boreal regions, most of the GHG emissions are produced in the first decade after impoundment, then they decrease to a level similar to that of surrounding natural lakes.

Ozone layer depletion The Ozone Layer Depletion indicator measures the emission of substances that destroy stratospheric ozone, which results in more ultraviolet (UV) rays reaching the earth. This has several impacts on human health, such as cataracts and skin cancer, and may also affect animals as well as terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ozonedepleting substances (ODS) generally contain chlorine, fluorine, bromine, carbon, and hydrogen in varying proportions and are often described by the general term halocarbons. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform are major human-produced ozone-depleting gases that have been used in many applications, including refrigeration, air-conditioning, foam blowing, cleaning of electronics components, and as solvents. This indicator is usually quantified using the model developed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), in which the ozone-depleting potential (ODP) of a substance is calculated and, based on characterization factors, converted into kilograms of trichlorofluoromethane equivalent (kg CFC-11 eq.). The Ozone Layer Depletion indicator applies on a global scale, since some of the substances emitted persist long enough in the atmosphere to spread across the planet.

Acidification Acidifying substances can have impacts on soil, underground and surface water, organisms, ecosystems and property. The acidifying potential of an atmospheric emission is calculated and, based on characterization factors, converted into kilograms of sulphur dioxide equivalent (kg SO2 eq.). The Acidification indicator applies on a regional scale, since the substances that contribute to this indicator do not travel from one continent to another. There is some variation in how the acidification of terrestrial and aquatic environments is modeled. Some methods consider only the acidifying potential of a substance (i.e., the production of hydrogen ions, H+). Others use more sophisticated models that take into account the substance’s atmospheric behavior—by modeling its molecular dispersion and reactions—as well as its effect on the environment. The primary sources of acidifying substances are the combustion of coal and oil (SO2 emissions), natural gas and, to a lesser extent, biomass (nitrous oxide emissions) (NOx ).

J-4

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX J (continued) Eutrophication Eutrophication means the alteration and degradation of an aquatic environment through the addition of excessive nutrients. Although very slow eutrophication can occur naturally, the indicator discussed here refers to substances capable of artificially accelerating the process. The main nutrients at cause are nitrogen (mostly from fertilizers and wastewater) and phosphorus (mostly derived from phosphates in wastewater), both of which, when present in high concentrations, encourage the growth of algae and other aquatic plants. This leads to overcrowding, oxygen depletion and reduced biodiversity. The eutrophication potential of a substance is calculated and, based on characterization factors, converted into kilograms of phosphate equivalent (kg PO4 eq.). This indicator applies on a regional or local scale since eutrophying substances do not travel from one continent to another. The main sources of eutrophying substances are phosphate and nitrogen emissions. In power generation, phosphates are emitted mainly during coal extraction, whereas nitrogen emissions are linked to the combustion of natural gas and, to a lesser extent, biomass (NOx emissions).

Human toxicity The Human Toxicity indicator measures the emission of substances with toxic effects on the human environment. Risks associated with workplace exposure are not included in the effects modeled. The human toxicity potential of a substance is calculated and, based on characterization factors, converted into kilograms of 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalent (kg 1,4-DB eq.). This indicator applies on a scale ranging from local to global, depending on the behavior of the particular substance. Some substances have only a local effect because they do not persist very long or travel very far, while others remain in the atmosphere longer and can spread across the planet. The main substances having a toxic effect on humans are metals and compounds such as benzene. Benzene is involved in certain production activities (natural gas) while metals are emitted during the extraction and use of fuels and other materials (coal, uranium, iron, copper, etc.).

Photochemical oxidation (smog) Photochemical Oxidation, or summer smog, is the formation of reactive substances—primarily ozone—that are harmful to human health, ecosystems and crops. The photochemical oxidation potential of a substance emitted into the atmosphere is calculated and, based on characterization factors, converted into kilograms of ethylene equivalent (kg C2H4 eq.). This indicator applies on a scale ranging from local to global, depending on the behavior of the particular substance. Some substances have only a local effect because they do not persist very long or travel very far, while others remain in the atmosphere longer and can spread across the planet. The main substances causing photochemical oxidation are sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and methane (CH4). In power generation, SO2 and CO emissions occur essentially during combustion. In the case of methane, natural gas extraction and transportation are major sources of emissions.

Resource depletion Depletion of non-renewable resources is a major issue in power generation around the world. This indicator comprises two environmental sub-indicators of resource depletion: the first is Mineral Extraction from the earth’s crust (metals, ore, etc.) and the second is Fossil Fuel Use (oil, natural gas and coal). Unlike the other environmental indicators, which focus on emissions, the Resource Depletion indicators measure life cycle consumption of materials throughout the life cycle of an energy generation option. These indicators apply on a global scale, since resource depletion has consequences for the entire planet regardless of geographical location. The Mineral Extraction indicator is expressed in kilograms of antimony equivalent (kg Sb eq.) per kilogram extracted. It takes into account the existing reserves, the extraction rate and the depletion of each mineral. The Fossil Fuel Use indicator (consumption of non-renewable energy) is based on the energy content, or calorific value, of the extracted fossil fuel and is expressed in megajoules (MJ) per unit of volume or mass.

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

J-5

APPENDIX J (continued) Mineral Extraction The main cause of mineral depletion is the extraction of metals, in particular copper, chromium and iron. The use of metals in secondary processes (construction of generating stations and associated infrastructure) is therefore the main factor affecting this indicator in the life cycle of a kWh of electricity. Uranium extraction is also included. Fossil Fuel Use The Fossil Fuel Use indicator is directly influenced by fuel extraction (coal, oil and natural gas). Uranium extraction is not included in this indicator but in Mineral Extraction. Fossil-fuel-based options therefore have higher Fossil Fuel Use indicators than any other options apart from nuclear.

Human health The Human Health indicator, as its name indicates, measures emissions of substances directly or indirectly affecting health. Indicator calculations are based on the most up-to-date life cycle impact assessment method, IMPACT World+ (www.impactworldplus.org). With this method, numerous sources of impacts on human health are considered, taking into account the complete chain of cause and effect. The Human Health indicator includes, in particular, substances that have toxic effects (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic) or respiratory effects, produce ionizing radiation, or contribute to ozone layer depletion, global warming or photochemical oxidation (smog). Water use is also taken into account, due to its possible indirect effects on health. These impacts are reduced to a common unit of measure representing the severity of illnesses potentially caused by such substances or their indirect effects, namely Disabled Adjusted Life Years (DALY). Characterization factors produced through environmental modeling are used to convert quantities of substances into DALY.

Ecosystem quality The Ecosystem Quality indicator measures emissions of substances directly or indirectly affecting biodiversity. Indicator calculations are based on the most recent life cycle impact assessment method, IMPACT World+ (www.impactworldplus.org). With this method, numerous sources of impacts on ecosystems are considered, taking into account the complete chain of cause and effect. The Ecosystem Quality indicator includes, in particular, substances that have toxic effects on aquatic life, produce ionizing radiation, or contribute to terrestrial and aquatic acidification, water eutrophication or global warming. Land use and water use are also factored in, since they can impact animal and plant biodiversity. However, the impacts of dam building and reservoir impoundment are not taken into account, for lack of characterization factors representative of their potential impacts. These impacts are reduced to a common unit of measure representing the Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species over a given area and a given timespan (PDF*m2*yr). Characterization factors produced through environmental modeling are used to convert quantities of substances into PDF*m2*yr.

J-6

QUÉBEC HYDROPOWER GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Printed on paper made in Québec from100% postconsumer recycled fibre.

2020E2568-A -REV-2

Ce document est également publié en français.