REPORT ON PUBLIC HEARING Keeyask Generation Project April 2014

REPORT ON PUBLIC HEARING Keeyask Generation Project April 2014 ii iii iv Table of Contents

Foreword ...... xi

Executive Summary ...... xv

Chapter One: Introduction...... 1 1.1 Th e Manitoba Clean Environment Commission...... 1 1.2 Th e Project ...... 1 1.3 Th e Proponent...... 2 1.4 Terms of Reference ...... 3 1.5 Th e Hearings ...... 4 1.6 Th e Report...... 4

Chapter Two: The Licensing Process ...... 7 2.1 Needed Licences and Approvals ...... 7 2.2 Review Process for an Environment Act Licence ...... 7 2.3 Federal Regulatory Review and Decision Making ...... 8 2.4 Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution...... 8 2.5 Need For and Alternatives To...... 9 2.6 Role of the Clean Environment Commission ...... 9 2.7 Th e Licensing Decision...... 9

Chapter Three: The Public Hearing Process...... 11 3.1 Clean Environment Commission ...... 11 3.2 Public Participation ...... 11 3.2.1 Participants ...... 11 3.2.2 Participant Assistance Program ...... 11 3.2.3 Presenters...... 12 3.3 Th e Pre-Hearing ...... 12 3.4 Th e Hearings ...... 12

v Chapter Four: Manitoba’s Electrical Generation and Transmission System . . . 13 4.1 System Overview...... 13 4.2 Generating Stations ...... 15 4.3 Lake Winnipeg Regulation and the Churchill River Diversion...... 17

Chapter Five: The Keeyask Generation Project...... 21 5.1 Overview...... 21 5.2 Major Project Components and Infrastructure...... 23 5.2.1 Powerhouse ...... 23 5.2.2 Spillway ...... 24 5.2.3 Dams ...... 24 5.2.4 Dykes ...... 24 5.2.5 Ice Boom ...... 24 5.2.6 Coff erdams and Rock Groins...... 25 5.2.7 Camp and Work Areas ...... 25 5.2.8 Sources of Rock, Granular and Soil Material ...... 25 5.2.9 North and South Access Roads ...... 26 5.3 Construction Process and Schedule ...... 26 5.4 Project Footprint...... 27

Chapter Six: Consultation ...... 29 6.1 Requirements and Guidelines for Consultation ...... 29 6.2 Internal Consultation Leading to the Joint Keeyask Development Agreement...... 29 6.3 Changes to Project Planning Resulting from Consultation/Negotiation ...... 30 6.4 Th e Joint Keeyask Development Agreement ...... 30 6.5 Adverse Eff ects Agreements...... 31 6.5.1 Tataskweyak Cree Nation...... 32 6.5.2 War Lake First Nation ...... 32 6.5.3 York Factory First Nation...... 33 6.5.4 Fox Lake Cree Nation ...... 33 6.6 Consultation with Other Potentially Aff ected Aboriginal Communities and Groups . . . . . 34 6.6.1 Cross Lake First Nation/Pimicikamak Okimawin...... 34 6.6.2 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation ...... 34 6.6.3 Manitoba Métis Federation ...... 34 6.6.4 Shamattawa First Nation...... 35 6.6.5 Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak...... 35 6.6.6 Keewatin Tribal Council ...... 35 6.6.7 O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation ...... 35 6.6.8 Peguis First Nation ...... 35 6.7 Potentially Aff ected and Interested Communities and Groups...... 35 6.8 Round One of the Public Involvement Program ...... 35 6.9 Round Two of the Public Involvement Program ...... 36 6.10 Round Th ree of the Public Involvement Program...... 36 What we Heard – Consultation ...... 36 Commission Comment – Consultation ...... 37

vi Chapter Seven: Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Assessment Approach Assessment Approach...... 39 7.1 Overview...... 39 7.2 Keeyask Cree Nations’ Evaluations Evaluations ...... 39 7.3 Regulatory Environmental Assessment ...... 40 7.4 Integration of Cree Worldview, ATK and Technical Science ...... 41 What we Heard – Assessment Approach ...... 42 Commission Comment – Assessment Approach...... 44

Chapter Eight: Keeyask Cree Nations’ Environmental Assessments...... 47 8.1 Overview...... 47 8.2 Cree Nation Partners...... 47 8.2.1 Introduction ...... 47 8.2.2 Core Beliefs ...... 48 8.2.3 Relationships ...... 49 8.2.4 CNP Consultation...... 49 8.2.5 Issues Identifi ed ...... 49 8.2.6 Assessing Harmony and Balance ...... 51 8.3 York Factory First Nation ...... 51 8.3.1 Introduction ...... 51 8.3.2 Worldview and Values...... 52 8.3.3 YFFN History and Values ...... 52 8.3.4 Changes and Damage to the Water, Land and People ...... 53 8.3.5 Th e Way Forward...... 54 8.4 Fox Lake Cree Nation...... 54 8.4.1 Introduction ...... 54 8.4.2 FLCN Current and Historical Cultural Environment ...... 55 8.4.3 Eff ects of Hydro Development ...... 56 8.4.4 Moving Forward ...... 57 Commission Comment – KCN Assessments...... 59

Chapter Nine: Physical Environment ...... 61 9.1 Overview...... 61 9.2 Climate ...... 61 9.3 Local Air Quality and Noise ...... 61 9.4 Physiography...... 62 9.5 Surface Water and Ice Regime ...... 63 9.6 Shoreline Erosion Processes...... 63 9.7 Sedimentation ...... 64 9.8 Groundwater...... 64 9.9 Surface Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen ...... 65 9.10 Debris ...... 65 9.11 Sensitivity of Project Eff ects to Climate Change ...... 66 Commission Comment – Physical Environment...... 66

vii Chapter Ten: Aquatic and Terrestrial Environmental Effects ...... 69 10.1 Overview ...... 69 10.2 Aquatic Environmental Eff ects...... 69 What we Heard – Aquatic Eff ects ...... 74 Commission Comment – Aquatic Eff ects ...... 76 10.3 Terrestrial Environmental Eff ects ...... 78 10.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems, Habitat and Plants ...... 79 What we Heard – Terrestrial Ecosystems, Habitat and Plants ...... 82 Commission Comment – Terrestrial Ecosystems, Habitat and Plants...... 82 10.3.2 Birds...... 83 What we Heard – Birds ...... 85 Commission Comment – Birds ...... 85 10.3.3 Mammals ...... 88 What we Heard – Mammals ...... 91 Commission Comment – Mammals...... 94

Chapter Eleven: Socio-Economic Effects...... 97 11.1 Overview ...... 97 11.2 Economy ...... 97 What we Heard – Economy...... 102 Commission Comment – Economy ...... 103 11.3 Population, Infrastructure and Services ...... 104 What we Heard – Population, Infrastructure and Services...... 107 11.4 Personal, Family and Community Life...... 107 What we Heard – Governance, Goals and Plans...... 108 Commission Comment – Governance, Goals and Plans ...... 108 What we Heard – Community Health ...... 109 What we heard – Mercury and Human Health ...... 112 Commission Comment – Mercury and Human Health ...... 112 What we Heard – Public Safety and Worker Interaction...... 114 Commission Comment – Public Safety and Worker Interaction ...... 115 What we Heard – Travel, Access and Safety...... 116 Commission Comment – Travel, Access and Safety ...... 116 What we Heard – Culture and Spirituality ...... 118 Commission Comment – Culture and Spirituality ...... 119 Commission Comment – Aesthetics ...... 120 11.5 Domestic Resource Use...... 120 What we Heard – Domestic Resource Use ...... 122 Commission Comment – Domestic Resource Use...... 123 11.6 Heritage Resources...... 126 Commission Comment – Heritage Resources ...... 128

viii Chapter 12: Cumulative Effects ...... 129 12.1 Overview ...... 129 12.1.1 Past and Current Projects Considered in the Keeyask CEA ...... 131 12.1.2 Future Projects Considered in the Keeyask CEA...... 131 12.2 Cumulative Eff ects Assessment ...... 131 12.2.1 Water Quality ...... 131 12.2.2 Fish ...... 131 12.2.3 Habitat, Ecosystems and Plants...... 132 12.2.4 Birds...... 133 12.2.5 Mammals ...... 133 12.2.6 Infrastructure and Services ...... 134 12.2.7 Personal, Family and Community Life ...... 134 12.2.8 Heritage Resources ...... 135 What we Heard – Cumulative Eff ects Assessment ...... 135 Commission Comment – Cumulative Eff ects Assessment ...... 137

Chapter Thirteen: Monitoring and Follow-up ...... 141 13.1 Overview ...... 141 13.2 Environmental Protection Plans...... 141 13.3 Environmental Management Plans ...... 142 13.4 Environmental Monitoring Plans ...... 143 13.4.1 Specifi c Technical Monitoring Activities ...... 143 13.4.2 ATK Monitoring Programs...... 143 13.5 Environmental Management Approach ...... 144 13.6 Implementation of the Environmental Protection Program ...... 144 What we Heard – Monitoring and Follow-up ...... 145 Commission Comment – Monitoring and Follow-up...... 146

Chapter Fourteen: Sustainable Development ...... 149 14.1 Overview ...... 149 14.2 Keeyask and the Federal Sustainable Development Goals ...... 149 14.3 Keeyask and Manitoba`s Sustainable Development Principles and Guidelines...... 150 14.3.1 Manitoba`s Sustainable Development Principles ...... 150 14.3.2 Manitoba`s Sustainable Development Guidelines ...... 151 14.4 Manitoba Hydro`s Sustainable Development Principles ...... 151 14.5 EIS Conclusions on Sustainable Development ...... 152 What we Heard – Sustainable Development ...... 152 Commission Comment – Sustainable Development ...... 154

ix Chapter Fifteen: Into the Future ...... 157 15.1 Environmental Assessment ...... 157 15.1.1 Manitoba Hydro...... 157 15.1.2 Government of Manitoba ...... 158 15.2 Public Consultations ...... 159 15.3 Regional Cumulative Eff ects Assessment...... 160 15.4 Aboriginal Worldviews ...... 160 15.5 Rebuilding the Relationship ...... 162

Chapter Sixteen: Recommendations ...... 165

Works Cited ...... 169

Appendices I Terms of Reference for Keeyask Generation Project Hearings ...... 171 II List of Presenters...... 175 III Glossary of Acronyms...... 183 IV Glossary of Technical Terms...... 185 V Glossary of Cree Terms Used in the Report...... 191

x Foreword

Th e Environment Act of Manitoba a much-improved product. It is not perfect, states that its intent is to “.... ensure that the but still a major improvement. environment is protected and maintained in such a manner as to sustain a high quality It must be pointed out that the of life, including social and economic Commission’s comments, in the Bipole development, recreation and leisure for this report, did not have any infl uence in this and future generations ....” improvement, as the Keeyask EIS was fi led many months before the report became Th is Act establishes the Clean public. Still, we believe that Manitoba Hydro Environment Commission, giving it an can do even better work than they have for important role in environmental protection, Keeyask. We will discuss this further in this in particular by developing and maintaining report. Manitoba Hydro has set a goal to public participation in environmental become among the Top Employers in its matters. Th e Commission – with roots that community – a truly admirable goal. With its go back to 1935 – has always taken this role new headquarters, Manitoba Hydro set out very seriously. In fulfi lling this mandate, the to be a world leader in sustainable building. Commission seeks to contribute to improving In like manner, the Commission believes the art and science of environmental Manitoba Hydro should adopt a goal to assessment. become a world leader in environmental assessment. To that end, in many of its reports, the Commission has off ered advice to proponents Th is environmental assessment was and to the Province of Manitoba as to how better written; it was better organized; and its the Commission believes the process can be much-improved analysis led to conclusions improved. that were understandable and, for the most part, supportable. Th e Commission does not In June 2013, in the Report on the Bipole agree with all of the conclusions. Th is will be III Transmission Project, the Commission discussed in the report and recommendations was critical of the quality of the work done will be made. by Manitoba Hydro in conducting its environmental assessment of the proposed In one particular area – sturgeon – the project. In fairness, in this report, we must Commission does not share the Partnership’s compliment Manitoba Hydro, the majority confi dence that its mitigative measures will be partner in the Keeyask Generation Project, for as successful as predicted. Its plans for habitat

xi re-creation are optimistic. Having never been begun a process to develop national standards done in a similar northern river environment for cumulative eff ects assessments. Th is, in before, these plans are, at best, experimental. our view, is a very positive step. While the Commission certainly hopes that they prove to be successful, at this Th e Keeyask Generation Project, while time, there remains too much uncertainty not unique, follows an emerging pattern in for the Commission to agree with the which a large public corporation enters into Partnership that sturgeon will be better off a partnership arrangement with First Nations aft er completion of the Keeyask Generation to construct large infrastructure projects. Th is Project. was fi rst seen in Manitoba with Manitoba Hydro’s partnership, in the early 2000s, with Th e Bipole III report also contained Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation to construct implicit criticism of the Manitoba the Wuskwatim Generation Project. Diff erent Government for not having acted on models of similar arrangements have occurred Commission recommendations dating in other jurisdictions. back to 2004 to improve the process of environmental assessment in this province. For Keeyask, Hydro partnered with four Th e Commission was very pleased that First Nations, all resident in proximity to the the Minister of Conservation and Water proposed generation station. A new twist Stewardship accepted its recommendations in to the Keeyask process was that the First this regard and that department offi cials are Nations produced their own environmental already working on this matter. In particular, assessments, based on their own Cree the minister accepted our recommendation worldview – not on western science. In that the Manitoba Government and Manitoba addition, the Keeyask Cree Nations (as Hydro work together to conduct a regional they are referred to in the documentation) cumulative eff ects assessment of all of the participated in the western scientifi c hydro projects constructed in the Nelson environmental assessment, bringing their River sub-watershed. Th is became a key worldview and Aboriginal traditional issue, addressed by many of the parties to knowledge to the table. At the least, this the Keeyask hearings. What we heard during informed the environmental assessment; at these hearings reinforces our belief in the its best, it carried the day (in particular, in importance of this assessment. Work on this is relation to the summer resident caribou.) now underway. While it is not our position to judge Readers of past reports will not be the decision-making process whereby the surprised to fi nd that the Commission KCNs became partners, we were particularly remains less-than-satisfi ed with the impressed by the approach taken by the First cumulative eff ects assessment. To some Nations. In their presentations, they spoke to extent, it remains a diff erence of opinion: the the careful and comprehensive community Proponent does the minimum required for deliberations that led to their joining the regulatory approval; the Commission would Partnership. And, they spoke of this as being a like to see a more comprehensive approach. part of a reconciliation process with Manitoba Th is will be discussed further in this report. Hydro for the years of development which did not involve them. Subsequent to the hearings, the Commission became aware that the Canadian Understanding the Cree worldview Council of Ministers of the Environment has presented a challenge to the Panel. Only

xii one of fi ve panel members is Aboriginal, have had great diffi culty navigating this an Anishinabe member of the Pine Creek process. First Nation. But, the fact that Aboriginal traditional knowledge was incorporated into Terry Sargeant the environmental assessment was also of Chair, The Clean Environment Commission considerable benefi t. Th is will be discussed further in the report. April 2014

In the end, the Panel is more than satisfi ed that the record is suffi ciently complete for it to off er sound advice to the minister.

Th e Commission will recommend that an environmental licence be issued to the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership for construction of the Keeyask Generation Project. It will also recommend that certain, specifi c conditions be attached to the licence to ensure that remaining environmental concerns are addressed.

Th e Commission remains strongly of the view that the practice of environmental assessment in Manitoba must continue to improve. To that end, in this report, the Commission will again off er advice to the Manitoba Government and to Manitoba Hydro aimed at improving the process.

Acknowledgements As with any hearing process conducted by the Clean Environment Commission, many people made signifi cant contributions. I would like to acknowledge the great work done by these folks. My co-panelists included Judy Bradley, Jim Shaw and Edwin Yee of Winnipeg and Reg Nepinak of the Pine Creek First Nation. Special thanks are due to the very skilled and dedicated Commission staff : Cathy Johnson, Joyce Mueller and Amy Kagaoan. Our legal advice came from Michael Green and Kelly Dixon. Our report writer was Bob Armstrong. Finally, we were very ably supported by a team of consultants and service providers, without whom we would

xiii xiv Executive Summary

On November 14, 2012, the Minister of by Participants in the hearing process, and Conservation and Water Stewardship wrote their expert witnesses, and by the general to the Clean Environment Commission public. Th e Commission has considered this to request that the Commission conduct evidence, in combination with the EIS and the public hearings into the proposal by supporting technical documents. One unique Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership factor in the Keeyask Generation Project has to build the Keeyask Generation Project. been that its EIS contains both a traditional, Th e Commission was asked to review technical evaluation of the potential impact the Proponent’s environmental impact of the Project on 38 valued environmental statement (EIS), including supporting components (VECs) as well as three evaluations technical documents and details of the carried out by the First Nations partners in the Proponent’s public consultation program. Project, employing the holistic Cree worldview Th e Commission was further mandated to to consider a very wide array of environmental, provide a recommendation as to whether a social, cultural, economic and spiritual impacts licence for the Project should be issued under of hydroelectric development. Th e Environment Act. Should the Commission recommend issuing a licence, the report was Th e EIS and the discussions during also to include recommendations for any the hearings identifi ed four major areas of appropriate measures to mitigate adverse potential concern arising from the Keeyask eff ects or to monitor the Project’s eff ects. Generation Project: the potential impact of changes to habitat for lake sturgeon Public hearings began on September 16, within the Nelson River and Gull Lake; the 2013, and ran until January 9, 2014, and took potential disturbance to habitat of caribou place in locations in northern Manitoba close resident in the Project area; the increase in to the Project site, as well as in Winnipeg. methylmercury levels in fi sh in the Project During these hearings, the Commission heard area following creation of the reservoir; and a great deal on behalf of the Proponent, from the potential social and public safety impacts staff of Manitoba Hydro, representatives arising from the infl ux of a large number of of the four First Nations that have joined temporary workers to construct the Keeyask with Manitoba Hydro to form the Keeyask Generation Project. Hydropower Limited Partnership, and consultants retained to conduct the Proponent’s Mitigation and monitoring measures are assessment of the Project. Th e Commission planned for all of these four areas of potential also heard a great deal of evidence presented impact. During the course of the hearings

xv and in assessing the technical documents, It is the Commission’s hope that these the Commission came to the conclusion that recommendations could help to bring mitigation measures for the latter two areas about a spirit of reconciliation between of concern – methylmercury and the infl ux of Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba’s Aboriginal workers – have been well designed to prevent communities. Th at Manitoba Hydro and four adverse eff ects. Regarding the fi rst two areas First Nations worked together to develop of concern – lake sturgeon and caribou – the Keeyask Generation Project and brought additional research will likely be required to together technical science and the Cree provide confi dence that the Project will not worldview in their environmental assessment, cause adverse eff ects. For lake sturgeon in provides some encouragement that this particular, a long-term stocking program will environmental reconciliation is possible and be required to meet the goal of bringing back desired by all. a self-sustaining population of these iconic, but endangered, fi sh.

Aft er consideration of the body of evidence, the Commission recommends to the minister that the Keeyask Generation Project be approved for a licence under Th e Environment Act. Th e Commission recommends that a number of conditions be attached to this licence in order to provide some assurance that the goals of the Keeyask Generation Project can be met without compromising the environment of Manitoba. Some of these recommendations deal with specifi c ways of mitigating impacts on the environment, by reducing the level of disturbance or replacing habitat, for example. Other recommendations are focused on the need for additional monitoring so that adverse eff ects can be identifi ed or environmental management measures can be developed.

In addition to these licensing recommendations, the Commission has also made recommendations aimed at improving environmental assessment conducted by Manitoba Hydro and improving the processes and protocols governing environmental assessment generally in Manitoba.

Finally, the Commission has made non- licensing recommendations directed at the Government of Manitoba as well as others focused on encouraging an atmosphere of reconciliation in environmental matters

xvi Chapter One Introduction

1.1 The Manitoba Clean and 30 km west of Gillam. (See Fig. 1.1.) At the location of the powerhouse, at the Environment Commission base of the rapids, the Project will raise the Th e Manitoba Clean Environment water level by 18 metres. Flooding caused by Commission (the Commission) is an the raising of the water level will inundate arm’s-length, provincial agency established 4,500 hectares (45 km2) of land initially, under the authority of Th e Environment with an additional 700-800 hectares of Act of Manitoba (1988). Under the Act, the fl ooding caused by shoreline erosion over the Commission is mandated to provide advice subsequent 30 years. Th e Project is designed and recommendations to the Minister to produce a maximum of 695 megawatts of Manitoba Conservation and Water (MW) of electricity, with an average annual Stewardship and to develop and maintain production of 4,800 gigawatt-hours (GWh). public participation in environmental matters. Th e electricity will be sold by the Keeyask In the context of a review process such as Hydropower Limited Partnership to Manitoba that undertaken for the Keeyask Generation Hydro, which will sell it to Manitoba Project (the Project), this means holding customers and on the export market. open hearings to allow members of the public to challenge the environmental assessment Principal structures to be built as part conducted by the Project’s Proponent, of the Keeyask Generation Project consist Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership of a powerhouse and service bay complex, (the Proponent), and to state their opinions to spillway, three dams and two dykes. Th e the Hearing Panel (the Panel). dams will create a reservoir upstream that will extend 42 km, to three kilometres downstream of Clark Lake. In addition 1.2 The Project to these principal structures, the Project also includes supporting infrastructure, Th e Keeyask Generation Project is a such as temporary facilities required for system of dams and dykes and an associated the construction of the Project, and some power generation facility and spillway to permanent infrastructure, including access be built on the Nelson River at Gull Rapids, roads, a communication tower, safety immediately upstream of Stephens Lake. and security facilities, and boat and barge Th e site is in the boreal forest region, within landings. Th e access roads for the Project the Split Lake Resource Management Area, include the 25-km North Access Road, approximately 60 km northeast of Split Lake connecting the site with PR 280, which has

1 already been licensed under Th e Environment 1.3 The Proponent Act as part of the Keeyask Infrastructure Project, and the 35-km South Access Road, Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership connecting the Project site with the Town is a partnership between Manitoba Hydro of Gillam, which will be built as part of the and the four First Nations in the immediate infrastructure included with the Keeyask area of the Project. Under the terms of the Generation Project. When the Project is partnership, there is one general partner, completed, PR 280 will be routed along the 5900345 Manitoba Ltd, which is wholly two access roads, and will cross the Nelson owned by Manitoba Hydro. Th is general River along the top of the dams. partner is responsible for the management and operation of the business of the Project Although not included as part of the and is liable for all the debts of the Project. Keeyask Generation Project, a 35-km Th ere are four limited partners, with limited transmission line will be built as part of rights in the day-to-day management and the Keeyask Transmission Project (KTP), operations and limited liability for the debts of connecting the generating station with the the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership. Radisson Converter Station near Gillam. Th e Limited partners are Manitoba Hydro, Cree KTP will consist of three 138-kilovolt (kV) Nation Partners Limited Partnership, YFFN AC transmission lines running in the same Limited Partnership, and FLCN Keeyask right-of-way south of the Nelson River and Investments Inc. Stephens Lake. Manitoba Hydro is a provincial Crown corporation, mandated to provide for the power needs of Manitobans. Th e utility is

Fig. 1.1 Location of the Keeyask Generation Project. (Courtesy of KHLP.)

2 overseen by the Manitoba Hydro-Electric signed by the four KCNs and Manitoba Hydro Board, which is appointed by the Government in 2009, establishes the legal framework for of Manitoba and reports to the minister the partnership. Planning, construction and responsible for Th e Manitoba Hydro Act. operation of the Project will be contracted to Manitoba Hydro. Cree Nation Partners Limited Partnership is controlled by Tataskweyak Cree Nation (TCN) and War Lake First Nation (WLFN). 1.4 Terms of Reference TCN is located on the north side of Split Lake, On November 14, 2012, the Minister and had a population of 3,020 as of 2006. of Conservation and Water Stewardship WLFN is located south east of Split Lake, near wrote to the Commission requesting that Ilford on the Hudson Bay Railway line, and the Commission hold public hearings on the had a total population of approximately 235 in proposed Keeyask Generation Project. Th e 2006, 125 of whom lived on-reserve. minister included the following Terms of YFFN Limited Partnership is controlled Reference for the hearings: by York Factory First Nation (YFFN). YFFN • To review the EIS, including the is located along the southeast shore of Split Proponent’s public consultation summary. Lake, accessible by ferry or ice road across Note that a detailed technical review will Split Lake from TCN. YFFN had a population be done by the provincial and federal of approximately 1,070 in 2006. specialist agencies who are members FLCN Keeyask Investments Inc. is of the TAC [the Technical Advisory controlled by Fox Lake Cree Nation (FLCN). Committee]. As such, documents FLCN has a home reserve in the community produced during this assessment should of Bird, 53 km northeast of Gillam, near the be considered by the Commission as input Limestone Generating Station, and an urban for the hearings; reserve in Gillam. FLCN’s total population as • To hold public hearings for the of 2006 was approximately 1,020. Commission to consider stakeholder and Within the context of this Project, the public input; and, four First Nations that are participating in the • To prepare and fi le a report with the partnership are sometimes referred to as the Minister of Conservation and Water Keeyask Cree Nations (KCNs). Approximately Stewardship outlining the results 43 per cent of the population of the KCNs of the Commission’s review and lived off -reserve as of 2006, with the largest providing recommendations for the portion of the off -reserve population residing minister’s consideration. In the event elsewhere in northern Manitoba. the Commission recommends that a Aff airs of the general partner, 5900345 licence be issued, the report is to include Manitoba Ltd., are subject to the direction those conditions the Commission feels of its board of directors, which will have two necessary, including measures to mitigate members nominated by TCN, and one each potential adverse eff ects as well as future nominated by WLFN, YFFN and FLCN. monitoring that may be required. Th e Board members nominated by Manitoba report should be fi led within 90 days from Hydro have the majority on the Board. Th e the date of completion of hearing as per Joint Keeyask Development Agreement, Section 7(3) of the Act.

3 Th e letter from the minister also monitoring of environmental impacts and specifi cally stated that: “Hearings should be on-going monitoring of mitigation measures. located in areas that will allow reasonable Th ese recommendations will be identifi ed as access to potential stakeholders, including in “Licensing Recommendations.” the project area and Winnipeg.” See Appendix I for the full Terms of Reference. In addition to these, the Commission is also making a number of “Non-Licensing Recommendations.” In the Commission’s 1.5 The Hearings view, these relate to matters that are important and should be addressed, but are not of a Public hearings were held in Gillam, nature to be attached as conditions to the Bird (FLCN), York Landing (YFFN), licence. Some are directed at the Province Th ompson, Split Lake (TCN), and Cross Lake of Manitoba in relation to the process and (Pimicikamak Okimawin) from September 16 practice of environmental assessment. Some to October 1. Public hearings then resumed are directed at Manitoba Hydro for use in in Winnipeg on October 21 and ran until future environmental assessments. Others are January 9, 2014. During these hearings, directed at the Keeyask Hydropower Limited testimony was given by representatives of the Partnership for implementation into its Proponent and Participants and by members environmental management practices for the of the public. Interested members of the Keeyask Generation Project. KCNs, as well as members of Pimicikamak Okimawin, took part in hearings held in the Th is report is divided into 16 chapters, northern First Nations, as well as in the later covering the licensing and hearing process, hearings held in Winnipeg. the Keeyask Generation Project, the topics raised in the environmental impact statement (EIS), and the Commission’s 1.6 The Report recommendations to the minister. Following Th is report to the Minister of Manitoba these chapters will be appendices that include Conservation and Water Stewardship presents the terms of reference for the hearing process, an overview of the Keeyask Generation a list of Presenters and those who provided Project and a summary of the hearings, and written submissions, and glossaries. provides comments and recommendations on environmental issues of concern as Because of the great detail in the EIS, identifi ed by the public, Participants and the section on environmental eff ects of the the Commission. Th rough this process, the Project will take up a large portion of this Commission has developed an understanding report. Th e section on environmental eff ects of the eff ects of the Project suffi cient to is broken into two chapters, one on aquatic recommend to the minister that the Keeyask and terrestrial eff ects and the other on socio- Hydropower Limited Partnership receive economic eff ects. Sections of the report will the development licence required under Th e follow a standard format, in which detailed Environment Act to construct the Project as information provided by the Proponent in proposed, subject to specifi c conditions to be the EIS, technical reports or testimony in attached to the licence. hearings will be presented fi rst. Comments made by Participants and Presenters during Th ese attached conditions address the hearings will be summarized under concerns about public health, safety, the heading “What we Heard.” Th e Panel’s own views on many of the subjects will be

4 described under the heading “Commission Comment,” followed, in many cases, by recommendations.

Licensing Recommendation The Commission recommends that:

1.1 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership be issued an Environment Act licence for the Keeyask Generation Project, subject to licensing conditions outlined in subsequent recommendations in this report.

5 6 Chapter Two The Licensing Process

2.1 Needed Licences and conducting the environmental assessment of the Project required by Th e Environment Act Approvals and for preparing the environmental impact Th e Environment Act of Manitoba (1988) statement (EIS) for regulatory review. sets out the environmental assessment and licensing process for developments such Staff of the Environmental Approvals as the Keeyask Generation Project (the Branch of Manitoba Conservation and Water Project). Th e provincial process encourages Stewardship, as well as members of a cross- early consultation by project proponents and departmental Technical Advisory Committee provides for public participation at various (TAC), reviewed the Proposal Form and stages of the Province’s review of a project. draft Scoping Document and provided Th e Classes of Development Regulation comments. Interested members of the public classifi es projects as Class 1, 2 or 3, generally were also invited to provide their comments in accordance with the size and complexity and concerns about the Project and its of the project. Th e Keeyask Generation supporting documentation, namely the EAPF Project is a Class 3 Development. In order and the draft Scoping Document. Interested to build the Project, the Proponent requires parties had until January 31, 2012, to provide an Environment Act licence. To obtain that comments. licence, the Project must be assessed in accordance with the process outlined in Th e Th e Scoping Document stipulated that Environment Act. the EIS was to include, at a minimum: a discussion of the regulatory and policy framework; determination of the scope of 2.2 Review Process for an the Project, including alternative means of carrying out the Project; information Environment Act Licence and methodology used in conducting the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership assessment, including the use of Aboriginal submitted an Environment Act Proposal Form traditional knowledge (ATK) and public (EAPF) together with a draft Environmental consultation; the environmental setting, Assessment Scoping Document to Manitoba including the physical, aquatic, terrestrial and Conservation and Water Stewardship socio-economic environments; an assessment on December 9, 2011. Th e purpose of of the Project’s eff ects on the environment, the Scoping Document was to suggest including cumulative eff ects; the Project’s an appropriate framework and scope for eff ects on sustainable development; and

7 programs for monitoring, mitigation and there be a public hearing to review the EIS follow-up. Th e Need For and Alternatives To on such terms as the minister determines. If the Project (NFAT) were not within the scope there is to be a public hearing of a project, it of the EIS. Th ese matters are the focus of a will be held before the Clean Environment separate hearing being held before the Public Commission. Th e Commission is required Utilities Board (PUB). Certain agreements to report to the minister following such a between the Partners in the Keeyask Project public hearing and provide recommendations – including the Joint Keeyask Development regarding the Project. Agreement (JKDA) and the Adverse Eff ects Agreements (AEAs) between Manitoba Hydro and the Keeyask Cree Nations (KCNs) – 2.3 Federal Regulatory were not within the scope of EIS. However, Review and Decision Making the EIS was to address the ways in which design criteria and adverse eff ects programs Th e Keeyask Generation Project requires described in these agreements infl uenced the federal authorization under the Fisheries Act Project’s eff ect on the environment. Likewise, and the Navigable Waters Protection Act (the the EIS was to include information from the latter of which is expected to be renamed KCNs on their assessment of the Project, but in 2014). As a hydroelectric generating the decisions of the KCNs to participate in the station with a production capacity of 200 Project were not within the scope of the EIS. MW or greater, the Project falls under the Comprehensive Study List Regulations of the Th e Proponent filed its EIS on July 6, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. A 2012. Not all developments covered in Th e comprehensive study is an environmental Environment Act necessarily require an assessment that considers environmental EIS, but the Keeyask Generation Project eff ects, mitigation measures, public concerns, did, owing to its size and complexity. Upon signifi cance, the purpose of the project, the fi ling of the EIS, Th e Environment Act alternative means of carrying out the project, mandates that the EIS be accessible for the need for a follow-up program, and public review. Th e Keeyask EIS was available sustainability of natural resources. for review for a two-month period, during which time interested parties were able to As expressed in the Canada-Manitoba review the material and provide comment. Agreement on Environmental Assessment Following the fi ling of the EIS, members of Cooperation (2007), Canada and Manitoba the TAC reviewed it and submitted requests have agreed to carry out a co-operative for additional information. Responses to environmental assessment that will generate these requests were fi led by the Proponent the type and quality of information and on November 19, 2012, and April 26, 2013. conclusions on environmental eff ects required Following the second round of replies to by both governments. Information Requests from the TAC, the Environmental Approvals Branch advised the Clean Environmental Commission on June 2.4 Section 35 of Canada’s 26, 2013, that suffi cient information was now Constitution available for hearings to proceed. Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982) stipulates that “[t]he existing aboriginal and Th e Minister of Conservation and Water treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Stewardship has the discretion to direct that Canada are hereby recognized and affi rmed.”

8 While Section 35 is not an “environmental” Participant and public submission and statute, it does require consultation with presentations, testimony of expert witnesses, Aboriginal peoples whose rights may be and cross-examination of those experts. impacted in some fashion by a project. Th e process of consulting with Aboriginal Th e Commission was required to peoples in accordance with Section 35 is not a submit its report within 90 days of the close “regulatory process.” Th e obligation to initiate of the hearings. Should the Commission and carry out consultations with respect to recommend the granting of a licence, Section 35 is that of the Province and/or of the Minister of Conservation and Water Canada, depending upon the nature of the Stewardship must either adopt the project under consideration, its location and Commission’s licensing recommendations or its ownership. provide written reasons for not doing so.

In the case of the Keeyask Project, both the Government of Canada and the 2.7 The Licensing Decision Government of Manitoba are conducting the Ultimately, it is the Minister of Section 35 consultations. Th e Commission Conservation and Water Stewardship who hearings played no role in these consultations. will decide whether a licence should be issued under Th e Environment Act for the Keeyask Generation Project. His decision 2.5 Need For and will be based, at least in part, upon the advice Alternatives To and recommendations contained in the As mentioned earlier, consideration of Commission’s report on the public hearings. the Need For and Alternatives To the Project In addition, the minister’s decision will be was not within the scope of the EIS, nor informed by the report of the consultations within the Terms of Reference for the Clean with Aboriginal communities, required under Environment Commission’s hearings on the s. 35 of the Constitution Act (1982), the PUB’s Keeyask Generation Project. At the time of NFAT review, and advice from offi cials in his the writing of this report, that subject is being department. reviewed in a hearing before the PUB, at which the Project is being considered, along with a number of Manitoba Hydro’s plans for fulfi lling its mandate of meeting Manitobans’ power needs.

2.6 Role of the Clean Environment Commission Th e Commission’s role in this regulatory process is to make recommendations on the granting of a licence under Th e Environment Act. In making its determination as to the eff ects of the Project and its recommendations, the Panel relied on the EIS, technical experts retained by the Commission,

9 10 Chapter Three The Public Hearing Process

3.1 Clean Environment help them analyze and assess the impacts of the Keeyask Project and prepare for the Commission hearings. Participants were: Th e Panel assigned to conduct the public hearings on the Keeyask Generation Project • Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens consisted of Terry Sargeant, (Chairperson of the Panel and of the Clean Environment • Th e Consumers’ Association of Canada Commission), Judy Bradley, Reg Nepinak, Jim (Manitoba Branch) Shaw, and Edwin Yee. • Kaweechiwasihk Kay-Tay-A-Ti-Suk (York Factory First Nation elders)

3.2 Public Participation • Th e Manitoba Métis Federation 3.2.1 Participants • Manitoba Wildlands Th is report uses two terms to describe • Peguis First Nation members of the public who took part in the process: Participants and Presenters. • Pimicikamak Okimawin Participants are groups who were substantially involved in the process. 3.2.2 Participant Assistance Participants took part in the pre-hearing Program process, during which they reviewed the environmental impact statement (EIS) Funding for Participants is established by and sought further information before the Th e Environment Act Participant Assistance beginning of hearings, and many of them Regulation, which creates a Proponent- brought their own expert witnesses to the funded program that ensures that qualifying hearings. Many Participants were represented public organizations have access to resources by counsel. Participants were able to ask to participate eff ectively in hearings of this questions of the Proponent or of each other. nature. Typically, Participants use these funds In turn, they may also have been asked to hire legal counsel and specialists with questions by the Proponent. Many of the experience in conducting assessments of Participants received funding through the biophysical and socio-economic impacts, and Participant Assistance Program, in order to to pay travel and accommodation expenses for representatives making presentations.

11 3.2.3 Presenters Assessment to be performed on the Nelson River watershed or for additional studies on Presenters are organizations or individuals the Project area to be carried out. A third who attended and spoke only at the formal motion requested that the Commission hearings. Presenters were allowed 15 minutes compel the release of a draft research each in which to present their views or report on one of the Keeyask Cree Nation information. communities. Th e three motions were denied.

3.3 The Pre-Hearing 3.4 The Hearings Following the fi ling of the EIS on July 6, Hearings began on September 16, 2013, 2012, the Commission was issued its Terms of and ran until January 9, 2014. Hearings Reference for the Keeyask Generation Project were held in Gillam, Bird, York Landing, hearings on November 14, 2012. In February Th ompson, Split Lake, Cross Lake and 2013, the Commission invited Manitobans Winnipeg. Th roughout the hearings, the to apply for funds, under the Participant Panel heard evidence from 43 representatives Assistance Program, to help them participate speaking on behalf of the Proponent, 69 in the review of the Project. Th e Participant representatives speaking on behalf of the Assistance Committee of the Commission Participants, and 79 Presenters. Th e Panel reviewed applications for funding and in also received 28 written submissions. See April 2013, recommended to the Minister of Appendix II for a full list of all those involved Conservation and Water Stewardship that in the hearings. allocations be made to organizations for their participation in the Keeyask hearings. On Clean Environment Commission the minister’s concurrence, the awards were hearings follow a formal process. Written made. submissions and supporting materials are fi led as exhibits. Witnesses for the Proponent In order to prepare for public hearings and the Participants make oral presentation, into the Project, Participants were able in an agreed-upon order, summarizing their to forward requests for clarifi cation of written submissions. Questioning of witnesses information in the EIS or for background for the Proponent or the Participants or pertinent information that had not been proceeds formally and is conducted by included in the EIS and technical reports. Th e the representatives of the Proponent and Proponent received and responded to more the Participants. Panel members also ask than 500 such information requests (IRs). questions of the witnesses. In addition to hearing oral testimony, the Panel also During this pre-hearing period, the accepted written submissions from the public. Commission held two pre-hearing meetings and one motions hearing with Participants and the Proponent. Th ese meetings were held in order to discuss procedure, timing, and the Terms of Reference for the hearings. Two motions were heard during the motions hearing, in which the Commission was requested to adjourn or delay the hearing in order for a Regional Cumulative Eff ects

12 Chapter Four Manitoba’s Electrical Generation and Transmission System

4.1 System Overview Manitoba Hydro transmits electricity throughout Manitoba using two systems of Electricity in Manitoba is generated power lines. Two high-voltage direct-current and transmitted by Manitoba Hydro, which (HVDC) lines, called Bipole I and II, transmit operates a total of 17 generating stations, 15 electricity from the Lower Nelson River of which are hydroelectric, and also buys area, where most power generation occurs, electricity from two wind farms. (See Fig. 4.1) to southern Manitoba, where most of the Currently, the Crown corporation’s generating customers are located. Th ese 500 kilovolt capacity is approximately 5,000 megawatts (kV) lines use DC transmission because it is (MW). Th is power is distributed to more than more effi cient for carrying large amounts of 550,000 domestic customers over more than power over long distances. Construction of 15,000 km of transmission lines, which are a third Bipole line was licensed by Manitoba also built and operated by Manitoba Hydro. Conservation and Water Stewardship in 2013, in order to provide reliability in the event of extreme weather or equipment failures and to carry electricity to be generated by potential What is electricity? future generating stations. Manitoba Hydro’s other lines transmit electricity in the form of Electricity is the result of the alternating current (AC), which is the form movement of free electrons from in which electricity is generated and the form atom to atom in a substance. When in which it is used in homes and workplaces. electrons can be made to jump in AC lines may be in a wide variety of voltages, the same direction at the same time, the result is an electrical current. including high-voltage lines of 230 or 138 Electricity, then, is the fl ow of kV and lower-voltage lines to carry power to electrons through material. Some homes. Lines to transmit electricity from the materials, such as the aluminum or Keeyask Generating Station to the Radisson copper used in the conductors (wires) Converter Station near Gillam are part of the in a transmission line, contain a large Keeyask Transmission Project, which is the number of free electrons and are subject of a separate Environment Act licence therefore said to be good conductors application. of electricity. Other materials, such as wood, rubber or glass, have few free Manitoba Hydro also has AC transmission electrons and are called insulators. lines connecting beyond the province to neighbouring provinces and states, which

13 Fig. 4.1 Power Generation Facilities in Manitoba. (Courtesy of KHLP.)

14 4.2 Generating Stations How is electricity Most of Manitoba’s Hydro’s generating generated? capacity is supplied by northern generating stations on the Nelson River. Th e Nelson Scientists discovered in the early 19th River, the largest in Manitoba, receives water century that, by using a magnet, it is from an area of more than one million square possible to make free electrons fl ow in the same direction through a wire, kilometres, extending from the Continental creating an electric current. This is Divide in Alberta to just east of Lake Superior essentially what makes hydroelectric in Ontario and south to the northern portion generation possible. The force of water being directed through a generating station turns a giant View of a typical electromagnet weighing hundreds of tonnes, in a cylinder lined with wires, powerhouse causing free electrons to fl ow through A typical powerhouse will have the wires. One generating station several propeller-like turbines, may contain 10 or more of these giant each connected to a generator electromagnets. that produces electricity, which is transmitted to a transformer and allow for surplus electricity to be sold for from there to transmission lines. Each export and, in emergencies, for electricity turbine will have its own intake gate, to be purchased from other utilities. In which can be closed to allow for maintenance, and its own trash racks, Manitoba, the time of peak electrical demand which prevent debris from being is in winter, because of the need for heating. drawn into the turbine. Once through In many American states, the time of peak the intake gate, water fl ows into the electrical demand is in summer, because of scroll case, an enclosed space directly the demand for air conditioning. As a result, above the turbine. From there, it Manitoba has more surplus electricity to sell fl ows past the turbine, causing it in the summer when customers in the United to turn. The turbine turns the rotor, States need it more. which is a giant electromagnet, and as it turns past the stator, a series When electricity is bought and sold it is of tightly wound wires, electrons referred to in terms such as kilowatt-hours. A are made to fl ow as electricity. After kilowatt-hour is 1,000 watts of power fl owing passing the turbine, water continues for one hour. To visualize this, imagine 17 to fl ow down a large tube known 60-watt lightbulbs left on for one hour. One as the draft tube, which empties megawatt-hour is 1,000 kilowatt-hours. As into the river immediately below the generating station. This area is of 2012, in an average year Manitoba Hydro known as the tailwater. The area of produces about 30 million megawatt-hours rapidly fl owing water downstream of of electricity. Domestic consumption within a powerhouse is known as a tailrace. Manitoba uses about 24 million megawatt- In the event that maintenance is hours. Manitoba Hydro sells the remaining required, the draft tube gate allows 6 million megawatt-hours outside of the the draft tube to be closed off from province. the tailwater so that the draft tube can be dewatered.

15 Fig. 4.2 Cross-Section of a Typical Hydroelectric Powerhouse. (Courtesy of KHLP.)

of South Dakota. Th e power generation manages the fl ow of Manitoba’s major river potential of a river is a function of the amount systems. Manitoba Hydro regulates water of water fl owing and distance the water drops levels on Lake Winnipeg, using the Jenpeg (called the hydraulic head) at the generating Control Structure, and diverts the Churchill station. As a result, rapids along the Nelson River in order to ensure a steady supply of River – which drops 217 metres between Lake water throughout the year (see 4.3 below). Winnipeg and Hudson Bay – are the locations in Manitoba with the greatest potential for Manitoba has a long history of generating generating hydroelectricity. Th ree large power through hydroelectricity. Th e oldest generating stations on the Nelson River – generating station currently in operation in Kettle, Long Spruce, and Limestone – have a Manitoba is the Pointe de Bois station on the total capacity of more than 3,500 MW. Th ese Winnipeg River, which went into service in three stations represent approximately 70 per 1911. It is one of six generating stations – with cent of Manitoba Hydro’s generating capacity. a total capacity of approximately 580 MW – on the Winnipeg River in Manitoba. In order to keep these large generating stations supplied with water, Manitoba Hydro Development of hydroelectric resources

16 in the north began in the late 1950s with In addition to these hydroelectric construction of the Kelsey Generating generating stations, Manitoba Hydro operates Station, just upstream of Split Lake. Built to thermal generating stations in Selkirk and provide power for the city of Th ompson and Brandon that burn natural gas to generate neighbouring nickel mines, Kelsey resulted a total of 458 MW of electricity. As well, in the fl ooding of 5,800 hectares (58 km2) Manitoba Hydro purchases power from two and produces 220 MW of electricity. It independently owned windfarms, at St. Leon recently went through a retrofi t known as “re- and St. Joseph, providing a maximum of runnering” to increase its generating potential nearly 240 MW of power. without altering water levels. In the 1960s, Manitoba Hydro built the 4.3 Lake Winnipeg Grand Rapids Generating Station on the Regulation and the Churchill Saskatchewan River, upstream of where it empties into the north basin of Lake River Diversion Winnipeg. In service in 1968, Grand Rapids Manitoba Hydro manages power raised water levels on Cedar Lake and fl ooded production on the lower Nelson River by portions of the Saskatchewan River delta. Its regulating the level of Lake Winnipeg and capacity is approximately 480 MW. diverting water from the Churchill River into the Nelson via the Rat and Burntwood Rivers. Construction of the fi rst major Nelson Th ese changes to the waterways of northern River station, the Kettle Generating Station, Manitoba were undertaken in the 1970s began in 1966 and was completed in 1973. in order to ensure a steady supply of water Th e Kettle Dam flooded 22,000 hectares to generate electricity at the Nelson River of land, joining two smaller lakes into the stations. much larger Stephens Lake. Kettle produces 1,200 MW of electricity. Th e next two major Th e governments of Canada and dams – Long Spruce (in-service in 1979) Manitoba established the Lake Winnipeg, and Limestone (in-service in 1992) caused Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board in substantially less fl ooding because they were 1971 to investigate the social, economic and built in locations where the Nelson had steep environmental aspects of Lake Winnipeg banks (1,300 and 200 hectares respectively). Regulation (LWR), the Churchill River Manitoba Hydro also generates 130 MW of Diversion (CRD) and the development of electricity at the Jenpeg Control Structure, the hydroelectric potential of the lower although its main function is controlling Nelson. In 1970, the Manitoba government water levels on Lake Winnipeg. issued an interim licence to Manitoba Hydro, under Th e Water Power Act, to proceed with In 2012, the Wuskwatim Generating LWR. A supplementary interim licence for Station on the Burntwood River, owned by CRD was issued in 1972. Th e level of water the Wuskwatim Power Limited Partnership in Lake Winnipeg is regulated to provide (a partnership of Manitoba Hydro and storage capability and increased fl ow to the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation), went downstream power plants in the winter, into service, with a capacity of 200 MW. when Manitoba Hydro has its peak energy Wuskwatim, built with what is called a requirements and when ice on Lake Winnipeg low-head design, fl ooded approximately 37 limits outfl ow. Infrastructure for LWR consists hectares of land. of three excavated channels that substantially

17 increase the outfl ow capability from the lake, Construction of the CRD began in 1973 the Jenpeg Control Structure, which regulates and it became operational in 1977 with the outfl ow, and a dam at the outlet of Kiskitto fl ooding of areas around Southern Indian Lake to prevent water from backing up Lake. CRD is operated in accordance with an into that lake. Th e interim licence issued to interim licence dated December 19, 1972, and Manitoba Hydro allows it to regulate Lake a second interim licence issued on May 11, Winnipeg for power production purposes 1973. Under the terms of the licence, water is when the lake level (with the eff ects of wind stored in Southern Indian Lake to a maximum eliminated) is between 711 and 715 feet above level of 847 feet above sea level and may be sea level (asl). Above 715 feet, Manitoba drawn down over winter to a minimum of Hydro must operate the Jenpeg Control 844 feet. Th e maximum allowable discharge Structure to allow the maximum discharge through the Notigi Control Structure is possible under the circumstances until the 30,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the fl ow water level recedes to 715 feet. When the lake at Th ompson must not exceed the average level falls below 711 feet, Manitoba Hydro is mean fl ow of the pre-CRD Burntwood River required to operate Jenpeg as ordered by the plus the diverted 30,000 cfs. Th e licence also minister responsible for Th e Water Power Act. requires a minimum outfl ow from the control Th is licence uses Imperial measurements, dam at Missi Falls down the Churchill River while some other licences and regulations use of not less than 500 cfs during the open-water metric units for water levels. season and 1,500 cfs during the ice-covered period. Th e City of Th ompson Agreement Manitoba Hydro has been continuing stipulates that fl ows along the Burntwood to operate LWR with an interim licence River must be regulated so that water levels for approximately 40 years. However, the are maintained at or below 188.66 metres Corporation has applied for a fi nal licence above sea level at the Th ompson Seaplane under Th e Water Power Act and this will Base in summer and 189.88 metres at the be the subject of hearings by the Clean Th ompson Pumphouse in winter. In 1998, Environment Commission in 2014. as part of an agreement with the Town of Churchill, Manitoba Hydro built a weir Th e Churchill River was determined to across the Churchill River near the town have 3,000 MW of generating potential, but in accordance with a licence under Th e rather than build generating stations there, Environment Act. Th e purpose of this weir is it was determined to be more economically to raise water levels on the lower Churchill feasible to divert Churchill water to the in order to mitigate some of the eff ects of Nelson. Th is is done using a control dam at the diversion. Under terms of the licence, Missi Falls, the natural outlet of Southern Manitoba Hydro is required to maintain daily Indian Lake, to control outfl ow down the releases from Missi Falls no less than those Churchill River, raise water levels in the that had been maintained for the period 1986- lake by about three metres, and cause the 1998. water to fl ow through an excavated channel into Isset Lake on the Rat River system. A Th e minister responsible for Th e Water second control dam at Notigi Lake on the Rat Power Act approves an annual Augmented River regulates the fl ow into the Burntwood Flow Program (AFP) in response to requests River system and the lower Nelson River. from Manitoba Hydro. Th is approval permits Th e Burntwood fl ows into the Nelson at the an expanded range of storage on Southern northwestern corner of Split Lake. Indian Lake and changes the fl ow limits and

18 levels downstream on the Burntwood River. the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board, and Under the AFP, Manitoba Hydro is allowed the Government of Canada signed the to increase the average weekly summer fl ow Northern Flood Agreement (NFA), which at the Notigi Control Structure from 30,000 was intended to deal with adverse eff ects to 35,000 cfs and the average weekly winter resulting from the modifi cation of the water fl ow from 30,000 to 34,000 cfs. eTh maximum regime that accompanied the development of permitted level of Southern Indian Lake is hydroelectric power in Northern Manitoba. increased by 0.5 ft to 847.5 feet asl and the In the 1990s, Northern Flood Agreement minimum level is decreased one foot to 843 Implementation Agreements were concluded feet. Th is increases the maximum allowable between four of the NFA First Nations, variation over a 12-month period from Manitoba Hydro and the governments of 3 to 4.5 feet. Both the CRD and the AFP Canada and Manitoba to implement the 1977 are currently under review by Manitoba NFA and to resolve most, although not all, Conservation and Water Stewardship for fi nal outstanding claims stemming from the CRD licensing. and LWR.

Th e AFP allows increased diversion from Th e changes in water levels and seasonal the Churchill River and storage on Southern fl ows caused by these major developments Indian Lake in order to allow Manitoba negatively aff ected many individuals and Hydro to meet seasonal and hourly variation communities in northern Manitoba. Th is in demand for electricity. Under the AFP, experience continues to infl uence attitudes Manitoba Hydro is expected to fully mitigate and relationships throughout the region any eff ects of the altered levels and fl ows and and casts a shadow over Manitoba Hydro the maximum draw down on Southern Indian developments today. Lake to 4.5 feet is to be staged over a period of time in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on area residents.

Flooding and changes in water levels associated with LWR, CRD and AFP have had serious long-term eff ects on local Aboriginal communities and economies. In 1974, the fi ve directly aff ected First Nations of Nelson House (now Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation), Split Lake (now Tataskweyak Cree Nation), York Landing (now York Factory First Nation), Cross Lake (now Pimicikamak Okimawin), and Norway House formed the Northern Flood Committee (NFC) to facilitate discussion with Manitoba Hydro and the federal and provincial governments. Th e June 1975 fi nal report of the Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board recommended a number of mitigation measures. In 1977, the fi ve NFC First Nations, the Government of Manitoba,

19 20 Chapter Five The Keeyask Generation Project

5.1 Overview case of the Nelson River, planners long ago identifi ed a number of locations where a Hydroelectric generating stations use drop in the level of the river created potential the power of running water to turn turbines locations for generating electricity. Between and, in the process, convert this energy into Lake Winnipeg and Hudson Bay, the Nelson electrical energy. In essence, two key factors River drops approximately 217 metres of determine how much energy a hydroelectric elevation. station can produce: the amount of water fl owing and the distance that the water drops, In the case of the Keeyask Generating referred to as the hydraulic head. Th is is why Station, Manitoba Hydro has been hydroelectric stations are typically located investigating ways of exploiting the power at sites such as rapids, where a river drops generation potential of the reach of the a larger amount in a short distance. In the Nelson River between Stephens Lake and

Fig. 5.1 Schematic diagram indicating sites with technical potential to generate hydroelectric power. Developed locations in red. Potential locations (including sites no longer being considered) in white. (Courtesy of KHLP.)

21 Split Lake since the 1960s. In this reach, typically require some dyking along the the river drops 27 metres. Long before the sides of the reservoir to prevent the reservoir negotiations that led to the Joint Keeyask from fl owing around the dam. A spillway Development Agreement began, a variety is required to allow for the safe discharge of options for exploiting this hydraulic head of high water fl ows, above that needed for were identifi ed. Options included a single power generation. Construction typically high-head dam at Gull Rapids using the entire requires a great deal of excavation to build hydraulic head to generate 1,150 MW, a single the foundation of the dam, powerhouse and intermediate-head dam at Gull Rapids with spillway on solid bedrock. Excavation is also a maximum power generation of 900 MW, a typically required to create channels on the pair of generating stations at Gull Rapids and river bottom directing the fl ow into and out Birthday Rapids, generating roughly 1,000 of the powerhouse and into and out of the MW, and the ultimately selected option of a spillway. single intermediate-head generating station at Gull Rapids. Th e selected option uses roughly Because hydroelectric stations are major 18 metres of the 27 metres of head in the Split projects involving a large number of workers Lake to Stephens Lake reach of the river. and several years of construction, they typically require a substantial amount of Hydroelectric stations are designed in infrastructure, including access roads, work order to direct the fl ow of water through camps, borrow pits, quarries, construction a powerhouse as effi ciently as possible. power transmission, and work and Hydroelectric generating stations use a dam marshalling areas. or dams to raise the level of the river and

Fig. 5.2 Aerial view of Gull Rapids, future site of Keeyask Generating Station, looking northeast, Stephens Lake in background. (Courtesy of KHLP.)

22 5.2 Major Project River at Gull Rapids. It will be approximately 248 metres long, 68 metres wide and 62 Components and metres high, measured above the lowest Infrastructure portion of the bedrock. It will contain seven Major structures in the Keeyask Generation large turbines, each 8.85 metres in diameter, Project include the powerhouse, spillway, each with intake structures and draft tubes north, central and south dams, and north and through which water passes going into and south dykes. Major supporting infrastructure out of the turbines. Th e powerhouse complex includes the ice boom, coff erdams and rock includes a service bay, a control room and dams, camp and work areas, sources of rock, a transformer for each turbine, surrounded granular and soil material, and South Access by concrete containment for any spills of Road. Th e North Access Road is already being transformer oils. Th ough the turbines are built as part of the separately licensed Keeyask rated to produce 695 MW when the reservoir Infrastructure Project. is at full supply level, power production will be lower when Stephens Lake, immediately downstream, is at full supply level. In such 5.2.1 Powerhouse situations, because a higher water level at the Th e powerhouse will be built within and downstream side of the powerhouse reduces adjacent to the north channel of the Nelson the hydraulic head available, the Project will produce 630 MW.

Fig. 5.3 Keeyask Generation Project: Principal Structures. (Courtesy of KHLP.)

23 5.2.2 Spillway Th e dams will be earth and rock fi ll embankments with an impervious (water- Th e spillway, which discharges excess water tight) core and an exterior of rock fi ll and fl ows above those needed for the production riprap (loose stone). Th ey will be built on of electricity, will be a concrete structure 119 bedrock. Th e elevations of the dams’ crests will metres long, 42 metres wide and 28 metres range between 162 and 162.6 metres above sea high. It will have seven bays that can be opened level, and the dams will vary in height from 22 or closed to vary the amount of water passing metres for the South Dam to 28 metres for the through. Th e spillway will be built on what Central Dam. Th ey will be built high enough is now one of the islands within Gull Rapids, to accommodate the Probable Maximum approximately 1.6 km south of the powerhouse. Flood with no turbine load. Th e Project is designed to withstand a fl ow of water described as the probable maximum 5.2.4 Dykes fl ood (PMF). eTh PMF is estimated using historic precipitation, snowmelt and other Dykes will be built along the north and factors and has been determined to be 12,700 south shore of the Nelson River in order to cubic metres per second. A fl ood of this contain the water in the reservoir and prevent magnitude would be more than twice the fl ooding onto adjacent low-lying areas. Along fl ow that was experienced in 2005, the highest the north shore the dykes will continue in a recorded daily discharge on the river, and is discontinuous manner for 11.6 km. Along the considered to have a frequency of less than south shore the dykes will continue for 11.2 once in 10,000 years. In the event of such a km. Th e dykes will not run continuously, but fl ood, the spillway would discharge 11,300 will be built where the elevation of the ground cubic metres per second and the powerhouse is low enough to require dyking. Sections of would discharge 1,400 cubic metres per second. dyke will connect to areas of higher ground. A roadway will run along the tops of the 5.2.3 Dams dykes and be built on the sections of higher ground to allow inspection and maintenance. Th ree earthfi ll dams will be built to span Th e maximum height of the dykes will be 20 the Nelson River in order to store water metres on the north side and 13 metres on the in the reservoir before it can pass through south side. the generating station. Th e North Dam will be approximately 100 metres long and will 5.2.5 Ice Boom connect the North Dyke on the shore with the powerhouse. Th e Central Dam will be In order to prevent the creation of an ice approximately 1,600 metres long and will dam at the entrance to Stephens Lake, which connect the powerhouse with the spillway. would raise water levels in Gull Rapids and Th e South Dam will be approximately 565 increase the cost of construction, the Project metres long and will connect the spillway will require the use of an ice boom three with the South Dyke on the shore. Th e North kilometres upstream of the powerhouse. Th is and South Dams will both run on a north- boom will prevent large quantities of frazil ice south orientation, with the North Dam and (ice fl oes that become jammed together) from powerhouse downstream (northeast) from fl owing down the open water of the rapids the South Dam and spillway. Th e long Central and piling up at the entrance to Stephens Lake Dam will be built on a southwest-northeast and forming an ice dam. Currently, a large ice orientation. Th e dams and structures will link dam forms at this point every winter, causing in a long, double-curved span.

24 water levels to rise at the site of future Keeyask Keeyask Generation Project – the work construction. Th e ice boom will be a fl oating camp will be expanded to accommodate up structure anchored in the bedrock that will to 2,000 workers. Th e work camp includes initiate the development of a solid ice cover pre-engineered bunkhouses, with private earlier in the winter on Gull Lake. Th e boom accommodations, a recreation hall and will consist of fi ve 120-metre-long fl oating kitchen and dining facilities, as well as sections in the central part of the river, just buildings for fi refi ghting and fi rst aid. A upstream of where it splits into north and temporary 100-person work camp will also south channels. be established on the south side of the river to accommodate workers involved in building 5.2.6 Cofferdams and Rock Groins the South Access Road and the South Dyke.

Coff erdams and rock groins are temporary Work areas, located along the North rock and earth fi ll structures built in the river Access Road between the work camp and to allow for construction work to be carried the powerhouse site, will include storage out. Coff erdams are constructed around a and fi eld offi ces, a yard for material storage, worksite, such as the spillway or powerhouse, a fuel storage facility, vehicle maintenance so that the work area can be dewatered. Rock and refueling facilities, a soils and concrete groins are constructed in the river to protect laboratory, an aggregate processing area, an area from erosion. In the fi rst two years a concrete batch plant, a carpenters’ shop of Keeyask construction, six coff erdams and a shop for working with steel. As well, a and two rock groins will be built. As the temporary magazine for storing explosives Project is completed, some of the material will be built at a safe distance from the camp in the coff erdams and rock groins will be and work sites. removed and some will be incorporated into permanent structures such as the South and 5.2.8 Sources of Rock, Granular and Central Dams, and the transmission tower Soil Material spur, an artifi cial peninsula that will extend into the river south of the powerhouse and Th e Project will require development of provide a foundation for transmission towers. several borrow pits and rock quarries to obtain the impervious fi ll, granular and crushed 5.2.7 Camp and Work Areas rock, rock fi ll, riprap and concrete aggregates needed for the various components. Current Th e fi rst phase of the main work camp plans call for up to 11 diff erent borrow pits or is already being constructed under an quarries to be used to provide materials. For Environment Act Licence as part of the the most part, granular material (gravel) will Keeyask Infrastructure Project. Th is portion be taken from locations on the north side of of the camp is a 500-person camp on a the river. Impervious material (clay) will be 120-hectare site, about 1.8 km from the north sourced from locations on both sides of the shore of the Nelson River. Included as part river. Th e majority of the rock required for of the KIP are development of wells and the Project will come from a bedrock quarry a water treatment plant for potable water, within what is now the north channel of the a wastewater treatment plant, and diesel river. In addition to materials from these generators to provide 2.5 MW of power. sources, rock removed during excavation for the principal structures will also be used in In the second phase of development construction. Several of the borrow sources of the work camp – included as part of the will be located on land that will later be

25 inundated by the fl ooding of the reservoir, 5.3 Construction Process and though there will be substantial borrow pits on both sides of the river outside of the reservoir. Schedule Building a generating station on a river 5.2.9 North and South Access Roads as large as the Nelson is a major project, with a complex schedule of components. Two all-weather gravel roads will be It is expected to take seven years from the required for the construction of the Project. beginning of construction on coff erdams Th e North Access Road, which runs for 25 and rock groins to the station being in full km from Provincial Road 280 to the Project service. An additional year of infrastructure site, has already received an Environment decommissioning and site rehabilitation is Act licence as part of the KIP. Included on included in the schedule. this road is a bridge across Looking Back Creek, which has been approved under the Th e following are some of the major steps federal Navigable Waters Protection Act. Th e in construction, in order. North Access Road will be used to transport A series of coff erdams will be built to workers, equipment and materials during isolate the north and central channels of the construction of the Project. Th e South Access river, in order to allow them to be dewatered. Road, which will run for 35 km from Gillam All of the river’s fl ow will then be directed to the south side of the Project area, will be through the south channel, which already built to allow for construction to begin on carries approximately 80% of the river’s fl ow. the South Dyke. During the operation phase With the north and central channels dewatered, of the project, the South Access Road will construction can begin on the powerhouse allow access to Gillam, where it is expected and on the Central Dam, the 1.6 km section the majority of operating staff will live. Th e of dam running between the powerhouse and South Access Road includes a 21.5 km section the spillway, as well as the much smaller North of existing roadway, which will be upgraded Dam, which connects the powerhouse to the to Provincial Road standards, that currently shore on the north side of the river. runs from Gillam to the Butnau Dam on the south side of Stephens Lake. From the Butnau During the fi rst winter aft er construction Dam to the Project site, 13.5 km of new road begins, clearing trees from the reservoir will be built. Th e South Access Road will have will begin, and this will continue for four to four stream crossings – Gull Rapids Creek, fi ve years, with 3,600 hectares of vegetation Gillrat River, Butnau River and an unnamed cleared. As well, construction of the South tributary of Stephens Lake. Th e two access Access Road will also begin in the fi rst winter. roads will be built to a standard eight-metre width, although near the worksites they will A coff erdam will be built to isolate the be wider to accommodate large construction site of the spillway from the south channel. vehicles. Th e access roads will be connected Much of the spillway site is currently within by a roadway that will run over the top of a smaller channel adjacent to the main the dams, spillway and powerhouse. When south channel. With the spillway coff erdam the Project is complete, Provincial Road 280 complete, this site can also be dewatered and will be rerouted along the two access roads construction can proceed. and the Project, with the result that the drive between Gillam and Th ompson will be When the spillway is complete, portions approximately 45 minutes shorter. of the spillway coff erdam will be removed

26 in order to divert the entire fl ow of the river will include 4,800 hectares that is already through the spillway. At this time, a coff erdam waterway (the Nelson River, Gull Lake). All will be built south of the spillway to isolate the the land required is currently Crown land. Th e portion of the south channel where the South Hydraulic Zone of Infl uence is the term for Dam will be built. the portion of the Nelson River where water levels and fl ows will be aff ected by the Project. A coff erdam will be built downstream It begins three kilometres downstream of the powerhouse in order to dewater the from Clark Lake and extends to about three area immediately downstream so that the kilometres downstream of the Project. tailrace channel can be excavated. Portions of both the upstream coff erdam that isolated Areas to be fl ooded by the reservoir will the powerhouse area and the downstream be cleared prior to impoundment. Sensitive coff erdam that isolated the tailrace area will areas, such as culturally signifi cant sites, later be removed. islands currently or potentially used for caribou calving and areas near tributaries, will While work is continuing on the dams, be cleared by hand (chainsaw). Most clearing powerhouse and spillway, the North and will be by heavy machinery. In total, 3,600 South Dykes will be built, with the North hectares of vegetation will be cleared. Dyke being built fi rst, over approximately 1.5 years, followed by two years of work on the Other major contributors to the Project’s South Dyke. footprint include borrow areas, which will add up to approximately 1,300 hectares Once the intake gates are completed during construction and 1,000 hectares for the powerhouse, they can be closed and during operations, and roads and road reservoir impoundment can begin while corridors, which will add up to approximately work continues inside the powerhouse. 750 hectares during both construction and Full impoundment of the reservoir to an operation. Land required for infrastructure, elevation of 159 metres is expected to take river management (barge landings and boat about 14 months. Impoundment of the ramps for work on the river), camp and work reservoir will allow for the commissioning areas, excavated material placement areas of the fi rst unit of the powerhouse. As well, (EMPAs), mitigation and compensation areas during impoundment, boat patrols will begin (including a small engineered wetland), and monitoring and removing any fl oating debris a 100-hectare area of dewatered river bottom that may pose a hazard to navigation or aff ect is also included in the total footprint. Th e EIS operation of the generating station. for the Project also includes allowances for areas that will possibly be disturbed and for areas that may be required by the contractors 5.4 Project Footprint but have a low likelihood of being used. (See Th e Project will directly impact a total Fig. 5.4.) area of approximately 13,350 hectares during construction and 13,800 hectares during Substantial amounts of excavation will be operation. Of this total area, the reservoir will required to direct water into and out of the make up 9,300 hectares, growing by 700-800 powerhouse and spillway. Th e powerhouse hectares as a result of shoreline erosion and intake channel will be excavated into the peatland disintegration over the fi rst 30 years bedrock of the riverbed up to 600 metres of the project. Th e total area of the reservoir upstream of the powerhouse. Th e tailrace channel, which directs the fl ow of water

27 Figure 5.4 Keeyask Generation Project Footprint (Courtesy of KHLP.)

back to the surface of the river, will be Excavating for materials used in excavated into the bedrock of the riverbed for construction will also produce large amounts approximately 500 metres downstream of the of material that cannot be used. In all, it is powerhouse. expected that more than four million cubic metres of these unclassifi ed materials will Building the main structures, as well as need to be placed in EMPAs. A large number the temporary coff erdams and rock groins of EMPAs have been identifi ed on both sides and the South Access Road, will require a of the river. Many of them are within the large amount of impervious material, rock area to be fl ooded. Where necessary, these and granular material. In all, an estimated 8.4 placement areas will be covered with material million cubic metres of material is expected to prevent erosion. Th ose EMPAs that are to be used, coming from locations on both outside of the fl ooded area will be graded sides of the river. Th e two most heavily used and covered with soil to promote vegetation borrow sites are expected to be on the north growth. side of the river. Temporary or permanent access roads will need to be built between Lines to transmit the electricity from these borrow sources and the Project site. the Project to the Radisson Converter Station near Gillam will form the Keeyask Two borrow areas that will be major Transmission Project, a separate project not sources of material for construction are included as part of this EIS. It is expected that located on islands on the north shore of the electricity will be transmitted on three 138-kV Nelson River. Erosion since 2000 created new lines, built along a common corridor on the channels that caused these deposits to become south side of Stephens Lake. islands. Causeways will be built across the river channel in order to reach these deposits. Aft er construction, these causeways will be removed.

28 Chapter Six Consultation

6.1 Requirements and Electric Generating Station. TCN and its members entered into discussions with Guidelines for Consultation Manitoba Hydro with two key principles in Manitoba’s Environment Act provides for mind: that they would not oppose the Project public consultation in environmental decision if satisfactory partnership arrangements making and states that when assessing an could be negotiated, and that they would application for a Class 3 development, such as use their own worldview to assess potential the Keeyask Generation Project, the Minister environmental eff ects of the Project. of Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship may require the Proponent to Th is agreement provided a framework carry out public consultation. to guide negotiation of the Joint Keeyask Development Agreement (JKDA) and also made provisions for other First Nations 6.2 Internal Consultation to be involved. In 2000, TCN invited Fox Leading to the Joint Keeyask Lake Cree Nation (FLCN), York Factory First Nation (YFFN), and War Lake First Development Agreement Nation (WLFN) to become signatories. In Manitoba Hydro and Tataskweyak Cree 2001, Manitoba Hydro and the four First Nation (TCN) began consultations in the Nations signed the Principals’ Memorandum 1990s on potential hydroelectric development setting out negotiating principles, and in of the Gull Rapids site. In 1996, following 2002, they signed another document laying completion of a series of joint studies on the out principles and processes in more detail. impact of past projects in the Split Lake area, From 2002 to 2008, the parties negotiated the Manitoba Hydro suggested that the Crown JKDA. As part of the 2001 memorandum, a corporation and TCN continue consultations formal co-ordination team was established regarding potential development at Gull with representatives from all the parties. Rapids. TCN proposed that the parties As well, topic-specifi c working groups were negotiate a business arrangement in which established to focus on issues of particular they would be co-proponents in such a importance to the partner communities: development. Discussions between TCN and mercury and human health, aquatics, and Manitoba Hydro between 1998 and 2000 mammals. Between 1998 and 2009, when the led to the signing in 2000 of the Agreement JKDA was signed, numerous meetings were in Principle Regarding the Potential Future held with communities or with specialized Development of the Gull Rapids Hydro working groups. Within the Cree Nation

29 Partners (WLFN and TCN), approximately and construction of the Keeyask Project. Th e 2,100 meetings of all kinds were held during option of a high-head generating station, these years. which would have aff ected water levels on Split Lake, was eliminated early in this Early in the process, TCN determined process. Such a project would have fl ooded that it should conduct its own evaluation of more than 18,000 hectares of land, while the eff ects of the Project on its community, generating 1,150 MW of electricity. Th e incorporating the First Nation’s own Proponent’s current plan proposes to fl ood worldview. Subsequently, a protocol was somewhat less than one quarter as much land. accepted whereby the four Keeyask Cree Th ese commitments, including fundamental Nations (KCNs) would lead their own features of the Project and the decision to consultations with their members and change the Project’s name from Gull Rapids prepare their own environmental assessments to Keeyask, were later incorporated into the incorporating their culture, worldview and JKDA. traditional knowledge. It was also agreed that Manitoba Hydro would take the lead in organizing consultations with other 6.4 The Joint Keeyask communities. KCN communities held Development Agreement extensive consultations, with community meetings, websites, radio broadcasts, Th e JKDA, between CNP, YFFN, FLCN questionnaires, newsletters, and working and the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board, was groups of community members who signed May 29, 2009. Th e lengthy agreement examined various aspects of the Project. lays out the terms of the Keeyask Partnership, When the negotiations produced a draft fi nancing arrangements for the First Nation agreement, referendums were held in the partners, construction, management, power four KCN communities in 2009. In each sales, training and employment, business of the KCNs, separate referendums on the opportunities, dispute resolution and other JKDA and on that First Nation’s Adverse matters. Eff ects Agreement (AEA) were approved by voters. Th e JKDA describes the legal, Th e agreement establishes the Keeyask governance and fi nancial structures of the Hydropower Limited Partnership (KHLP), partnership between Manitoba Hydro and which will be at least 75 per cent owned by the KCNs, while the AEAs include agreed- Manitoba Hydro. Th e KCNs will have the upon mitigation measures to compensate for right to own up to 25 per cent of the equity potential impacts of the project on the rights through their investment entities. Under the and interests of members, including such agreement, Manitoba Hydro will act as project matters as resource use and cultural impacts. manager during construction, operate and maintain the Project during operation and purchase energy produced by the station. 6.3 Changes to Project Manitoba Hydro will control 75 per cent of Planning Resulting from the votes in KHLP decision-making. Consultations/Negotiations Th e KCNs will have access to loans from Negotiations and consultation between Manitoba Hydro for their equity stake in the the KCNs and Manitoba Hydro resulted in a Project. Th e KCNs, through their investment number of commitments around the design entities, will decide aft er the completion of construction whether they wish their equity

30 participation to be in the form of common rehabilitation and development; initiatives to shares or preferred shares in the KHLP. support Aboriginal and treaty rights; cultural Preferred shares specify a fi xed rate of return, support and social development initiatives; whereas common shares do not guarantee a business and employment development; return, but off er the potential for higher returns. community infrastructure and housing development; construction of capital projects Th e JKDA sets out a number of and infrastructure; and technical and legal “fundamental features” of the Keeyask Project, services related to the KCNs’ business and including the location of access roads, intake, other aff airs. powerhouse and spillway, and construction camp. Fundamental operating features described in the JKDA include: that operation 6.5 Adverse Effects of the Keeyask Generating Station not aff ect Agreements water levels on Split Lake during open water conditions, that the full supply level of the In the Keeyask planning process, each of reservoir be 159 metres and the minimum the KCNs identifi ed, through its members, the be 158 metres, and that no change to the potential adverse eff ects that could be caused licences for the Churchill River Diversion by the impacts of Keeyask on the land, water (CRD) or Lake Winnipeg Regulation (LWR) and socio-economic environment. Manitoba be required. Special conditions are specifi ed Hydro and the KCNs worked together to for operation of the Project with water levels develop measures to address adverse eff ects outside of the 158 to 159-metre range in the (such as reduced hunting, fi shing and other event of an emergency. resource use opportunities in the Project Footprint area) brought about by Keeyask. Th e JKDA describes several measures Th ese measures are intended to prevent or to reduce adverse eff ects from the Project, reduce eff ects and to provide replacements, including plans for reservoir-clearing and substitutions and compensations for eff ects waterways management programs. It also that cannot be prevented. Adverse Eff ects establishes advisory committees dealing with Agreements were negotiated to set out the construction and monitoring. terms through which these eff ects would be addressed. Each of the KCNs negotiated Th e JKDA contains funding arrangements its own AEA to compensate for a variety of for training and specifi es the portion of the cultural, resource use and other potential Hydro Northern Training and Employment impacts of the Project. Each AEA includes Initiative that will be designated for the KCNs. certain one-time payments, typically for Th e employment section of the JKDA states capital costs of mitigation programs, and a that employment on the Project will follow guaranteed annual payment for costs of the the preference provisions in the Burntwood programs described in the agreement. All the Nelson Agreement. Th e JKDA sets out a AEAs set out that the priorities for addressing target of 630 person-years of construction adverse eff ects from the Keeyask Project are, employment for KCN members and specifi es in order, to prevent or avoid causing adverse a process for apportioning packages of work eff ects, to lessen or reduce unavoidable on the Project that can be directly negotiated adverse eff ects, to provide replacements, by the KCNs for businesses they own. substitutions or opportunities to off set adverse eff ects, and to pay fair compensation for loss Distributions (profi ts) to the KCN or damage caused by adverse eff ects. Each of partners may be used for resource

31 the AEAs makes reference to involvement of • Traditional Lifestyle Experience Program. the relevant Resource Management Board in Program goal is to provide young adult off setting programs that will facilitate resource members with traditional lifestyle harvesting within each of the KCNs’ Resource experiences on the land. Management Areas. Under the AEA, each KCN agrees to seek input from the Resource • Traditional Knowledge Learning Program. Management Board and provide annual Program supports opportunities for reports to the board regarding off setting traditional learning that can be provided programs that involve resource management, to students primarily at the Keeyask use and harvesting. Centre.

• Cree Language Program. Program creates 6.5.1 Tataskweyak Cree Nation an opportunity for adult members to learn Th e TCN AEA provides funding for or improve skills in Cree language. a variety off setting programs designed to • Traditional Foods Program. In provide replacements, substitutions or conjunction with Access Program, this opportunities that off set unavoidable adverse creates opportunities to gather and share eff ects on practices, culture and traditions. traditional foods. Th e AEA also provides a guaranteed annual payment for the life of the Keeyask Project. • Museum and Oral Histories Program. Program is to provide a substitute for the Off setting programs include: historical connections to the land that will • Funding for the Keeyask Centre. Th e be aff ected by Keeyask. centre will accommodate staffi ng and • Compensation for any residual adverse offi ce functions for managing off setting eff ects not addressed in the off setting programs, as well as space for display programs. cases, storage, education programs, fi sh processing and other needs. Under the AEA, TCN may decide to continue the Healthy Food Fish Program aft er • Access Programs. Th ese provide levels of mercury in fi sh in the Nelson River transportation for TCN members to have returned to their pre-Keeyask levels. hunt, fi sh and trap within the Split Lake Resource Management Area (SLRMA). 6.5.2 War Lake First Nation • Land Stewardship Program. Funding is provided through the guaranteed annual Th e War Lake First Nation AEA contains payment to monitor land use and care for programs intended to off set unavoidable the land within the SLRMA. eff ects to culture, practices and lifestyle resulting from Keeyask. It includes program • Healthy Food Fish Program. Th is program funding and a guaranteed annual amount. will provide opportunities for TCN members to continue to fi sh and provide Off setting programs include: fi sh to other members, using waters • Distribution Centre. Manitoba Hydro will unaff ected by the Keeyask Project. provide funds for a Distribution Centre

32 to be used for storing, processing and not be aff ected by mercury, and for other distributing fi sh. access to resources and harvesting areas.

• Community Fish Program. Th is program • Environmental Stewardship Program. will support WLFN members to fi sh in Funding for monitoring environment and War and Atkinson Lakes and includes resources, training members to work in construction of infrastructure and stewardship, supporting participation of purchase of equipment. elders to provide guidance for stewardship programs. • Improved Access Program. Th is program will build shelters along the Cyril River • Cultural Sustainability Program. Funding and maintain the road from War Lake for programs that strengthen the cultural to Ilford and the winter trail to Atkinson identity of YFFN members and support Lake. learning and use of Cree language, values, traditional skills and knowledge; seasonal • Traditional Learning/Lifestyle Programs. gatherings and celebrations, healing Th ese programs will allow young adult and reconciliation, documentation and WLFN members to experience the communication of YFFN history; and traditional lifestyle at Atkinson Lake. design, construction and maintenance of facilities for such programs. • Cree Language Program. Adult members will learn or upgrade Cree skills. • Compensation for residual eff ects. • Museums and Oral Histories Program. 6.5.4 Fox Lake Cree Nation Display cases will be built in the band hall. Th e FLCN AEA provides payment for the • Compensation for any residual adverse following off setting programs: eff ects not addressed by the off setting programs. • A Gathering Centre to administer and implement off setting programs WLFN will have the option to continue and provide FLCN with permanent, its Community Fish Program aft er mercury substantial presence in Gillam. levels in Nelson River fi sh have returned to pre-Keeyask levels. • A Youth Wilderness Traditions Program to facilitate youth learning of traditional 6.5.3 York Factory First Nation lifestyle.

YFFN’s AEA supports the following • A Cree language program for adult off setting programs: members who wish to learn or improve language skills. • Resource Access and Use Program. Funding for fl ights to the York Factory • Gravesite Restoration Program to restore, Resource Management Area along the re-consecrate and protect community Hudson Bay coast for resource use and gravesites in and around the Gillam area. cultural renewal; for the means for storing, processing and distributing country foods; • Alternative Justice Program that will for access to off -system lakes that will seek the development of a program for

33 resolving situations involving the justice to retain an independent technical expert system and FLCN members. and responded to a variety of requests for information during this process. Pimicikamak • Crisis Centre and Wellness Counselling raised a number of concerns during this Program including a crisis shelter. process, including the concern that any eff ects of the Project be considered cumulatively • Lateral Violence and “Where do we with LWR and CRD and the concern that the go from here?” Program: a series of study area is not broad enough and instead discussions and workshops to assist FLCN should include all of Pimicikamak’s traditional members to participate in opportunities territory. associated with Keeyask. Manitoba Hydro, on behalf of the • Alternative Resource Use Program to Partnership, proposed a resource-use study facilitate access to alternate resource to Pimicikamak Okimawin, in January 2012. areas within the Fox Lake Resource Pimicikamak declined the proposed plan Management Area. and was provided with funding to prepare its own work plan for a resource use study. Th at • Th e AEA also included funds for residual plan was presented to Manitoba Hydro in eff ects that are not addressed in the September, 2013, and was under review at the off setting programs. time of the Keeyask Hearings.

6.6 Consultation with 6.6.2 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation Other Potentially Affected Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation (NCN) Aboriginal Communities and and Manitoba Hydro are partners in the Groups Wuskwatim Generation Project. NCN provided comments and identifi ed issues 6.6.1 Cross Lake First Nation/ of particular interest regarding the Keeyask Pimicikamak Okimawin Project.

As part of its obligations under the 6.6.3 Manitoba Métis Federation Northern Flood Agreement, Manitoba Hydro notifi ed Pimicikamak Okimawin (at the time Since meeting in Round One of the Public known as Cross Lake First Nation) in 2001 Involvement Process, the Manitoba Métis regarding its intention to prepare plans for Federation (MMF) and Manitoba Hydro have the development of Keeyask. In the early participated in a series of meetings to discuss part of that decade, consultations between the Project and develop a work plan for the Manitoba Hydro and the First Nation were MMF to develop and carry out a study of largely focused on the Wuskwatim Generation traditional use of the Project area. Th e MMF Project. Later in the decade, consultations was provided with funding to develop a plan between the two parties were in abeyance and in June 2013 the parties agreed on a plan for some time. Th e two parties have been for the MMF to carry out a traditional land meeting regularly since February 2009, and use and knowledge study (TLUKS) of the presentations have been made on a wide range Keeyask area. of topics related to the Project. Manitoba Hydro provided funding for Pimicikamak

34 6.6.4 Shamattawa First Nation governmental organizations (NGOs) held in Winnipeg in Round Th ree in May 2013. A meeting was held with the chief and council of Shamattawa First Nation (SFN) in Round Two of the Public Involvement 6.7 Potentially Affected and Process in April, 2012. During this meeting, Interested Communities and representatives of SFN stated their belief that they should be included in the Keeyask Groups Partnership and discussed potential eff ects In addition to the meetings held at First to sturgeon, caribou and other issues. A Nations and with First Nations umbrella meeting with chief and council was held in groups, Public Involvement Program (PIP) Round Th ree in June 2013 and a community meetings were held in Th ompson, Churchill, information session was held later that month. Leaf Rapids, Gillam, the Local Government SFN members raised their concerns that the District of Mystery Lake, Th icket Portage, impact of Keeyask would reach their area, Pikwitonei, Wabowden, Norway House, especially if it places pressure on the Pen Nelson House, Cross Lake, Ilford, Winnipeg, Island caribou herd. and Brandon. Interest-groups and NGOs that were involved in meetings through the PIP 6.6.5 Manitoba Keewatinowi were the Th ompson Recreation and Resource Okimakanak User Workshop, the Northern Association of Community Councils, Nature Conservancy A meeting was held with the Manitoba of Canada, Norway House Fishermen’s Co- Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO) in their op, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Winnipeg offi ce in Round Two of the Public International Institute for Sustainable Involvement Program in March 2012 and in Development, Manitoba Wildlands, Manitoba their Th ompson offi ce in Round Th ree in May Federation of Labour, Green Action Centre, 2013. Green Action Committee of the Unitarian Church, Consumers’ Association of Canada 6.6.6 Keewatin Tribal Council (Manitoba Branch).

Meetings were held with the Keewatin Tribal Council (KTC) in Round One 6.8 Round One of the Public (December 2008), Round Two (March 2012) Involvement Program and Round Th ree (May 2013) of the Public Round One of the PIP occurred between Involvement Process. June and December 2008 and focused on communities in northern Manitoba and 6.6.7 O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation organizations representing communities and individuals who would be potentially aff ected. A community meeting was held with Th e purpose of Round One was to introduce O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation in July 2013 the Project, learn about issues or concerns of in Round Th ree. the public, and hear how people wished to be consulted in future rounds. More than 350 6.6.8 Peguis First Nation people participated in 31 Round One events. More than 275 comments and questions were Peguis First Nation (PFN) participated in recorded – both from in-person discussions a workshop with community groups and non-

35 and from comment cards – at the meetings, meetings also provided an opportunity to concerning a range of topics including discuss the regulatory review. employment and business opportunities, resource use, social and cultural effects, the terrestrial environment and the aquatic What we Heard – environment. Consultation The Panel heard concerns from several 6.9 Round Two of the Public Aboriginal organizations whose members Involvement Program believed they were inadequately consulted. The Panel also heard concerns regarding the Round Two of the PIP took place between referendums on the JKDA and AEAs within February and early May 2012. It focused the KCNs. on meeting with potentially affected and interested communities and groups that Representatives of PFN testified that that had been contacted in Round One. The they were not invited to attend any public emphasis in Round Two was on describing participation events until Round Three in the Project changes since Round One, discussing spring of 2013, when representatives attended preliminary results of the environmental an NGO workshop held in Winnipeg. assessment, obtaining input on possible They said the Proponent should have been mitigation measures, and gathering additional aware that PFN had expressed an interest public input. Nearly 200 people participated in Keeyask, given that in 2011 they made a in 26 Round Two events. More than 215 widely publicized statement to the United questions and comments were recorded in Nations General Assembly voicing their Round Two events, concerning a wide range concerns. of topics including the aquatic environment, employment and business opportunities, Pimicikamak Okimawin stated that they social and cultural effects, and the terrestrial were inadequately consulted on the selection environment. of valued environmental components for the Keeyask EIS and, as a result, their concerns were not sufficiently addressed. A 6.10 Round Three of the representative of Pimicikamak stated that, Public Involvement Program in his opinion, Manitoba Hydro had not engaged in meaningful consultation with A third round of PIP meetings was held the First Nation as it is obliged to do under after the EIS was filed. This round concluded the Northern Flood Agreement. Progress in in the summer of 2013 and included meetings consultations was slow and Manitoba Hydro in Gillam, Cross Lake, Leaf Rapids, Churchill, was not forthcoming with information needed Thicket Portage, Shamattawa First Nation, for Pimicikamak to assess its position on the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation, and Project. After Pimicikamak proposed a work Pikwitonei; meetings with MKO, KTC and plan and budget for it to consult its members the leadership of the Northern Association and hear their concerns, Manitoba Hydro of Community Councils; open houses in only agreed in the fall of 2013 to fund the Winnipeg and Thompson; and a workshop work. Until such work is done, Pimicikamak with NGOs in Winnipeg. In addition to cannot specify its concerns regarding Keeyask, follow-up discussions of concerns generated the representative said. Accordingly, the First from the earlier rounds, Round Three Nation recommended that the Project not

36 be approved until a land use and occupancy a result of the perception that the Project study is complete. would proceed with or without them. Under those circumstances, participation in the Th e MMF stated that progress in Project would give them some opportunity to consultation was hampered by the infl uence the result and ultimately share in the Proponent`s stated belief that there were few benefi ts. Métis interests potentially aff ected by the Keeyask Project. In support of their argument that there is a historic Métis community in Commission Comment – the Keeyask area, the MMF’s representatives Consultation stated that Métis scrip applications were taken in Split Lake, York Factory, and Nelson Th e Public Involvement Process for House in 1908-1910. In the 1950s, a Manitoba Keeyask was unique in that the communities government study on Métis populations most likely to be aff ected by the Project are documented Métis populations in Th ompson, all partners. Th ese communities conducted Gillam, Bird, Ilford, Split Lake, Pikwitonei, their own very thorough consultations Th icket Portage and Wabowden. More recent leading to the JKDA and the AEAs. Th at Canada Census data show approximately these consultations were conducted by the 2,000 Métis in the region, including 1,300 in communities themselves provides a level of Th ompson and 100 in Gillam. Many early assurance that the communication or cultural meetings between representatives of the gaps that might sometimes exist between a Partnership and MMF were unproductive, Proponent and the people it consults were the MMF said, because the Partnership likely less of an issue in this case than in other off ered insuffi cient amounts of funding to developments. assess Métis land use and knowledge in the area. A land use study based on a limited Eff orts were made to consult with other sample of Métis people was presented communities beyond the KCNs and they during the Hearings, but additional work, appear to have been relatively thorough. including a compilation of socio-economic A large number of communities, NGOs, baseline data and community meetings to First Nations, Aboriginal organizations review the information and discuss eff ects and individuals were provided with the of the Project, could not be completed opportunity to question the Proponent, raise until aft er the Hearings. Th e MMF’s concerns about the Keeyask Generation representative recommended that a licensing Project and have these concerns documented recommendation be withheld until aft er this within the supporting material for the additional information is available (the end EIS. Aft er review of the Proponent’s public of March 2014) and if this indicated possible consultation process, as requested by the eff ects on Métis, there be additional impact minister, the Commission is of the view that assessment and a negotiated agreement the process was comprehensive, inclusive between the Partnership and the MMF on and more than met the requirements for mitigation, plus Métis participation in Project consultation. monitoring.

Th e Panel heard a number of statements from members of the KCNs that their participation in the Project was in large part

37 38 Chapter Seven Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Assessment Approach

7.1 Overview two tracks would be considered throughout the assessment process and throughout the Th e Proponent used what it termed a fi nal EIS. Th e collaborative nature of the two “two-track assessment approach” in preparing tracks was intended to ensure that concerns its EIS for the Keeyask Generation Project. In and predictions arising from the First Nations’ one track, the Keeyask Cree Nations (KCNs) assessments were employed in the regulatory conducted their own assessments of the assessment and in Project planning, Project based on their Cree worldview and mitigation, management and monitoring. their 50 years of experience with hydroelectric development. Th e KCNs’ assessment process In places, the two assessment processes led to the development of three assessment diff ered in their conclusions about the likely reports that were distinctive in approach, eff ects of the Project and these diff erences style and physical format, but included as a were acknowledged in the EIS and typically part of the environmental impact statement were identifi ed as subjects that will require a (EIS) for the Project. In the other track, greater level of monitoring and management the Partnership, including the KCNs and attention during construction and operation Manitoba Hydro working with the various of the Project. consultants hired to conduct technical studies, carried out what was termed a “regulatory assessment.” Th e regulatory assessment 7.2 Keeyask Cree Nations’ track included preparation of that portion Evaluations of the fi nal EIS that employed a standard valued environmental component (VEC) Th ree evaluation reports were prepared by approach, and used both technical science the KCNs and included as part of the Keeyask and Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) EIS. Cree Nation Partners, representing in a manner intended to meet federal and Tataskweyak Cree Nation (TCN) and War provincial regulatory requirements. Th is Lake First Nation (WLFN), prepared the two-track approach was developed through report Keeyask Environmental Evaluation. negotiations that led to the 2001 protocol Fox Lake Cree Nation (FLCN) prepared agreement on the Keeyask Project and was the Fox Lake Cree Nation Environmental formalized in the Joint Keeyask Development Evaluation Report. York Factory First Nation Agreement (JKDA) in 2009. Th ese agreements (YFFN) prepared Kipekiskwaywinan (Our led to a collaborative approach in which Voices). Th ese reports are described in greater information and concerns arising from the detail in Chapter Eight of this report.

39 7.3 Regulatory Environmental Step Four – Identifi cation of Potential Effects Assessment In the Proponent’s “regulatory In this step, the future with and without assessment,” Project eff ects are assessed by the Project was compared, with eff ects of comparing the predicted future conditions operation and of construction examined with and without the Project for 38 aquatic, separately. terrestrial and socio-economic VECs. Th e framework for the assessment included a Step Five – Mitigation of Adverse Effects series of nine steps: Measures to avoid, prevent or reduce Step One – Project Description adverse eff ects and to enhance positive eff ects were then considered. Th is included defi ning the components and activities required to construct and Step Six – Assessment of Residual Effects operate the Project. Residual adverse eff ects are those adverse Step Two – Scope of Assessment eff ects that remain aft er mitigation. Residual adverse eff ects were assessed in terms of Th e scope of assessment referred to nature, magnitude and spatial and temporal the spatial boundaries of the areas where extent. In some cases, benchmarks, such as biophysical and socio-economic studies were the percentage of a certain kind of habitat conducted. Study areas were defi ned by the aff ected, were established to indicate low, geographic extent of direct and indirect eff ects moderate or high-magnitude impacts. and, where required, extended beyond the zone of impact in order to provide context. Step Seven – Regulatory Signifi cance of During scoping, the Proponent selected 38 Residual Effects VECs in order to focus the assessment of the signifi cance of project eff ects. VECs were Regulatory signifi cance refers to the selected according to several criteria: overall signifi cance that government regulators may importance or value to people; importance for attach to an eff ect, such as those eff ects that ecosystem function; ability to act as umbrella may come directly under the authority of indicators; amenability to scientifi c study; provincial or federal legislation. Some of the potential for substantial Project eff ects; and VEC benchmarks, such as those for boreal regulatory requirements. Study areas varied woodland caribou regarding the percentage in size from VEC to VEC, depending on a of habitat remaining undisturbed, were variety of factors, including the size of home developed from regulatory standards, in this range of diff erent species of animals. case the “Canadian Strategy for the Recovery of Boreal Woodland Caribou” (Environment Canada 2012). Step Three – Environmental Setting

Th e existing environment of the study Step Eight – Cumulative Effects area was described, including a discussion of physical, aquatic, terrestrial, socio-economic, Cumulative eff ects assessment considers resource use and heritage environments. likely adverse eff ects on VECs caused by the Project that overlap eff ects of other projects or human activities. Aft er considering mitigation

40 of these eff ects, the regulatory signifi cance of • Socio-economic VECs – 19) employment cumulative eff ects was then determined. opportunities, 20) business opportunities, 21) income, 22) cost of living, 23) resource Step Nine – Monitoring and Follow-up economy, 24) housing, 25) infrastructure and services, 26) transportation Th e fi nal step was the development of infrastructure, 27) land, 28) governance, monitoring and management plans for the goals and plans, 29) community health, eff ects of the Project. 30) mercury and human health, 31) public safety and worker interaction, 32) Th e regulatory assessment of the Project travel, access and safety, 33) culture and began with fi eld studies that started in 1999. spirituality, 34) aesthetics, 35) domestic Following the 2001 protocol agreement fi shing, 36) domestic hunting and between Manitoba Hydro and the Keeyask gathering, 37) commercial trapping, 38) Cree Nations, the partners formed an heritage resources. Environmental Studies Working Group to review study results and three topic-specifi c working groups to review and discuss issues 7.4 Integration of Cree related to mercury and human health, Worldview, ATK and aquatics, and mammals. Technical Science Selection of VECs was based on input Th e Keeyask Environmental and from partners, experts, regulators and Regulatory Protocol, reached in 2001 between concerns raised in the opening round of TCN and Manitoba Hydro, established the Public Involvement Program in 2008. various committees and working groups Boundaries of study areas depended on the and laid the groundwork for processes that VEC being examined. A series of six study integrated knowledge and worldviews. areas were used in the assessment of the Th e Partners’ Regulatory and Licensing terrestrial and aquatic environments. Two Committee (PRLC), with three representatives other study areas were used in assessment from Manitoba Hydro and nine from the of most socio-economic eff ects. Eff ects on KCNs, is the overall governing body for the heritage resources were assessed using two Partnership’s environmental activities. Th e additional study areas. EIS Co-ordination Team, with two voting representatives each from Manitoba Hydro Th e following 38 VECs were selected: and Cree Nation Partners and one non- voting representative from each of YFFN and • Aquatic VECs – 1) water quality, 2) FLCN, managed the environmental studies walleye, 3) pike, 4) lake whitefi sh, 5) lake and the fi nal co-ordination and preparation sturgeon; of the EIS. Th e EIS Co-ordination Team • Terrestrial VECs – 6) ecosystem diversity, met in 2008 to plan for integrating the Cree 7) intactness, 8) wetland function, 9) Worldview and ATK with technical science. priority plants, 10) Canada goose, 11) Aft er a workshop with members and advisers mallard, 12) bald eagle, 13) olive-sided from the partner communities and staff fl ycatcher, 14) common nighthawk, 15) and consultants from Manitoba Hydro, a rusty blackbird, 16) beaver, 17) caribou, series of principles was decided upon. Th ese 18) moose; principles were: giving equal weight to the two approaches to knowledge, ensuring visibility

41 of ATK in the EIS, maintaining Aboriginal proceed using the First Nations’ view, and people’s authority over their knowledge plan avoidance and mitigation of impacts as if and treating the knowledge confidentially, the caribou in the Keeyask region do include employing documentation and rigourous boreal woodland caribou. methods to gather ATK, acknowledging the distinct worldviews of technical science and Other differences in opinion described the Cree partners, building and sustaining in the EIS include the Project’s effects on respectful relationships, acknowledging the water levels on Split Lake. The regulatory past, reflecting cultural and spiritual values, portion of the EIS states that levels during and addressing uncertainty and employing a open water season will not be affected and precautionary approach. ice levels may be affected only during rare (once every 20 years) low-water years. KCN Within the EIS, there are a number of assessments reflect the belief that the Project issues in which the KCNs’ assessments and will affect water levels in Split Lake. The EIS technical science assessments reach different acknowledges the difference in opinion and conclusions. For example, a major issue is the Proponent has committed to monitoring whether or not there are boreal woodland Split Lake levels. caribou in the Project area. Evaluations prepared by the KCNs state that caribou in the Keeyask region include boreal woodland What we Heard – Assessment caribou, as well as Pen Island (coastal) caribou Approach and, on occasion, barren ground caribou. KCN evaluations state that all caribou types in While many Participants and Presenters the region have declined since the beginning saw the two-track approach and the of hydro development and that the reach involvement of the KCNs in carrying out their of the Nelson River that was flooded to own evaluations as a positive step, concerns create Stephens Lake was once an important were expressed that the technical science corridor for caribou. Within the regulatory track ultimately dominated the decision portion of the EIS, it is stated that the Keeyask making. Some Participants said that while area is beyond the area of Manitoba where the worldview of the KCNs was included in provincial and federal government agencies planning the Project, that of other Aboriginal recognize a herd of boreal woodland caribou. people who are not partners in Keeyask was Caribou in the Keeyask region that remain not. This concern was expressed along with during the summer, as boreal woodland the concern that the geographic scoping for caribou do, rather than migrating east the Keeyask assessment was too narrow to with the Pen Island caribou or north with capture all potential effects. the barren ground caribou, are referred to An expert witness for the Concerned as “summer resident” caribou within the Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens (CFLGC) regulatory EIS. recommended a three-track assessment Representatives of the Partnership approach, with separate ATK and technical characterized this difference of opinion science assessments and a third track regarding caribou as an instance in which combining insights from the other two. The the regulatory assessment makes use of the two-track approach allowed the technical findings of the KCNs’ assessments. Regarding science track to dominate the EIS and caribou, the Partnership has said that it will ensured that ATK only played a minor role in mitigation plans, this witness said. A

42 more systematic eff ort to integrate the two Pimicikamak Okimawin also raised approaches would have informed processes concerns about VEC selection, inclusion such as selection of VECs, perhaps leading to of Aboriginal perspectives and the scope diff erent or additional VECs being selected. of the assessment. Representatives of Members of the CFLGC group stated that Pimicikamak said they were left out of scientifi c researchers hired to assess the the selection of VECs for the Project. An Project undervalued ATK. expert witness for Pimicikamak stated that watersheds are important ecological Th e Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) boundaries and therefore riparian corridors argued that, while the formation of the are key landscape features and essential for Keeyask Partnership and the use of a two- maintaining regional biodiversity. Given track approach allowed the concerns and the importance of naturally functioning knowledge of First Nations in the project riparian corridors, the expert suggested that area to inform the EIS, the experience of and riparian corridors should have been included impact on Métis were excluded. as a VEC. On the issue of incorporating Aboriginal perspectives, Pimicikamak`s Peguis First Nation (PFN) raised concerns representatives said the benchmarks for about the scope of the assessment for Keeyask, determining signifi cance were all established noting that Manitoba Hydro operates Lake from a technical-science perspective. Winnipeg as a reservoir for its entire system One example of the failure to consider of Nelson River generating stations. PFN`s Aboriginal perspectives, they said, was the representatives argued that upstream water EIS`s conclusion that certain adverse eff ects levels should have been a VEC, and that are “regionally acceptable” because they without such a subject as a VEC, it is unclear only aff ect a small portion of the region. how the Proponent can conclude that Th is conclusion fails to consider the deep upstream communities will not be aff ected. attachment of Aboriginal people to specifi c places and specifi c wildlife populations. A PFN argued that Aboriginal groups Pimicikamak expert witness also questioned should be involved early in the process the description of science and ATK having of assessing a Project. Th e environmental diff erent worldviews, arguing instead that assessment process, they argued, should science is a methodology, rather than a refl ect the government-to-government worldview. Th e confl ict of worldviews in relationship between Manitoba and First this case is not between science and ATK, Nations, by ensuring that there is Aboriginal but rather between an economic growth participation in determining the model to be imperative and a traditional worldview that used in assessment, in developing the scoping seeks to protect the land. Pimicikamak found and terms of reference, and in other stages of the scope of the EIS too narrow, both in preparing the assessment. spatial terms and temporal terms, arguing PFN also argued against what it called both that it should have included 50 years` “project splitting,” which, in the case of worth of hydro developments and that Keeyask, meant that the North Access Road Pimicikamak should have been included and start-up camp were assessed and licensed within the study area for the Project, as its before the Keeyask Generation Project and, traditional territories extend north to the area. as well, the transmission line will be assessed and licensed later as part of the Keeyask Transmission Project.

43 Commission Comment – that many VECs themselves are not specifi c Assessment Approach species, but are rather measures of habitat health. Th ese VECs include water quality, Th roughout the hearing, a frequent topic functional wetland and ecosystem diversity. of discussion was the Proponent’s “two-track approach” of using both technical science and It was also oft en said that the fundamental the holistic Cree worldview in the assessment diff erence between the Cree worldview of the Project. Within the KCNs’ assessments, and technical science is that, in the Cree it was acknowledged that there was at times a worldview (and other Aboriginal worldviews), philosophical disagreement between the two the environment is viewed holistically, while approaches. Th is philosophical disagreement technical science takes a narrow view. It was a frequent subject of discussion by may be true that many scientists have a very Participant groups, many of whom stated that specialized area of individual focus, but good the Partnership overemphasized technical environmental science must be holistic and science. Although diff erences in approach are must view all aspects of the environment signifi cant, it should be acknowledged that as interconnected. And again, many of the there is also signifi cant room for common VECs were attempts to use technical scientifi c ground between the Cree worldview and methods to measure environmental impacts technical science approaches. in a holistic way. Th e VEC of intactness sought to quantify all disturbance of the It was oft en suggested in the hearing terrestrial environment. Th e VEC of wetland that the use of VECs in the technical function looked at all the important aspects science assessment was in confl ict with the of wetlands, including fi ltering and storing Cree worldview and with other Aboriginal water, storing carbon, creating biomass, and worldviews. Aboriginal people, it was said, creating habitat. Th e VEC of water quality do not view one species or one aspect of the included a wide range of parameters of the environment as “more important” than any health of the aquatic ecosystem. Th e VEC of other. But it should be noted that selection ecosystem diversity attempted to measure of a species or an aspect of the environment the eff ect of the Project on the many diff erent as a VEC does not necessarily mean that the kinds of ecosystems found in the Project area. assessment views it as “more important.” It is Using these more ecosystem-related measures stated frequently in the EIS that in the case in the regulatory portion of an EIS would be of species-specifi c VECs, one of the grounds an eff ective way of bridging the gaps between for selection is that the species can act as these two approaches to the environment, as an indicator or umbrella species. Th at is, the Commission itself recommended in its monitoring the health of an indicator species report on the Bipole III Transmission Project. can provide a picture of the overall health of the environment. Protecting an umbrella An expert witness brought by species, typically by ensuring that is has Pimicikamak Okimawin made the case that adequate functioning habitat, ensures that there is not actually a clash of worldviews many other species of plants and animals are between technical science and the Cree protected. Th erefore, while a single species worldview because technical science is may be identifi ed as a VEC, that does not not in fact a worldview, but is instead a imply that the other species that share the methodology. Th is is an important point to same habitat are considered to be lacking remember. Technical science may indeed rely in “value.” Furthermore, it should be noted upon narrowly focused collection and analysis

44 of data. But, when these narrowly focused limited the ability to consider cumulative points of data are assembled, they can create a eff ects on many of the VECs. As well, the holistic view. approach in cumulative eff ects was weakened by a lack of quantifi cation of existing eff ects Th ere may be challenges at times in from past and present projects and a failure bringing the Cree worldview and technical to integrate research gathered through the science together, and it may be necessary Bipole III Project. Th e Commission’s specifi c to establish a mechanism for reconciling concerns and recommendations regarding diff erences of opinion between practitioners cumulative eff ects are described in Chapter of the two approaches. However, it would be Twelve. helpful in this to acknowledge that the two approaches are not necessarily in opposition and can oft en share common ground. In the integration of these two approaches, the Keeyask Project has made positive steps towards an environmental assessment process that benefi ts from many kinds of knowledge and expertise, is sensitive to community needs and experiences, and inclusive of diff erent ways of understanding the world. To follow through on this progress, it will be important to ensure that the Cree worldview and technical science also are brought together collaboratively in the monitoring and adaptive management of Keeyask, a subject addressed in Chapter Th irteen of this report.

While the Commission commends the Proponent for an innovative approach in bringing the Cree worldview and technical science together, the approach to regulatory environmental assessment was at times plagued by inconsistency and confusion.

Th e assessment was inconsistent in its use of benchmarks. For some VECs these were clearly stated, while for others, they were not. Th e use of a large number of study zones made it more diffi cult to consider the validity of the assessments of Project eff ects. Th ese concerns will be discussed in more detail in the chapters of this report that focus on the environmental eff ects of the Project (Chapter Ten and Chapter Eleven). Th e decision to place the eastern boundary of the largest study zones such that several past, present and future projects were excluded may have

45 46 Chapter Eight Keeyask Cree Nations’ Environmental Assessments

8.1 Overview Aski/Askiy, mino pimatisiwin One of the principles in the assessment of the Keeyask Generation Project was that and oochinewhin/ohcinewin technical science and Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) would both be employed A number of Cree terms were used extensively in the evaluations prepared and their conclusions given equal weight. by the First Nations partners and in Each of the Keeyask Cree Nations (KCNs) the EIS, as well as by Participants and therefore led its own environmental Presenters. Some of these spellings assessment process, consulting with its own differ from one community to another. community and forming its own expert Aski (the spelling used by FLCN) and groups of elders, resource users and others. Askiy (the spelling used by TCN,WLFN Th e EIS for the Project included three and YFFN) refer to the environment, self-contained documents presenting the including the land and water and all the assessments of the Cree Nation Partners plants and animals. Mino pimatisiwin (CNP), a partnership of Tastaskweyak Cree is defi ned simply as “living a good Nation (TCN) and War Lake First Nation life,” but as a concept it also includes (WLFN); York Factory First Nation (YFFN); the protection of Aski/Askiy, health and Fox Lake Cree Nation (FLCN). Th ese and social well-being, socio-economic prosperity, integrity of culture and studies expressed the history, worldview, language, integrity of governance and experiences and hopes of the First Nations, autonomy and healthy ecosystems. It as well as documenting the process through is spelled as a single word in the YFFN which they became involved in the Project evaluation report and as two words and their assessments of the potential elsewhere. The term oochinewhin (the environmental eff ects of the Project. spelling used by FLCN) or ohcinewin (the spelling used by YFFN) was referenced in the First Nations’ environmental 8.2 Cree Nation Partners evaluations and in some presentations during the hearing and refers to the 8.2.1 Introduction belief that negative consequences will result from harmful or disrespectful Cree Nation Partners is a partnership actions, including harming Aski/Askiy or between Tataskweyak Cree Nation and other people or treating Aski/Askiy or War Lake First Nation. TCN, located other people with disrespect.

47 along the north shore of Split Lake, had a Cree culture, and a model for understanding total population in April 2011 of 3,392, of the ecosystem that is based on those beliefs. whom 2,181 lived on-reserve. WLFN had a population in April 2011 of 269, 75 of whom 8.2.2 Core Beliefs lived on the reserve at Ilford on the Hudson Bay Railway line. WLFN was recognized as Core beliefs listed in the CNP evaluation a separate Band in 1980, and most members are: before then were members of TCN. • “We see the earth as the Mother that bears CNP’s Keeyask Environmental Evaluation all things as her children. outlines the two First Nations’ history with Manitoba Hydro leading up to the creation of • All things are related. the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership. As one of the fi ve First Nations that were • We are part of the natural world. party to the 1977 Northern Flood Agreement (NFA), TCN negotiated the 1992 NFA • Th ere is no separation between living and Implementation Agreement. Among other nonliving parts of the natural world. things, this agreement led to the creation of • Animals and plants are members of one’s the Split Lake Resource Management Area family. (SLRMA), jointly managed by a board with equal representation from TCN and the • Spiritual, physical and emotional relations Government of Manitoba, and an agreement with land and water are the essence of our for a joint examination of the impacts of culture. Hydro projects in the SLRMA. Following this, in 1998 TCN proposed that future Hydro • Th e land is validation of our past. development in the SLRMA should be as a partnership between TCN and Manitoba • Land, culture and spirituality cannot be Hydro. Th is led to an agreement-in-principle separated. between TCN and Manitoba Hydro, which was signed in 2000. In 2001, TCN and WLFN • We have a responsibility as caregivers for then formed CNP and in 2003, WLFN signed Mother Earth. an agreement-in-principle formally making them a party to the TCN-Manitoba Hydro • We have a responsibility to share agreement. with others, but do not do so out of responsibility but out of our spiritual A protocol established between TCN and connection to the Creator, instilled by the Manitoba Hydro in 2001 called for the First teachings of our ancestors. Nation partners in the Keeyask Project to participate in the assessment of environmental • Personal and community history are part eff ects and employ their Cree worldview of the land. in this process. Th is led to a long series of consultations and the establishment of a • All things, including inanimate things, number of committees and working groups to have a spirit. examine many aspects of the Keeyask Project. • All things are at the same time spiritual CNP’s evaluation of the Project outlines core and physical. Cree beliefs, relationships that are a basis of

48 • Our relationships with Mother Earth are 8.2.4 CNP Consultation based on respect. CNP carried out an extensive consultation • Our spiritual, emotional and physical program with members from 1998 to 2009, needs can only be met when we live in as detailed in the CNP evaluation. Included harmony with Mother Earth.” in this were 1,445 information meetings, 456 negotiation meetings, 134 reference group 8.2.3 Relationships meetings, 30 general membership meetings, and seven youth meetings. CNP established Th e evaluation describes the ways in fi ve groups called Reference Groups that which relationships with Mother Earth are the developed negotiating positions and consulted foundation of many customs, practices and with members on various subjects. Th ese traditions. A wide range of relationships are were the Overview of Water and Land; described: spiritual; historical; life-sustaining; Employment and Training; External Relations; those based on caring for the land; those Internal Relations; Business Contracting and involved with hunting, fi shing, gathering and Economic Strategy groups. CNP also created trapping; educational; physical; emotional; websites and newspapers to communicate social; socio-political; and more recent developments during the long process; TCN relationships based on personal property and published 29 editions of Tataskweyak Journal community infrastructure. Th e following between 2001 and 2009 and WLFN published quotes from this portion of the evaluation six editions of Mooseocoot Times from provide a sense of the ideas articulated: 2001 to 2009. Each of the CNP First Nations established a process for identifying adverse “A hunter in his family’s traditional eff ects. TCN administered 700 community territory knows that he is walking the same questionnaires and had 535 completed and paths and seeing the same sky, water and land returned. WLFN did a series of interviews. that his ancestors saw generations before. He stops at many sites associated with personal 8.2.5 Issues Identifi ed family history – here a grandfather was born, there an uncle camped during a great storm CNP’s evaluation states that, in their many years ago; here a moose was killed experience, science-based environmental when the family had no food, here is the impact statements in the past consistently place where many generations have set traps underestimated the eff ects of hydroelectric for otter; this is where a great grandmother development because they failed to consider is buried; here is where families met each the Cree worldview. For that reason, they summer....Such a hunter is part of the land. He insisted on the twin-track approach of belongs to the land, the land does not belong ATK and science-based assessments. A to him.” wide range of potential impacts on Cree language, worldview, traditional knowledge, “(T)he products of hunting, fi shing, and economic and cultural activities were gathering are valuable but the products do identifi ed in the CNP process. Specifi c not have greater value in terms of our culture concerns included: and traditions than the hunting, fi shing and gathering activities themselves. Th e primary • Loss of historical and spiritual connection value of animals killed, fi sh caught or berries to the land, emotional well-being, and medicines gathered is the affi rmation they harmony and balance among Mother provide to the activity.” Earth’s beings;

49 • Loss of opportunity to teach and learn • Increase in mercury levels; traditional lessons; • Loss of traditional hunting, fi shing and • Eff ects on relationships with other First trapping grounds, loss of trapping revenue Nations; and fewer moose, muskrat, beaver and waterfowl for harvest; • Self-government aff ected as a result of Manitoba Hydro being involved in • Loss of caribou and waterfowl habitat; decision making; • Loss of sturgeon spawning sites at Keeyask • Fiduciary relationships between Crown and Birthday Rapids; and First Nations aff ected; • Loss of medicinal plants and traditional • Relationship with Manitoba Hydro food; aff ected due to diff erent interpretations of NFA, NFA Implementation Agreement • Loss of recreational opportunities, and Keeyask Agreement; traditional camp sites and trappers’ cabins;

• Eff ects of construction noise and fi shing • Loss of archaeological, burial and sacred and hunting by construction workers; sites due to fl ooding;

• Infl ux of construction workers creating • Stress in community due to uneven risk of abuse of women, more drugs and distribution of costs and benefi ts; alcohol available, and need for more policing and security; • Overcrowding and tension among some resource harvesters; • Danger on PR 280 due to increased traffi c; • Potential increased encroachment by • Increased demand for housing as CNP outsiders in WLFN Traditional Use Area; members living elsewhere come home to and work; • Technical-science based process does not • Shoreline erosion and fl uctuation in water properly consider Cree worldview. levels; Aft er the issues were identifi ed, TCN • Concern that Split Lake may have repeat members were surveyed to determine which of 2005 and 1997 fl ooding; issues they considered most important. Th e results showed that: “TCN members do not • Loss of the forests due to fl ooding; view the potential environmental eff ects of Keeyask as being primarily related to • Debris, sediment, altered habitat, creation resources or to particular physical elements of new reefs and boating conditions will of our homeland ecosystem. Rather, our make fi shing more diffi cult; members see them as eff ects on our customs, practices, traditions and relationships that • Dam will block fi sh movement; comprise our distinctive cultural identity.” Th e CNP evaluation report notes, in particular, • Winter water level changes will make that the members surveyed were equally travel more diffi cult due to slush ice and concerned about the potential for the death kill muskrats and beavers;

50 of beaver and muskrat and the risk to TCN (AEAs). Th e CNP evaluation states that these members resulting from increased traffi c on interferences have been fully addressed by the PR 280. “Th is result,” the report notes, “is AEAs. entirely consistent with our worldview that all beings are equally important parts of Mother 8.2.6 Assessing Harmony and Earth.” While this survey was carried out with Balance TCN members, the issues identifi ed were also endorsed by WLFN as representing their Th e CNP evaluation introduces an views. illustration known as the Homeland Ecosystem Model, and uses it to demonstrate Issues were then identifi ed as possible how harmony and balance have changed over interferences with the exercise of the time since contact with European civilization. customs, practices and traditions that defi ne Th is section of the evaluation describes a the cultural identity of TCN and WLFN series of increasing impacts from the creation members. Th e specifi c issues above created of the Indian Act in 1876 through to the nine diff erent kinds of interference with establishment of highway access in the 1980s, traditional cultural identity. Th ese were: including the major hydro developments that began with Kelsey in 1957. Th is section • Interference with the right to hunt, trap describes how, as a result of these increasing and fi sh for food; interferences, vital relationships have been weakened up to the pre-Keeyask present. • Loss of historical connection to the land It then lists ways that, largely as a result of that will be fl ooded; the off setting and access programs that are • Loss of traditional food previously part of the Keeyask AEAs, members of TCN harvested in the area of impact; and WLFN will have greater opportunity to strengthen spiritual, emotional, educational, • Disrespect and lack of care for Mother historical and other relationships. Earth;

• Disruption of spiritual relationship with 8.3 York Factory First Nation the land; 8.3.1 Introduction • Disruption of emotional relationship with the land; York Factory First Nation’s evaluation report, Kipekiskwaywinan (Our Voices), • Reduced opportunities for traditional tells the story of the people of YFFN, their learning; experience with hydro development and their hopes for the future, using a combination of • Reduced opportunities to experience narrative and oral testimony. Th e voices of traditional living; and community members are used throughout the report, and off er a view of the doubts, • Reduced opportunities for sharing. fears and hopes expressed in the community. As Kipekiskwaywinan states: “Our voices do Th is identifi cation of issues and potential not make for a tidy, co-ordinated written interference with cultural identity then account, that tries to make everything sound formed the basis for the negotiation of the objective, balanced, certain, predictable and TCN and WLFN Adverse Eff ects Agreements

51 manageable. Rather, they are full of many • Ayakohmisewin (Caution) is essential so contradictions, uneven treatment, bias, fear, that individuals and the community can anger, wariness, resignation, yet hope.” avoid disrespectful and harmful actions towards others or towards Askiy. 8.3.2 Worldview and Values Th e report explains that traditional Kipekiskwaywinan begins with a knowledge is a dynamic, living process description of the Cree worldview and values. that lives within many aspects of Cree life, Th e following concepts are central ideas that including traditions; cultural identity and the report seeks to explain to outside society. activities; language; stories, teachings and legends; humility and listening; spirituality; • Askiy is the whole of the land, water, and respect for Askiy. Traditional knowledge people, plants, animals and all things. is maintained by the older generation and Even a small change to Askiy will aff ect taught to younger generations and there is people. an on-going process of learning and applying traditional knowledge. Th e report describes • Kiskinohamakaywina (Teachings) the people of YFFN as inherently spiritual have been handed down through the and believing that they must respect all things generations and off er daily guidance. in nature. “To live a good life we respect and Th ese teachings are relevant and care for Askiy, other people, and all things in applicable to the assessment, planning, this world for our ancestors and for future construction and operation of Keeyask. generations. We call this minopimatisiwin.”

• Kistaynitamowin (Respect) is very 8.3.3 YFFN History and Values important when speaking and acting towards Askiy. One must understand Kipekiskwaywinan outlines the history that everything of Askiy has a place and and traditional movement and resource use purpose. of the people of YFFN, going back to pre- contact times when their ancestors followed • Kistaynitakosewin (Honour) – It is the migrating caribou to the Hudson Bay important to honour life and Askiy coast in the summer and spent winters through ceremonies. inland in the forested country. Following the establishment of the European fur trade, • Tapwaywin (Truth) – It is important the ancestors of today’s YFFN supplied the that we speak truthfully based on our Hudson Bay Company (HBC) post at York knowledge and experience. Factory and traded furs trapped throughout • Aspehnimowin (Trust) is important to our their traditional territory, in which they relationships and is developed over time. lived in small groups from Churchill to what is now Fort Severn in northern Ontario. • Ohcinewin – Th is hard-to-translate Th e Cree people who lived near the coastal term means that because of the trading posts were known in some fur-trade interconnectedness of Askiy, if you harm documents as the Homeguard Cree. anything, including land, water, people, plants or animals, you will experience Left out of the adhesion to Treaty Five harmful repercussions, which may aff ect that was signed in 1908, the York Factory Cree your children or grandchildren. signed an adhesion in 1910. No land was set

52 aside for a reserve until the establishment of the hydroelectric developments including the present reserve at York Landing on Split Lake in Kelsey Generating Station, Lake Winnipeg 1990, more than 30 years aft er the people of York Regulation (LWR) and Churchill River Factory had been relocated to York Landing Diversion (CRD). Described impacts include: in 1957. YFFN retains unfulfi lled treaty land entitlements. Decades aft er the 1910 signing • Decline in water clarity and quality – of the treaty, as traffi c and trading declined at Where once people drank directly from York Factory, some of the York Factory Cree the lakes and rivers, now water must moved to Split Lake (Tataskweyak), Churchill, be treated. Sometimes the community Shamattawa and other locations. In 1947 two is under a boil-water advisory, and groups of York Factory Cree formed the Fox swimmers risk getting rashes and sores. Lake and Shamattawa bands. Aft er the registered trapline system was established in Manitoba, the • Eff ects on fi sh and fi shing – Fish are less York Factory registered trapline was established plentiful in Split Lake and Aiken River, in 1948, taking in a large amount of land roughly fi shing is more diffi cult because of slime- from Owl River to the Manitoba-Ontario clogged nets, fi sh are being caught with border. Th is registered trapline, the report states, tumours and growths and fi sh have a is a good proxy for YFFN’s traditional territory. diff erent taste and texture. Sturgeon have particularly declined in numbers. Following the decision by the HBC to close its York Factory fur post, YFFN • Eff ects on birds, mammals and plants was relocated by Indian Aff airs to the – Loss of habitat has led to fewer ducks, current location on Split Lake in 1957. Th is geese, gulls, beaver and muskrat. Caribou move is described through oral history harvesting near YFFN has occurred in the in Kipekiskwaywinan: “Th e relocation last decade, but for many years before that, disconnected us from the land that our caribou were not seen in the area. people had been a part of for centuries. We knew this land in intimate detail. It is where • Eff ects on travel on ice and water – we were born, raised and learned to support Without an all-season road, YFFN our families... Th ough we were able to build members cross Split Lake by ice or water. houses and fi nd resources to harvest [at York Manitoba Hydro’s seasonal reversal of Landing], it was not our homeland.” fl ows caused by LWR and CRD (creating higher fl ows in winter) has made travel Kipekiskwaywinan uses narrative and oral more diffi cult. Shoreline erosion causes a history to describe subsequent disruptions threat to navigation. to the way of life and culture of YFFN, including residential schools and the hydro • Eff ects on access and community developments of the 1960s and 1970s that led places – Beaches, boat launches, camps to the Northern Flood Agreement. and scenic places have been lost due to shoreline erosion.

8.3.4 Changes and Damage to the Th ese changes are described as on- Water, Land and People going. As a result of these eff ects, YFFN states that members of the community are A major portion of Kipekiskwaywinan not comforted by the assurances they were uses narrative and oral history to describe given that Keeyask will not cause fl ooding the eff ects that have been felt as a result of upstream of Clark Lake or any further

53 degradation of water quality. Instead, Th e YFFN report acknowledges that the Kipekiskwaywinan notes that members of the First Nation is not entirely satisfi ed with the community “strongly believe that the eff ects terms of its agreement, but needed to be able of the Project will go beyond the predicted to conclude an AEA in order to participate in “hydraulic zone of infl uence” and beyond the Keeyask Project. To make the Partnership the study areas defi ned in the Environmental work, YFFN proposes that it will be necessary Impact Statement.” Despite the predictions of to address three challenges: building trust and scientifi c experts, members of the community reconciliation among the partners; following are concerned that water quality at York cultural values to come to terms with the Landing will be made worse, numbers and damage that will be done by the Project; quality of fi sh and wildlife will be reduced, and preparing young people with the values ice and open water travel will become more and identity they will need in managing the treacherous, and important community places Project. will continue to be lost. YFFN’s negotiating team sought to refl ect this perspective in their AEA. 8.4 Fox Lake Cree Nation

8.3.5 The Way Forward 8.4.1 Introduction

In a section of Kipekiskwaywinan entitled Th e objectives of the Fox Lake Cree Th e Way Forward, the report describes the Nation report are to describe how the process leading to the signing of the Joint Keeyask Project fi ts within FLCN’s overall Keeyask Development Agreement and the wellness strategy, defi ne and describe FLCN’s baseline, describe cumulative impacts of AEA. It outlines several features of the AEA hydroelectric projects on people and Aski, that represent important YFFN positions. describe predicted impacts of Keeyask, An opening clause of the AEA is described describe necessary mitigation measures, as capturing YFFN’s perspective on adverse describe necessary monitoring measures and eff ects. Th e text of the AEA acknowledges describe measures necessary to ensure the that it was completed prior to the EIS and FLCN members benefi t from Keeyask and live only included those adverse eff ects that were foreseen at that time. Th e agreement “mino pimatisiwin.” Th e report describes mino establishes off setting programs to support pimatisiwin as relating to “the overall health resource access and use, environmental of our people. Mino pimatisiwin includes the protection of Aski, our health and social well- stewardship and cultural sustainability, as well being, socio-economic prosperity, integrity of as residual compensation. Th ere is a strong culture and language, integrity of governance commitment to environmental monitoring and autonomy, and healthy local ecosystems. and YFFN’s participation and application Health is more broadly defi ned to include our of traditional knowledge in monitoring. A physical, social, cultural and spiritual well- clause on fundamental features of the Project being.” provides that Keeyask will not alter open water levels on Split Lake. Manitoba Hydro Th e report notes that fi nding the balance is not released from liability in the event of between Cree worldview and technical unknown or unforeseen adverse eff ects. YFFN science has been a continuing challenge. states that the AEA protects Aboriginal and For example, FLCN participated in the treaty rights. process of developing valued environmental components (VECs), but elders and resource

54 harvesters reminded FLCN’s researchers that • Dams create permanent barriers on the categorizing species or areas from a technical Kischi Sipi, rendering traditional travel science perspective created problems. “By and upstream fi sh movement impossible; its very nature, the VEC approach tends to ignore interrelatedness of people, animals, • Long-term disappearance of lake sturgeon water, landscape and plants. ... Our people from some areas as spawning sites, feeding do not place greater importance on certain and nursery areas were destroyed or species and all are valued equally. Th e entire altered; Kischi Sipi [Nelson River] including the Inninuwak [the Cree people], fi sh, birds, • Permanent reversal of the Butnau River; plants and wildlife, all of whom use, inhabit and benefi t from the river would constitute a • Decrease of traditional travel; VEC.” • Permanent loss of burial sites in fl ooded Th e report summarizes the cumulative areas; impacts of the past 50 years of hydro • Permanent loss of biologically unique development. areas; and • Th e permanent loss of the natural voice • Disruption to mino pimatisiwin due to of the Kischi Sipi, that is, the sound of the loss and destruction of many areas used rapids, wherever a dam was constructed; by FLCN, areas that are the foundation • Th e permanent increase in turbidity; of language, culture, values and beliefs and the basis of Aski Keskentamowin • Increase in mercury levels in some fi sh (traditional knowledge). and aquatic animals; 8.4.2 FLCN Current and Historical • Loss of key food sources as a result of Cultural Environment mercury levels for at least one generation; Using a variety of sources, including • Permanent loss of Kischi Sipi as a source of extensive personal interviews with FLCN potable water; members drawn from a community history project undertaken between 2004 and 2009, • Permanent and unsightly transformation the report presents a summary of FLCN’s of shorelines through fl ooding, erosion, cultural environment. Identity, language, debris; culture, values and beliefs are described, including oochinewin (“the belief that a • Permanent disappearance of aquatic negative action against an animal, a person animals and birds from pristine shoreline or the land could negatively impact the areas; fate of a person, family members of the next generation”), pastamowin (making • Permanent reversal of natural seasonal “inappropriate, hateful, untrue comments fl ow cycles, so that high fl ows occur in about someone else”) and mitewewin (the winter; traditional and spiritual ways of life). Values • Long-term and permanent creation of self-suffi ciency and hard work, sharing of unsightly dykes, diversions and and caring and respect are described. In this impoundments; section of the report, it is mentioned that

55 today only 15 per cent of FLCN members • Wood and other products to build warm in Gillam and Bird are fl uent in Cree, and secure homes; and an additional six per cent have some understanding of the language. • Natural cycles that are predictable;

Th e report discusses traditional methods • Wilderness that serves as habitat for plants of transmitting knowledge from generation and animals; to generation and the use of storytelling in sharing teachings. Burial sites and former • Safe, navigable and barrier-free water resource use sites are described and the role of bodies; archaeological research and oral tradition in passing on this knowledge is discussed. • Landscape features from which stories and histories can be understood and A section on human health and wellness communicated; describes how a continuing connection to land is critical for the overall well-being of • Natural sounds of rapids, trees and birds; FLCN. Moving with the natural cycle of the and environment was traditionally important to • Landscape that is free from the sight of survival and maintenance of relationships. industrial development. Prior to hydro development, there was a strong sense of community cohesion. 8.4.3 Effects of Hydro Development A discussion of the concept of mino pimatisiwin describes how balanced In assessing the eff ects of Keeyask, FLCN relationships with one another and with Aski asserts that the appropriate baseline is the allowed for people to live the good life. Oral condition of the lands, waters and people history stories and narrative sections describe prior to the start of hydroelectric development lessons FLCN members learned about treating in the 1960s. Such a baseline provides the one another, elders, and the environment with best way to determine the measures needed respect. Th is section of the report describes to reduce adverse eff ects of Keeyask and the importance of relationships with Aski and to compensate for those that cannot be with animals. mitigated. In describing pre-development life, the report notes a number of campsites, Th is discussion concludes with a list of cabins, portages, and resource use areas that features described by elders as necessary for were fl ooded by the creation of Stephens the health and well-being of FLCN members. Lake as the reservoir for the Kettle generating Th ey are: station. Some specifi c areas that were important habitat included the lower reaches • Accessible, clear and unpolluted drinking of the Butnau River, which were important water; for sturgeon spawning and feeding, and the mouth of the Kettle River, which supported • Accessible and unpolluted plants and large brook trout, as well as sturgeon, in medicines; addition to the Kettle Rapids themselves, which were an important spawning site. • Fish and other foods that are accessible and of exceptional taste, texture and smell; FLCN members describe hydroelectric development as beginning rapidly without

56 the community’s knowledge, in the process caribou are relatively larger in size than marginalizing the community socially and others, with darker hide and more hair. politically. Th e report states that government Puskwaw utikosisak (“small caribou of a representatives appear to have made cursory barren land”), also called askimao utikosisak, attempts to inform the chief about the Kettle migrate into the area in early winter and project, but due to language barriers, these are resident on the north side of the Nelson were unsuccessful and the chief had no River. Th eir meat is described as sweeter power to stop or alter the project. Likewise, and they have a more rounded hoof print. the creation of the Town of Gillam occurred Namowin atikok (“caribou from the north without involvement from the people of east”) migrate into the area in early winter, FLCN. are resident on the south side of the Nelson River and occasionally converge into one Shoreline erosion, sedimentation, loss herd along with barren land caribou. Th ese of habitat, fl oating debris, the creation of are the caribou oft en referred to as Pen Island barriers to fi sh movement and the reversal coastal caribou. Th ey are described as small of seasonal fl ow cycles followed hydro in size, lighter in colour and having white development. FLCN members recall a fur around the neck. FLCN members have variety of eff ects, including changes in the indicated that the mistikoskaw utikuk, which taste, colour and texture of fi sh; increasing they also describe as migratory woodland numbers of fi sh with growths or tumours; ecotype, are located in the Gillam area year- dangerous boating and drowning; inability round. Th ey note that this is well beyond the to drink the water from the river; declines accepted distribution of boreal woodland in the number of furbearers; loss of berry caribou reported by the federal and provincial patches to fl ooding, hydro infrastructure and governments. FLCN members believe it is the Town of Gillam; and the decision of many likely that boreal woodland caribou have community members to stop eating fi sh from interbred with Pen Island caribou, creating the Nelson River and instead eat only fi sh a hybrid variety. Th e report states that all from tributaries. caribou types have declined in the region since the 1950s and indicates that the portion Th e report describes a large number of the Nelson River that was inundated to of impacts on human health and wellness. become Stephens Lake was a major corridor Some resulted from racism, violence and for caribou. social tension that followed the infl ux of outside workers. A social divide grew and Th e FLCN report states that historically FLCN members felt discrimination in work, moose were less abundant in the area but have school and community lives. Signifi cant become more common and have been hunted health and wellness impacts resulted from the more since the decline in caribou. loss of innado mechim, or traditional foods, including fi sh, game and berries. 8.4.4 Moving Forward

In a discussion of impacts of hydro Th e report describes the evolution of development on wildlife, the FLCN report FLCN’s relationship with Manitoba Hydro describes the three types of caribou found up to and including Keeyask. As previously in the area. Mistikoskaw utikuk (“caribou of noted, FLCN was not consulted in the initial a wooded area”) is resident throughout the development of hydro resources in the year and occasionally joins in one herd in region. Nor was FLCN a signatory to the 1977 autumn with the Pen island caribou. Th ese

57 Northern Flood Agreement. Th e Limestone Other initiatives in this period included project was the fi rst time FLCN was included establishment of the Harmonized Gillam in discussions with Manitoba Hydro about Development framework, which involves its activities, but FLCN was only recognized FLCN, Manitoba Hydro, the Province as an interested party in developments aft er of Manitoba and the Town of Gillam in Bird was designated a reserve in the mid planning for the redevelopment of Gillam; 1980s. Negotiations about compensation for the community history project in which past eff ects began in 1996 and led to the 2004 approximately 80 interviews were held with Impact Settlement Agreement with Manitoba FLCN members; and a historical use study of Hydro. In the meantime, discussions began lake sturgeon on the Nelson River. in 2001 on the proposed Keeyask Project, resulting in the ratifi cation of the 2009 JKDA. Many of these projects informed FLCN in planning for participation in Keeyask. Several committees and working groups FLCN sees the signing of the JKDA and the were established prior to the JKDA so that AEA as fi rst steps in recovering a healthy FLCN could assess the Keeyask Project and and prosperous community. Among the provide input into Manitoba Hydro’s on- measures for rebuilding from the social, going studies. FLCN’s initial assessment of cultural, economic and human impacts of past the Keeyask Project raised concerns that developments are: their people did not agree with Manitoba Hydro and its consultants on what should • Inclusion of Aski Keskentamowin be studied and where and on the nature and [knowledge of Aski] into resource extent of potential impacts. Many of these and environmental management, criticisms were brought to the Environmental environmental impact statements and Studies Working Group, created in 2007, with monitoring programs; representatives of FLCN and its advisors, as well as Manitoba Hydro and its consultants. • Youth Wilderness Traditions and Cree Subcommittees then were formed including Language programs to help young people Mammals, Aquatics, Mercury and Health. learn Cree ways and language; Th e FLCN report states that considerable progress was subsequently made through • A protocol for use if archaeological a collaborative process in which aquatic or burial sites are unearthed during biologists have consulted with harvesters construction; and elders in the design of their studies. Th is • Development of a community wellness allowed ATK to inform technical science. strategy, which goes beyond the Keeyask In 2009, the Keeyask Traditional Project, but includes programs supported Knowledge Program identifi ed a number of through the Keeyask AEA, including a areas used by FLCN members. Th e program crisis centre and wellness counselling gathered traditional knowledge through 35 program, alternative justice program, map-biography interviews conducted in Bird, lateral violence and “Where do we go Gillam, Winnipeg and Th ompson. Th is study from here” programs; and accompanying ground-truthing identifi ed • Programs to encourage employment and areas of historical and contemporary retention of FLCN members, including signifi cance. counselling services, cultural workshops, Cree ceremonies and direct negotiated

58 contracts on Keeyask in the areas of employee retention, camp catering and housekeeping and security; and

• A variety of mitigation and monitoring measures addressing impacts on fi sh, mammals and birds.

Commission Comment – KCNs’ Assessments Th e Commission found that the three KCN evaluations added greatly to an understanding of the Keeyask Project and to the environmental, historical, cultural, social and spiritual context of the Project. In addition to documenting the experiences and knowledge of members of the communities that will be most aff ected by the Project, these three reports provided a better idea of how the KCNs came to their decisions to participate in Keeyask and how they put forward issues of great importance to them. Th ey added immeasurably to the ability of Panel members to consider the holistic nature of impacts to the environment of the Lower Nelson River. Th e reports presented a range of views regarding the Project – pro and con and mixed – and this helped the Panel to better understand the relationship between hydroelectric development and neighbouring communities. Th e viewpoint of the three reports, which takes a long view of the region and does not distinguish impacts on a project- by-project basis, is especially worthwhile in understanding the cumulative eff ects of hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba.

59 60 Chapter Nine Physical Environment

9.1 Overview the life of the Project. Th e assessment found that the project will produce the equivalent Th e Proponent’s assessment of the eff ects of 979,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide over its on the physical environment focused on lifetime. Of this, approximately 46 per cent eff ects that occur to the land, water and air will be produced during construction, mostly as a result of the Keeyask Generation Project. from the manufacture and transportation Th e various aspects of the environment of building materials (steel and cement). examined by the Proponent in this section Another 50 per cent of the total greenhouse were not considered valued environmental gas emissions will come from land use components (VECs) for the purposes of changes, including the burning of slash determining the signifi cance of eff ects. Th ey during clearing of the reservoir and emissions were, however, pathways by which the Project that will be produced by the reservoir itself may have an eff ect on VECs. For example, (through decay of vegetation). Th e remainder shoreline erosion is one of the subjects will be produced during operations over the examined in the Physical Environment lifetime of the Project. section of the environmental impact statement (EIS). Th ough shorelines are not a Th roughout the life cycle of the Project, VEC, shoreline erosion can infl uence several GHG emissions will amount to approximately of the VECs, by aff ecting water quality, habitat 2.46 tonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt- of the four fi sh species that were VECs, the hour. By way of comparison, natural gas- safety of water travel, or the appearance of burning power plants, depending on the type, the area. Th is section of the EIS examined 10 produce 509-764 tonnes of carbon dioxide aspects of the physical environment. equivalent per gigawatt-hour. A comparably sized natural gas plant would produce as much greenhouse gas in 177 days as the 9.2 Climate Keeyask Generation Project will produce in Th e eff ect of the Project on climate is 100 years. assessed by examining its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In order to assess this, the Proponent contracted an independent agency, 9.3 Local Air Quality and the Pembina Institute, to carry out a life cycle Noise assessment, which calculated the amount of Emissions from construction vehicles greenhouse gases (in equivalent amounts of and from the burning of vegetation during carbon dioxide) that will be produced during

61 reservoir clearing will have temporary and 9.4 Physiography localized eff ects on air quality, as will dust from construction and transportation. Eff ects on the physiography, or physical Th e maximum daily emissions from features, of the area will be felt within the transportation of equipment, materials Project Footprint as a result of construction, and personnel is expected to amount to creation of borrow pits, and the impoundment approximately two tonnes per day of nitrogen of the reservoir, which will convert areas oxides, 0.4 tonnes per day of sulphur of forest and wetland into a lake-like monoxide, and 0.1 tonnes per day each of environment. Th e entire Project Footprint sulphur dioxide and particulate matter. Total amounts to close to 14,000 hectares. Th is emissions from construction of the dams and includes the area of the reservoir, both the generation facilities are expected to amount existing waterways and the areas that will be to 382 tonnes per year of nitrogen oxides, fl ooded, as well as the area of the generating 82 tonnes per year of carbon monoxide, 25 station, spillway, dams, dykes, South Access tonnes per year of sulphur oxides, and 27 Road, borrow pits, quarries and excavated tonnes per year of particulate matter. Th ese materials placement areas (EMPAs). Th is also quantities are not expected to be detectable includes approximately 100 hectares of Gull outside the Local Study Area and unlikely Rapids that will be dewatered as a result of to result in exceeding Manitoba’s ambient changes in the water fl ow. Th e initial fl ooding air quality objectives and guidelines within of the reservoir will aff ect 4,500 hectares. In the Local Study Area. Over six years, the total, the reservoir will be approximately 9,300 Proponent plans to clear approximately hectares, and will grow by 700-800 hectares 3,600 hectares of vegetation from the future through erosion and peatland disintegration reservoir area, pile it into windrows, and during the fi rst 30 years fl ooding. burn it when conditions allow. By way of Large amounts of material will be comparison, in the Regional Study Area excavated and moved during the Project: approximately 39,000 hectares of forest are 8.4 million cubic metres of earth fi ll (gravel, subject to forest fi res per year on average. clay, etc) and rock that will be used in Dust-control measures will be employed on construction, plus an estimated four million roadways, as necessary, to prevent problems cubic metres of excavated materials that resulting from increased traffi c during cannot be used in construction and will be construction. placed in EMPAs, largely within the reservoir. Noise will be produced by blasting to Next to the reservoir itself, the largest excavate construction sites and quarries. component of the Project Footprint will be Th e closest known trapper’s cabin is four borrow areas, amounting to approximately kilometres downstream of Gull Rapids, so 1,300 hectares, although only portions of this noise is not expected to be an issue for some of the identifi ed borrow areas are residents. At Wuskwatim, the construction expected to be used. camp was 1.5 km from the construction site Much of the terrestrial environment in the and no noise-related problems were reported area consists of peatlands and discontinuous to Manitoba Hydro. Noise is referenced in the permafrost. Peatlands cover approximately discussion of sensory disturbance to wildlife 85 per cent of the Local Study Area, and in Chapter Ten. In the discussion of caribou, about 75 per cent of the area is discontinuous limiting blasting during the sensitive calving permafrost. Permafrost melting will occur time is discussed.

62 in, and adjacent to, areas where clearing has Ice cover will be diff erent as a result of occurred during construction. the Project. Ice will form earlier in the winter between the Project and Portage Creek and the ice cover is expected to be thinner (0.8 to 9.5 Surface Water and Ice 1.2 metres, which is similar to Stephens Lake). Regime Ice cover is expected to be smoother in much of the area that is now between Gull Lake and Impoundment of the reservoir will raise Birthday Rapids. Fluctuation of water levels, water levels to 159 metres above sea level, as a result of the peaking mode of operation, meaning that the water level on Gull Lake may result in slush ice conditions as water will rise by six to seven metres. In the reach of rises above the ice in places. the Nelson River between Portage Creek and Birthday Rapids, the water level will rise by Under low-fl ow conditions that may occur three to fi ve metres. Above Birthday Rapids, once every 20 years, the Proponent forecasts changes in water level will be relatively small. that ice levels on Split Lake could be elevated by up to 0.2 metres above what would be Modeling of the Nelson River from Split present without the Project. Lake to Stephens Lake leads to the prediction that the backwater eff ect (ie. the raising of water levels caused by the dam) will extend 9.6 Shoreline Erosion approximately 41 kilometres upstream from the Project site, or three kilometres Processes downstream from Clark Lake. Accordingly, During construction, portions of the the open water levels on Clark Lake and Split shore near the Project site may experience Lake are not expected to be aff ected by the erosion as a result of river diversion during Project. the building of coff erdams. Th e changes to river fl ow and water levels may cause this Eff ects on water regime were analyzed for erosion. A larger amount of erosion will be both base-loading and peaking operation. In caused by the impoundment of the reservoir. base-loaded operation, the reservoir is kept Shoreline erosion was estimated for both at a full supply level. In peaking mode, the base-loaded and peaking operations. Using reservoir fl uctuates up to one metre per day. peaking operation, 10 per cent of shoreline In peaking mode, the eff ects of the fl uctuation areas are expected to remain stable, 25 per are felt most strongly closer to the generating cent are expected to recede by less than 15 station and diminish further upstream. metres, 48 per cent are expected to recede by 15 to 50 metres, 12 per cent are expected to Water velocities will change upstream of recede by 50 to 100 metres and fi ve per cent the generating station, as Gull Lake becomes of shorelines are expected to recede by more a larger water body and further upstream than 100 metres. Base-loaded operation is the environment will change from riverine expected to cause a higher rate of shoreline to lake-like. Fast water between what is now recession because of the greater amount Gull Lake and Birthday Rapids will slow and of wave energy. Ultimately, the two modes Birthday Rapids will change from rapids to of operation are forecast to cause similar relatively swift water. Many of the new or amounts of shoreline erosion. Wave action enlarged bays on the reservoir will have little and changes in the water levels will cut banks current. and fl atten slopes, causing material to run into the reservoir. Models were developed

63 to estimate the energy of waves and the sampling between 2005 and 2007 showed that erodibility of soils along the future reservoir. during open water season, sediment levels in A process known as peatland disintegration Stephens Lake ranged from three to 15 mg per will cause much of the continued erosion. litre. About 30 per cent of the sediment added In peatland disintegration, an area of peat is to the river during construction is expected fl ooded and, in time, this peat rises and floats to settle to the bottom in Stephens Lake, away, exposing mineral soil. much of it in the portion of the lake closest to the Project. More fi ne sediments will be Shoreline erosion will cause a very rapid carried past the Kettle generating station and and large increase in the amount of both eventually settle to the bottom. organic and mineral sediment entering the water system, followed by a decline to a more Immediately downstream of the dam, less stable, but still elevated, amount of sediment erosion will occur because of the elimination release. Large amounts of organic sediment of Gull Rapids and the large hanging ice dam and peat will be released into the reservoir in that currently forms in winter. the fi rst years aft er fl ooding. Annual organic sediment released into the aquatic system is Most of the large amount of organic expected to rise from 1,000 tonnes per year material released into the water aft er fl ooding to about 1.3 million tonnes in the fi rst year. of the reservoir is expected to be deposited in In years two to fi ve about 200,000 tonnes the large sheltered bays that will form on both per year will be released. Annual releases the south and north sides of the reservoir. In of organic sediment will decline to about the fi rst year aft er fl ooding, these bays will 18,000 tonnes per year by about year 15. have large increases in the amount of organic Mineral sediment released into the system suspended solids of up to 21 mg per litre. will increase from the present 56,000 tonnes Th is will decrease aft er the fi rst few years. per year to about 600,000 tonnes in the fi rst Because the creation of the reservoir will year. Th is will decline to about 230,000 tonnes slow down the velocity of the river between per year in years two to fi ve and reach about the dam and Birthday Rapids, total mineral 160,000 tonnes per year by year 15. suspended solids are expected to decrease. Several monitoring locations have been identifi ed within the future Keeyask reservoir, 9.7 Sedimentation immediately downstream of the dam and in Stephens Lake as part of a Sediment Construction of the Project will introduce Monitoring Plan. sediment into the system, especially when coff erdams are being built and removed. Several spikes in sediment will be noted, with 9.8 Groundwater the greatest being during the construction of the south coff erdam, which will close off the Creation of the reservoir will cause south channel of the river. As this involves groundwater to rise in the immediate area, depositing rock into the river, it will cause because of the increase in water levels. Rises short-term increases in sediment, which will in the level of groundwater will be up to seven reach concentrations of up to 15 milligrams metres, with the amount of the rise declining (mg) per litre of water. Other in-stream with greater distance from the dam. construction may cause sediment to increase by one to four milligrams (mg) per litre for Some minor changes in the direction of months at a time. By way of comparison, groundwater fl ow are expected, but generally

64 groundwater will fl ow toward the reservoir as will also be more likely to have low oxygen it now fl ows toward the Nelson River and its concentrations in winter. While the mainstem tributaries. and areas with adequate amounts of water fl ow will have high dissolved oxygen levels, in some shallow backbay areas, dissolved oxygen 9.9 Surface Water will be in the 0 - 2 mg per litre range because Temperature and Dissolved the ice cover restricts water fl ow. In the first year aft er fl ooding, approximately fi ve square Oxygen kilometres of the reservoir are expected to Dissolved oxygen levels are a key indicator have oxygen levels in the 0 - 2 mg per litre of the ability of water to support fi sh and range at the bottom. other aquatic life. Creation of the reservoir will aff ect surface water and temperature and dissolved oxygen, especially in the 9.10 Debris sheltered bays that have little water velocity. Debris will enter the waterway as a result Th is will be felt most in the early years aft er of the initial fl ooding of the reservoir and the the fl ooding of the reservoir, when there are subsequent erosion of banks and expansion of large amounts of organic material entering the reservoir. During construction, vegetation the waterway as a result of reservoir-fl ooding will be cleared in the area to be fl ooded by the and peatland disintegration. As organisms in reservoir. Vegetation greater than 0.15 metres the water break down the organic material, in diameter and/or longer than 1.5 metres they consume dissolved oxygen in the water. will be cleared and disposed of so that it will In the fi rst year aft er fl ooding, along the not enter the waterway. Smaller vegetation mainstem of the reservoir, dissolved oxygen will, however, enter the waterway. Smaller concentrations will remain above 6.5 mg vegetation is expected to accumulate on per litre, which is within the most stringent shorelines in backbays or become waterlogged standard in the Manitoba Water Quality and sink. Smaller vegetation is less of a hazard Standards, Objectives and Guidelines. In to navigation and does not persist as long as sheltered bays in typical summer conditions, large debris. Peat areas that are fl ooded by the concentrations are expected to be reduced by reservoir will produce some debris, including up to 1.5 mg per litre, and in warm conditions fl oating mats of peat. Th e EIS estimates that, with light winds, dissolved oxygen levels in in the fi rst year of the reservoir, fi ve to six the backbays will be below 6.5 mg per litre. per cent of the fl ooded peat may rise to the In these conditions, about 1,800 hectares of surface and become mobile in the reservoir. newly fl ooded backbays are expected to have Over the next decade, another four to fi ve oxygen levels in the 4 - 6.5 mg per litre range, per cent of the fl ooded peat may resurface while 100 hectares of backbays are expected and become mobile. In total, an estimated to have dissolved oxygen levels of 2 - 4 mg per 10 - 20 per cent of the peat that will be litre. Some of these backbays will experience fl ooded is considered to have the potential thermal stratifi cation, resulting in lower to become mobile. Much of the mobile peat levels being poorer in oxygen. As a result, on will accumulate in backbays, especially on occasion (an estimated three per cent of the the south side of the reservoir. Some peat and time), small areas in the backbays may have other debris will be able to pass downstream oxygen levels below 2 mg per litre. Areas into Stephens Lake, but only when the with low oxygen concentrations in summer spillway is in operation.

65 Th e reservoir clearing plan is intended is not expected to change. More frequent to remove standing timber and woody large storms resulting from climate change, vegetation, both to reduce the potential for may lead to more wave energy on shorelines, the formation of methylmercury as bacteria which could cause erosion and increase break down the vegetation (discussed in sediment in the water. Overall, however, Chapter Eleven) and to lessen the potential physical processes are not expected to vary hazards of fl oating debris. Th e Waterways from predicted eff ects based on climate Management Program is intended to remove change. Th is is, in part, because the Project’s fl oating debris that might impede navigation. greatest eff ects on the physical environment, Currently, boat patrols operating through through erosion and sedimentation, will be the program travel the length of the Nelson in the early years aft er the fl ooding of the River between Split Lake and Gull Rapids and reservoir, before the greatest climate change identify deadheads and other hazards, and eff ects are felt. By the time greater eff ects of gather debris onto shore, where it is burned in climate change have been felt, the reservoir the fall aft er the fi rst snowfall. will already have completed most or all of its expansion. 9.11 Sensitivity of Project Effects to Climate Change Commission Comment – Physical eff ects of the Project resulting Physical Environment from changes to the climate were assessed Th e Panel generally considered the using a range of plus or minus 10 per cent Proponent’s assessment of physical- for the fl ow of water in the Nelson River. environment eff ects to be thorough and Climate change is expected to result in competent. One area of concern, however, was increased precipitation in the Project area, in reference to the modelling of sediment. Th e although other parts of the watershed may Proponent’s modelling of sediment may not experience lower precipitation. As well, have been applicable to the range of sediment increased temperature will increase rates sizes. As well, the Proponent may have of evapotranspiration. Within the range of used an inappropriate method to simulate possible eff ects, the operating range of the riverbank erosion. During the Information reservoir will remain within the current Request (IR) process prior to the hearings, 158-159 metres and the open water zone of the Proponent appeared to acknowledge infl uence will not change. In the event that the challenges of modelling sediment and climate change results in higher fl ows, the argued that their results were conservative. Project will operate more oft en in the base- Th e Commission acknowledges that this kind loaded mode, in which the reservoir remains of modelling is very diffi cult. While some constantly at 159 metres, and the spillway will of the numeric modelling results appeared be used more oft en. In the event that fl ows to be questionable, the estimates of the in the river are lower, the Project will operate overall physical change expected as a result more oft en in the peaking mode and there of fl ooding and erosion were in a credible will be less spillway use. Climate change is range. Th e discussion around this issue is well expected to result in a shorter duration of ice documented in the IRs and the Proponent cover. Higher fl ow rates, with more frequent is urged to consider consulting with other water levels at 159 metres, would be expected external experts on the sedimentation to result in higher rates of shoreline recession, modelling issue. but the overall extent of shoreline recession

66 Th e Panel notes that Stephens Lake, created as the reservoir for the Kettle Generating Station, provides a 40-year case study on the eff ects of reservoir creation in the immediate study area. Th e Proponent based much of their sediment modelling on this 40-year record. While Stephens Lake can be used eff ectively as a proxy in many studies, it is worth keeping in mind that Stephens Lake, with a two- to three-metre operating range, represents a greater range of eff ect than the one-metre range proposed for the Keeyask Project.

67 68 Chapter Ten Aquatic and Terrestrial Environmental Effects

10.1 Overview 10.2 Aquatic Environmental Th e Proponent employed an approach Effects it referred to as a two-track environmental Five VECs were used to assess aquatic assessment in the Keeyask environmental eff ects of the Project: water quality and impact statement (EIS). Information from four specifi c fi sh species (walleye, pike, Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) and lake whitefi sh and lake sturgeon). Other local-knowledge-based assessments prepared components of the aquatic environment by the Keeyask Cree Nations (KCNs) was were studied and analyzed as indicators employed along with a technical examination of a healthy aquatic ecosystem capable of of potential eff ects of the Project on 18 supporting populations of the fi sh VECs. aquatic and terrestrial valued environmental Th ese other components of the aquatic components (VECs) and a number of environment were aquatic habitat; algae supporting topics. Conclusions about eff ects and aquatic plants; aquatic invertebrates; on the VECs were also based on research and mercury, palatability and cysts in and analysis of impacts on a variety of fi sh. It should be noted that mercury was components of the physical environment. included in the “mercury and human health” VEC in the assessment of socio-economic Terrestrial eff ects were assessed using six VECs. Palatability of fi sh was a factor in study areas, ranging in size from the Project the “resource use” VEC, also in the socio- Footprint to a large regional area extending economic assessment. west to Th ompson and east to the Long Spruce generating station. Fig. 10.1 shows In October 2012, the Fisheries these study areas, referred to in the following Management Branch of Manitoba text as Zones 1 through 6. Aquatic eff ects were Conservation and Water Stewardship assessed for the reach of the Nelson River prepared fi sheries management objectives for (including Split Lake and Stephens Lake) the Project in the event that a licence is issued from Kelsey Generating Station to Kettle and Keeyask goes ahead. Th ese objectives Generating Station, including immediately were: adjacent waters, such as Assean Lake and portions of the Aiken, Burntwood and Grass • maintaining walleye, pike and lake Rivers. For water quality, assessment of eff ects whitefi sh populations at levels that extended downstream to the Nelson River support a sustainable harvest, including a estuary. subsistence harvest for lake whitefi sh;

69 Fig. 10.1 Keeyask Generation Project Regional and Local 10.1 Keeyask Project Fig. Generation (Courtesy KHLP.) Areas. of Study

70 • maintaining self-sustaining stocks of these of coff erdams. During the peak times for fi sh, plus forage and other non-target this work, total suspended solids (TSS) are fi sh, in a similar ecological function and expected to increase by a maximum of 15 mg structure; per litre for one day or 8 mg per litre averaged for one month. Th e Proponent expects that • maintaining a viable population of lake these increases in TSS will average less than 3 sturgeon upstream of the generating mg per litre at Kettle Dam during the period station; and in the year when in-stream construction work is carried on (which will last for one • maintaining conditions that support to three months per year, depending on the development of a self-sustaining sturgeon year). Th e Manitoba water quality guidelines population in Stephens Lake. specify short-term and long-term maximum increases of 25 mg per litre (short-term) and 5 Mechanisms endorsed by the Fisheries mg per litre (long-term). Th e increase caused Management Branch to achieve these by Keeyask construction would be generally objectives included mitigation for habitat below the maximum allowed under Manitoba degradation or destruction both above and water quality guidelines for suspended solids. below the generating station, using stocking Other potential eff ects on water quality would to enhance the natural reproduction of come from the sewage treatment plant for the sturgeon population, various measures the construction camp (licensed separately around communication and management of and designed to meet or exceed provincial sturgeon stocking, and allocating resources standards) and from site run-off and the for future fi sh passage (with the determination dewatering of areas behind coff erdams. of the need for fi sh passage to be based on an assessment in conjunction with provincial Operation of the Project will cause management goals and consultation with moderate-to-large impacts on water quality provincial fi sheries managers). Th e Fisheries in some areas of the reservoir as a result of Management Branch also addressed the fl ooding of terrestrial habitat, changes in off setting programs in the Adverse Eff ects the water and ice regime, and erosion and Agreements (AEAs): “Programs that sediment transport and deposition. Th e most compensate for lost fi shing opportunities important factors in eff ects on water quality in the project area with increased fi shing are fl ooding of land and erosion of peat and opportunities in other areas are considered mineral soils. Decomposition of fl ooded peat a project eff ect and may require additional and soil is expected to cause an increase in management or mitigation measures.” nutrients and TSS and a decrease in dissolved (Manitoba Conservation and Water oxygen in sheltered and shallow bays of the Stewardship 2012a). reservoir. Th ese changes are expected to last for 10-15 years following impoundment. VEC – Water Quality VEC – Walleye Th e Proponent has determined that construction of the Project will cause moderate magnitude eff ects on water quality VEC – Lake Whitefi sh near the construction site and downstream Walleye and whitefi sh both use Gull into Stephens Lake. One of the main sources Rapids for spawning, and so they will be of construction-related impact on water aff ected by the loss of spawning habitat quality will be the installation and removal

71 during construction of the Project. Once the VEC – Lake Sturgeon construction of the Project is complete, new walleye and whitefi sh spawning habitat will Lake sturgeon were selected as a VEC be available downstream of the powerhouse because they are culturally and historically and at shoals created within the Keeyask important to Aboriginal peoples and because reservoir. In the meantime, though, there will of their assessment by the Committee on be years in which the year class (the number the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada of fi sh born in a given year) will be reduced (COSEWIC) as Endangered. Sturgeon in Stephens Lake because of disruption to populations are particularly vulnerable and spawning areas at Gull Rapids. In the long slow to recover because of the long time the term, the Proponent expects walleye and species takes to reach maturity (15-30 years) whitefi sh populations to benefi t from an and the long periods between spawning increased amount of habitat available in the (three to seven years). While they were once Keeyask reservoir, with both an increase in a staple part of the diet for many Aboriginal the total number of these fi sh and an increase people, sturgeon were depleted or extirpated in their population density. in many parts of their range in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Manitoba, the Nelson VEC – Pike River populations were among the last to be depleted in the early to mid 1960s, and Pike are not expected to be as aff ected the last commercial fi shery for sturgeon was as walleye by construction at Gull Rapids as closed in 1992. they do not use the rapids as extensively as walleye do. As pike habitat includes shallow According to the 2012 Manitoba Lake areas with plentiful aquatic plants, they will be Sturgeon Management Strategy (Manitoba aff ected initially by the loss of aquatic plants Conservation and Water Stewardship 2012b), that follows the fl ooding of the reservoir. In the commercial fi shery for lake sturgeon in time, when new areas of aquatic plants are the reach of the Nelson River between the established in the fl ooded areas, pike habitat present-day Kettle and Kelsey Generating will recover. Th e Keeyask reservoir will result Stations was depleted by the 1950s. Both the in increased habitat for pike in the long Kelsey and Kettle dams were built at sites term. Some shallow bays in the reservoir will that were used by sturgeon for spawning. Th e periodically experience depletion of dissolved environmental evaluations prepared by the oxygen, putting fi sh that favour shallow, KCNs note that Kettle Rapids, the Butnau vegetated habitat (such as pike) at risk. Th e River, and a number of locations fl ooded Proponent expects that fi sh will be able to by Stephens Lake were formerly important escape most of these areas when oxygen spawning or habitat sites and that the Split depletion becomes a problem. One shallow Lake population declined following the bay, which will be formed over present-day completion of Churchill River Diversion Little Gull Lake, has the potential to be cut (CRD) and Lake Winnipeg Regulation off from the rest of the reservoir in winter (LWR). Aft er commercial sturgeon fi shing due to ice freezing to the bottom. To prevent was reopened in this reach in 1970, it did stranding of fi sh in this bay, the Proponent not produce a signifi cant catch of sturgeon. plans to dig two channels to allow fi sh to Today, lake sturgeon exist in low numbers escape to the main reservoir. in the Project area. Estimated populations of mature sturgeon are in the range of 600 each for the upper Split Lake area and the reach

72 of the Nelson River between Birthday and areas where they develop as YOY sturgeon. Gull Rapids. Too few sturgeon were captured One of these YOY habitat areas, used by during Keeyask studies to allow an estimate sturgeon spawned in Birthday Rapids, will no for the number of sturgeon in Stephens Lake longer have the right characteristics following to be calculated. Th e Proponent has assessed impoundment (it will be in deeper, slower- the population in Gull Lake to be declining, moving water). Th e Proponent has identifi ed while that in Stephens Lake is likely not an area where it believes favourable fl ow viable, based on low and erratic recruitment characteristics will exist to create new YOY rates and a small proportion of older, mature habitat by depositing sand on the reservoir fi sh. Split Lake, however, may have an bottom. YOY habitat in Stephens Lake is not increasing population of lake sturgeon and a expected to be aff ected by the Project, because greater likelihood of a sustainable population. depths and velocities in Stephens Lake will Th e Proponent’s technical documentation not be altered. notes that the Clark Lake to Stephens Lake area currently contains habitat required for Th e dam itself will be a barrier to passage all life stages of lake sturgeon. In 2010, the of sturgeon up and downstream (though federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans there will be some downstream passage (DFO), in an assessment of recovery potential, through the turbines and spillway). Th e gave the existing sturgeon population in this Proponent committed, in its EIS, to provide reach of the Nelson River a status rating of upstream fi sh passage through a “trap and “cautious,” a trend rating of “unknown” and a transport” system beginning with the in- recovery rating of “moderate.” service date of the Project. Th is commitment was made along with a commitment to Th e Proponent predicts that eff ects on evaluate alternatives including a fi sh ladder, lake sturgeon will be caused by the loss of “nature-like” bypass channel and a fi sh lock/ spawning habitat at Gull Rapids, the potential lift . Th e Proponent’s preliminary evaluation loss of spawning habitat at Birthday Rapids of these alternatives indicated that “trap and the potential loss of existing young of the and transport” would likely be the preferred year (YOY) habitat in Gull Lake. To mitigate method. Following the submission of the EIS, for the loss of spawning at Gull Rapids, a series of meetings between the Proponent, the Proponent plans to construct artifi cial DFO and Manitoba Conservation and Water spawning reefs in the fast water below the Stewardship Fisheries Management Branch dam, a mitigation measure that has been led to a modifi cation in the approach to fi sh done elsewhere with success. To mitigate for passage. As a result of these meetings, instead possible loss of spawning at Birthday Rapids of commencing trap-and-transport at the (which will remain relatively fast but will be in-service date of the Project, research will partially fl ooded by the impoundment of the be carried out to determine the need for fi sh reservoir), the Proponent may need to create passage and the best method for carrying it modifi cations in the shoreline upstream at out. DFO, in conjunction with the Fisheries Long Rapids. Mitigating for loss of the YOY Management Branch, will determine the habitat will require construction of new YOY need for fi sh passage, based on the results habitat within the reservoir in areas with the of monitoring and established fi sheries appropriate depth and current. It is believed management objectives. If it is determined that larval sturgeon drift downstream from that the fi sheries management objectives can the rapids where spawning occurred until be met without installation of fi sh passage they reach specifi c sandy-bottom habitat facilities, such facilities will not be required.

73 Th e generating station will provide for What we Heard – Aquatic downstream fi sh passage by allowing fi sh to pass through the turbines. Th e trash racks Effects (screens that prevent debris from passing Th e Panel heard concerns from several through the turbines) have been modifi ed expert witnesses, called by Participant groups, to reduce the risk of sturgeon being stuck who were concerned about the challenges on them (referred to as impingement) and facing the Proponent’s plans for mitigation of the Proponent states that the design of the the Project’s eff ects on sturgeon. A common turbines themselves allows for 90 per cent of theme in these concerns was that the fi sh 500 mm and shorter to survive passage Proponent had been excessively optimistic in through the turbines. Th e large diameter its assessment of the success of lake sturgeon of the turbines to be used at Keeyask and a mitigation measures. relatively slower rotation speed compared to other Manitoba hydroelectric stations are One expert witness testifi ed that survival expected to allow for safer passage for fi sh rates of sturgeon in hatcheries vary greatly and compared to other dams. However, larger high survival rates are unlikely for fi ngerling fi sh, which would include juvenile and adult sturgeon stocked into the river in the fall. As sturgeon, would have a lower survival rate a result, the Proponent’s goal of 20-40 per than smaller fi sh. Th e Proponent plans to cent survival for fall-stocked fi ngerlings was monitor the survival rate of sturgeon passing described as overly optimistic. Such survival through the turbine. rates may be found in stocking programs in warmer, more productive, rivers in the A major part of the mitigation to address United States. Th ere is little published data the eff ects of the Project will be a sturgeon on survival rates in northern rivers, but this stocking program. Using local sturgeon stock expert said recent research on the Winnipeg to be raised at the Grand Rapids hatchery, River suggests that there may be little food which Manitoba Hydro now owns and available for fall-stocked fi ngerlings and very operates, the Proponent plans to release low survival rates. Th ese same studies suggest a range of ages (larvae, fi ngerlings and that yearling sturgeon stocked in the spring yearlings) in the area in order to support were able to survive and grow. As a result, the population in Gull Lake, re-establish the the witness recommended that only the very population in Stephens Lake and support largest fi ngerlings be stocked in the fall, and the recovery of sturgeon populations in Split the majority be kept in the hatchery over the Lake. Th e Partnership has committed to winter and stocked in the spring. continuing with the stocking of sturgeon for as long as it takes to establish self-sustaining Th e witness was also concerned about populations in Split Lake and the Keeyask the challenges of creating new YOY sturgeon reservoir, essentially in perpetuity, if that is habitat, which is an important part of the necessary. Th e Proponent provided results Proponent’s mitigation plan for sturgeon. from other stocking programs, including Th ree key areas of diffi culty were identifi ed: those on the Winnipeg River, showing that technical, engineering challenges related to sturgeon populations can recover through ensuring that the sand that is deposited to stocking in the absence of harvesting pressure. create the YOY habitat is not washed away by Assuming the success of stocking and habitat the fl ow of the river; the possibility that the creation measures, the Proponent predicts appropriate species of invertebrates will not that, in the long run, there will be more colonize the newly created habitat to provide sturgeon in the Project area. food for YOY sturgeon; and the possibility

74 that YOY sturgeon will not fi nd and use Kaweechiwasihk Kay-Tay-A-Ti-Suk (KK), the new habitat. Creation of YOY habitat called for fi sh passage to be installed as part of has never been attempted before, although the Keeyask Generation Project and for fl ows spawning habitat, which the Proponent plans through the powerhouse and spillway to be to create in the tailrace below the generating managed in a way that supports spawning, station, has been successfully created in other juvenile rearing and other habitat needs for locations, the witness said. sturgeon. Th e group also made a series of recommendations regarding retrofi ts for the Other comments in this witness’s Kelsey Generating Station, including building testimony concerned methods of monitoring fi sh passage, a structure to defl ect fl ows from sturgeon mitigation. It was recommended that the powerhouse and a spawning site, and all stocked sturgeon be marked uniquely with managing fl ows through the powerhouse and Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags. spillway to support sturgeon. Th ey also called Th ese tags would allow stocked sturgeon to for a hydrological study of the Nelson River be diff erentiated from existing and naturally that could assess impacts on sturgeon up and produced sturgeon and diff erent year classes down the river. of stocked sturgeon to be distinguished from one another. Th ese tags would also off er More than one expert witness discussed more precise evidence to indicate if stocked the planned peaking mode of operation of the sturgeon were either passing through the Keeyask Generating Station and implications powerhouse (entrainment) or being stuck for sturgeon mitigation measures. One on the trash racks protecting the turbines witness cautioned that fl uctuating river (impingement). levels as a result of peaking operations at generating stations may make it more diffi cult Th e witness said the Proponent’s approach for sturgeon to thrive in a reservoir. In places to entrainment and impingement appears along the Winnipeg River where sturgeon to be to facilitate the passage of fi sh through populations are relatively healthy despite the powerhouse, with a turbine design that dams, the generating stations are operated in is expected to reduce the risk of fi sh being a run-of-the-river way, with less fl uctuation harmed during passage. Better protection for of water levels. Th is is in accordance with larger sturgeon might be provided by a design testimony from one of the elders of the of the trash racks that allowed fi sh to avoid KK group, who said that the sensitivity of impingement or some kind of sensory barrier sturgeon to change in the environment such as lights or bubbles to keep them away. has long been known. Th is elder said that sturgeon will leave an area if their habitat is Th e Panel heard another expert witness polluted or changed. who spoke about the importance of fi sh passage. Th is witness described sturgeon Th ese concerns were supported by those moving up or down a river as a kind of who also argued that the success of fi sh biological bet-hedging strategy, in which habitat enhancement is uncertain. Conditions large males travel up or down rapids to in other rivers and reservoirs, where stocking disperse their genes in a number of diff erent has been successful, are diff erent from areas. Accordingly, then, this witness argued those at the proposed Keeyask reservoir. that fi sh passage along the Nelson River is One diff erence, in comparison to Lake important to eff orts to facilitate the recovery Winnebago, Wisconsin, where stocking has of sturgeon populations. Th e Participant been successful, is that in the Wisconsin case group for whom this witness spoke,

75 water levels fl uctuate in a much more natural, Th e Panel, however, does not believe that seasonal, way. Keeyask, on the other hand, such certainty is warranted. Several expert could have daily fl uctuations of up to one witnesses and advisors have indicated that metre because of the peaking operation of the there are major challenges and uncertainties generating station. associated with the development of a self- sustaining population of sturgeon upstream of the Keeyask Generating Station. Key aspects Commission Comment – of the sturgeon mitigation plans that leave Aquatic Effects room for uncertainty are: the ability of the Proponent to acquire gametes, particularly Walleye, northern pike and lake whitefi sh eggs, from the existing populations; the all adapt well to lake habitat and have all success rate of eff orts to rear young sturgeon proven to be generally resilient with respect to the appropriate size for stocking; and the to the eff ects of hydroelectric development. ability to construct ecologically viable habitat Spawning habitat for walleye is usually easily that young-of-the-year sturgeon will use. created on the downstream side of generating stations and both walleye and lake whitefi sh Regarding the challenge of acquiring also spawn on shoals or suitable shorelines in gametes, it should be noted that there has lakes and reservoirs. Accordingly, then, the been very limited success in capturing ripe Project is unlikely to have any adverse eff ect female lake sturgeon in the study area (one on these three aquatic VECs. fi sh was captured in the Burntwood River in 2013). At the present time, the spawning Greater concerns exist regarding the locations for the Stephens Lake and Gull Lake eff ects of lake sturgeon. Th e deterioration in populations are not known for certain. Given lake sturgeon stocks is well described in the the changes to Birthday Rapids as a result of EIS and supporting documents, primarily the Project, it is possible, or even probable, as a result of commercial overharvesting that the areas now used for spawning by from the 1940s to ‘70s, with the development the Gull Lake population will no longer be of hydroelectric generating stations as an suitable. As a result, locating ripe females will important contributing factor. Even without prove to be even more diffi cult. Even though the development of Keeyask, the status spawning has been confi rmed for at least one of lake sturgeon in the Kelsey to Kettle location for the Split Lake population, the reach of the Nelson River has been given a diffi culty of capturing ripe females suggests “cautious” rating, “unknown” trend rating and that acquiring gametes for the stocking “moderate” recovery potential. Acknowledging program – given that it has been stated that it this challenging position, the Fisheries is desirable to obtain gametes from the local Management Branch set post-Keeyask population – will be a great challenge. objectives of developing a viable population of lake sturgeon upstream of Keeyask and Should gametes be obtained for the having conditions to support a viable and self- stocking program, there are also disagreements sustaining population in Stephens Lake. about the likelihood of successfully rearing lake sturgeon and the age at which reared Th e Proponent has made stocking the fi sh should be stocked. While rearing has its cornerstone of the sturgeon mitigation plan challenges, these challenges are probably not and expressed “moderate to high” certainty insurmountable. Th ere are numerous examples that mitigation measures will lead to an of lake sturgeon being raised successfully, increase in regional sturgeon numbers.

76 though not every year in every facility. In order Because of the unique nature of the lake to ensure that best practices are followed, the sturgeon life history – including their late Proponent will need to consult broadly with maturity and the fact that mature fi sh do not technical experts and holders of Aboriginal spawn every year – it will take many years of traditional knowledge of sturgeon to ensure monitoring to determine if the Proponent’s the success of the hatchery program. mitigation measures have succeeded. It will likely take at least 25 years to determine As for the creation of ecologically viable whether stocking has been successful young-of-the-year lake sturgeon habitat, all and perhaps 50 years to determine if the parties agree that this will be experimental and population is sustainable. As a result, though uncertain. Th e Proponent has stated that the the Panel acknowledges the very substantial likelihood of success of this habitat creation is eff ort that has gone into research and low to moderate, while one expert witness for development of mitigation plans, it remains a Participant group characterized it as low to cautious about the expected success of these very low. Th is habitat, however, will be essential plans. To evaluate the success of the stocking to ensure a self-sustaining population in this program and assess the relative contributions reach of the Nelson River. It has been suggested of stocking and natural reproduction, the by one Participant that given the uncertainty recommendation to mark each stocked of this habitat’s success, the Proponent should sturgeon with a unique, recognizable tag develop plans for alternative approaches. It is is a sound one. Overall, the Panel believes not clear what alternative approaches might that monitoring of the eff ects of the Project exist to provide the habitats necessary for a on sturgeon will be essential. To facilitate self-sustaining population. It is conceivable, adaptive management of the Project, it will especially given the current low numbers and be necessary to be able to distinguish stocked the fact that Stephens Lake is also thought sturgeon from naturally reproduced sturgeon, not to have a self-sustaining population, that and for stocked sturgeon that are subsequently neither the Keeyask reservoir nor Stephens captured, to determine when and where they Lake will have self-sustaining populations were stocked. Th erefore, all stocked sturgeon aft er the spawning and YOY habitat have been should be marked in a manner that allows provided. During the hearing, the Proponent these life history parameters to be determined, committed to continuing its stocking program and the mark should be detectable over the until a self-sustaining population can be lifetime of the fi sh. Th e use of PIT tags, so that established, but, if habitat-creation measures individuals can be identifi ed, appears to have are not successful, that might require stocking signifi cant advantages, but does limit the size to continue indefi nitely. of fi sh that can be released. Technologies that may be available in the future may eliminate Upstream from Long Rapids there is this constraint. no change in habitat expected as a result of Keeyask. Stocking of lake sturgeon in Split Th e need for fi sh passage at the Project Lake is intended to help to increase numbers site is also an area of uncertainty. Th e dam in that reach of the Nelson River, where it and generating station will be a complete is thought that the habitat can currently barrier to upstream fi sh movement. Because support a larger number of sturgeon, in order studies have indicated that existing upstream to develop a self-sustaining population. It is fi sh passage through Gull Rapids is low, possible that a self-sustaining population in the Proponent has indicated that providing Split Lake might already be developing. for upstream movement past the Project

77 is not necessary. However, the Proponent 10.3 Terrestrial has agreed to provide upstream passage via an experimental catch-and-transport Environmental Effects program should it be needed to accord Construction and operation of the with requirements of the DFO. Th ere is Project will have an impact on the terrestrial no guarantee that such a program will be environment through activities such as successful. Downstream passage will be vegetation clearing, soil excavation, fl ooding, provided via the spillway, when it is in traffi c and noise. Th e Proponent selected 13 operation, and through the turbines. Th e terrestrial VECs and nine supporting topics Proponent has said it expects that no other to indicate the impacts of the Project on downstream passage alternatives will be terrestrial ecosystems. Supporting topics are needed, but has indicated that should passage subjects that were studied and analyzed in the through the turbines be less successful EIS in order to shed light on the eff ects on than predicted (should the turbines cause VECs, or that provided additional knowledge unacceptably high injury or mortality rates) about other organisms in the Project area that other downstream methods will be pursued. were not considered VECs. It should be noted that eff ective upstream passage for sturgeon has proven to be For each VEC, eff ects were assessed within challenging at other facilities where it has the Project Footprint, the Local Study Area been attempted. and the Regional Study Area. (See Fig. 10.1.) Th e Project Footprint is the area immediately aff ected by fl ooding, clearing and building of Licensing Recommendations the Project. Th e Local Study Area includes areas around the Project Footprint where The Commission recommends that: less direct eff ects, such as noise, disturbance, increased access or alteration of vegetation 10.1 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership may occur. Th e Regional Study Area was stock lake sturgeon for at least 50 years a larger area that was chosen to provide a in order to allow for enough time to regional context for eff ects, indicate the area determine whether a self-sustaining needed for a self-sustaining population of population can be re-established. a given VEC species, and allow for overlap 10.2 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership with eff ects of other projects. While the employ PIT tags, or future best Project Footprint was the same for all VECs, technology, to uniquely identify individual the size of Local Study Areas and Regional sturgeon and to distinguish natural from Study Areas varied depending on the VEC stocked individuals. Use this information being studied. For example, caribou had the to evaluate the success of the recovery largest Regional Study Area because they program. are a very far-ranging species. In all, the EIS made use of six nested Project Study Areas 10.3 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership for the Terrestrial Environment, with the consult widely with other facilities to largest extending from just west of Th ompson collect and evaluate the most successful to the Long Spruce generating station and techniques in fi sh culture for rearing and substantially north and south of the Project releasing lake sturgeon and apply them to site. the fi sh culture and recovery program.

78 10.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems, measures are planned to prevent the spread of Habitat and Plants invasive plants into priority habitats. During the operation phase of the Project, additional Four VECs were selected to assess erosion of the reservoir will have a slight the impact of the Project on terrestrial impact on the percentage of some priority ecosystems, habitat and plants: Ecosystem habitats aff ected. Diversity, Intactness, Wetland Function and Priority Plants. In addition to these VECs, VEC – Intactness supporting topics in this area were Fire Regime, Terrestrial Habitat, Soil Quantity and Intactness is the degree to which an Quality, and Invasive Plants. ecosystem remains unaltered by human features that remove habitat and increase VEC – Ecosystem Diversity fragmentation. Fragmentation isolates areas of habitat from one another and increases edge Ecosystem diversity was assessed by eff ects. Edge eff ects can refer to conditions examining habitat types within the Local that make some animals avoid what might and Regional Study Areas (Zones 2 and 5, otherwise be high-quality habitat because respectively). A total of 53 habitat types – of noise or other disturbance or the danger based on dominant vegetation cover and soil of predation. Greater fragmentation reduces type – were identifi ed in the Regional Study the number or size of core areas, a term the Area, with three of these types accounting Proponent uses to refer to interior areas of for approximately 65 per cent of the area. a block of habitat that are far enough from Th e Proponent developed a list of 43 priority the edges to avoid edge eff ects. A common habitat types, representing the less common measure of fragmentation is road density, combinations of dominant vegetation cover indicated as kilometres of road per square and soil type. Th ey then assessed the number kilometre. Linear-feature density includes of patches of these priority habitat types and trails, cutlines and transmission lines as well the average size of these habitat patches. Of as roads. these, the type that will be most aff ected is white birch mixed woods, with 7.7 per cent of Th e existing density of linear features in this type of habitat aff ected. the Regional Study Area is 0.45 km per km2, which the Proponent characterizes as at the Reservoir clearing and development of low end of the moderate magnitude scale for borrow areas will have the largest impacts on eff ects (the Proponent’s benchmarks for the priority habitats. Eff ects of increased access magnitude of eff ects were: small magnitude – including greater incidence of fi re and road for density lower than 0.4 km per km2, dust from increased traffi c – could also have moderate for densities between 0.4 and 0.6 an eff ect on priority habitat types. Mitigation km per km2, and high for densities greater measures to reduce these impacts include than 0.6 km per km2). Th is result is infl uenced avoiding one area of a potential borrow pit, by a higher density of linear features in the which is currently a white birch habitat; Th ompson area, so that the Regional Study developing a rehabilitation plan that seeks to Area to the east of Th ompson would have rehabilitate priority areas in a natural way; a lower density than the average for the and blocking and revegetating project-related entire Regional Study Area. Construction trails and cutlines, except for those that are of the Keeyask Project will lead to a very existing resource-use trails. Other mitigation slight reduction in linear feature density, as

79 a number of cutlines that were created in the habitat types and blocking and revegetating Project area during the study period will be project-related trails and cutlines, except for fl ooded by the reservoir. Most roads used those that use pre-existing resource-use trails. during construction will either be already existing or built over existing cutlines. Th ere VEC – Wetland Function will be some temporary access roads built to connect to borrow areas or excavated material Wetland function refers to the natural placement areas (EMPAs). properties or processes that wetlands provide, including converting sunlight into biomass, Core area abundance is another indicator storing carbon, creating soil, storing and of intactness. In assessing the impact of purifying groundwater, protecting shorelines, the Project on core area abundance, the contributing to biodiversity and providing Proponent considered core areas that were habitat for certain plant and animal species. at least 350 metres wide at their narrowest Wetlands make up approximately 90 per cent point and at least 200 hectares in size. Th e of the Keeyask Regional Study Area, with Proponent also assessed the number of core most of that (91 per cent) being various kinds areas 1,000 hectares or larger. Measurements of bog, eight per cent being various kinds of of core areas show that the Regional Study fen, and marsh accounting for one per cent. Area currently contains 111 core areas Bogs are wetlands that are dominated by larger than 200 hectares and these core areas sphagnum mosses that are typically nutrient- account for 84 per cent of the total area. poor and acidic. Fens are peatlands that Construction of the Project and fl ooding of receive nutrients from ground or surface the reservoir will eliminate three core areas, water, are not acidic and are characterized by one slightly over 1,000 hectares and the others mosses and sedges. Marshes are wetlands that between 200 and 1,000 hectares. Several are periodically inundated and characterized larger core areas will be diminished in size by grasses, sedges, cattails and rushes. because of construction. Overall, core areas 200 hectares or larger will account for 82 Th e Proponent assessed wetlands per cent of the Regional Study Area aft er the throughout the Regional Study Area for the Project. Th e benchmarks for the percentage quality of wetland function, which includes of the regional area within core areas of at their species diversity and the range of least 200 hectares were: 65-100 per cent for habitats the wetlands contain. Generally, the small magnitude, 40-65 per cent for moderate EIS states that the wetlands along the Nelson magnitude, and less than 40 per cent for River are mostly low quality, as a result of the high magnitude. Th e Proponent states that, eff ects of past hydroelectric development, with 82 per cent of the Regional Study Area including CRD and LWR. Fluctuations accounted for by 200-hectare-plus core areas, in water level, ice scouring, erosion and the impact on the VEC Intactness is small. the seasonal reversal of fl ow patterns Th e immediate area of the Project, however, have degraded the quality of the shoreline will experience a reduction in the size of wetlands along the river, and in fact, the EIS several core areas, including Caribou Island, characterizes the Nelson River wetlands in the the largest core area on an island in this reach Project area as non-native habitat. of the Nelson River. In the supporting technical Mitigation for Intactness includes documentation to the EIS, it is stated that rehabilitating the most aff ected priority construction is expected to remove or alter

80 nearly 6,200 hectares of wetland, or 0.6 per VEC – Priority Plants cent of the wetland area in the Regional Study Area. An additional 1,600 hectares could be A list of 101 priority plants includes indirectly aff ected, bringing total aff ected plant species that are provincially vary rare, wetland in the Regional Study Area to 0.7 per rare to uncommon, regionally rare or at the cent of the total. In the EIS, it is noted that northern limit of their range, or of particular the majority of the most-aff ected wetland (76 importance to members of the Keeyask Cree per cent) is currently scored as low-quality. Nations (KCNs). Many of the rarest species During the fi rst 30 years of the operation of on the priority plants list were not found in the Project, shoreline erosion is expected to the Regional Study Area during fi eld studies. increase the amount of aff ected wetland to Priority plants of particular importance to nearly 8,300 hectares. In time, new shoreline the KCNs were sweet fl ag (known in Cree wetlands are predicted to develop along the as wekes, wekas or wihkis), white birch, reservoir shoreline. strawberry, northern Labrador tea, currant, gooseberry, cloudberry, red raspberry, Off -system marshes – wetlands that dewberry, blueberry, and cranberry. With the are not directly connected to the Nelson exception of sweet fl ag and Labrador tea, they River – are treated in the EIS as high- were found to be common in the Regional priority wetlands. Th e Project will aff ect Study Area. approximately 12 hectares of these marshes at various locations north and south of the Four species rated as being provincially river. To mitigate for the loss of these off - rare (small pondweed, oblong-leaved sundew, system marshes, the Proponent will develop rock willow, and shrubby willow) were found 12 hectares of new off -system marsh. To within the Project Footprint. Th e Project is prevent damage to other off -system marshes, expected to aff ect 0.5 to three per cent of the the Proponent has avoided some high-quality locations of these four plants in the Regional wetlands in planning the location of the South Study Area. As part of the mitigation for Access Road, borrow pits and excavated priority plants, surveys for rare plants will material placement areas. Th e Proponent also be held prior to construction. If any are intends to implement measures to protect found, and there are not at least 20 healthy against erosion, siltation and changes to water patches of these plants in unaff ected areas, the fl ow in construction areas within 50 metres of newly discovered location will be avoided, if off -system marshes. possible. If the plants cannot be avoided, they will be transplanted to an unaff ected location. In combination with past developments Other mitigation measures include closing in the area, the amount of aff ected wetland in and revegetating cutlines and trails following the Regional Study Area will vary from 1.7 to use in order to minimize new access. 6.5 per cent of the historical area, depending on the specifi c type (with some wetland As part of the assessment of priority types not aff ected). Th e Proponent rated this plants, the Proponent examined invasive as a moderate eff ect, as the residual eff ect plants as a supporting topic. Field studies of Keeyask and past developments remains detected 19 invasive plants in the Regional below a benchmark of 10 per cent of total Study Area, one of which (reed-canary historical area for each wetland type. grass) is classifi ed as highly invasive. Reed- canary grass was found at 27 locations in the Regional Study Area, primarily along the Nelson River shoreline. Moderately invasive

81 species were found in 39 locations, primarily Nations people in the area are becoming along roadways. Borrow pits and areas along harder to fi nd. Because some of these plants, PR 280 were found to be the main locations such as sweet fl ag, are scarce, they rarely show for invasive plants. Field studies conducted up in the transects used by technical science near existing developments in the area in vegetation sampling. Th is fact, the witness indicated that invasive plants were present, said, refl ects the need to adopt a diff erent but not spreading into adjacent native habitat. sampling technique and work with elders to map these relatively rare plant populations. Measures to prevent the spread of invasive plants include ensuring that contractors Commission Comment – Terrestrial wash equipment before use if it was brought Ecosystems, Habitat and Plants from a distance of greater than 150 km away, ensuring that no invasive plant seeds are Th e Panel notes that the existing Nelson in any seed mixture used in rehabilitation, River wetlands are described in the EIS as blocking and revegetating project-related “non-native,” since they are “already highly cutlines and trails aft er construction in order disrupted by water-level regulation.” Th e Panel to minimize new access, and implementing considers that this characterization does not containment, eradication and control refl ect their signifi cance, given that wetland programs, if monitoring indicates invasive function is a VEC and the Nelson River plants along shorelines or near project marshes currently provide habitat for other infrastructure. ecologically and culturally signifi cant VECs, such as staging and nesting waterfowl, beaver What we Heard – Terrestrial and other furbearers, and fi sh. Th e Proponent Ecosystems, Habitat and Plants states that these wetlands “will likely be replaced by reservoir wetlands during One expert witness noted that, in the operation.” Although wetland abundance and EIS, the Proponent acknowledges that quality may improve over the long term due riparian wetlands along the Nelson River to a more stable hydrological regime in the have already been degraded by erosion and future reservoir, the current value of these high water levels caused by LWR, CRD, wetlands may not be suffi ciently refl ected in other hydroelectric developments and the the EIS. Furthermore, it may take 30 years for unseasonal fl ow of the river. Th is witness new wetlands to establish themselves, based voiced the concern that, by creating a on observations from Stephens Lake. reservoir along this reach of the Nelson River, the Project will preclude any eff orts Th e Panel acknowledges that the to mitigate the impacts of past changes to Proponent plans to create 12 hectares of riparian wetlands. Essentially, the expert engineered wetland as mitigation for loss of noted, referring to the existing Nelson River high-quality off -system marshes, but whether wetlands as non-native and low-quality or not the engineered wetlands will be eff ectively “writes off ” these habitats and any successful has a fair degree of uncertainty. wetland function they currently provide or could provide in the future. Overall, however, the quality of the research in this area was generally thorough An expert witness for the Concerned and credible and surveys and analyses of Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens (CFLGC) vegetation were particularly well done. cited interviews with group members that Changes to wetlands in Gull Lake and along emphasized that many plants used by First the Nelson River will be caused by the Project,

82 but the one-metre operating range of the Clearing of the reservoir will result in the reservoir will minimize the signifi cance of displacement or loss of an estimated 45,000 these changes and is therefore an important pairs of songbirds as a result of nest loss or feature in minimizing the impacts of the “incidental take” during forest clearing. Th e Project. EIS states that, where practicable, this clearing will occur outside of the key breeding season 10.3.2 Birds in order to minimize the eff ect on these birds.

Selection of bird VECs was based on VEC – Canada Goose importance to the KCNs and at-risk status. Th ree migratory birds were selected on the Canada goose will be aff ected by loss of basis of their being of spiritual importance staging habitat during the spring and fall or a food source for Aboriginal people: migration, but will lose little quality breeding Canada goose, mallard and bald eagle. Th ree habitat, as breeding habitat is mostly found birds with at-risk status were also selected outside the Local Study Area. Th e fl ooding of on the basis that they have breeding habitat the reservoir will inundate shallow bays and that will be aff ected by the Project: olive- creek mouths along the river and Gull Lake sided fl ycatcher, common nighthawk, and that in some years provide optimal staging rusty blackbird. Five other at-risk birds were habitat. Use of the reservoir during spring assessed as priority birds but weren’t included migration will not be expected, as reservoirs as VECs, on the grounds that they are unlikely along the Nelson typically remain frozen to be aff ected by the Project. Gulls and terns longer than other water bodies in the area. were also the subject of study in the EIS Until new shoreline vegetation establishes because they will lose breeding habitat at Gull itself in the reservoir, geese will likely use Rapids as a result of the Project. Th ey were other stopover locations outside the Local not selected as a VEC, but they are included Study Area. in mitigation plans for the Project. VEC – Mallard During the hearing, it was stated that the Partnership established a benchmark of 20 per Land clearing and site preparation for the cent habitat loss for mallard, Canada goose, Project will result in the loss of nearly 3,000 bald eagle and most other non-VEC birds. hectares of mallard upland nesting cover, For birds at risk, the benchmark was set at representing 4.5 per cent of the available 10 per cent habitat loss. Th ese thresholds are habitat in the Regional Study Area. Sensory described slightly diff erently in the technical disturbance and noise during construction supporting documentation to the EIS. Th ose may also temporarily reduce the available levels of habitat loss would correspond to the habitat for nesting. Mitigation measures to line between moderate and high impacts. reduce impacts on mallards include retaining a 100-metre buff er around lakes, wetlands and With the exception of the Canada goose creeks; carrying out clearing outside of the and bald eagle, the assessment of eff ects on sensitive breeding period in spring and early birds was based on the use of Zone 4 (see Fig. summer; and establishing mallard nesting 10.1) as the Regional Study Area. Th e larger platforms. Zone 5 was used as the Regional Study Area for Canada goose and bald eagle.

83 VEC – Bald Eagle gravel areas, for nesting. Clearing of land for dykes, borrow sites, roads and trails will Bald eagles nest along the Nelson River. result in a loss of 925 hectares, and clearing Th is is the area where they are most common of the reservoir and additional shoreline within the Regional Study Area. As a result, it erosion will ultimately lead to a loss of is expected that reservoir clearing will involve approximately 1,925 hectares of breeding the removal of up to fi ve bald eagle nests. Th e habitat. Th is amounts to a loss of 10 per cent nearest identifi ed bald eagle nest is 12 km of the common nighthawk breeding habitat from the generating station construction site, in the Regional Study Area for this VEC so construction disturbance is not expected (Zone 4). Proposed mitigation measures will to have a major impact. Bald eagles, which include creation of new nesting habitat in feed on fi sh, oft en use rapids or other fast decommissioned borrow areas. fl owing waters as a feeding site. Th e loss of whitewater at Birthday Rapids will therefore VEC – Olive-Sided Flycatcher likely aff ect bald eagles. At other dams, bald eagles have made use of the fast fl owing water Th e olive-sided fl ycatcher – listed as in the tailrace, so it is possible that eagles will Th reatened under the federal Species at Risk congregate downstream of the generating Act – nests in mature spruce trees along forest station aft er construction. Following edges near water and makes use of edges inundation of the reservoir, the release of created by wildfi re, wetlands and beaver dams. mercury in the soil and vegetation into the Th ey also perch in standing dead trees in water will lead to bioaccumulation of mercury open areas. Construction and operation of the in predators. As fi sh-eating birds, eagles will Project are expected to result in the loss of up bioaccumulate mercury, although the eff ects to 470 hectares of breeding habitat, roughly of mercury in the reservoir may be limited for fi ve per cent of the total in the Regional Study them since they are migratory and only in the Area. Including secondary habitat, the worst- area during the open-water season. case scenario is for a loss of nine per cent of breeding habitat in the Regional Study Area. Proposed mitigation measures for bald eagle include conducting clearing outside Proposed mitigation measures will include of the sensitive breeding period (April 1 to carrying out clearing outside the sensitive July 31), replacing any eagle nests that are breeding period and creating perching destroyed through reservoir clearing with structures in open, decommissioned borrow artifi cial nesting platforms along the new areas that may serve as suitable foraging reservoir shoreline, erecting nesting platforms habitat. to replace eagle nests in trees at risk due to shoreline erosion, and removing roadkill VEC – Rusty Blackbird along access roads into order to reduce the risk of eagles being hit by vehicles. Th e rusty blackbird – listed as Of Special Concern under the federal Species at Risk VEC – Common Nighthawk Act – breeds in shrubs and conifers along the edges of wetlands and feeds on aquatic insects Th e common nighthawk – listed as from shallow pools of water and creeks. Th reatened under the federal Species at Construction and reservoir clearing will result Risk Act – prefers dry mineral sites with in the loss of approximately 920 hectares bare ground, such as rock outcrops and of breeding habitat, representing about six

84 per cent of habitat in the Regional Study Commission Comment – Birds Area. Proposed mitigation measures include clearing outside the sensitive breeding season, Regarding the eff ects of the Project maintaining 100-metre buff ers where possible on birds, the Panel considers that further around lakes, wetlands and creeks, and the monitoring will be required to fi ll gaps in development of 12 hectares of off -system information, in part resulting from problems marsh, which may also provide new habitat in habitat modelling. Th e Panel also has for the rusty blackbird. some concerns regarding habitat loss and mitigation. Priority Birds – Gulls and Terns Th e Proponent has stated that Keeyask, Gulls and terns nest on rocky reefs at Gull in combination with future projects, is not Rapids and upstream. Many of these sites expected to aff ect sustainability of regional will be lost as a result of construction and goose populations, in part because geese fl ooding, which will eliminate 2.7 hectares of breed farther north and so their breeding potential breeding habitat. It is estimated that habitat will not be aff ected. Use of the 800-1,500 breeding pairs of gulls and 30-100 reservoir by geese is expected to be minimal, breeding pairs of terns will be displaced from but will increase as aquatic plants re-establish. Gull Rapids and seek alternative breeding It is uncertain whether waterbirds will sites elsewhere. Other breeding and foraging continue to use the Project area for staging habitat for gulls and terns will be aff ected in the fall or seek more optimal staging areas at Birthday Rapids and in places along Gull outside the Regional Study Area. Based Lake and the Nelson River between Gull and on the evidence presented, however, the Birthday Rapids. Th e KCNs report that eggs conclusion that the Project is not expected from the Gull Rapids nesting birds have been to aff ect sustainability of goose populations a traditional food source. Th e Proponent appears supported. Follow-up monitoring has committed to providing alternative will be needed to understand how waterbirds nesting habitat for these birds and has been respond to changes in bird habitat in the considering using fl oating artifi cial nesting newly created Keeyask reservoir. sites, creating artifi cial islands and using rip- rap to enhance existing islands. All of these Although not clearly quantifi ed in the measures are described in the EIS as having EIS, it appears at least fi ve of the six bald eagle been successful elsewhere in Canada and the nests between Split Lake and Gull Rapids in U.S. the Local Study Area (Zone 3) will be lost during construction due to the fl ooding of the reservoir. Th e proposed mitigation, What we Heard – Birds building artifi cial nest platforms, has been used successfully in other jurisdictions, so it A witness for Manitoba Wildlands raised may work in the Keeyask area. It is unclear questions about the habitat model used for what eff ect, if any, there would be on local the olive-sided fl ycatcher and the credibility of and regional bald eagle populations if the the conclusions based on the data, citing the artifi cial structures are not used (that is, if relatively large percentage of the sightings of mitigation is unsuccessful), although feeding fl ycatchers that were made in areas not rated opportunities below the generating station are as primary or secondary habitat. To gain a predicted to compensate for loss of foraging better understanding of the value of habitat, habitat due to reservoir creation. Monitoring nest studies would be needed, he said. will be required to verify this prediction.

85 Monitoring the productivity of eagle nests • Th e habitat model is not linked to should be conducted annually to verify the population density, so it is unknown prediction that foraging opportunities below how many fl ycatchers are aff ected by the the generating station will compensate for loss Project. of foraging upstream. Monitoring data, such as nest productivity, from before and aft er • No evidence was presented on what construction, would then be capable of being happens to aff ected fl ycatchers in terms of compared in order to assess the impact on the mortality or reproductive success. local and regional bald eagle population. • No evidence was presented on how much Th e Panel’s concerns regarding the three variation over time there is naturally in songbirds are largely focused on habitat the study area in the number of fl ycatchers modelling. or their habitat.

Limited evidence has been provided in Evidence is limited regarding the the EIS to link habitat eff ects with population- certainty of the assessment of the signifi cance level impacts for the common nighthawk. of Project eff ects. However, despite these One of the challenges is that what is identifi ed weaknesses, there appears to be a relative as nesting habitat in the EIS, perhaps should abundance of suitable habitat in the area that be classifi ed as potential nesting habitat, as is not currently occupied. Breeding habitat it is not clear that all these areas are actually is likely not limiting, and birds displaced used by nighthawks. It is unlikely that nesting by the Project will likely fi nd unoccupied habitat is a limiting factor in the Regional habitat, particularly with recent burns in the Study Area, given that the species is declining Keeyask area. Th is species is not thought to be due to other factors (loss of wintering habitat). declining primarily due to factors on breeding Th erefore, impacts to habitat in the Keeyask grounds in Canada. area may be of lower magnitude than the model suggests. Suitability of open habitats in Th ere are similar uncertainties regarding the Project area in the short and long-term is quantifi cation and modelling of rusty unclear, because disturbance (noise, traffi c) blackbird habitat. may be too great during construction for newly cleared areas to be used by common As will be seen in Chapter 12, cumulative nighthawk. Despite some of these limitations eff ects of habitat loss at a regional level may in the evidence presented, the Panel is of be of concern for all three of the at-risk the opinion that Project is not likely to have songbirds. Th erefore, specifi c monitoring a signifi cant residual impact on common action will be needed to determine with more nighthawk. certainty the impact of Keeyask on these populations. Th e preliminary monitoring Th ere are a number of issues of concern plan for birds indicates that monitoring for related to habitat modelling and evidence for these species will be conducted to assess the olive-sided fl ycatcher: construction-related disturbances within and adjacent to the Project in the Local Study Area • Th e available habitat model has low (Study Zone 4), but it appears that analysis predictive power and lacks statistical will not occur until aft er the construction is rigour, in that it does not capture all the complete. In order to test the prediction that habitat attributes that fl ycatchers select for. displaced birds will use other unoccupied suitable habitat, a statistically robust sampling

86 design using controls must be employed for determine the current number and location evaluating project impacts, looking at before of colonies, as well as the number of nesting and aft er results. pairs and birds that comprise these colonies. An estimate of nesting success would also Th e Commission recognizes that there be helpful for future evaluations. Existing will be a loss of nesting habitat for gulls and and new colonies should be monitored terns associated with the loss of islands in Gull to determine the eff ect of the Keeyask Rapids, as well as the fl ooding of additional Generation Project on these species. gull and tern nesting habitat at Birthday Rapids and in Gull Lake. All tern colonies at Th e Proponent has proposed to establish Gull Rapids will be fl ooded by the Project, fl oating artifi cial islands, but details regarding and no other tern colonies are identifi ed in the design and location of these mitigation the Regional Study Area, nor were any other measures will not be available until the tern-nesting colonies identifi ed in the wider development of the Terrestrial Environment study area. Gull Rapids are considered unique Mitigation Plan, once construction has in the Regional Study Area and other colonial begun. It is therefore impossible to assess the nesting waterbird colonies have likely been potential eff ectiveness of these measures or lost elsewhere due to the development of to fi nd comparisons from other jurisdictions. previous hydroelectric projects. Th e Panel was Furthermore, the plan does not address surprised to fi nd that this nesting habitat was nesting habitat loss during the fi ve-year not considered a VEC by the Proponent for its period of construction, before these structures inherent ecological value (nor for the fact that can be put in place. gull eggs also have some value as a traditional food source). It is also unclear if the Proponent has seriously considered the possibility of using Considering what seems a signifi cant excess excavated materials to create suitable number of birds that will be displaced, at least nesting habitat at existing islands or to temporarily, and permanent loss of habitat, create entirely new islands for nesting. Th e it is diffi cult to agree with the conclusion in Commission believes creating permanent the EIS that the residual eff ects on colonial islands may be more likely to succeed waterbirds “are expected to be adverse than using fl oating islands. Alternative but regionally acceptable” based on the nest-site creation could be done early in evidence presented. Th ere is a high degree of the construction process and facilitate the uncertainty about the success of the proposed continued use of the Project area by these mitigation measures. In the EIS, long-term species, instead of having a gap or fi ve or more changes in the number of gulls and terns are years until aft er construction is completed. predicted to be within the natural variability of their population, but no data were presented from fi eld studies or other sources Licensing Recommendations on the number of gulls and terns at the nesting colonies annually. Without a baseline, The Commission recommends that: it is diffi cult to determine if future gull and tern distribution is within natural variation. 10.4 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership monitor the location, number and Th e Proponent must undertake a productivity of bald eagle nests in the comprehensive pre-construction survey to vicinity of the Keeyask project area prior to construction and annually for a

87 minimum of fi ve years after operation In assessing the impacts on mammals, begins to verify the impact of the Project diff erent study zones were selected. eTh on the local and regional population. Regional Study Area for beaver is Zone 4, for moose is Zone 5, and for caribou two 10.5 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Regional Study Areas were used: Zone 6 for develop and apply a statistically robust most caribou, and Zone 5 for a population of sampling system to monitor olive-sided fl ycatcher and rusty blackbird, that will caribou that have been variously identifi ed confi rm whether displaced birds are as summer resident or boreal woodland using alternate habitat or whether the caribou. (See Fig. 10.1) Th e Local Study Area project effects are impacting the regional for caribou and moose is Zone 4. For some population. smaller, non-VEC mammals, smaller study areas were chosen. Th e use of multiple study 10.6 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership zones is based in part on the variation in undertake a comprehensive pre- size of the range of these animals, from a few construction survey to determine the hectares for small mammals to thousands current number and location of gull of square kilometres for caribou. Th e large and tern colonies and their nesting Regional Study Area was also intended to success in the Project area. During and capture ecological processes, such as wildfi res, following construction, establishment of new colonies or the expansion of at the level of the regional ecosystem. existing colonies should be monitored to determine the effect of Keeyask on the VEC – Beaver local and regional population. Beaver will be aff ected in the Project 10.7 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Footprint during construction and reservoir investigate the feasibility of creating clearing, with an estimated 20 to 30 colonies replacement gull and tern nesting habitat aff ected by the Project. Access roads and by modifying existing islands or creating trails created during construction could also new ones in the Project area using the increase access by predators of beaver, such placement of excavated materials. If as wolves. Once construction is completed, feasible, these areas should be created fl ooding of the reservoir will result in the as soon as possible after construction- loss of beaver habitat as creeks, tributaries related activities begin. and small ponds and lakes adjacent to the Nelson River are fl ooded. Th e fl uctuating 10.3.3 Mammals water level of the reservoir during operations will make portions of the reservoir closest In assessing the eff ects on mammals, the to the dam unsuitable for beaver, as winter Proponent selected three VECs based on fl uctuations greater than 0.7 metres can kill ATK and local knowledge, social signifi cance, beavers in their lodges or cause them to conservation status and their ability to be abandon an area. Th ese fl uctuations will be indicators of ecological health. Th e three less pronounced further upstream along the VECs selected were beaver, caribou and reservoir. Within the Regional Study Area for moose. Most other mammals that use the beaver, approximately fi ve per cent of beaver Project area were also assessed as “priority habitat will be aff ected. As beaver are plentiful mammals.” Th ese other mammals include and capable of populating other areas aft er small mammals, furbearers, large carnivores, being impacted, the residual eff ects on beaver and rare or regionally rare species. populations are considered small. Mitigation

88 measures include trapping beavers prior to far south in the winter as the Project area reservoir clearing and periodically until the and on occasion have been seen in large reservoir is at capacity in order to prevent numbers. Caribou from two herds of coastal winter mortality. migratory caribou are reported as infrequent winter visitors. Th ese herds are the Pen VEC – Moose Islands herd, which has a large range that extends to Hudson Bay around the mouth of Th e Project will cause habitat loss as a the Nelson River and into northern Ontario, result of fl ooding, shoreline erosion, peatland and the Cape Churchill herd, which has disintegration and increasing traffi c, which a range that extends north to Churchill. could also result in vehicle-moose collisions. Migratory coastal caribou typically travel Lost habitat for moose amounts to about one toward the Hudson Bay coast in summer and per cent of the Regional Study Area (Zone in winter travel inland to forested areas. Th e 5). With future projects added, the total lost fourth population is characterized as boreal habitat will be slightly over one per cent, woodland caribou or as “summer resident” which the EIS characterizes as at the low caribou. Th ese are caribou that may mingle end of moderate. Moose in the Project area with the migratory coastal herds in winter but are near the northern fringe of their range which remain in the Keeyask area for calving and are widespread. According to 2010 data, and throughout the summer. Manitoba there are about 125 moose in the Local Study Conservation and Water Stewardship does Area (Zone 4), 950 moose in the Regional not currently recognize a known boreal Study Area (Zone 5) and 2,600 in the Split woodland caribou range as far north as Lake Resource Management Area (SLRMA). Keeyask, but the summer resident caribou One eff ect of the Project will be a broader exhibit the characteristics of boreal woodland distribution of harvest of moose through the caribou. While the populations of the coastal Adverse Eff ects Agreement (AEA) off setting caribou herds are healthier, boreal woodland programs, which provide opportunities for caribou are listed as Th reatened under the members of the KCNs to harvest resources federal Species at Risk Act and Th e Manitoba in areas unaff ected by the Project. Proposed Endangered Species Act. Approximately 20-50 mitigation measures for moose include animals are estimated to be in the Local Study closing and revegetating access roads and Area and 128 to 320 in the Regional Study trails aft er use, the prohibition on fi rearms in Area (Zone 5) for summer resident/boreal construction camps, communication eff orts to woodland caribou. reduce collisions on roads, and development by the Cree Nation Partners (Tataskweyak Four benchmarks were used by the Cree Nation and War Lake First Nation) of a Proponent to assess eff ects on caribou. Th ese moose harvest sustainability plan to ensure benchmarks measured total physical habitat that moose populations remain sustainable lost, intactness, linear feature density, and within the SLRMA. grey wolf density. For physical habitat loss, the benchmark for a moderate eff ect was VEC – Caribou one to 10 per cent of habitat in the Regional Study Area. For intactness, eff ects would be Four caribou populations are reported in considered moderate if 65 to 55 per cent of the Keeyask area, though some only appear the Regional Study Area remained unaff ected occasionally. Barren-ground caribou from by disturbances, including both wildfi re and the Qamanirjuaq herd sometimes travel as human-caused disturbance. For linear feature

89 density, a density of 0.6 to 1.2 km per km2 About six per cent of winter habitat would be considered moderate. For grey wolf within the Local Study Area (Zone 4) will be density, a population density of four to six completely lost due to construction and an wolves per 1,000 km2 would be considered additional 12 per cent of eff ective habitat will moderate. be lost during construction due to disturbance such as blasting, traffi c and machinery noise. Summer resident/boreal woodland Within the Regional Study Area, this amounts caribou will be aff ected by habitat loss as a to a loss of one per cent. Summer resident/ result of the construction of the Project and boreal woodland caribou will also be aff ected the fl ooding of land currently used for winter by the loss of some islands at Gull Rapids habitat and for calving. Th ey will also be and the reduction in size of Caribou Island in aff ected by sensory disturbance and traffi c Gull Lake, which will reduce available island during construction and operations. calving habitat. New islands will be formed Fig. 10.2 Habitat Disturbance and Probability of Self-Sustaining Caribou Population. (Environment Canada 2012)

90 by the fl ooding of the reservoir, however, Th e other intactness benchmark for and some of them may in time become caribou, linear feature density, indicates an calving habitat, as has happened with islands existing density of linear features of 0.45 km formed by the fl ooding of Stephens Lake. per km2. Th is density would decline slightly Construction-related disturbance will also as a result of Keeyask, as it would result in cause caribou to avoid some calving habitat some cutlines and trails being eliminated, close to the generating station site. Less than and then would rise to over 0.45 km per km2 one per cent of the potential calving habitat aft er Keeyask and future projects. As the in the Regional Study Area, as modelled by greatest density of linear features is closer to the Proponent, will be lost as a result of the Th ompson, the northern and eastern portions Project. of the Regional Study Area, near Keeyask, have a lower linear feature density. Benchmarks on fragmentation and intactness indicate that the Project area has a Grey wolf density is not expected to moderately high amount of disturbance, when change with the Project or with the addition wildfi re is included along with human-caused of future projects. According to the EIS disturbance. According to Environment benchmark for grey wolf density, fewer than Canada (2012), boreal woodland caribou four wolves per 1,000 km2 is a low impact. populations are more likely than not to be Density is currently reported to be lower than self-sustaining if at least 65 per cent of their two per 1,000 km2. range remains unaff ected by disturbance, including fi res. Based on the evidence Proposed mitigation measures for caribou presented in the hearing and in the EIS, it is include marking future islands within the unclear how much this threshold is exceeded reservoir so that they won’t be cleared of by Keeyask. Th e Proponent’s representative vegetation, avoiding caribou calving areas, testifi ed that the Regional Study Area (Zone minimizing blasting as much as possible 5) is currently 65 per cent intact, and this during calving season, reducing increased intactness will drop to about 63 per cent access to caribou habitat, taking steps to with Keeyask and future projects. However, avoid vehicle collisions with caribou, such both the EIS and supporting documentation as posting warning signs, and prohibiting state that because of the large number of fi rearms in work camps in order to minimize forest fi res in recent years only 48 per cent additional hunting. of caribou range in Zone 5 is intact. Th e Proponent states in the EIS that, based on the What we Heard – Mammals disturbance levels, Zone 5 would already be too disturbed for a self-sustaining population Th e Panel heard some concerns about of boreal woodland caribou. It is further Project eff ects, such as habitat loss, on beaver stated that, based on collaring data that show and moose, but the bulk of the discussion some summer resident caribou have spent one regarding mammals focused on caribou. summer in the Keeyask area and then joined the coastal caribou migration the next year, it A witness for CFLGC questioned the is possible that these animals are not boreal decision not to make furbearers (other than woodland caribou. In that case, their range beaver) a VEC. Th e EIS acknowledges adverse would be assessed based on a larger area and eff ects on furbearers and members of the the percentage of disturbance would be lower CLFGC group spoke of the impact of past as a result. hydroelectric development on muskrats,

91 yet these animals were not chosen as a VEC caribou, migrate over smaller distances and and so were not examined in the cumulative the females disperse widely and calve alone. eff ects portion of the EIS. Another expert Sedentary caribou show great “site fi delity,” witness, called by Manitoba Wildlands, raised meaning that the females will come back a variety of questions about the model used to to the same island, peat island or isolated assess habitat for beaver. forest for calving. Th eir low population density (approximately 0.06 to 0.07 animals Th e North Access Road appears to be per square kilometre) is thought to be an within the largest concentration of primary adaptation to reduce the risk of predation, by moose habitat in the Local Study Area, making it more diffi cult for wolves or bears suggesting a need for additional mitigation to fi nd caribou. Th e CAC’s expert said he (signage, lower night-time speed limits) to does not believe there is evidence of a female prevent moose mortality from collisions, as caribou switching from one calving behaviour well as monitoring of moose sightings and to another; that is, caribou do not behave like collisions. An expert witness for the Manitoba the sedentary ecotype and then behave like Métis Federation (MMF) stated that the the migratory ecotype or vice versa. Moose Harvest Sustainability Plan may be fl awed because it does not incorporate Métis Because of the site fi delity displayed hunting of moose and so may under-estimate by the “summer resident” caribou in the moose harvest. However, it was noted in Project area, and for other reasons, the cross-examination by the Proponent that, expert witness argued that they are likely to in this region of Manitoba, Métis hunters be sedentary ecotype caribou, also known are required to buy a provincial hunting as boreal woodland caribou. Currently, the licence, which means that their harvest of northernmost identifi ed boreal woodland moose should already be accounted for in caribou range in Manitoba is 100 kilometres development of the moose harvest plan. from the Project area, but the witness presented several other factors supporting his Representatives of Peguis First Nation hypothesis. Th ese included: recent scientifi c (PFN) predicted that because of the collapse hypotheses that the presence of open water of moose populations in many places in in large lakes by mid-June represents the southern Manitoba, more moose harvesters northern limit of boreal woodland caribou; will be travelling to northern Manitoba, telemetry tracking in Ontario showing including areas aff ected by the Keeyask sedentary females as far north as the southern Project. edge of the Hudson Bay Lowlands; a remote camera photo of a male caribou in the Project Th e Consumers’ Association of Canada area with antlers matching the size and (CAC) presented evidence that called into shape of the sedentary ecotype; the historic question the Proponent’s description of existence of the Nelson-Hayes herd of boreal caribou in the Project area as “summer woodland caribou; and ATK conclusions that resident” coastal caribou. Th e expert called distinguish a small number of “local caribou” by the CAC said caribou are classifi ed from the migratory caribou that use the largely by their behaviour into one of two Project area. “ecotypes.” Migratory caribou, oft en referred to as barren ground or coastal caribou, If some of the caribou in the Project area migrate over long distances and the females are sedentary ecotype (or boreal woodland), gather together during calving. Sedentary the conclusions in the EIS about the caribou, oft en referred to as boreal woodland

92 signifi cance of loss of habitat may be called region and said that four kinds of caribou are into question. One of these conclusions is that known in the area. Wapanok atikok are the there will be alternative habitat available for “comes from the east caribou.” Mantayosipi any caribou that are displaced by construction neyahk atikok are “caribou from the point or reservoir fl ooding. It was argued that such of land of the River of Strangers.” Pasko a conclusion understates the need of caribou atikok are “no tree caribou.” Th e fourth for large amounts of space, which keeps kind of caribou are Noschimik atikok, of their population density low and reduces “caribou that stay in the bush.” Th e KK the risk of predation. Th e witness called for group recommended that Noschimik atikok radio telemetry studies running for at least be recognized as a distinct group of resident two years to confi rm whether or not the caribou that are near the Keeyask Project. female “summer resident” caribou are in fact exhibiting the calving behavior (isolated and An expert witness for the MMF with great site fi delity) of sedentary caribou. questioned the Proponent’s assertion that the Keeyask area likely has more habitat available In addition to the uncertainty over the than there are caribou. Concerns about the ecotype of the summer resident caribou, development and validation of the caribou the expert said the eff ect of future forest habitat model raise the possibility that the fi res represents an additional uncertainty, Proponent overestimated the amount of especially given the possibility of climate habitat available. Th e Proponent’s assessment change resulting in more frequent or larger of no signifi cant eff ect on summer resident/ fi res. As well, a growing moose population boreal woodland caribou relies on the could lead to an increase in the population assumption that they will cross transmission of predators. Experience in other locations lines, but the MMF expert pointed out that indicates that when the moose population the Proponent acknowledges that the extent density exceeds 0.1 animals per square of avoidance of such linear features is not kilometre, caribou are in danger of being known. As well, the MMF expert testifi ed extirpated (eliminated from the area). Th e that it is unclear what level of mortality the expert witness also said the Proponent’s summer resident/boreal woodland population conclusions about caribou were questionable can tolerate, given that the herd’s status is not because of a lack of recruitment and mortality certain. Expectations that the caribou will in data (numbers of births and deaths). time return to the area are not well supported, the MMF expert stated, given that it is still Th e Panel also heard from area residents not certain to what extent pre-Kettle caribou who considered the local resident population populations have returned. to be boreal woodland caribou. One of the CFLGC witnesses, a trapper and resource One of the specifi c concerns was the harvester, testifi ed that he had hunted statement in the EIS that evidence of calving caribou in the Project area that matched the was documented on only 10 per cent of description of boreal woodland caribou, islands in Gull and Stephens Lakes and rather than coastal caribou. Other witnesses fi ve per cent of peat complexes. isTh fact for CFLGC also stated that boreal woodland may not mean that there is ample unused caribou are found in the area, but not as calving habitat, as the EIS suggests, but may abundantly as in the past. be an indicator that the unused areas have some other factor that makes them less Representatives of the KK elders’ group suitable. Th e Proponent found that neither spoke about ATK of caribou in the Keeyask

93 area nor distance to the mainland was a applied. If not, consideration should be given reliable indicator of island use, but did fi nd to protecting the critical calving areas of the the probability of use of islands and peat herd to which they belong. complexes increased with size. Th is suggested to the MMF`s expert that additional study Th e Panel has concerns with the lack of and model validation is required. data on population size, recruitment and mortality of the summer resident/boreal Commission Comment – Mammals woodland caribou. Th ere is a lack of solid evidence to support the population estimates Th e Commission considers that several provided. Th e primary fi eld methods, factors support the conclusion that the including use of trail cameras, track/sign “summer resident” caribou in the Project area transects, and winter aerial surveys, are unable are more likely to be boreal woodland caribou. to provide data that would allow for certainty Evidence for this includes: behavioural and in these estimates. As well, these information- demographic traits that are consistent with gathering techniques do not provide the data boreal woodland caribou (isolated calving, needed to have reasonable confi dence in the harem breeding, low population density); boundaries of the caribou range. As a result, telemetry data from Bipole III that show it is uncertain if the Proponent used the at least some radio-collared cows residing appropriate study zones to assess impacts on year-round near Stephens Lake; traditional caribou. Given that there is uncertainty about knowledge presented by elders and resource the actual boundaries of the caribou range, harvesters; a trail-camera photograph predictions based on calculations of the degree presented at the hearing that resembles a of disturbance to the range will inevitably boreal woodland caribou; caribou distribution be uncertain. In calculating disturbance to data from Ontario that show boreal woodland the caribou range, the Proponent did not caribou as far north as the southern edge of originally consider the large area burned in the Hudson Bay Lowlands; the association forest fi res in the summer of 2013, although between spring ice-break-up date and this was considered later in the hearing northern limits of boreal woodland caribou; process. Th ere is also uncertainty as to and the previously known range of the whether the Proponent fully incorporated Nelson-Hayes boreal woodland population. the potential for disturbance caused by future Th e Commission believes that until genetic forest fi res in the area. During the hearing, the testing can confi rm their lineage, summer Panel heard of one relatively simple statistical resident caribou should be assumed to be technique for estimating the likely area of boreal woodland caribou. Th e Commission future forest fi re disturbance. Some such encourages both the Proponent and Manitoba calculation would have greatly added to the Hydro to support research leading to this evaluation in the EIS. scientifi c confi rmation. Th e Panel also heard from at least one Th e Commission has reached the KCN member, and resource user, who said conclusion that Manitoba Conservation and his personal observations of caribou in the Water Stewardship must take leadership and Keeyask region, and those of his friends and immediate action in determining the status fellow resource users, could have helped to of these animals. If they are determined to be clarify the issue regarding summer resident/ “woodland caribou” then provisions in Th e boreal woodland caribou. Elders who gave Manitoba Endangered Species Act should be testimony at the hearing have provided

94 personal observations and history on the signifi cant negative impacts for woodland distribution and abundance of these animals. caribou. In order to avoid creating more Th e Province and the Proponent should take access for hunters and predators, roads and more notice of these observations and the access trails constructed for the Project Cree worldview and incorporate them to a will need to be access-controlled during greater degree where possible. construction and made impassable once they are no longer in use. In the larger regional As a result of all of these knowledge area, fragmentation and disturbance should gaps, it is diffi cult to share the “moderate to be limited where possible through retirement high degree of certainty” that the Proponent of roads, rehabilitation of past disturbances, expresses for the conclusion that impacts on limits on human disturbances (such actions caribou are likely to be small in magnitude. would include controlling access to calving islands), and restrictions on recreational trails. Additional research, employing radio In order to reduce the risk of collisions with collaring of caribou, is required for at least vehicles, the Proponent may need to post three years to have greater confi dence and warning signs for drivers on PR 280 or the to better plan for the management and access roads. mitigation of the Project eff ects. While there is a concern among First Nations about radio Th e Proponent has stated that it plans to collaring of caribou, especially if carried out minimize blasting to the extent practicable during the sensitive calving season, it would during caribou calving (May 15 to June 30). be useful to have the kind of data on animal However, some year-round blasting will be movements made possible by collaring. If required. Th erefore, a plan must be developed collaring could be done at a less sensitive time to address where blasting is to occur during of year and in a respectful matter, it would calving season. assist greatly in evidence-based monitoring of the Project’s eff ects and be helpful in future Regarding moose, the Panel agrees that management and mitigation. habitat loss and disturbance are not likely a signifi cant concern. Flooding of the reservoir A long-term co-ordinated monitoring will result in some short-term loss of habitat, study for boreal woodland/summer but stabilization of water levels will likely resident caribou in the Keeyask area, which be benefi cial in the long term by providing includes the Keeyask Generation Project, aquatic vegetation. Moose populations Keeyask Transmission Project, Bipole III, are likely driven more by predation by any new developments, and the eff ects wolves and human hunting than by habitat. of any expansion or alteration of existing Th erefore, adaptive management of moose developments, needs to be undertaken. will be required, especially if the off setting In eff ect, a regional caribou management programs included in the Adverse Eff ects plan is required and should be facilitated Agreements encourage more harvest in areas by Manitoba Conservation and Water that are previously diffi cult to reach. It will Stewardship. Given the large ranges of all be necessary to monitor access and eff ects caribou, it is important to have a better on moose around any new roads and trails picture of the entire regional population, in the Project area, including any new access especially given the regional scale of impacts. for moose hunting created by the North and South Access Roads. Fragmentation, human disturbance and access for hunters and predators can cause

95 Licensing Recommendations calving islands, and limiting or restricting recreational trails. The Commission recommends that: 10.13 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 10.8 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership and the Manitoba Government further conduct a three- to fi ve-year telemetry investigate and incorporate ATK and local study with at least 10 (preferably 15) knowledge of historical “summer resident “summer-resident” caribou radio-collared caribou” distributions and populations during the snow-free season to delineate to inform current status and their their current range and facilitate the management. collection of population parameters. 10.14 Manitoba Conservation and Water 10.9 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Stewardship determine the status of the limit fragmentation of habitat and “summer resident” caribou and apply the disturbance of “summer resident” caribou appropriate protections depending upon where possible through the retirement of the determination. roads and trails required for construction. 10.15 Manitoba Conservation and Water 10.10 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Stewardship lead a long-term co- place signage along roadways alerting ordinated monitoring study of caribou drivers to the potential for collision with in the Gillam area that includes the caribou and moose. Keeyask Generation Project, the Keeyask Transmission Project, Bipole 10.11 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, III Transmission Project, Conawapa, in co-operation with Manitoba expansion of and alterations to existing Conservation and Water Stewardship, Manitoba Hydro facilities and any other develop a public information program impacts on the landscape. that encourages the reporting of sightings of “summer resident” caribou, and moose and caribou road kills.

Non-Licensing Recommendations The Commission recommends that:

10.12 Beyond the immediate Keeyask area, Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Government limit fragmentation of habitat, facilitate the rehabilitation of habitat, and limit human disturbance of “summer resident” caribou. Such actions could include, but are not limited to, the retirement and re-vegetation of roads, trails and cutlines, rehabilitation of borrow areas, limiting access on existing roads and trails, controlling access to

96 Chapter Eleven Socio-Economic Effects

11.1 Overview impact statement as 2,090 to 2,295 hours of employment, corresponding to 52 weeks of Th e Proponent grouped measurements work at 40 to 45 hours per week). Estimates of socio-economic eff ects into fi ve categories: for the share of jobs to be fi lled by members Economy; Population, Infrastructure and of the KCNs range from a low of 235 person- Services; Personal, Family and Community years to a high of 600 person-years. Th e Life; Resource Use; and Heritage Resources. Joint Keeyask Development Agreement Study areas for socio-economic eff ects were (JKDA) sets out a target of 630 person-years larger than those for aquatic and terrestrial for employment by KCN members, with a eff ects. Th e Local Study Area for socio- fi nancial penalty to be paid by the Keeyask economic eff ects included the four Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership if the target Cree Nations (KCNs), plus the Town of is not met. Th is target includes employment in Gillam and the City of Th ompson (Fig. the Keeyask Infrastructure Project (building 11.1). Th e Regional Study Area included of the North Access Road and the camp) Preference Zones 1 and 2 in the Burntwood as well as approximately 257 person-years Nelson Agreement (BNA), the collective of employment that had already gone into agreement between the Hydro Project planning the fi rst Nations’ participation in the Management Association and the unions of Keeyask Generation Project from the signing the Allied Hydro Council. Preference Zone of the JKDA in 2009 to the fall of 2013. 1 takes in all communities along the Nelson, Estimates for the overall northern Manitoba Burntwood and Churchill Rivers. Preference Aboriginal population range from 550 to Zone 2 encompasses a vast area of northern 1,700 person-years. Th ese communities have Manitoba, including communities such as Th e unemployment rates far higher than that of Pas, Flin Flon, Lynn Lake and Shamattawa. the overall Manitoba population. According to 2002 fi gures presented by the Proponent, the unemployment rate in the KCNs was 11.2 Economy 40 per cent, while for northern Aboriginal VEC – Employment and Training residents as a whole it was 27.7 per cent and Opportunities for Manitoba it was six per cent. Following construction, a target has been set for KCN Construction of the Project is expected members to hold 182 operational jobs across to generate approximately 4,200 person- Manitoba. Th e Project itself is expected to years of direct employment (one person- create 46 operational jobs: 37 at the Keeyask year is defi ned in the environmental site and nine in Gillam.

97 Fig. 11.1: Regional Study Area for Socio-Economic Eff ects. (Courtesy of KHLP.)

98 Th e bulk of construction employment for carried out to prepare workers for jobs on the Aboriginal employees on Keeyask is expected Wuskwatim and Keeyask Projects. In addition to come via employment in construction to the four KCNs, participants in the HNTEI support and non-designated trades. were Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation (NCN), Construction support jobs are those needed the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) and during construction, such as clerical, camp Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak. In all services and catering, that do not actually 2,670 people completed at least one course involve building the Project. Non-designated as part of the HNTEI, 595 participants trades are construction jobs that do not completed training in job categories that will have an apprenticeship program, including be required for Keeyask construction and 242 heavy equipment operator, vehicle driver, KCN members completed Keeyask-related labourer, rebar worker and cement mason. training. Th e upper forecast of 600 person-years of KCN employment includes 325 person- An assessment of the HNTEI, completed years of construction support and 170 of by the consulting fi rm Deloitte, concluded non-designated trade employment. Most of that the Initiative faced some challenges. the employment for members of the KCNs Working out agreements between the is expected to come through working on participants and establishing goals for the direct negotiated contracts (DNCs), contracts training was relatively time consuming. Many negotiated between the Keeyask Hydropower members of the target population required Limited Partnership and businesses owned educational upgrading before they were by the KCNs. Among these DNCs will be eligible for career-specifi c training, given that, contracts for camp services, security and according to the 2001 Census, among people catering, as well as reservoir clearing and age 20 and over, approximately 60 per cent of construction of the South Access Road. KCN members and the northern Aboriginal population as a whole had less than a high A variety of measures have been and school certifi cate. Ultimately, by the end of will be taken to enhance the participation of HNTEI, 27 participants had completed trades Aboriginal and KCN workers on the Project. training to reach journeyperson status, and Th e Burntwood Nelson Agreement contains 140 participants were active apprentices preferences for qualifi ed Aboriginal and working toward designated trades (most of northern workers. Two of the KCNs – Fox whom were at the earlier stages of a four-level Lake Cree Nation (FLCN) and York Factory apprenticeship). As of October 2013, 172 First Nation (YFFN) – have negotiated a HNTEI participants had found employment contract to provide employee retention and related to Keeyask (through the Keeyask support services, which includes cultural Infrastructure Project or through planning training and on-site counselling to help and licensing activities). During construction retain Aboriginal workers. Funding will be of Wuskwatim, 189 HNTEI participants provided for the Allied Hydro Council to hire found employment. Overall, Wuskwatim an Aboriginal union representative to assist had a slightly higher Aboriginal employment Aboriginal workers with workplace issues. rate than the Limestone Generating Station had (28 per cent compared to 25 per cent) Th e Hydro Northern Employment and and a lower turnover rate among Aboriginal Training Initiative (HNTEI), funded by the workers (41 per cent compared to 50 per Governments of Manitoba and Canada and cent). Manitoba Hydro from 2001 to 2010, was

99 VEC – Business Opportunities system for the four KCNs. Th is is a 20-year target. If that target is reached, income for Businesses owned by the KCNs will work members of these First Nations would be on direct negotiated contracts during Keeyask approximately $20 million per year. Income construction, creating both employment and from the operating jobs at the Keeyask business revenue. Th ese DNCs will be carried generating station would be concentrated in out by businesses owned by the KCNs or joint Gillam. ventures between KCN businesses and other fi rms. Th e four KCNs are involved in a number In addition to employment and business of such businesses in construction, engineering, income, the KCNs will be eligible to receive building materials, equipment leasing, catering dividends from the sale of power produced and camp services. FLCN and YFFN will have by the generating station. Under the terms service contracts in catering, security and of the JKDA, the KCNs will elect to invest employee retention and support services. Th e in the Project in one of two ways: through Cree Nation Partners (CNP), a partnership a common equity option, which requires a of Tataskweyak Cree Nation and War Lake higher level of investment and generates a First Nation, will have service contracts proportionate share of distributions from in camp maintenance and fi rst aid and the Project, or through a preferred equity construction contracts in camp development, option, which has a lower investment and camp decommissioning, South Access Road a guaranteed return on investment. Actual construction, forebay clearing, painting and profi ts will depend on the fi nal cost of architectural fi nishing, and excavation. construction and the sales of power. Under the JKDA, the KCNs have the option of VEC – Income acquiring up to 25 per cent equity in the Project: 15 per cent owned by CNP and fi ve Members of the KCNs are expected per cent each owned by FLCN and YFFN. to earn $21 to $62 million working on Under the JKDA, distributions to each of the the Project. Th e majority of this income First Nation partners may be used for: ($17.7 to $47.5 million) is expected to come about through work on DNCs. For • measures to support the viability of Aboriginal workers from the entire Churchill, resource harvesting; Burntwood, Nelson area (including the KCNs), employment income through • initiatives to support Aboriginal or treaty construction of the Project is estimated at rights; $36 to $128 million. For Aboriginal workers from all of northern Manitoba, construction • cultural and social development; employment income is estimated at $49 to • business and employment development; $180 million. • infrastructure and housing development; Th e KCNs will also derive business income from the DNCs. Th e share of profi ts • construction and operation of capital accruing to the KCN-owned businesses projects; and involved in joint ventures in the Project could be as high as $7.5 million. • technical and legal services related to business and other aff airs. Th e Partnership has also set a target of 182 operational jobs across Manitoba Hydro’s

100 VEC – Cost of Living Th e Project will have an eff ect on commercial fi shing in Stephens Lake due Northern Manitoba has a higher cost to mercury bioaccumulation in fi sh. Th ere of living than other parts of the province is currently one commercial fi shing licence as a result of the cost of transporting goods on Stephens Lake, held by an individual long distances to small markets. Th e cost who sells fi sh directly to customers and to diff erential is greatest in communities without restaurants. Th is licence will be bought out four-season road access. In the EIS, the by the Proponent. Gull Lake and the reach Proponent compared the price for a “revised of the Nelson River that will be fl ooded northern food basket for a family of four” in are not currently fi shed commercially. Winnipeg and in four communities in the Th e commercial fi shery on Split Lake is Local Study Area. Based on 2009 prices, a not expected to be aff ected by the Project. food basket costing $207 in Winnipeg would However, the creation of the Keeyask cost $225 in Th ompson, $251 in Gillam, $264 Reservoir will largely fl ood Birthday Rapids, in Split Lake (TCN) and $288 in York Landing making it easier for fi sh to swim from the (YFFN). Costs of housing (discussed in more reservoir to Split Lake. As mercury levels in detail as a separate VEC) vary for populations the Keeyask Reservoir will be elevated, there across the area. Th e highest housing costs in is the potential for some fi sh with elevated the area are in Th ompson, which has been mercury levels to enter into the Split Lake undergoing a housing shortage in recent commercial fi shery. Th e Proponent has years, driving up the price of houses and indicated that this is possible, but expects apartments and encouraging some owners that this is unlikely, and will monitor for of apartment building to convert them into such occurrences. Th e only other lake in the condominiums. Th e Proponent predicts that immediate area with commercial fi shing is this situation in Th ompson is likely to change Assean Lake, near TCN, which will not be given the proposed shutdown of the Vale aff ected. smelter and refi nery. Th e Project has the potential to cause Th e Proponent predicts that the Project indirect eff ects to tourist fi shing lodges as is unlikely to have an eff ect on the cost of resource users from the KCNs travel to living. Th e increase in purchasing power remote lakes to fi sh as part of the Adverse resulting from employment on the Project Eff ects Agreement (AEA) off setting programs. may encourage businesses to bring a wider Th rough TCN’s AEA off setting program, selection of goods into some communities. fi ve lakes north of the Nelson River in the Pressure on housing costs is not expected, as Split Lake Resource Management Area housing in the KCNs, is owned and controlled (SLRMA) will be subject to a combined by the First Nations themselves, and Manitoba harvest of up to 62,000 kg of fi sh per year. Hydro plans to build new housing in Gillam One of these lakes currently has a commercial to accommodate new employees. fi shing lodge on it. Th is lodge also has a smaller outcamp on another of the lakes. VEC – Resource Economy Th e Proponent acknowledges the possible eff ect of the off setting program on this Th e VEC Resource Economy refers to fi shing lodge, stating in the EIS that “net commercial use of natural resources. Resource fi sheries and commercial sports fi sheries are use for personal and community consumption typically incompatible. Reductions in the and cultural reasons is described under the abundance of large trophy fi sh would likely be VEC Resource Use. noticeable to the Waskaiowaka and Pelletier

101 Lake lodge clientele if the designated harvest the AEA off setting programs. Th e Proponent level is achieved from these lakes.” TCN has states that this is not expected to cause a established a set of guidelines for members substantive eff ect on trapping, because these making use of this program that includes resource-harvesting visits will typically occur respecting others and private property, in the spring and fall rather than in the winter, keeping areas clean and practising selective which is the peak time for trapping activity. harvest. Th e EIS states that this policy will As well, the AEA off setting programs are minimize eff ects to lodges and outfi tters. for fi shing and hunting and therefore target diff erent species of wildlife than the trapping Th e Project also overlaps four traplines: of furbearers. traplines 07, 09, 15 and 25 (a TCN community trapline). Access roads, which will eventually become the new PR 280, will pass through What we Heard – Economy Traplines 09 and 15. Traplines 07, 15 and 25 Th e Panel heard a number of perspectives will be aff ected by fl ooding, with about fi ve on the potential impact of the Project on per cent of Trapline 15 fl ooded. Flooding on the Economy VECs, including employment, Trapline 07 will amount to just over one per training, income, and the resource economy. cent of the area, while less than one per cent of Trapline 25 will be fl ooded. In addition to Expert witnesses for the Manitoba the South Access Road, Trapline 09 will be Branch of the Consumers’ Association of crossed by the transmission line right-of-way Canada (CAC) assessed the Keeyask Project’s to be built as part of the Keeyask Transmission economic impacts from a community Project. Manitoba Hydro plans to conclude economic development perspective and agreements with all aff ected trapline holders found that, while the partnership model to cover any loss of buildings or equipment is a substantial improvement over past and lost revenue. Manitoba Hydro has already hydroelectric development in northern concluded a disturbance agreement with the Manitoba, there are still concerns. Specifi c holder of Trapline 09, including a monetary concerns they outlined were that the Project settlement to cover the years 2010-2015, may: cause harm that is not compensated; and had a disturbance agreement (which disrupt traditional livelihoods; limit expired December 31, 2013) with the holder participation in decision-making by the of Trapline 15. Manitoba Hydro also plans KCNs; and fail to foster the building of to negotiate similar agreements with the capacity in the communities. Th e witnesses individual holder of trapline 07 and the local examined the Proponent’s forecasts of fur council for the community trapline 25. employment income for members of the KCN communities, as well as forecasts for profi ts Since 1996, the average annual revenue for KCN-owned businesses and for eventual of all traplines in the Split Lake Section has income resulting from KCN investment in been $2,125. Marten is the most frequently Keeyask. trapped species in the Regional Study Area, accounting for 68 per cent of trapping. Beaver Given that the Proponent predicts that is the second-most frequently trapped species, the majority of KCN employment during accounting for 13 per cent of the harvest. construction will be generated by direct negotiated contracts with the KCN businesses Some traplines throughout the region – which include work such as catering and will be visited more oft en by people other security – the witnesses said it is likely that than the trapline licence holder as a result of

102 most construction employment in the KCN the turnover rate on the Wuskwatim project, communities generated by Keeyask will be with the concern raised that Keeyask might in relatively lower paid jobs. As a result, they also have a high turnover rate. expect annual construction employment income during the Project to be closer to Th e Panel heard many concerns about the the lower end of the Proponent’s predicted cost and standard of living in northern and range of $3.97 to $9.7 million. Th ey were First Nations communities. Items of concern concerned about the ability of local residents included the cost of food, especially in to benefi t from employment, as a result of communities without four-season road access, the short-term nature of many construction the cost of heating homes, and the quality of jobs, relatively high turnover rates for homes and community infrastructure. Aboriginal workers on the Wuskwatim project, requirements of the Burntwood Several witnesses and Presenters from the Nelson Agreement and the fact that the KCNs were concerned about the impact on HNTEI ended in 2010. While the CAC’s trapping, especially the impact on Trapline experts judged the HNTEI to be a signifi cant 09. Trapping is much more than an economic achievement, they were concerned about the activity, and plays a vital cultural role in continuing need for education to build the many First Nations communities. Th e Panel capacity of KCN communities to manage heard testimony that trapping families are their own economic development. oft en leaders of a community, as holders of knowledge, strong voices and a “moral During hearings held at the KCNs, the compass.” A representative of the Concerned Panel heard from community members who Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens (CFLGC) said it was diffi cult for individuals who had testifi ed that the four traplines to be aff ected had job training to fi nd employment that by the Project are among the last traplines could count toward their apprenticeship. in close proximity to Bird and Gillam and so Contractors seek a level of experience that have an even greater value to the community. many newly trained community members do not have. As well, Presenters said much of the employment on the Project will Commission Comment – likely go to workers from out of province, Economy including workers from Quebec with dam- Th e Panel believes that the Project has building experience. Others spoke of the the potential to be an economic benefi t to need to continue training along the lines of the KCNs, although the magnitude of the the HNTEI. Others said workplace racism benefi t is not entirely clear. It is not clear how is still a problem that makes it diffi cult for much profi t the KCNs will make from their many First Nations people to remain at work. equity participation in the Project, given that Th e Panel also heard from representatives of profi ts will be infl uenced by the fi nal costs, the Participant groups who raised concerns about selling price of electricity in the future, and predominance of construction support and which kind of shares the KCNs opt for. Th ere non-designated trades jobs for Aboriginal is also a large variation between the high and workers, including members of the KCNs. low estimates of the income to be made by Concern was expressed that relatively few members during the construction period. Th e Aboriginal workers are expected to fi ll amount of labour income will depend greatly positions for designated trades or professional/ on the success of recruitment, training and managerial positions. References were made to retention eff orts.

103 Th e HNTEI program, while it had Licensing Recommendation challenges in completion rates, appears to have been a well-intentioned eff ort to The Commission recommends that: prepare northern Aboriginal workers for employment on both Wuskwatim and 11.1 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Keeyask. Th at the majority of KCN and provide continuing education and other Aboriginal workers are expected to training opportunities on the Project for be employed in construction service and HNTEI-trained workers to advance their non-designated trades jobs does raise some employment prospects. concern that HNTEI was unable to prepare a large workforce for higher-paid positions. It may be that Aboriginal workers in the 11.3 Population, region are not pursuing the higher-paid Infrastructure and Services skilled trades because, outside of these Th is category of socio-economic eff ects hydroelectric projects, there is little demand refers to those that, for the most part, will for such workers in the area where they live. result from changes in population, typically For those who begin such training, there may as a result of people moving permanently be few opportunities to acquire the on-the- or temporarily to the Keeyask area because job training necessary to advance. Th e fact of the Project. Factors that play a role in that a preponderance of HNTEI participants this category include: additional demand in skilled-trades programs only reached the for infrastructure as a result of increased fi rst or second year of their apprenticeship population, expansion of the Town of training points out the need to ensure that Gillam, construction of the South Access such workers will have the opportunity to Road and the eventual rerouting of PR 280 gain on-the-job training through Keeyask and along the North and South Access Roads, advance through their trades. Concerns about and transportation of equipment, materials, retention rates are also legitimate. For Keeyask and workers to and from the construction to succeed in raising the standard of living in site. Th e VECs for this category are Housing, the KCNs, eff orts at enhancing retention rates, Infrastructure and Services, Land, and such as the employee retention and support Transportation Infrastructure. Th e supporting contract awarded to YFFN and FLCN, topic for this category is Population, meaning will need to be successful. Despite these that population change is not itself a VEC, but challenges, it is worth noting that HNTEI will be a key factor that infl uences the VECs. and jobs on Wuskwatim (and more recently on the Keeyask Infrastructure Project) have Project-related population increase within provided a number of KCN members with the four KCNs is expected to be quite small, the opportunity to gain valuable training as a result of housing constraints and the and work experience in both designated and availability of housing at the construction non-designated trades. Th e Project has also camps. Some short-term population growth created the opportunity for KCN members may be felt in Gillam during construction to gain experience in Project planning and as a result of accommodations for senior management. Manitoba Hydro employees and contractor staff . Operation of the Project is not expected to result in population increases within the KCNs, again because of housing constraints. However, operation will contribute to

104 population growth in Gillam, where the Services. Likewise, the presence of a large expected Keeyask operations workforce of workforce at the camp could result in RCMP 46 people will be housed. Th e Project is not travelling from the detachment in Gillam expected to increase population in Th ompson and, therefore, not being available for calls because of its distance from the Keeyask site. in Gillam or Bird. Th e Proponent is working with the Northern Regional Health Authority VEC – Housing and the RCMP to plan for construction- related staffi ng needs. As well, the camp Housing is in short supply in all of will have EMS and ambulance services, the KCNs, with growing waiting lists for which may minimize demand for existing members wishing for a home. Th ere is a services. KCN communities are expected to concern, especially in TCN, that the Project experience demands on their infrastructure will increase demand for housing because during construction for a number of reasons. members who live elsewhere will come to Changes in lifestyle – including increased the region to work on Keeyask. However, the income from working on the Project and Job Referral System under the Burntwood interactions with outside workers – may Nelson Agreement provides KCN members increase demand for community-run social with the same preference for employment services, such as counselling. Project-related on the Project regardless where in Manitoba work may also result in increased demand they live. Th e KCNs will communicate this to for daycare services, which are currently their members, in order to prevent increasing at capacity in the KCNs. As of 2012, the demand for already-scarce housing. daycare in Gillam was building a new facility. Availability of daycare is particularly Th e Proponent expects an increase in important to enable women to benefi t from demand for temporary accommodation in employment opportunities on the Project. Th ompson from workers who are arriving in or departing from the region or from those Th e AEAs include provisions to fund visiting Th ompson for its amenities. Th e several new community infrastructure Proponent notes that since the construction facilities and programs that address some of of Wuskwatim, a new extended-stay hotel these issues. Among them are a crisis centre has been built in Th ompson and several and wellness counselling program at FLCN apartment-style suites have been built for and a variety of cultural education programs people staying a week to a month. in all the KCNs. As well, the employee retention contract awarded to FLCN and Housing for operations workers and YFFN includes counselling services for their families will be provided in Gillam workers and their families. by Manitoba Hydro. Upgrades to existing housing stock and planned new developments VEC – Land are already under way in Gillam as part of the Harmonized Gillam Development process. Th e Project site is located on provincial Crown land that will be purchased by the VEC – Infrastructure and Services Proponent. It does not encroach upon any reserve land or Treaty Land Entitlement Increasing demand for health care (TLE) selections. Th e Project is within lands resulting from the Project is a pathway traditionally used by the KCNs and is entirely of possible eff ect on Infrastructure and within the Split Lake Resource Management

105 Area. Th e SLRMA was established by Junction (TCN) and the North Access Road. agreement between the Province of Manitoba and the Split Lake Cree (Tataskweyak Cree Hauling of goods and materials to the Nation) as part of the Northern Flood Project site will lead to increased truck traffi c Agreement Implementation Agreement on PTH 6, leading to Th ompson, and on City for the purposes of integrated land use and of Th ompson streets. Some increased rail resource management. traffi c is likely as it is used to haul goods and materials. Special train cars will be required Operation of the Project will result in for some large items, such as the turbines in an increased demand for land in Gillam to the generating station. accommodate housing for the operating staff . Th e development of new land in Gillam Th e Project will also result in increased air is part of the existing land-use planning in traffi c at the Gillam and Th ompson airports as the community. Approximately 350 acres work crews are fl own to and from the Project of land suitable for development have been area. Both airports are considered to have the identifi ed near Gillam, as well as an additional capacity for increased fl ights. 130 acres near Stephens Lake. Th is would be substantially more than would be needed to Th e Project will result in new accommodate a Project-related increase of transportation infrastructure, which will 120 to 150 in Gillam’s population. reduce the travel time between Th ompson and Gillam. When the Project is completed, PR VEC – Transportation Infrastructure 280 will be rerouted along the North Access Road, across the Nelson River on the dams, Increased road, air and rail transportation and along the South Access Road. When will occur as a result of the movement of this is done, the portion of the existing PR workers, equipment and material during 280 that runs from the North Access Road Keeyask construction. Provincial Road 280 to Long Spruce generating station will no between Th ompson and Gillam has been longer have provincial road status. However, undergoing improvements, including widening this portion of the road provides for a shorter and shaving of curves at 45 locations between drive to Th ompson for FLCN residents in PR 391 and the new Keeyask North Access the community of Bird. Future plans for Road. By the time Keeyask construction begins, maintenance of this portion of the existing PR PR 280 is expected to be able to accommodate 280 are not certain at this time. increased traffi c. Concerns exist that increased traffi c may lead to an increase in collisions and YFFN members have expressed concern in minor damage, such as cracked windshields that fl ooding of the Keeyask reservoir resulting from loose gravel. Manitoba Hydro could aff ect ice and water levels on Split is managing the upgrading of PR280 in Lake, aff ecting the ferry that connects the conjunction with Manitoba Infrastructure community during open-water season or and Transportation and sharing the costs for the winter ice road. Th e Proponent plans to the work. Traffi c between Th ompson and the monitor water and ice levels and Manitoba Project site will be greatest during the fi rst Infrastructure and Transportation will two summers of construction. At this peak monitor ferry landing sites and the winter time, Project activities are expected to result in road. However, the Proponent expects that approximately 62 and 68 additional vehicles per water levels on Split Lake will not be aff ected day using the stretch of road between Split Lake during the open-water season and minor eff ects on ice levels will be felt only during

106 rare (once every 20 years) winters with very territories extend north from their current low water levels. community and include the Keeyask area.

What we Heard – Population, 11.4 Personal, Family and Infrastructure and Services Community Life Th e Panel heard concerns about potential Many of the most sensitive socio- impacts on housing in Th ompson, as well as economic eff ects caused by the Project are in arguments about traditional land use raised the area of Personal, Family and Community by First Nations other than the KCNs. Life. Th is category includes a number of potential impacts on the physical and mental Representatives of the Manitoba Métis health of individuals and communities Federation based in Th ompson spoke about resulting from the direct eff ects of the Project the impact construction of the Wuskwatim or the changes it makes to the natural and Generating Station had on housing in the city. cultural environment in the region. While Wuskwatim also had workers staying in an on-site camp, some workers chose to fi nd VEC – Governance, Goals and Plans accommodation in Th ompson for their time between work shift s. Th e infl ux of workers Participation as equity partners in the meant that there were no vacancies for rental Project has resulted in involvement by all the accommodation in the city and the price of KCNs in extensive consultations, planning rent rose in response. Th e city’s hotels were and negotiations. Th is will continue through also running at capacity at that time, which the construction and operation of the created diffi culties for northern residents Project, as the KCNs manage a wide range of travelling to Th ompson for temporary stays, programs established through the JKDA or such as for health care. the AEAs. Th e JKDA provides funding for the KCNs during construction for participation Representatives of CFLGC spoke about in the Project, including their participation the poor condition of much of their housing on the Keeyask Hydropower Limited and questioned whether Keeyask would result Partnership Board and advisory committees in improvements for FLCN members. established under the JKDA. Th ese groups include an advisory body on employment Representatives of Peguis First Nation and a Construction Advisory Committee. (PFN) discussed their First Nation’s Monitoring of the environmental eff ects of the outstanding Treaty Land Entitlements and Project, overseen by a Monitoring Advisory stated that their TLE agreement allows them Committee (MAC), with representation from to make claims outside their treaty area. each of the KCNs, will be a continuing task Representatives described historic use of the for governance during both construction Nelson River by PFN members and argued and operation of Keeyask. Business decisions for an approach of sharing and mutual regarding the KCNs’ equity stake in the understanding that underpinned the Selkirk Project will be an on-going governance Treaty of 1817 and Treaty One in 1870. responsibility. FLCN is gaining an enhanced role in the community of Gillam, in part as a Representatives of Pimicikamak result of Keeyask, through the Harmonized Okimawin testifi ed that their traditional Gillam Development process, which provides

107 FLCN with a voice in planning of the town. their leaders to govern and plan for their Creation of a Gathering Centre in Gillam, community’s needs. which is being funded through the AEA, will increase FLCN’s presence within Gillam. VEC – Community Health One of the governance goals of the KCNs has been to increase their infl uence over decision Possible community health impacts making within their Resource Management resulting from the Project that were Areas (RMAs). Many of the activities funded considered in the EIS include the eff ects of through the KCNs’ AEAs take place within changes to the water in the Nelson River the RMAs and involve activities such as resulting from construction and creation of stewardship of the land and its resources. the reservoir, the potential for injury resulting from increased traffi c on roads, and a variety What we Heard – Governance, of potential impacts resulting from lifestyle Goals and Plans changes brought about by the Project.

Representatives of CFLGC expressed Impacts on water quality include the concern that the Project is an intrusion increases in turbidity in the river, largely into local First Nations government. It was as a result of in-stream construction of the argued that confi dentiality agreements signed coff erdams, which will be greatest close to the by the KCNs as part of their partnership construction site. Th e Keeyask construction with Manitoba Hydro have had a negative camp will have a separately licensed waste- eff ect on transparency and accountability. water treatment plant, which will discharge Th e Panel heard similar concerns from some effl uent and which will meet provincial Presenters, including two council members waste treatment regulatory guidelines. from KCN communities who said they and Impoundment of water in the reservoir will other community members felt unable to result in the release of naturally occurring speak against the Project. Th e Panel also mercury into the aquatic ecosystem. Th e heard concerns about voting procedures in eff ects of this phenomenon were assessed the referendums on the JKDA and the AEAs. separately in the Mercury and Human Health VEC below.

Commission Comment – Th e Project will increase traffi c on PR Governance, Goals and Plans 280 between Th ompson and the North Access Road, as described under the VEC Th e Panel is aware that there is a range Transportation Infrastructure. As a substantial of opinion in all four KCNs regarding amount of this additional traffi c will include the Keeyask Project. Representatives of large freight-hauling trucks, there will be an the KCNs, and the KCNs’ environmental increase in vehicles passing on this portion assessments, acknowledged the very mixed of road. Th e percentage increase in traffi c on feelings held even by those members who more heavily travelled roads and highways, voted in favour of the JKDA. Th e Panel even such as PTH 6 leading to Th ompson, will be heard these mixed feelings expressed by the much lower. representatives testifying in support of the Project. It is not surprising, then, that some Community health factors related to members of the KCNs feel that involvement lifestyle change include changes in the in the Partnership will aff ect the ability of consumption of country foods, which could

108 be brought about as a result of loss of access information gaps. Th e Proponent’s assessment to resource harvesting areas, disturbance benefi tted from using a broad defi nition of aff ecting the presence of food animals, health and the determinants of health and and concerns of resource harvesters about from consideration of the Cree concept of contaminants, such as mercury. Reduction mino pimitasiwin. It also included many in consumption of country foods could lead potential pathways through which the some residents in the Project area to shift to Project could aff ect community health. less healthy diets of processed foods, which is However, the expert testifi ed that the HIA one of the reasons access to country foods will was lacking in baseline data on community- be the focus of several programs supported level indicators of alcohol and drug use, through the AEAs. injury, food insecurity, sexually transmitted diseases and other health issues. Th e expert Lifestyle changes resulting from the also testifi ed that the HIA did not address Project could also be related to working the possible eff ects of infectious diseases on the Project and having more disposable (such as respiratory diseases, infl uenza, income. While increased personal income is gastrointestinal or food-borne illness) usually desirable, new income can also lead associated with crowded living conditions and to increased spending on alcohol and drugs, work camp settings, and so did not explore with resulting eff ects on health. Th is is an mitigation measures for these health impacts additional concern in communities such as or for the increase in sexually transmitted Bird and TCN, where there is no alcohol diseases that oft en results when a large mobile sold legally but where there is road access to workforce arrives in an area. communities that do have liquor stores and bars. Past resource development in the Project Th e potential impact of the Project on area and throughout North America has consumption of country foods was another shown that this can be an eff ect of the rapid concern. Representatives from the CAC and infusion of work and income. CFLGC were concerned that fears of possible contamination might discourage community Another potential community health members from consuming country foods, eff ect results from interaction with the large including those not aff ected by mercury. population of temporary project workers who As a result, members would lose the health will be attracted to the area. In combination benefi ts of country foods. While the AEAs with the increased disposable income in the are designed to allow community members neighbouring communities themselves, the to hunt, fi sh and gather food in alternative presence of a large number of outsiders has locations, it was argued that the fact that the the potential to further encourage what is programs depend to a large extent on air described as “binge partying.” Th ese impacts transport makes them less likely to provide are considered in more detail in the VEC for a regular source of food, because fi shing, Public Safety and Worker Interaction. hunting or gathering trips will need to be planned in advance. Witnesses also were What we Heard – Community Health concerned that the economic impact of the Project could have an eff ect on community An expert in health impact assessment health if it worsens the amount of inequality retained by the CAC found that, despite in the communities. Communities with substantial improvements over the health greater levels of inequality generally have impact assessment (HIA) used for Bipole lower levels of community health. III, the Keeyask HIA had a number of

109 Th e Panel also heard more than one Th e Proponent sampled the three most witness raise concerns about stress and mental commonly consumed fi sh (pike, walleye health resulting from rapid change. It was and lake whitefi sh) as well as the smaller noted that the Proponent did not consider the fi sh consumed by pike and walleye. More mental health consequences of changes to the than 3,000 fi sh were analyzed for mercury. appearance of the region, the loss of the sound Most of the sampling was done from 2001 of the rapids, and other changes that were to 2006 in the reach of the Nelson River considered under the VEC Aesthetics. from just below Gull Rapids to just below Clark Lake, as well as in Split Lake, Stephens VEC – Mercury and Human Health Lake, Assean Lake, and 12 lakes that will not be aff ected by the Project, where fi shing Mercury is naturally found in soil and will take place through the AEA off setting vegetation and has always been present in very programs. Concentrations of mercury in small amounts in food. Most mercury in the the sampled fi sh were compared to two soil is inorganic, but some is converted into Health Canada standards: a concentration an organic form, methylmercury, as a result of of 0.5 parts per million (ppm), which is activity of bacteria. It is this methylmercury the maximum acceptable concentration in that is consumed by organisms at the bottom commercially sold fi sh, and 0.2 ppm, which is of the food chain. Methylmercury then the recommended maximum concentration accumulates in the fl esh of organisms and for people who consume a large amount of becomes increasingly concentrated higher up fi sh. Analysis of the data shows that mercury the food chain. Th e highest mercury levels levels in the Nelson River are now comparable accumulate in larger, predatory fi sh such as to levels in the fi sh from the AEA off setting pike and walleye, which eat mid-level predatory lakes. Th e average mercury concentration fi sh. Recently fl ooded reservoirs have higher of whitefi sh sampled from the waterbodies levels of mercury than natural lakes because never exceeded the 0.2 ppm guideline for the fl ooding of soil and vegetation causes people who consume large quantities of fi sh. organic material to be consumed by bacteria, Averages for walleye and pike exceeded the which creates methylmercury. Once the easily 0.2 ppm guideline in some years, but were degradable material has been consumed, always below, and in some years substantially bacterial activity declines, and as a result, below, the 0.5 ppm guideline for commercial mercury levels in reservoirs decline gradually sale. Th e Proponent’s research demonstrated toward the natural, background levels. Th e that, as a result of the creation of the Stephens period of elevated mercury in boreal forest Lake reservoir, mercury levels in pike and reservoirs typically lasts two to three decades. walleye initially increased, but have since Th e concentration of mercury in the fl esh of declined to levels found in other waterbodies fi sh in reservoirs is primarily dependent on in the region. Mercury levels in whitefi sh factors that include the amount of fl ooding, increased slightly to approximately 0.2 ppm, the kind of terrain that was fl ooded and the but then also declined. rate of water fl ow through the reservoir. Reservoirs with more fl ooded area, relative Th e Proponent predicts that mercury to total area, will generally have fi sh with concentrations in fi sh as a result of Keeyask higher concentrations of mercury, and fl ooded will peak three to seven years aft er fl ooding wetlands produce higher concentrations of of the reservoir and return to background mercury than fl ooded uplands. levels aft er 20 to 30 years. During this time, mercury concentrations in walleye and pike

110 in Gull Lake are expected to be at or in excess which eat fi sh, are expected, but their tissues of 1.0 part per million (ppm), with maximum will remain low in mercury (increasing from concentrations of 1.3 to 1.4 ppm. Th is is 0.02 to 0.04 ppm). No change is expected to well above the maximum level allowed for game animals such as moose and caribou. commercial sale of fi sh (0.5 ppm) in Canada. Health Canada guidelines call for all people Increased mercury levels in this reach of to avoid eating fi sh with such a concentration the Nelson River as a result of impoundment of mercury. Lake whitefi sh, on the other will not impair the ability of people to drink hand, are lower on the food chain, mostly the water, because levels remain extremely eating benthic invertebrates (such as bottom- low. Mercury levels in the water are forecast dwelling insect larvae, worms, and snails), and to remain within Manitoba’s drinking water do not bioaccumulate mercury to the same guidelines. Likewise, the level of mercury in extent. While their mercury concentration the water will not pose a risk to swimmers. will increase, it is not expected to rise above 0.2 ppm, and so whitefi sh are expected to As a mitigation measure, the KCN AEAs remain safe for all populations to eat with no include off setting programs to support fi shing restrictions. in more remote lakes that are not connected to the Project area. Th e TCN Healthy Food Th e Project will also result in some Fish program, which provides funds for increase in mercury levels in the fi sh in transportation to more remote lakes for Stephens Lake, where average concentrations resource harvesters to catch fi sh, is intended are expected to peak at approximately 0.41 to continue for the life of the Project, even ppm in pike and 0.43 ppm in walleye. At this aft er mercury levels return to present levels. level, women of childbearing age and young Fish in the lakes that will be used during the children would be advised to avoid eating off setting programs have varying amounts of pike and walleye from Stephens Lake, while mercury in their fl esh as a result of natural less vulnerable populations would be advised sources. Based on sampling in the off setting to limit their consumption to one meal per lakes that was carried out in 2005, mercury week. Lake whitefi sh from Stephens Lake concentrations in fi sh from off setting lakes would remain safe for all consumers with no north of the Nelson River, including Pelletier, restrictions, with forecast mercury levels of Recluse, Waskaiowaka, Christie and Caldwell, 0.12 ppm. were comparable to the concentrations in fi sh from Stephens Lake and Gull Lake and Th e Proponent plans to monitor mercury considerably higher than fi sh in Clark Lake or levels in fi sh in the Keeyask reservoir, Split Lake. Th e mean mercury concentration Stephens Lake, Split Lake and the Aiken River. in fi sh caught in Pelletier and Christie Lake If monitoring indicates substantial increases was noticeably higher than in fi sh caught in in mercury levels in Stephens Lake, it will be the Project waterbodies (including Stephens extended further downstream into the Long and Gull Lakes). Spruce forebay. Studies of fi sh movement have indicated that there has been little movement Th e Proponent will carry out a fi sh- of fi sh upstream through Birthday Rapids and consumption survey and human health Long Rapids and into Split Lake. risk assessment every fi ve years once peak mercury levels have been reached aft er Project-related increases in mercury in impoundment of the reservoir. Th e survey aquatic mammals such as otter and mink, and assessment will continue to be carried out

111 until mercury concentrations have stabilized. risk communication measures used by the Th e Proponent will also off er mercury testing Proponent do not result in community of samples of meat submitted by resource members avoiding this important part of their harvesters during the operation period of the diet. Project. Plans for monitoring of mercury levels Clearing the reservoir prior to in wild game, waterfowl and plants were a impoundment – which was not done with the concern for the CFLGC. A representative Kettle reservoir – will reduce the amount of of the group, citing a community-based methylmercury produced through bacterial mercury monitoring program elsewhere, processes. was concerned that participation rates in a voluntary monitoring program could be low. What we Heard – Mercury and Th is witness argued that it would be more Human Health appropriate to use systematic sampling of fi sh, game, waterfowl and plants in the Keeyask An expert witness for the CAC analyzed mercury monitoring program than to rely on the data on mercury in fi sh and on fi sh community members to voluntarily submit consumption contained in the EIS and samples, as is the current plan. compared mercury levels of fi sh in the Keeyask area to those in lakes elsewhere Commission Comment – Mercury in Canada and in retail stores. Th e witness and Human Health expressed the concern that the Human Health Risk Assessment in the EIS overstated the Because of the well-known health risk of mercury and could lead to individuals problems caused by methylmercury, this is avoiding fi sh and thereby missing the valuable a subject that understandably raises fears. nutrients, such as polyunsaturated fatty However, it must be kept in mind that this acids, that they contain. Th e witness reported is not a result of additional mercury being that, under current conditions, the average added to the system, as in the case of point- mercury levels in whitefi sh, walleye and pike source industrial contamination, and the in Gull Lake are substantially lower than the rise in methylmercury is a temporary eff ect average for Canadian lakes and lower than that will occur over a period of two to three the average found in commercial outlets in decades, with mercury levels peaking in three Canada or the U.S. Th e expert noted that to seven years. Th is is important to remember according to the mercury guidelines in the because fear of mercury can have a health Manitoba Recreational Fishing Guidelines, impact of its own. Continued monitoring for if mercury levels in Gull Lake whitefi sh rise mercury will be necessary not just to ensure to their predicted level aft er impoundment, the health of community members but to the general population will still be able to ensure that individuals continue to benefi t eat up to 19 meals per month and women of from a healthy diet. Th e Panel has heard from childbearing age and children will be able to many sources that country foods, including eat up to eight meals per month. Considering fi sh, are both culturally important and an the nutritional benefi ts of eating fish, and important source of nutrients. Uncertainty especially the fact that whitefi sh are better about the health of fi sh from local lakes and sources of polyunsaturated fatty acids and rivers could lead individuals to avoid fi sh are expected to remain at safe mercury that are, in fact, safe to eat. As an alternative, levels, it is particularly important that the they may end up eating less healthy, nutrient-

112 poor processed foods. It is important that Commission believes that monitoring in this monitoring and communication programs forebay will be important to assist in assessing be led by members of the community in how far downstream and for how long order to build credibility and ensure that elevated levels of mercury in fi sh will persist. the message reaches its audience in the most Such monitoring should be done on the same eff ective way. Th ere is already some distrust schedule as sampling in the Keeyask reservoir of Nelson River fi sh in the KCN communities. and Stephens Lake, until it is established that We heard during the hearings and read in the downstream concentrations are not aff ected KCN environmental assessments that many by the Project or have returned to background people today fi nd that fi sh from the Nelson concentrations in the region. River do not taste as good as in the past or have a diff erent texture. People have also said With the fl ow of water through Birthday that the fi sh are less healthy or more likely Rapids changed by the creation of the Keeyask to be deformed. Th ese changes may have led reservoir, it is possible that some fi sh from some people to view the Nelson River with the reservoir that have elevated levels of suspicion. In order to encourage a healthy mercury will move upstream into Split Lake. diet, it is necessary to rebuild trust in the Th e Proponent has committed to monitoring health of the waters. mercury levels in fi sh in Split Lake.

Th e Proponent has proposed a detailed Given the year-to-year natural variability reservoir-clearing plan, which will help in fi sh mercury concentrations, additional to reduce the potential increased levels of pre-fl ood fi sh mercury data would be useful mercury in fi sh, but it is recognized that this to help quantify existing concentrations. Th e will only have a limited mitigating eff ect. Commission therefore believes it would be useful to carry out pre-fl ood monitoring of Existing observations from other boreal fi sh mercury concentrations in more than reservoirs suggest that increased mercury one year. Water column sampling of total concentrations can occur in fi sh downstream mercury and methylmercury is planned in the of the reservoir. Th ese increases may be Keeyask reservoir and in Stephens Lake aft er present along a river until it reaches a large fl ooding. Post-fl ood monitoring of mercury water body, where dilution and natural in the sediments in the Keeyask reservoir processes such as sedimentation and and Stephens Lake and in the water column photochemical degradation reduce levels of downstream to the Limestone forebay would methylmercury. Th e Proponent has suggested also assist in confi rming the predictions based that Stephens Lake will perform some of this on models. function and thereby have some mitigating eff ect. If substantial increases in mercury are observed in Stephens Lake (above 0.5 ppm), Licensing Recommendations the monitoring program will be extended further downstream. Th e Commission would The Commission recommends that: also note that fi sh mercury monitoring is also conducted by Manitoba Conservation 11.2 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership and Water Stewardship and Manitoba carry out mercury monitoring in the Long Spruce and Limestone forebays on the Hydro under the Co-ordinated Aquatic same schedule as for Stephens Lake Monitoring Program at several sites in the and the Keeyask reservoir until it can be region, including the Limestone forebay. Th e determined that there is no effect.

113 11.3 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership is completed. Th e camp will have amenities carry out pre-fl ood monitoring of fi sh including a lounge and recreation centre. mercury in Gull Lake and Stephens Lake Construction workers’ rotations will be until fl ooding. somewhat dependent on the arrangements of the contractor. Under the Burntwood Nelson Agreement, most workers will work 10 to 12 Non-Licensing hours per day and have one day per week off . Recommendation Planned mitigation measures to prevent The Commission recommends that: problems related to interactions between workers and the community include having 11.4 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership recreational amenities at the camp to reduce carry out post-fl ood monitoring of off -site visits, providing mandatory cultural mercury in sediments and in the water training for workers, establishing a camp column in the Keeyask reservoir and committee to oversee rules for appropriate Stephens Lake to inform the effects of camp behaviour, restrictions on unauthorized future projects. visits to the camp and use of company vehicles for personal use, operating a shuttle service VEC – Public Safety and Worker Interaction to transport incoming and outgoing workers to the airports in Gillam and Th ompson, At peak capacity, during portions of establishment of a Worker Interaction 2016-18, the construction work camp on the Committee as part of the Harmonized Gillam north side of the Nelson River at the Keeyask Development initiative, and ongoing liaison site will accommodate approximately 1,600 with the RCMP. workers, mostly from outside the region. As well, during an earlier stage in construction, What we Heard – Public Safety and approximately 100 workers will be housed Worker Interaction at a camp on the south side of the river to build the South Access Road. Members Representatives of CFLGC said the issue of the KCNs, and especially members of of Public Safety and Worker Interaction is FLCN, are concerned about the large infl ux particularly important for the protection of of workers near their home community. First Nations’ women in the Project area. Th ey Th is concern grows out of the history of cited occurrences of harassment, abuse and interactions between FLCN members and sexual assault that occurred at the time of the the large workforce that was brought to the construction of the Kettle and Long Spruce area beginning with the construction of the dams and recommended that steps need to be Kettle dam in the 1960s. FLCN members have taken to prevent abusive actions and a hostile identifi ed harassment, racist comments, sale environment for women. Th e Panel also heard of drugs, violence (including sexual assault), concerns about the potential for the Project to pregnancy and paternal abandonment as aff ect road safety. Community members said consequences of these previous projects. impaired driving and hit-and-run accidents occurred during previous projects in the area. Th e main construction camp will be 208 km by road from Th ompson and 140 km Representatives from the MMF spoke from Gillam, until the new road running about the potential impact of the Project along the top of the dam and powerhouse on public safety in Th ompson, given that

114 contractors may travel through the city and for up to three months at a time. In the case of spend time there before or aft er periods of Keeyask, workers from outside the region will work. Two witnesses from Th ompson spoke be brought by shuttle bus from Th ompson or about the city’s problems with violence and Gillam, and then returned to these locations substance abuse and said that these had been by shuttle for their return home aft er a 21-day fueled by an infl ux of money and workers period of work. Th ese steps and others are during the construction of Wuskwatim. meant to ensure that workers from outside the Th ey noted that Th ompson is the centre for region do not have their own vehicles on site, many activities in northern Manitoba and all so they will have few opportunities to visit any traffi c going to Keeyask and the other major off -site communities. It is expected that only Manitoba Hydro projects in the north must workers from northern Manitoba will have travel through the city. Contractors travelling their own vehicles. to the region may spend time in Th ompson before moving on to the Project sites, they Th at said, it is inevitable that the Project said. Th e witnesses also spoke about the will lead to some increase in visits to Gillam potential for increased discretionary income and Th ompson. Cultural training is a positive in the region to create a larger market for step to encourage responsible and respectful drugs, thereby attracting more gangs. behaviour. Other measures, designed to prevent or punish irresponsible and non- Commission Comment – Public respectful behaviour, may also be required. Safety and Worker Interaction Th e Panel encourages the Proponent to follow through on stated plans for preventing Th e Panel has heard the concerns of KCN worker-interaction problems. Monitoring members, particularly those expressed by of worker interactions will be required FLCN, regarding the issue of Public Safety throughout the construction. and Worker Interaction. Th e “boom town” atmosphere of the 1960s and 1970s is not Panel members noted that there is still healthy for anybody, least of all families in some uncertainty regarding the question of communities overwhelmed by a massive workers having a day off while at the camp. In infl ux of outsiders. However, Keeyask is not many other locations in Canada, workers are Kettle. In the case of Kettle, the dam was built fl own to the work site and work continuously just a few kilometres outside of Gillam. In for a certain number of days before being the case of Keeyask, workers would need to fl own home for their days off . Th is approach drive 140 km on gravel roads to visit Gillam provides the workers themselves with an extra from the main work camp. It is unlikely that day at their homes during the time off and large numbers of workers would opt for such also results in their having no free time in the a long drive, given the limited amenities and project area when they could interact with nightlife Gillam has to off er. Th ompson, 208 the local community or have an impact on km away, would be a more likely destination local resources. Th e Panel understands that for workers with a day off , but would still the intended approach, with a day off at the be a considerable distance. Except for the camp, is in keeping with earlier hydroelectric one day off per week, there will be relatively projects in northern Manitoba, but thinks this little opportunity for workers to go anywhere is a practice worth reconsidering. Th e Panel off site and the camp is intended to have has heard that having a day off during a long recreational facilities for workers. In the case work rotation may be benefi cial for workers of Kettle, workers remained in the project area from the Keeyask area, who would then be

115 able to visit their families more regularly. For is addressed through several provisions in those direct negotiated contracts that will the JKDA. Th e operating conditions agreed employ the largest number of KCN members, to in the JKDA are intended to have no aff ect this arrangement may have value. Overall, the on water levels on Split Lake and may only Panel urges the Proponent to work with its aff ect ice levels in rare (once every 20 years) contractors to ensure that work scheduling low-water years. However, monitoring will has the least impact on the local community. be carried out to determine whether the ferry and ice road to YFFN are aff ected. Existing VEC – Travel, Access and Safety waterways management programs, under the Comprehensive Implementation Agreements Th e VEC Travel, Access and Safety with YFFN and TCN, are intended to keep considers both road travel and water and debris out of the Split Lake. A Waterways ice travel. In assessing road travel, the Management Program will be created under Proponent examined traffi c volumes and the JKDA in which patrols will remove debris collision data from Manitoba Infrastructure in the water. As well, safe ice routes will be and Transportation and the RCMP, as well as maintained and marked along the reservoir. forecasts of traffi c that will be generated by Pre-clearing of vegetation in the reservoir area workers and the transportation of materials will be carried out to decrease the problem of and equipment. Project-related travel will fl ooded vegetation rising to the surface. result in noticeable traffi c increases along PR 280 between Th ompson and the Project site. What we Heard – Travel, Access and Freight transport is expected to be the most Safety signifi cant concern for existing users of the road, both regarding traffi c safety and the Representatives of Pimicikamak eff ect of the trucks on road conditions. Th e Okimawin spoke about the impact of hydro KCNs have expressed concerns about dust, development on water and ice travel in their loose rock and safety along PR 280 in the past. community as a result of fl uctuating water Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation levels and erosion. Fluctuating water levels has carried out a program of improvements and debris have damaged many boats and to PR 280, including widening and shaving motors. Winter travel has been aff ected by corners to make them less sharp. fl uctuating water levels, which cause the ice to crack and allow water to come to the surface Th e Project will aff ect water and ice travel and create slush, resulting in ice roads covered in the Gull Lake area by blocking access to in water or snowmobiles stuck in slush. some areas during the construction period. It has the potential to aff ect water and ice Commission Comment – Travel, travel as a result of shoreline erosion, which Access and Safety will cause debris and fl oating peat to get into the water, and the daily fl uctuations of Th e Panel is aware that community water levels in winter as a result of operating members are concerned about traffi c, and the powerhouse in the peaking mode. By remember past impacts that included reducing the velocity of the river fl ow between impaired driving, hit-and-run accidents the generating station and Long Rapids, and road fatalities. Measures mentioned creation of the reservoir may also create previously in the discussion of the VEC Public safer boating conditions and a smoother ice Safety and Worker Interaction (including surface for winter travel. Water and ice travel liaison with RCMP and a variety of policies

116 to reduce driving by workers) are intended to Th e KCNs described aspects of the Cree reduce the risks associated with road travel. worldview, including the close spiritual Th e Proponent should monitor the number of connection to all aspects of Aski/Askiy, in workers coming to the site in private vehicles. their environmental assessments. Th ose If the number proves to be signifi cant, it may individuals who work on the Project may be necessary to take additional steps to reduce feel a confl ict between their worldview and the use of private vehicles. non-Aboriginal worldviews. Changes in the landscape may alter or remove parts of the Th e narrow one-metre fl uctuation in cultural landscape or decrease understanding water levels on the Keeyask reservoir will of the spiritual connection to the landscape. prevent some of the extremes of erosion and Th e involvement of the KCNs as partners in slush ice that have occurred in areas with project planning, assessment and monitoring, greater reservoir fl uctuation. As with road plus ongoing ceremonies during construction, transportation, a continuing monitoring are intended to mitigate these impacts. program relying on the experiences and observations of the KCN communities will As English will be the working language help to ensure that adverse eff ects are quickly on the Project, individuals who work on identifi ed and mitigated. Keeyask may have reduced opportunities to speak the Cree language. As well, loss of some specifi c places with Cree-language names may Licensing Recommendation have an impact on language and culture. Cree language programs identifi ed in the AEAs, The Commission recommends that: ceremonies conducted in the Cree language, and cultural centres funded through the AEAs 11.5 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership are intended to mitigate the impact of an monitor the number of workers coming infl ux of English language into the region. to the site in private vehicles, and if the number proves to be signifi cant and of Rapid change to the environment, concern, take steps to reduce the number including the clearing and fl ooding of the of private vehicles on site. reservoir, may accelerate a process of loss of traditional knowledge. Again, involvement VEC – Culture and Spirituality of the KCNs as partners in the planning, assessment and monitoring of the Project is Nine cultural indicators were selected to intended as mitigation for this eff ect. ATK facilitate the description and analysis of eff ects monitoring programs are intended to provide of the Project on culture and spirituality: opportunities for elders, resource users worldview, language, traditional knowledge, and youth to visit sites and participate in cultural practices, health and wellness, monitoring using traditional knowledge. kinship, leisure, law and order, and cultural products. Potential impacts on these nine Cultural practices will be aff ected by cultural indicators can come from working on changes to the physical environment and loss the Project, the Project’s impact on activities of access to some places where individuals such as resource use, or other factors. A have gathered medicinal and edible variety of mitigation measures, especially plants or harvested animals and fi sh. Th e those outlined in the AEAs, address these immediate Project area will not be accessible potential impacts. during construction and much of it will be permanently altered. Traditional camping

117 locations will be lost to fl ooding or erosion. performances and practices of a culture, Th e AEA off setting programs are intended rather than just the physical artifacts. Th ey to provide access to alternative locations for argued that the Proponent’s assessment of these practices. the eff ects of the Project on culture – and the mitigation measures designed to mitigate Health and wellness could be aff ected both these eff ects – stressed material artifacts and by loss of traditional resources (including archaeological sites, rather than intangible medicinal and edible plants and country food heritage. Th e Panel heard a discussion of resources) in the Project area and by stress international eff orts by the United Nations resulting from the destruction of Aski/Askiy. Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to recognize and Kinship could be aff ected by long absences protect these cultural resources around the of family members working on the Project. world. Intangible cultural resources of the Monitoring of eff ects during the construction nearby communities could be aff ected by the of Wuskwatim determined that some Project through the shift from a hunting/ Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation families felt fi shing/gathering economy to an industrial negative impacts from members being away one or by the loss of stories and language on the job site for long periods of time. associated with particular areas, such as the fl ooded area of the Nelson River. Th ere was Working on cultural products may be also a concern about the cultural eff ect of the aff ected both by changes to the environment loss of specifi c landscape features, such as that reduce the availability of materials and historically and spiritually signifi cant boulders by Project employment, which will result in along the Nelson River. people not having enough time to work on traditional cultural products. Individuals will Th e role of the AEAs in supporting Cree be able to collect materials for creation of language and culture was also a subject of cultural products from the off setting areas. some discussion. Th e Panel heard from a group of Fox Lake youth who had recently Counselling at the Project site through the taken part in a cultural education program Employee Retention and Support program in which they travelled to a distant trout- will be intended to help workers and their fi shing camp and learned a number of families adjust to many of these cultural traditional skills. Although representatives of stressors. Cross-cultural training for all CFLGC said such programs had value, they Keeyask operation staff will also be held to were concerned about continued support mitigate cultural confl icts. A video of Gull for them in the future and the fact that such Rapids and the Nelson River upstream to educational experiences may require a long Clark Lake will be created and shown at a journey from the more heavily developed visitor space at the generating station so that environment near FLCN. individuals and communities can pay their respects to Aski/Askiy. A witness for the KK elders group spoke of Cree customary law and the principle of What we Heard – Culture and Kwayaskonikiwin (reconciliation.) One of Spirituality the ways of applying this principle to the Wuskwatim project, on which Manitoba Representatives of CFLGC spoke at Hydro is partnered with NCN, is to ensure length about the concept of “intangible that ceremonies are performed to seek cultural resources” which include the stories,

118 guidance, demonstrate respect, restore Th e Panel heard that place names are harmony, reverse the potential for misfortune an important part of the transmission of and achieve balance. Members of KK also knowledge and culture and that resource spoke of the need for a similar approach to users in a particular area may have their heritage resources to that employed on the own names that they have given to an Wuskwatim Project. island, a water body or another feature. Th e Proponent acknowledged the importance of Several witnesses raised the concern that place names when citing the fact that naming the Proponent addresses many traditional the Project Keeyask, rather than using the activities, such as trapping, as economic English words Gull Rapids, was a signifi cant activities that can be compensated for sign of the relationship between the fi nancially. But such activities have a great partners. Accordingly, an additional step to cultural value that cannot be replaced, it was acknowledge the culture of the communities argued. where the Project is being built would be to bring back the original names or develop Representatives for one of the KCNs Cree names for other features, following responded to concerns about the loss of consultation and agreement with the First traditional activity resulting from Project Nations. employment by stating that KCN members do not see culture and economy as an either/or Th e Panel also considers it a positive step choice. Th ey may wish to be both hunters and that the Proponent has indicated that it is lawyers, tradespeople and trappers. working to develop a similar heritage resource plan to that described by the representatives Commission Comment – Culture and of the KK elders group. Spirituality VEC – Aesthetics Th e Panel considers that the Proponent has demonstrated signifi cant will to reduce Aesthetic eff ects of the Project include the impact of the project on culture and the excavation of borrow pits and quarries, spirituality. Development of the three KCN building of the South Access Road, the environmental assessments, created by the elimination of Gull Rapids and the adjacent communities themselves, allowed members islands, fl ooding of 4,500 hectares of land to express their thoughts on the Project in upstream of the dam, the change from terms of their own culture and worldview. a riverine environment to a reservoir Th e AEAs that were negotiated by the environment, and ongoing shoreline erosion. KCNs contain a large number of programs In the long run, the Keeyask reservoir is addressing cultural issues, including language expected to be an aesthetically similar programs, programs for young people to environment to Stephens Lake. learn traditional skills, centres for ceremonies and the protection or display of artifacts A park or rest area with boat launches discovered during Project construction. upstream and downstream of the Ultimately, the vote to approve the JKDA and generating station is planned, along with a the AEAs must be taken to mean that the commemorative plaque or memorial. Th e cultural aspirations of the KCNs are that they KCNs plan ceremonies in order to help can maintain their culture while participating members cope with feelings brought about in the Project. by the changes to the look (and sound)

119 of the environment. Th e Proponent has scars on the landscape. Such a step would go committed to reclaiming new borrow pits a small distance toward making up for some and disturbances created for Keeyask. Details of the additional disturbance to be caused by concerning reclamation of disturbed areas are roads, transmission lines, construction and included in the JKDA. fl ooding at Keeyask. Given that the long- term plans of Manitoba Hydro call for the Commission Comment – Aesthetics development of the Conawapa dam, acting now to remove additional impacts on the Consideration of the appearance of the landscape would be proactive. land is a serious matter, especially for people who live in the region and whose individual, family and community identity is intimately 11.5 Domestic Resource Use tied to the land. Panel members who visited VECs assessed in the area of Domestic the Keeyask site at the beginning of the public Resource Use were domestic fi shing and hearings were struck by the power and beauty domestic hunting and gathering. Commercial of the rapids, and so the Panel is sympathetic fi shing was assessed above under Resource to the argument that losing the physical Economy, as was trapping. appearance of this area will have a powerful impact on individuals and communities. Th e Much of the resource harvesting by KCN Panel has heard concerns about the loss of members takes place within their Resource clear water, the scarring caused by erosion of Management Areas, areas established riverbanks, and unsightly piles of dead trees through the Northern Flood Agreement and other vegetation. Th e Panel has also heard Implementation Agreements or through of, and in some cases witnessed, the long- FLCN’s 2004 Impact Settlement Agreement. lasting scars caused by the creation of borrow Th ese agreements between the First pits and quarries. Although the Proponent Nations, Manitoba Hydro and the Province has committed to rehabilitating new borrow of Manitoba establish the RMAs for the pits and quarries when they are no longer purposes of integrated land-use and resource needed, in northern Manitoba regeneration management. Th ey are managed by boards of a disturbed site will take many years and with equal representation from the Province so these scars will remain on the land for of Manitoba and the First Nation. Th e boards’ some time. Th ese scars on the landscape have powers include assessing the resources a regional impact, given that there remain in the area, monitoring their use, making disturbed sites from past developments and management plans, holding public meetings that future developments will also require a and identifying measures, including quotas variety of disturbances. It will be important and limits, to manage resources. Figure 11.2 that there be co-ordination and co-operation shows the location of each of the RMAs. between Keeyask and future projects, including Keeyask Transmission, to reduce VEC – Domestic Fishing disturbances and to re-use or re-cycle as much as possible. Eff ects on domestic fi shing will be caused by changes to navigation on and While nothing can replace the lost access to fi shing areas, changes to the fi sh Gull Rapids, it would be a step in the right resources resulting from the disturbance direction if Manitoba Hydro were to restore to the environment, potentially increased some of the earlier borrow pits that remain as competition for fi sh resulting from the

120 Fig. 11.2 Resource Management Areas in the Lower Nelson River Region (Courtesy of KHLP.)

presence of a large workforce, increasing As discussed in Chapter Ten, the Project participation in the wage economy resulting will change habitat for the fi sh species that use in reduced domestic fi shing activity, and the reach of the Nelson River from Stephens shift ing patterns of resource use due to the Lake to Split Lake. Th e Proponent will seek off setting programs facilitating harvest in to replace existing spawning habitat in Gull other lakes. Rapids that will be lost, as well as young of the year sturgeon habitat in Gull Lake, and will Some areas near the site will not stock sturgeon in an eff ort to support a self- have access for domestic fi shing during sustaining population. As discussed under the construction. At this time as well, the river’s VEC Mercury and Human Health, domestic fl ow will change as coff erdams are built and fi shing for pike and walleye in the Keeyask the river is redirected. Later, when the dam reservoir will be aff ected for at least 20 to 30 is completed and the reservoir is fl ooded, years following impoundment of the reservoir. navigation on the new reservoir will be diff erent. New boat launch areas will be Th e presence of a large workforce at created to provide access up and downstream Keeyask may cause increased competition of the dam. Th e existence of the ice boom for resources. However, only about one per will allow a stable ice cover to form earlier in cent of construction workers fi shed during the winter on the reservoir, although it will construction of Wuskwatim. Angling from form with frazil ice that is diffi cult to travel shore will be permitted, but the Access on. As a mitigation measure, the Waterways Management Plan will not permit workers Management Program will install and monitor to bring boats to the site. As well, workers safe ice trails. Th e Waterways Management without access to vehicles will be limited in Program will operate boat patrols in summer their ability to fi sh off site. Since workers to remove debris that could form a navigation in the camp have no place to store any fi sh hazard. Two boat crews and one ice-trail crew they catch from shore, this fi shing will be will work on these programs. essentially catch and release, except for the occasional shore lunch. During operations,

121 the increased population forecast for Gillam the wage economy reducing the amount of may increase competition for fi sh resources at time people have for hunting and gathering, various popular locations in the region. shift ing patterns of resource use as a result of the AEAs, the loss of habitat resulting Participation in the wage economy may from fl ooding of 4,500 hectares of land, and reduce the amount of domestic fi shing by the expected long-term increase in Gillam’s KCN members. On the other hand, Project population leading to increased competition. workers may be able to aff ord new boats and No gathering activity was documented within other fi shing gear. the immediate area of the Project, except on Lillian Island, which will be fl ooded by the Th e AEA off setting programs will shift reservoir. fi shing and hunting pressures to other areas throughout the region. Th e AEAs identify For safety reasons and to prevent several lakes both north and south of the increased harvesting, construction workers Nelson River for alternative use. Terms will not be allowed to bring fi rearms or of the AEAs vary, but include support for recreational vehicles to the site. transportation and equipment to facilitate use of areas other than the Nelson River. A Cree Nation Partners (TCN and study of comparative abundance of fi sh in WLFN) have developed a Moose Harvest the Keeyask area showed that fi sh abundance Sustainability Plan, to assist them in in the off setting lakes varies, but is generally managing the moose population and harvest higher than in Gull Lake, Stephens Lake or in the future. Th e objectives of the Plan are to Split Lake. Using a measure called “catch per ensure that CNP members continue to have unit of eff ort” (CPUE), which indicates the meaningful opportunities to hunt moose for number of fi sh that could be caught with a food, to manage the opportunities for CNP standard length of gill net over a specifi ed members to hunt moose provided through time, the Proponent determined that Gull, the AEAs, and to contribute to the long-term Stephens and Split Lakes have CPUE ratings sustainability of moose in the SLRMA. of 24.8, 23.5 and 35, respectively. Th e two most productive of the off setting lakes had CPUE scores over 100. Th e Proponent plans What we Heard – Domestic to monitor the sustainability of the fi shery in Resource Use these off setting lakes. Th e Panel heard testimony concerning domestic resource use by non-KCN VEC – Domestic Hunting and Gathering Aboriginal people in the Keeyask area, as well Impacts on domestic hunting and as concerns about the potential for resource- gathering may be felt through noise and use confl icts arising out of the AEA off setting dust and other disturbances caused by programs. construction, limits to hunting in the construction area and near the access A traditional use study, carried out by roads, changes in access and navigation on the MMF, showed both hunting and plant waterways near the Project, disturbances that gathering carried out by Métis in the Keeyask may reduce the availability of wildlife, the study area. Th e 35 respondents who took part presence of a large construction workforce in the study indicated plant gathering along causing increased competition, increases in PR 280 from Th ompson to Stephens Lake. Th e most frequently cited areas of moose

122 hunting by Métis indicated in the study visit their trapping areas for other resource were in the Th ompson and Thicket Portage harvesting. Shamattawa representatives areas, although pockets of moose hunting referred to an annual spring goose hunt that were identifi ed near Stephens Lake. Caribou takes place at Kaska, within the area that hunting by Métis was indicated close to the could be aff ected by the York Factory AEA. Keeyask site on the south side of the Nelson Th ey also stated that they believe hunting River and near Split Lake and Stephens Lake has already increased along the Shamattawa adjacent to PR 280. Upland bird harvest was winter road. indicated in the study along PR 280 from Th ompson to Stephens Lake. Th e study Th e Panel also heard a presentation also demonstrated that food fi shing was from several members of a family that has concentrated in the area around Th ompson traditionally hunted and fi shed at Gull Lake and Th icket Portage and extended along the and trapped on Trapline 15. Th e family Nelson River to the Kelsey Dam. members described their connection to the land and water, through harvesting of Representatives of PFN testifi ed that resources, recreation, and family history, and their members have traditionally travelled to said that the Keeyask Project will aff ect them northern Manitoba to take part in resource physically, mentally, socially and spiritually. harvesting. Th ey presented a map, based Financial compensation for eff ects on the on interviews with members, that indicated trapline will not make up for these other some resource use along the Nelson River eff ects, they said. Th ey said they had had between Stephens Lake and Split Lake, and a discussions about the Proponent fi nding larger amount of resource use near Split Lake them another trapline, but that would never and Assean Lake. Th e map also indicated replace their family’s long connection with the some resource use by PFN members along trapline at Gull Lake. some of the lakes that will be aff ected by the AEA off setting programs. Th e same map also indicated broadly dispersed traditional uses by Commission Comment – PFN members throughout northern Manitoba. Domestic Resource Use Th e survey on which the map was based indicated that one individual from among Th e Panel agrees that the Project will have those surveyed had travelled on Gull Lake. impacts on domestic resource use through increased access to some areas for resource A delegation of speakers from Shamattawa users, increased disturbance, and the creation First Nation raised the concern that YFFN’s of the reservoir, which will aff ect fi shing on Resource Access and Use Program, one of this reach of the Nelson River for at least 20 the AEA off setting programs, could create to 30 years and fl ood an initial 4,500 hectares confl ict with Shamattawa resource users. This of land. It appears, however, that the most program will fund YFFN members to travel directly aff ected portions of the Nelson River to the York Factory Resource Management are currently not heavily used for domestic Area, located along the Hudson Bay shore fi shing. around the mouth of Hayes River and further east toward the Ontario border, for resource Th e Panel heard that there is some other harvesting. YFRMA overlaps a number of use of the Project area by other groups, registered traplines used by Shamattawa including Métis people and members of PFN. members and many of these individuals Th e Panel is also aware that a more detailed Métis traditional use study is intended to be

123 submitted to the Proponent in the spring of members. Th e AEAs are fl exible enough to be 2014. While indications so far are that neither able to adapt to future changes in community of these groups makes a substantial amount needs. Th ey are described in greater detail in of use of the directly aff ected area, it will be Chapter Six. necessary for monitoring and management of the Keeyask Project to be aware of use by It is not the Commission’s intent to pass non-KCN members. As well, even if there judgment on these agreements. Given how are relatively few non-KCN resource users they came into existence and the fact they hunting, fi shing or gathering in the Keeyask were supported by community members area, for those individuals this loss of resource- through a formal process, this would be use opportunities in this area may be an beyond our mandate. important impact. Th e Panel has also heard the concerns of Shamattawa First Nation regarding Th roughout its presentations in the resource use on traplines of Shamattawa hearings, the Proponent oft en noted that members located within the York Factory specifi c adverse eff ects would be addressed, Resource Management Area. Again, it will be moderated, off set or, even, resolved through necessary to monitor this situation carefully. the AEAs. Despite this stated importance, the agreements received little attention from Offsetting Programs other parties to the hearings. However, as the hearings progressed, it became clear to the One of the largest impacts on domestic Panel that some elements of these agreements resource use resulting from the Project is an would result in environmental eff ects and indirect eff ect: the creation of the off setting that these would be eff ects that arise out of programs through the Adverse Eff ects the Project. Th ese eff ects do fall under the Agreements (AEAs). mandate of the Commission.

Th e AEAs are agreements signed between Th e Commission sees the potential for Manitoba Hydro and each of the four KCNs some concern with the Access programs, to mitigate any adverse eff ects caused by the designed to provide KCN members with Project in their territories. Th ese agreements substitute opportunities to hunt, fi sh and arose out of the JKDA and preceded the trap for food in their respective Resource completion of the environmental assessment. Management Areas. Th e specifi c concern Like the JKDA, the AEAs were subject to is with the ongoing management of the approval by referendum in the respective resources in the areas where these substitute communities. opportunities will occur.

Th e AEAs are intended to benefi t the Th ese off setting programs have the future socio-economic and cultural well-being potential to impact an area in the vicinity of of the communities. Among other things, the Keeyask by spreading harvest to a number of AEAs will: provide substitute opportunities other lakes and hunting areas. Th ere may be for members of the KCNs to conduct a requirement for increased access through domestic resource use in areas unaff ected the creation or improvement of portages and by the Keeyask Generation Project; increase trails. Th ese programs may be in place for a opportunities to practise traditional pursuits very long time because they are not tied to on the land; and increase the availability any end date. Given that the amount of fi sh of healthy country foods to community and other resources that could be harvested

124 through these programs may be substantial • In each of the four agreements, one article (the TCN program specifi es up to 62,000 grants the First Nation “sole responsibility kg of fi sh per year), it will be necessary to for the management, implementation and monitor these programs and to consider the operation of each Off setting Program .....” sustainability of these resources. (emphasis added)

Th e use of air travel to remote lakes • Each agreement commits the First and harvesting areas used in the off setting Nation “to seek input from the Resource programs presents less of a potential adverse Management Board and to provide eff ect than increasing surface access. Creating Annual Program Reports to the Resource new roads or trails allows other users to Management Board with respect to the access areas and may also create a pathway management and administration of for invasive species. Where road or trail Off setting Programs that involve resource access has been created or improved through management, resource harvesting and the off setting programs, monitoring will be resource use activities ....” Th e nature and needed to determine to what extent this new extent of “input” has not been defi ned. access is used by other harvesters. • Each agreement contains a commitment Th e Commission notes that the Proponent to monitoring, including requirements did state that “off setting programs will relevant to adverse eff ects. It is left to be operated in a manner that conserves Manitoba Hydro and the First Nation to resources, considers safety of participants determine the nature, scope and duration and others, and is respectful to other resource of monitoring of adverse eff ects. In this users.” regard, dispute resolution is left to an independent arbitrator. Th e responsibility for resource management in the RMAs is set out in the As noted above, these agreements were NFA Implementation Agreements and subjected to very little scrutiny during the Fox Lake Cree Nation’s Impact Settlement hearings. Th erefore, a full understanding Agreement. Th ese provide for resource of the intent of the agreement is not on the management to be the responsibility of record and the Panel can only make the Resource Management Boards, comprised of following observations: equal numbers of provincial and First Nation representatives. • If there is a signifi cant uptake in participating in these off setting resource- It is not readily apparent how the RMBs use opportunities, it is possible there could were involved in the discussions/negotiations be adverse eff ects on the sustainability that led to the off setting programs, nor how of certain species and populations, in the Province directly, or indirectly through particular fi sh, moose and, perhaps, caribou. the RMBs, was advised of these intentions. Th e Province has the ultimate responsibility to • Th e Province of Manitoba must fulfi ll manage Manitoba’s resources. its obligations in managing Manitoba’s resources. Th is may be as simple as In considering this matter, the continuing to play an active role on Commission notes: the existing RMBs and the off setting programs being addressed as part of the

125 RMB responsibilities. Th is would involve limit eff ects on tourist operations, the First Nation, the RMB and Manitoba and minimize eff ects on the natural Conservation and Water Stewardship environment. working co-operatively in managing the resources. • KCNs report to the RMBs annually on road/trail construction, harvest from the Th e monitoring commitment in off setting lakes, harvest of large mammals, the agreements appears to exclude any access by other parties, confl icts between involvement of the Province of Manitoba. user groups, and the overall success of the Th ere is a possibility that these commitments off setting programs. may override such conditions that might be contained in the regulatory licence. Licensing Recommendation Th e Commission’s intent is to ensure that the resources in the region remain sustainable, The Commission recommends that: that Keeyask Project eff ects are fully considered, and that suffi cient and appropriate 11.6 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, oversight is provided to accomplish that goal. for the life of the Project, monitor and report to Manitoba Conservation and To that end, the Commission makes the Water Stewardship on the effects of the following suggestions to help minimize any offsetting programs on: negative impacts: • fi sh populations in lakes used in the offsetting programs; • Th e KCNs, as much as possible, consider the use of air travel rather than the • moose and caribou populations in creation of new roads or trails for the areas that fall under the offsetting off setting programs. programs; and

• Should roads or trails be developed, • any other impacts on local resources careful planning and site selection be as a result of offsetting programs. used to limit the potential for others to use these access points. Th is includes consideration of access controls. 11.6 Heritage Resources Heritage Resources was a single VEC in • Should roads or trails be developed as part the EIS. Th e eff ect of the Project on heritage of the off setting programs, a monitoring resources was assessed using three study program be put in place to assess use by areas: a Core Study Area, a Local Study Area non-KCN members. and a Regional Study Area. Th e Core Study • KCNs, RMBs, and Manitoba Conservation Area is the area of the Project Footprint, plus and Water Stewardship work together a buff er zone, including the North and South on licences and permits associated with Access Roads, the main construction sites, the off setting programs, including those the reservoir area and the Nelson River from required for the cabins, docks, ice houses, Gull Rapids to Clark Lake. Th e Local Study and storage sheds. Th ese facilities should Area includes the Core Study Area, as well as be located so that they do not assist an area north to PR 280 (plus a small portion non-KCN members to exploit resources, north of PR 280) and south to include the

126 area around War and Fox Lakes, and east the Core Study Area. Ten will be aff ected to the Kettle dam. Th e Regional Study Area during construction by creation of borrow extended east to include the Long Spruce dam areas and construction of Project facilities. and west to a point approximately mid-way Th ese include campsites, tool-making sites between Split Lake and Th ompson. Th e Core and one burial site. All but one of these date Study Area is where the majority of the eff ects to pre-European contact times. Most of the of the Project on heritage resources will be heritage resources that will be aff ected by the felt. Heritage resources within the Core Study fl ooding of the reservoir are along Gull Lake, Area will be permanently lost due to fl ooding although some are further upstream on the of the reservoir. Nelson River or on creeks fl owing into the Nelson River. Th ese include a large number of Archaeological fi eld investigations for the campsites and tool-making sites, in addition Project were carried out between 2001 and to two portages and three burial sites. Of the 2010. Work was carried out by the Project sites that have been dated to a specifi c period, consultants, working with members of the three within the Core Study Area have been KCNs, and as well through archaeological dated to the Archaic period (2,000 to 6,000 programs established in TCN, WLFN and years ago). One of the sites on Gull Lake FLCN that involved elders and youth. In total, contained human remains dated to 4,300 research carried out for the Project identifi ed years ago. 114 new archaeological sites, bringing the total in the Regional Study Area to 176 KCN members have expressed concern heritage resource sites located throughout that any eff ect on water and ice levels on Clark the Core, Local and Regional Study Areas. Lake could harm heritage resources, such as A total of more than 30,000 artifacts were campsites, located close to the water. Ongoing recovered during fi eld investigations related shoreline monitoring is planned to determine to the Project, including items from the pre- if any heritage resources have been disturbed European contact period, including fi sh and by water level changes. During operation animal bones, stone tools, stone fl akes and of the Project, the Waterways Management pre-contact ceramics. A smaller number of Program, which will patrol the reservoir to artifacts were found from the post-contact clear debris, will provide support services for period, including nails, ammunition, buttons, periodic shoreline surveys. glass and post-contact ceramics. Th e largest portion of the artifacts included animal bones, As part of TCN’s AEA, display and providing an understanding of the diet of past interpretation of heritage resources found inhabitants of the area. within the areas will be part of the Keeyask Cultural Centre Museum and Oral Histories At the time of the hearings, artifacts program. A cemetery and memorial that had been discovered were being stored, marker will be developed for any human pending being turned over to the Manitoba remains found in the core study area during Historic Resources Branch, with plans for construction or impoundment. their repatriation to TCN for eventual storage and display at the Keeyask Centre museum. As part of the Environmental Protection Program, a Heritage Resource Protection Construction of the Project and fl ooding Plan, draft ed with core Cree concepts and of the reservoir will result in the loss of 67 of Th e Manitoba Heritage Resources Act as the these heritage resource sites located within foundation, will provide measures to be

127 employed in the event that heritage resources or human remains are discovered during construction or operation of the Project. Development of a plan similar to that employed for construction of the Wuskwatim Generating Station is currently underway.

Commission Comment – Heritage Resources Th e Commission believes that the very substantial involvement of the KCNs in the Project has gone a long way to mitigating impacts to heritage resources. Th e Commission believes that the development of a Heritage Resources Protection Plan that integrates core concepts of the Cree worldview with Th e Manitoba Heritage Resources Act was a positive step.

128 Chapter Twelve Cumulative Effects

12.1 Overview present and future projects could be said to make the transition from low magnitude to Th e Proponent’s EIS employed an moderate or high magnitude. approach to cumulative eff ects assessment (CEA) in which eff ects of past, present and Only VECs that were expected to have future projects on each valued environmental a residual negative impact from the Project component (VEC) were assessed within the were assessed for cumulative eff ects. As VECs discussion of that VEC. Th e past, present and related to the economy (such as employment future projects considered were not the same and business opportunities) were assessed for every VEC. Th is is because the spatial to have a positive eff ect from the Project, boundaries of the study areas varied from they were not considered in the cumulative one VEC to another. Six diff erent study areas eff ects assessment. Resource use VECs such were used in assessing aquatic and terrestrial as domestic hunting and gathering, domestic eff ects. Two additional study areas were used fi shing and commercial trapping were in assessing most socio-economic eff ects. considered to have a neutral eff ect from the Th ree diff erent study areas were used in Project as a result of mitigation measures and assessing eff ects on heritage resources. the Adverse Eff ects Agreements (AEAs), and so they were not given a cumulative eff ects Generally speaking, the spatial boundary assessment either. for the study areas was described as the point at which the eff ects of the Keeyask Project For many terrestrial environment VECs, would be no longer discernible. In practice, the Regional Study Area for the assessment this meant that study areas were smaller for of cumulative eff ects was Zone 5. Th e eastern aquatic and terrestrial VECs with a very boundary for Study Zones 5 and 6 (the localized range, and larger for VECs, such Regional Study Area used for caribou) was the as caribou, that travel farther. For socio- boundary between two distinct ecoregions: economic eff ects, the boundaries were larger the Hayes River Upland to the west and the still, because impacts such as job creation and Hudson Bay Lowland to the east. As this eastern increased traffi c could be felt over a much boundary was near the Long Spruce Generating larger region of northern Manitoba. Station, several past and future impacts were not within the Regional Study Area. Some Th e Proponent established a variety of projects outside the Regional Study Area would benchmarks for some VECs to indicate at have impacts that would be assessed within which point the cumulative impacts of past, the Regional Study Area. For example, the

129 Fig. 12.1 Keeyask Generation Project Study Areas, plus Existing Areas, 12.1 Keeyask and ProposedFig. (Courtesy Generation Projects. Study Project KHLP.) of

130 Keewatinoow Converter Station (part of the water quality on Split, Clark and Gull Lake Bipole III Transmission Project) is outside the and the Nelson River since the beginning Regional Study Area, but the cumulative eff ects of hydro development. Results of technical assessment considered that construction of analyses of water quality vary, but in the Keewatinoow will generate traffi c on PR 280 CEA it is stated that, by the 1990s, conditions within the study area (Figure 12.1). in Split Lake appeared to have stabilized. Currently, water in the river and lake 12.1.1 Past and Current Projects sections of the Nelson River is described as Considered in the Keeyask CEA moderately nutrient rich and well oxygenated. Construction of Keeyask will result in • Churchill River Diversion (CRD), Lake increases in nutrient concentrations near Winnipeg Regulation (LWR), Jenpeg, the outlet of the construction camp sewage Kelsey, Kettle, Long Spruce, Limestone, treatment plant and more widespread Wuskwatim, Kelsey re-runnering, Keeyask increases in total suspended solids (TSS) Infrastructure Project during times of in-stream construction work. Following construction, sheltered • Transmission lines, rail lines, highways, backbays in the reservoir will experience including upgrading of PR 280 elevated TSS and nutrient levels and, on occasion, depletion of dissolved oxygen. • Mining and mineral exploration, Th ese eff ects are expected to diminish aft er commercial forestry, commercial fi shing 10-15 years. Most future projects in the area (Bipole III, Gillam Redevelopment, Keeyask 12.1.2 Future Projects Considered Transmission) are land-based and are not in the Keeyask CEA expected to have an impact on water, so they do not overlap the eff ects of Keeyask on water • Bipole III Transmission Project (including quality. Th ere is the potential for overlap with Keewatinoow Converter Station and other Conawapa construction, as the increase in facilities) TSS will extend downstream to the Conawapa site. Th is eff ect (less than fi ve mg per litre) • Keeyask Transmission Project (which is predicted to have no measurable harmful includes three new transmission lines eff ect on aquatic life. running from the Keeyask generating station to the Radisson Converter Station 12.2.2 Fish near Gillam) KCN members have reported declines • Gillam Redevelopment in the number of fi sh, changes in species composition and reduction in quality of fi sh • Conawapa Generation Project from the Nelson River since the beginning of hydro development. Technical studies have 12.2 Cumulative Effects found that walleye, pike and lake whitefi sh are found in comparable numbers in Split, Gull Assessment and Stephens Lakes to many off -system lakes. Construction of the Keeyask Generation 12.2.1 Water Quality Project will eliminate or negatively impact Th e CEA notes that the Keeyask Cree spawning habitat for lake whitefi sh and Nations (KCNs) have observed a decline in walleye at Gull Rapids, but spawning habitat

131 will be replaced with newly constructed 12.2.3 Habitat, Ecosystems and spawning shoals. During operation, walleye Plants populations are expected to increase due to an increase in foraging habitat in the Keeyask Th e Proponent stated that the physical reservoir. Pike will lose foraging habitat footprints of past and existing projects have initially due to the fl ooding of the reservoir. removed about fi ve per cent of historical As vegetation and aquatic organisms become terrestrial habitat. Losses have been higher established in the newly fl ooded shoreline for habitat types that occur on mineral sites, areas, they will gain new habitat. Th e CEA as these are the typical locations for roads, indicates minimal potential for overlap of settlements and other developments. Wetland Keeyask eff ects with future projects, with only function and composition along the Nelson Conawapa involving in-stream work. Th ere River have been substantially changed by is, however, the potential for increased fi sh past hydro developments, including CRD harvest in the Conawapa area as an indirect and LWR, to the extent that all Nelson River eff ect of Keeyask. shoreline wetlands have either been lost or modifi ed. Total core area intactness (a VEC Sturgeon populations were aff ected by referring to the amount of the area that is commercial harvest from the 1940s to ‘80s within intact parcels of land at least 200 and have since then been aff ected by hydro hectares in size that are not bisected by any development, including CRD and LWR. linear disturbances) has been reduced in the Dam construction on the Nelson River Regional Study Area to about 83 per cent of has eliminated critical sturgeon habitat. the pre-development total. Along with these Keeyask will eliminate sturgeon spawning changes, there has been a corresponding loss habitat at Gull Rapids, which will aff ect of priority plants associated with Nelson River sturgeon populations in Stephens Lake. shorelines and with mineral sites. Changes to water levels and fl ows aft er the creation of the reservoir will disrupt young- Taking Keeyask and future projects into of-the-year habitat for sturgeon and may account, the Proponent estimated that the also disrupt spawning habitat in Birthday Regional Study Area would have 94 per cent Rapids. Constructed spawning habitat in the of terrestrial habitat remaining, compared tailrace of the Keeyask Generating Station is to the pre-development state. Total core area expected to replace the spawning habitat in intactness would decline from the present Gull Rapids. Th e Proponent also has plans 83 per cent to 81 per cent aft er Keeyask to construct young-of-the-year habitat in the and future projects. Benchmarks for these Keeyask Reservoir and carry out a stocking VECs were set such that eff ects would be program for as long as it takes to establish a considered small if 90 per cent or more of self-sustaining population. Th e Proponent terrestrial habitat remained and if intact core states that these programs will result in an areas still made up at least 65 per cent of the overall increase in sturgeon populations. Regional Study Area. Th e Proponent stated As well, the Partnership states that the that the 90 per cent benchmark was based on Lower Nelson River Sturgeon Stewardship a precautionary approach, as studies show Agreement focuses on enhancing the overall that biodiversity and ecosystem function may population. be aff ected when the amount of terrestrial habitat remaining falls below 80 per cent. Wetland function is not expected to be aff ected by future projects beyond Keeyask,

132 as future projects are not expected to overlap the EIS, although it does note that there will any high-quality wetlands. Future projects be overlap with Conawapa. Th e Proponent will remove some individual occurrences of stated that, following the Project, eagles will priority plants, but the Proponent predicts likely congregate in the area near the tailrace. these impacts to be non-existent to moderate, Sustainability of regional populations is not depending on the species. Th e Project will expected to be aff ected. not eliminate any of 42 less-common habitat types described in the discussion of the VEC For the three at-risk songbirds that Ecosystem Diversity. Of these less-common were assessed as VECs, the total amount of habitat types, the type most aff ected by habitat that has been aff ected by past and Keeyask and future projects will be reduced to existing projects is not quantifi ed in the 90 per cent of its pre-development total. EIS. According to the calculation in the EIS, the Project will result in a fi ve per cent loss 12.2.4 Birds of olive-sided fl ycatcher habitat within the Regional Study Area (Zone 4), six per cent Cumulative eff ects for bald eagles and loss for rusty blackbird and up to 10 per Canada geese were assessed using the larger cent loss for common nighthawk. Using a Zone 5 as the Regional Study Area, while formula suggested by the Clean Environment other birds were assessed using Zone 4. Commission to attempt to quantify the eff ects Benchmarks for assessing cumulative impacts of habitat loss from past and existing projects on birds were set at 20 per cent habitat loss in the Regional Study Area, the cumulative (80 per cent of pre-development habitat eff ects of habitat loss on these three songbird remaining) for mallard, Canada goose and VECs could be 17.7 per cent, 20.2 per cent bald eagle, and 10 per cent loss for the three and 24.7 per cent, respectively. species at risk considered as VECs (common nighthawk, olive-sided fl ycatcher, and rusty 12.2.5 Mammals blackbird). Th e Proponent stated that there is no defi ned regulatory threshold or benchmark Th e EIS employed diff erent study areas for birds. for the three mammal VECs (caribou, moose and beaver), with caribou having As Canada goose breeding habitat will the largest study area: Zone 6. Th e EIS not be aff ected by Keeyask, the Project, in considered cumulative impacts on caribou conjunction with future projects, is not in the context of the needs of four diff erent expected to aff ect population sustainability. populations known to spend time in the Immediately aft er impoundment, there will Project area: barren ground caribou, two be little use of the reservoir by geese, but as herds of coastal caribou and the population aquatic vegetation becomes established in identifi ed in the EIS as summer resident the reservoir, they are expected to return. caribou. Using a benchmark for woodland Breeding habitat for mallard is also not caribou established by Environment Canada expected to be substantially aff ected, as they (2012), the benchmark for low impact on are more likely to breed in marshes and lakes caribou was set at 65 per cent of total habitat further inland from the Nelson River. Total in the area being undisturbed, both by human mallard habitat aff ected by past, present and causes and by wildfi re. If 55 to 65 per cent future projects in the Regional Study Area of habitat is undisturbed, the impact would was calculated at fi ve per cent. Cumulative be moderate, and if less than 55 per cent eff ects on bald eagle are not quantifi ed in is undisturbed, the impact would be high.

133 Within Study Zone 6, habitat is already at the habitat in this zone. Although the cumulative 65 per cent undisturbed level. Keeyask and eff ect of past, present and future projects is future projects would lower that to 63 per cent not quantifi ed in the EIS, the Partnership says undisturbed. When considering a larger area it is considered not signifi cant because there to take in the range of the Pen Island caribou, is plentiful habitat in the region and beavers approximately 73 per cent of habitat is can reproduce quickly. Using the formula undisturbed and Keeyask and future projects provided by the Commission for calculating will reduce that to 71 per cent. During past, present and future habitat loss, the the hearing, the Proponent also presented cumulative eff ects on beaver habitat in Zone 4 calculations of the cumulative eff ects of loss would be approximately 20 per cent. of islands and peatland complexes used for calving and rearing and of winter habitat. 12.2.6 Infrastructure and Services Keeyask and past projects together will aff ect caribou movements by reducing intactness Eff ects of Keeyask on these VECs, and causing sensory disturbance and will including housing, transportation remove some calving habitat. Th ese eff ects infrastructure and community infrastructure will overlap with the foreseeable eff ects of and services, are expected to overlap with the the Keeyask Transmission, Bipole III and eff ects of the construction of Bipole III and Conawapa projects. the Keewatinoow Converter Station and will potentially overlap with Conawapa. Th ere Moose have been aff ected by past and will be increases in traffi c on PR 280 from existing projects that have altered habitat these projects, which will require monitoring along the Nelson River. Th e cumulative eff ect and may require special measures such as of habitat loss on moose was not quantifi ed more frequent dust control. Construction in the EIS, but using a formula provided activity in the region may increase the by the Clean Environment Commission, demand for temporary accommodation in cumulative habitat loss for moose, including Th ompson, although the Proponent notes Keeyask and future projects, was estimated at that the planned closing of the nickel smelting less than fi ve per cent. Eff ects on moose are and refi ning operation in Th ompson and expected to overlap with foreseeable eff ects of the recent opening of new hotel capacity in Keeyask Transmission, Bipole III, Conawapa the city may alleviate some of these eff ects. and Gillam redevelopment projects. Current Monitoring of population change in Gillam moose populations in the Split Lake Resource will be needed and there may be a need Management Area appear secure, but to increase the amount of housing in the increases in harvesting and access could cause community. concern.

Cumulative eff ects on beaver were 12.2.7 Personal, Family and assessed using Zone 4. Th e EIS notes that Community Life habitat eff ects on beaver from past projects Construction of Keeyask will overlap have been large. Th e EIS predicts that 20 to with construction of Bipole III (including the 30 active beaver colonies will be impacted Keewatinoow Converter Station), Keeyask during clearing and fl ooding of the Keeyask Transmission and Gillam redevelopment reservoir, and states that this is less than 10 and the potential impact of Conawapa. per cent of the estimated population in Zone Final stages of Keeyask construction could 4. Th e EIS also states that Keeyask will aff ect coincide with the peak construction years approximately fi ve per cent of the beaver of Conawapa. Th e infl ux of construction 134 workers, cash and rapid change could impact team of expert witnesses who assessed the several VECs in this category, including cumulative eff ects methodology employed in community health, public safety and worker the EIS. Th eir assessment looked at four basic interaction, travel, access and safety, culture stages of CEA methodology: the adequacy of and spirituality, and aesthetics. Additional scoping practices, the retrospective analysis monitoring of community health (by the of baseline conditions and cumulative appropriate branches of the federal and eff ects, the prospective analysis of potential provincial governments) may be required cumulative eff ects, and management measures to assess the potential for increases in for cumulative eff ects. Th ese witnesses communicable diseases, substance abuse, also provided a list of points where the injury and harmful interactions, especially EIS did “reasonably well” in considering with vulnerable people. Mitigation measures cumulative eff ects and a list of points where to reduce the potential for negative improvements were needed. Th e following interactions between communities and were key points on the four basic stages of Keeyask Project workers will also need to be CEA methodology: undertaken for future projects in the area. Mitigation measures, such as Adverse Eff ects • Scoping. Good-practice elements included Agreement programs that are designed to relatively broad regional boundaries that mitigate the impact of the Keeyask Generation were ecologically based, consideration Project on culture and spirituality, would be of a broad range of past, present and negotiated prior to any future project in the future projects, and consideration of area. Th e aesthetic impact of the Keeyask VECs that would experience adverse Generation Project is expected to overlap with direct eff ects. Concerns about scoping the Keeyask Transmission Project. included: not considering future eff ects of the existing Bipole I and II transmission 12.2.8 Heritage Resources lines, identifying Wuskwatim as a past or current project and not considering it Th e EIS notes that there will be overlap under future projects, and not considering between the Keeyask Generation Project and Conawapa in the cumulative eff ects the Keeyask Transmission Project, as the analysis for fi sh. Th ey were also concerned transmission project will require additional that the EIS did not specify how far into clearing and disturbance. Th e Keeyask the future the CEA projected future Transmission Project has gone through impacts. Th e witnesses also argued that a heritage resources impact assessment the EIS used spatial limits designed to undertaken under Th e Heritage Resources capture VEC populations directly aff ected Act to identify and address known heritage by the Keeyask Project. Spatial boundaries resources. Th e Keeyask Transmission Project in CEA should be broader, they said. will have a Heritage Resources Protection Plan to address any heritage resources that are • Retrospective analysis. Good aspects discovered during construction. of the retrospective analysis included providing spatial data for terrestrial habitat for historical, existing and future What we Heard – Cumulative activities and presenting measurements of Effects Assessment linear disturbance and core area changes for past, present and future. However, Th e Manitoba Branch of the Consumers’ they noted that there were few thresholds Association of Canada (CAC) presented a

135 or targets used against which cumulative that some of the eff ects of the Project change could be measured, aside from will be moderate. As well, the KCNs’ the benchmarks used for linear features environmental assessments predicted a and disturbance of caribou habitat. Th e greater spatial and temporal extent to witnesses noted that the Proponent stated the Project’s eff ects, one example being that technical information on Nelson that the KCNs expect the Project to aff ect River water quality in the pre-Hydro water levels and quality on Split Lake, period is lacking, limiting the ability to while the technical assessment states provide a retrospective analysis. Th ey that this will not be the case. Th e CAC noted as well that the EIS describes some witnesses noted that the advice in the benchmarks, such as those mentioned Cumulative Eff ects Practitioners’ Guide is for the VEC Priority Plants, in the to make conservative assumptions about Environmental Eff ects section. But these cumulative eff ects, that is, to assume that benchmarks were not carried forward into an aff ect will be more rather than less the cumulative eff ects section. adverse. Th e witnesses also stated that the Keeyask CEA masked or minimized • Prospective analysis. Th e witnesses found cumulative eff ects by comparing that the Keeyask CEA demonstrated disturbances in the Local Study Area to a modest improvement over the Bipole III larger Regional Study Area. CEA with regard to future eff ects. Th ey agreed in principle with a statement by the Ultimately, the two CAC witnesses Proponent that the focus of cumulative said that the EIS itself makes the case that eff ects assessment is on the vulnerability the Project may cause signifi cant adverse of each VEC in the future. Th ey said the cumulative eff ects, given that Keeyask is being CEA analysis for the VEC Intactness was built within a region that has already been an example of good practice CEA, while signifi cantly impacted – environmentally and those for VECs Water Quality, Wetlands socio-economically – by past projects. Th ey and Priority Plants were examples of weak presented two confl icting ways of looking at practice. For some VECs, they found a the impact of Keeyask when added to past lack of models and analysis of likely future developments. From one perspective, the trends. For others, they stated that the incremental eff ect of future development on Keeyask CEA assumed a higher degree the Nelson River is insignifi cant because of the of certainty about future eff ects and the magnitude of past eff ects: in eff ect, because the success of mitigation measures than the environment has already been so substantially existing information supports. altered that further change doesn’t matter. From the other perspective, the fact that the • Cumulative eff ects management. Th e environment has already been substantially witnesses noted that the Proponent altered means that any future alteration concluded that there would be no must be seen as cumulatively signifi cant and cumulative eff ects from the Project therefore any future development must not following the proposed mitigation. proceed until a net positive contribution to Th is prompted them to ask if too much sustainability of the sub-watershed and its confi dence was being placed in the communities can be demonstrated. proposed mitigation measures. Th ey noted that, within the Environmental Eff ects Several Participants and Presenters spoke section of the EIS, it is acknowledged about the need to view all cumulative eff ects

136 of hydroelectric development regionally. better consider the cumulative eff ect of Representatives of Peguis First Nation (PFN) all the hydro projects might have been to stated that the Keeyask CEA should have designate as a VEC “the naturally functioning considered all the connected waterways that riparian corridor of the Nelson River.” Such are managed for electrical production by an approach would have considered the Manitoba Hydro, including Lake Winnipeg. existence, or not, of a naturally functioning An expert witness testifying for PFN riparian corridor all along the Nelson. demonstrated a technique for visualizing and Another alternative suggested by this expert estimating the historic impact on waterways witness would have been to designate “the throughout northern Manitoba as a result natural hydrological regime” as a VEC. Doing of CRD, LWR, the Nelson River dams and so would have allowed the EIS to consider the the Grand Rapids dam on the Saskatchewan existence, or not, of natural fl ow conditions River. Th e process involves collecting all along the Nelson River, and the impact historical maps from before hydroelectric they have on habitat and other aspects of the development, scanning the maps, correcting environment. Th e expert witness also argued for inaccuracies, and comparing them to that one cumulative eff ect of an additional scanned versions of contemporary maps of generating station on the Nelson River is the same area. Th e data from the scanned that, with more money invested on the river maps are turned into a kind of computer in power generation, there will be more fi le called a shapefi le, which then allows incentive to manage water fl ows on the river the computer to calculate the area fl ooded only for power generation, at the expense of (or dewatered) in each area by the various the environment. developments. Adding up all the fl ooding from all the projects, the expert witness Individual Presenters, both during the found that approximately 135,000 hectares hearings held in northern Manitoba and in (1,350 square kilometres) had been fl ooded Winnipeg, spoke frequently about cumulative in northern Manitoba as a result of hydro eff ects. Many presenters said that, from development. their point of view, all the hydroelectric developments in the north are part of a Representatives of Pimicikamak single on-going project and so they cannot Okimawin stated that the scoping of the be separated. Th e point was frequently made Keeyak EIS failed to consider cumulative that the water that will turn the turbines eff ects of all the hydroelectric projects that at Keeyask fl ows past other communities have aff ected their community. Community as it makes its way down the watershed. members and representatives spoke Many presenters spoke about eff ects on extensively of the impacts they have felt as fi shing, navigation, water quality, recreation, a result of the regulation of Lake Winnipeg aesthetics, culture and spirituality resulting water levels, including shoreline erosion, from LWR, CRD, Kettle, and other major debris, damage to fi shing, unpredictable ice projects. levels, and impacts on ice travel. Th ey argued that Aboriginal people in the region do not Commission Comment – Cumulative see each hydro development as an individual Effects Assessment project, but as part of one large project. Th e Panel recognizes the great deal of An expert witness testifying for eff ort put into the assessment of Project Pimicikamak suggested that one way to eff ects. Th e direct eff ects assessment was

137 very well done and the cumulative eff ects and woodland caribou, however, there is the assessment was a great improvement over potential for the combination of past, present past project assessments. However, the and future projects to have a signifi cant Panel still has some concerns about the cumulative eff ect. Th is is especially the case if CEA, specifi cally, regarding the delineation the mitigation measures for sturgeon are not of the study area and the quantifi cation successful. For caribou, until the “summer of cumulative eff ects for the terrestrial resident” herd and its range can be better environment. As well, conclusions regarding defi ned, the degree of uncertainty about the lack of adverse cumulative eff ects in eff ects or mitigation will be great. the aquatic environment and in the socio- economic environment appear to be based on Th e Keeyask EIS would have benefi ted optimistic assumptions about the success of if the Proponent could have made use of mitigation measures. data collected in research for the Bipole III Transmission Project. Th rough a series Th e Proponent’s use of an ecological of requests for information regarding boundary for the terrestrial environment cumulative eff ects boundaries, VECs and study area resulted in the exclusion of habitat modelling, it was discovered that there a number of past and future projects. was an incompatibility in data collection Study Zones 5 and 6, which were used for and analytical methodologies between the cumulative eff ects assessment for many VECs, Bipole III and Keeyask Generation Projects. extended only as far east as the Long Spruce Vegetation cover data that had been classifi ed Generating Station, excluding the Henday in a Bipole III-specifi c database would have Converter Station, Limestone Generating been useful in delineating and confi rming the Station, the future Keewatinoow Converter distribution of vegetation cover classes in the Station, part of the Bipole III transmission Keeyask area. Th e Commission also pointed line and the proposed Conawapa Generating out to the Proponent that there were areas of Station from the study areas for these VECs. overlapping impact between the two projects When asked to assess impacts of disruptions where there would be eff ects on VECs that in an extension area that included these were assessed in one or both of the project projects, the Proponent indicated that various environmental impact statements, including aspects of Bipole III (including Keewatinoow) beaver, moose, caribou, American marten, and Conawapa will aff ect an additional 3,174 mallard, bald eagle, olive-sided fl ycatcher, hectares of land, while existing projects in this rusty blackbird and common nighthawk. Th e extension area impact 1,297 hectares, for a Proponent responded that, given the time total of 4,471 hectares. available, it would be impossible to meld the data sets from the two EISs in order to add One of the signifi cant questions, raised information on Bipole III impacts to the by the witnesses for the CAC, was whether, Keeyask CEA, as diff erent data collection and in assessing cumulative eff ects, we should analysis methodologies had been used. Th e consider that new impacts are minor in Panel considers this a great loss of valuable comparison to past impacts, or consider that, information that could have better informed since past impacts were signifi cant, any new the Keeyask assessment. impact will add to that signifi cant disruption. Th e Commission agrees that for most VECs, Another important question raised in Keeyask will not add substantially to what has the critique of the Proponent’s CEA practice occurred over the past 50 years. For sturgeon concerned the decision not to conduct a

138 cumulative eff ects assessment for VECs In response to questions about the that are not expected to have a negative cumulative loss of habitat, especially for the impact from the Project. Th ere would be three songbirds that are species at risk, the less possibility of small impacts adding up to Proponent stated that the displaced animals something substantial (the oft -stated “death would be able to fi nd other available habitat by a thousand cuts”) if all VECs, regardless in the larger region. Along these same lines, of the assessment of individual impacts, were the Panel considered that the Proponent considered in the CEA. did not make suffi ciently consistent use of benchmarks for all VECs. Th e Panel also found that the Keeyask EIS lacked quantifi cation of the cumulative Ultimately, the Panel agrees that the eff ects of past, present and future projects for threats to these three songbirds are not a many VECs. When asked in an Information result of habitat loss in northern Manitoba, Request to quantify the eff ects of past and but threats to habitat elsewhere in their range. existing projects, the Proponent responded Th e Panel also agrees that beaver populations that data are not available to determine the are not under threat in Manitoba and will not specifi c habitats that might have existed prior be aff ected by a larger-than-originally-stated to the beginning of industrial development in loss of habitat in the immediate area of the the region. Th e CEC suggested an approach Project. However, a more rigorous evaluation for quantifying the eff ects of past and present would provide greater confi dence in the projects on many VECs. Th is approach was conclusions, and it is essential that monitoring based on determining the ratio of current be done to confi rm these conclusions or habitat for a given VEC species relative undertake further mitigation measures should to all current habitat in the area and then signifi cant negative impacts be identifi ed. multiplying that by the total pre-development habitat. While it may not be exact, it provides Like many Participants and Presenters, the some illustration of how much habitat has Panel believes that the Proponent has placed been lost. Th e ratio is below: a great deal of confi dence in its mitigation measures. Th is is particularly the case with Using this formula, it becomes possible regard to the habitat construction and to have at least some understanding of the stocking measures planned for lake sturgeon. cumulative eff ects of past developments in Th e assumption that these measures will the study area on various VECs. When asked be successful has allowed the Proponent to to employ this formula, the Proponent found judge that there will be no adverse cumulative that cumulative eff ects on several VECs eff ects from Keeyask and, in fact, a positive exceeded their own benchmarks. Specifi cally, impact. In the same way, the Proponent has olive-sided fl ycatcher, rusty blackbird, placed confi dence in its mitigation measures common nighthawk and beaver had all lost for social impacts, such as those intended amounts of habitat within their Regional to prevent negative interactions between Study Areas in excess of the Proponent’s community members and Project workers. benchmark. In these areas, monitoring will be extremely

௏ா஼ ௖௨௥௥௘௡௧ ௛௔௕௜௧௔௧ ᦼ݀݁ݒ݈݁݋݌݉݁݊ݐ ݄ܾܽ݅ݐܽݐ = Total VEC Habitat Lost݁ݎ݋ݐ݈ܽ ݌ܶ × ்௢௧௔௟ ௛௔௕௜௧௔௧ ௔௩௔௜௟௔௕௟௘

139 important in order to determine if these Non-Licensing optimistic assumptions are misplaced and to determine if adaptive management measures Recommendation are needed to respond to unexpected The Commission recommends that: problems. 12.1 The Manitoba Government establish Th e Panel heard many Participants and provincial guidelines for cumulative Presenters refer to the need for a Regional effects assessment best practices and Cumulative Eff ects Assessment, which include specifi c direction for proponents would consider all of the eff ects of hydro in project guidelines. development along the Nelson and Churchill Rivers. It was frequently pointed out that the Commission had made a recommendation for such an assessment in its report on the Bipole III Transmission Project, and it was recommended that a licence for Keeyask be withheld until such an assessment is completed. Th e Panel has heard that Manitoba Hydro is working with Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship on defi ning such a study and expects to have it completed in 2015. Th e Panel is aware that a great deal of research has been undertaken on the environment in the Churchill-Nelson region and believes that much baseline information for a Regional CEA is already available. Th e Keeyask hearing reinforces the conclusion that a Regional CEA needs to be carried out.

In many of our reports, over the past decade, the Commission has made specifi c recommendations to both the Manitoba Government and to proponents aimed at improving the practice of cumulative eff ects assessments in Manitoba. We continue to stand by those recommendations and believe that a similar recommendation is, again, warranted.

140 Chapter Thirteen Monitoring and Follow-up

13.1 Overview technical science and ATK. A Monitoring Advisory Committee (MAC), with Protection of the environment in both representation from Manitoba Hydro and the the construction and operation phases of KCNs, will provide oversight for monitoring the Keeyask Project, including monitoring, and management during construction and management and mitigation of impacts, operations. will be carried out under the Keeyask Environmental Protection Program. Th e Environmental Protection Program is also 13.2 Environmental intended to test the predictions made in the environmental impact statement (EIS), Protection Plans identify unanticipated eff ects, and outline An Environmental Protection Plan a process for developing responses to provides detailed site-specifi c protection unanticipated eff ects. Within this Program procedures for use during various stages are three types of plans for protecting various of construction of the Project. Two aspects of the environment during both the Environmental Protection Plans are being construction and operation phases of the developed: one for construction of the Project. Th ese are Environmental Protection generating station and one for construction Plans, Environmental Management Plans, of the South Access Road. Th ese plans will and Environmental Monitoring Plans. Draft s be used to guide contractors and other of these three plans were included in the EIS, workers to have the least adverse eff ect but the fi nal plans are intended to be drawn on the environment and to remain within up aft er an Environment Act licence has been specifi c guidelines or regulations. Th ey are issued, incorporating any conditions that are organized by specifi c construction activity, attached to such a licence. such as clearing of trees or construction of coff erdams, and contain a variety of specifi c Th e Environmental Protection Program measures, such as: makes use of collaboration between Manitoba Hydro and the Keeyask Cree Nations (KCNs). • Specifi c mitigation measures outlined in Just as the Project was assessed using a two- the Environmental Eff ects section of the track approach employing technical science EIS; and the Cree worldview and Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK), monitoring • Erosion and sediment control measures; will be conducted using parallel streams of

141 • Timing restrictions such as avoiding • Fish Habitat Compensation Plan – blasting or other kinds of work during describes structures to be installed (such spawning, calving or bird-breeding as artifi cial spawning reefs and young-of- seasons; the-year sturgeon habitat) to compensate for loss of fi sh habitat and follow-up • Environmental sensitivity maps, such activities to determine the success of these as maps showing the setback distances structures or needed modifi cations. Th is required for work around caribou calving is a plan that is required by Fisheries and areas or rare plant areas; Oceans Canada.

• Emergency response plans, such as those • Construction Access Management Plan for spill containment and clean-up; – describes measures to control access to construction areas and ensure safe access • Regulatory documents that outline federal for authorized users. Th is plan is designed or provincial guidelines for work being for public safety and to protect resources done; by not creating new public access on roads and trails created during construction. • Permits, licences and authorizations; and • Heritage Resource Protection Plan • Inspection sheets for use by an – describes procedures to be taken environmental offi cer who monitors for responding to heritage resources contractor compliance. or human remains found during construction and operation of the Project.

13.3 Environmental • Vegetation Rehabilitation Plan – describes Management Plans where and how construction areas such Environmental Management Plans focus as borrow pits that are not needed for on minimizing eff ects on a specifi c aspect operation will be decommissioned of the aquatic, terrestrial or socio-economic and rehabilitated, giving preference to environment. Th ey outline specifi c actions rehabilitating the most-aff ected priority to be taken during construction and/or habitat types. operation and oft en also include provision for • Terrestrial Mitigation Implementation monitoring to determine the success of these Plan – describes implementation of actions or whether additional actions are measures to mitigate terrestrial impacts, needed. Eight Environmental Management including the development of new Plans will be developed: wetland and the placement of bird-nesting • Sediment Management Plan – developed structures. to minimize the impact of in-stream • Waterways Management Plan – describes sediment from construction activities in measures to contribute to safe use of the the Nelson River and actions to be taken waterway from Split Lake to Stephens if total suspended solids (TSS) exceed Lake, including a boat patrol that will specifi ed limits. Th is plan is focused on monitor shorelines and manage debris the in-stream construction of coff erdams, pre- and post-impoundment. which will be the largest contributor to TSS.

142 • Reservoir Clearing Plan – describes 13.4.1 Specifi c Technical Monitoring methods of clearing the future reservoir, Activities including which areas are to be cleared by hand. Planned monitoring activities are focused on specifi c VECs or supporting topics as assessed in the EIS. Some monitoring is 13.4 Environmental planned for the construction or initial Monitoring Plans operating period, while other parameters will be monitored for 20-30 years aft er Th ere are two kinds of Environmental impoundment, and a few for the life of the Monitoring Plans: technical science plans Project. Many of the specifi c monitoring and ATK plans. Each of the four KCNs will activities were mentioned previously in the have its own ATK monitoring plan and will discussion of each of the VECs in the EIS. involve elders, resource users and others in Among the many technical monitoring the community in monitoring the eff ects of activities will be: testing water at a variety the Project. Technical science Environmental of locations, conducting plant surveys, Monitoring Plans monitor the eff ects on mercury testing, monitoring populations and the VECs that were described in the EIS. movements of a large number of VEC and Th e fi ve technical science plans are Physical non-VEC animals, and tracking employment, Environment, Aquatic Eff ects, Terrestrial population and other socio-economic Eff ects, Socio-Economic Eff ects and Resource indicators. Use. Th ese plans identify specifi c kinds of follow-up sampling, testing and observation 13.4.2 ATK Monitoring Programs that will be made on topics such as water regime, erosion, sedimentation, water quality, Each of the KCNs is developing a aquatic habitat, lower trophic levels, fi sh community-specifi c monitoring program that habitat, wildlife, plants, terrestrial habitat, will involve planning and implementation of employment, business opportunities, traffi c, monitoring activities based on construction safety and resource use. In addition to or operational activities and community verifying predictions in the EIS, monitoring concerns. Th ese programs will build is intended to address areas where there is a community experience and capacity in socio- diff erence between the predictions made by economic and environmental monitoring technical science and ATK. and provide employment and training opportunities for members. Activities that are Th e Keeyask Monitoring Advisory anticipated include: Committee will review outcomes of the activities in the Environmental • Site visits by elders, resource users, Protection Program and, if necessary, make youth and other community members recommendations for additional mitigation before, during and aft er key construction measures. Th e MAC will make use of results milestones to observe conditions; of both the technical science and ATK monitoring activities in its discussions. It • Community-based activities, such as will also ensure that the outcomes of the workshops and key person interviews; Environmental Protection Program are communicated to members of the KCNs and • Involvement of community members in to the general public. technical science-based monitoring; and

143 • Communication activities and events, 13.6 Implementation of the such as forums and open houses. Environmental Protection Program 13.5 Environmental Th e Proponent proposes that Manitoba Management Approach Hydro, as the project manager for Keeyask, will submit reports to Manitoba Conservation Th e Proponent intends to employ an and Water Stewardship to fulfi ll whatever adaptive management approach, which reporting conditions are attached to a licence is a planned process for responding to issued under Th e Environment Act. Th e unanticipated eff ects or uncertainty. Proponent proposes that Manitoba Hydro Adaptive management is based on a cycle will also submit reports to Fisheries and of planning and action described as “Plan Oceans Canada under the Fisheries Act. It – Do – Evaluate – Adjust (as necessary).” is proposed that these reports will include Adaptive management will be applied when both compliance monitoring and reports on monitoring demonstrates that there is a the outcomes of the technical science and diff erence between the predicted eff ects of the ATK monitoring programs. As well, a report Project and the actual eff ects and there is an summarizing monitoring will be prepared opportunity for additional improvement in annually for both the KCNs and the general protection or mitigation. In some cases, there public. Th e Proponent has also committed will be pre-determined adaptive measures to posting reports on a publicly available that can be used, while in other cases new Keeyask website. measures will need to be designed and evaluated. Examples are cited in the EIS of All environmental requirements, including what this might entail. If the lake sturgeon the Environmental Protection Program, spawning structure is not as eff ective as will be included in tender documents for anticipated, alternative measures might construction of the Project and all contractors entail redesigning the structure or providing will be required to comply with these plans. additional spawning areas. If TSS levels rise A training program will be delivered to above specifi ed limits, it may be necessary to contractors and Manitoba Hydro personnel so modify construction activities that are causing that they will be aware of the Environmental the increase in sediment or to temporarily Protection Program and, particularly, the two halt the activity. If concerns arise about Environmental Protection Plans and their project employment – such as KCN members requirements. Inspection will be a regular not being hired or not being retained – these feature of the Environmental Protection concerns will be reviewed by the Advisory Plans, and the Project Environmental Offi cer Group on Employment, which may make will inspect worksites daily and record recommendations to the Project Manager any incidents or cases of non-compliance. (Manitoba Hydro) for new measures. Meetings to discuss environmental issues will be held regularly with the Project Manager, Resident Engineer, Environmental Offi cer and contractors. Th e Project Manager, Resident Engineer and Environmental Offi cer will have the authority to issue stop-work orders to prevent environmental damage or damage to heritage resources.

144 What we Heard – Monitoring • Plan. Th e CAC experts considered that and Follow-up the Proponent’s Environmental Protection Program recognized the need to plan for Representatives for Participant groups uncertainty. Th ey considered that some commented on a variety of strengths and components of the adaptive management weaknesses in the Environmental Protection strategy for Keeyask use suitably long- Program and raised concerns about the role term (20- to 30-year) timeframes, and of the Monitoring Advisory Committee, the found that the Proponent appears to relationship between ATK and technical use an ecosystem-based approach, science, and the overall level of transparency with integration between the various and oversight contained within the various monitoring and management plans. As components of the Program. well, they found evidence of steps to integrate or co-ordinate technical science A witness for the Concerned Fox Lake and ATK monitoring. Th ey found some Grassroots Citizens (CFLGC) spoke about commitment to experimentation, some the Proponent’s commitments to mitigation examples of fl exibility in mitigation and rehabilitation. He said the Proponent’s measures, and considered that the Project eff orts in this area appear to be directed benefi tted from the inclusion of various toward preventing further harm to the working groups representing the KCNs. ecosystem or increasing ecological integrity in a degraded, post-Project ecosystem. He said • Do. Th e CAC witnesses believed that he did not see an eff ort toward the highest the creation of the MAC to be a positive level of rehabilitation: re-creation of the pre- step in encouraging the use of ATK in development ecosystem. adaptive management. However, they noted that decisions on management will Th e witness said mitigation and be made in consultation with MAC and rehabilitation eff orts are oft en used to justify the government, but without the public at causing a disturbance in the environment. large. Some timelines were specifi ed for However, not enough attention is paid to monitoring, reporting and evaluation, but occasions when attempts to mitigate or they were unable to assess if timelines are rehabilitate fail. Sometimes, such eff orts can appropriate. Th ey found that in a number even do further damage. Th e witness said that of places, the EIS cited uncertainty about the draft plans for rehabilitation seem ad- a potential eff ect from the Project and hoc and inadequate to prevent these kinds of referred to the need for monitoring. harm and do not make adequate use of ATK In many of these places, though, the and community knowledge. witness team felt that the EIS should have described potential adaptations in the A team of expert witnesses for the event of adverse eff ects. Th ey also stated Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) that there should have been a separate analyzed adaptive management in the Keeyask cumulative eff ects monitoring plan. EIS, including the KCN environmental assessments and the components of the draft • Evaluate. Th e witnesses noted that Environmental Protection Program. Th ey Manitoba Hydro’s environmental presented their analysis in accordance with management system is registered to the the Plan, Do, Evaluate, Adjust framework of ISO 14001 standard, which requires adaptive management. that it be geared toward continuous

145 improvement, but said they were not able A witness for the Kaweechiwasihk Kay- to obtain further details on the system and Tay-A-Ti-Suk (KK) elders discussed the ways its performance. Generally, the witnesses in which the customary law principles of the reported favourably on the approaches Nisichawayasihk Cree were incorporated into and indicators to be used in evaluation. the environmental protection, monitoring, management and heritage resource protection • Adjust. Th e CAC witnesses said they plans for the Wuskwatim Generating Station. were unable to see details about future Th ese principles include the use of the commitments to verify the Proponent’s customary law principle of Kwayaskonikiwin, statement that it has committed or reconciliation, and the importance of appropriate resources to adaptive ceremonies to establish harmony whenever management. Th ey found evidence of the there is disturbance created by the project. Proponent’s intention to make adjustments As part of incorporating customary law to monitoring and management as needed, into the project, the agreement determined but specifi c examples of adjustment appropriate seasons and times for various processes and external audits of the project activities. As well, it established environmental management system were roles for the Nisichawayasihk Cree and not made available. One of their major their representatives in all the construction, concerns focused on the role of the MAC operation and monitoring activities. Th e in adjusting monitoring and management. witness also spoke about a heritage resources Th ough in principle they supported the agreement for the Wuskwatim project to MAC, they described several “missed ensure that human remains and artifacts opportunities” that might prevent it from discovered during the project remain the playing a more eff ective role in monitoring property of the Nisichawayasihk Cree. and management. Th ey were concerned that the MAC will not have an externally funded budget, be able to conduct Commission Comment – independent studies, or have access to Monitoring and Follow-up dispute resolution in the event that the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Th e Commission believes that the Board of Directors does not follow its Proponent has given substantial thought advice. Ultimately, the witnesses said they to plans for protection of the environment were not convinced that the MAC can and mitigation of eff ects. A large number serve its independent oversight function. of mitigation measures have been listed. If followed rigorously, these measures will Overall, the CAC team found the Keeyask minimize impacts on many of the VECs adaptive management plan to be a marked listed in the EIS, and consequently on the improvement over the adaptive management environment on which they depend. Since plan for the Bipole III Transmission Project. most of the construction work will be However, they found lack of transparency, performed by contractors, ensuring that lack of ability for the MAC to serve as an contracting fi rms are aware of and abide by oversight body, and uncertainty regarding the measures in the Environmental Protection some issues, such as processes, timelines, Plans will be essential. commitment to research and development and implementation of experimentation. Monitoring and management of a project as large as Keeyask will require a great deal

146 of communication, information sharing Project, upstream and downstream), and discussion. Th e Monitoring Advisory mercury monitoring results, sturgeon Committee is a positive step in ensuring recovery results, minutes of community community oversight of the Project’s eff ects. and/or committee meetings, and caribou It would be more eff ective if there were a and moose population statistics. formal dispute resolution system in place for occasions when the representatives of the • Information must be in plain language, KCNs and Manitoba Hydro on the MAC do with minimal use of jargon, and address not agree on the results or interpretation of the interests and concerns of the monitoring or the action to take regarding communities aff ected by the Project. these results. • Data sets and descriptions of analyses and Greater transparency and opportunities their results must be linked and available, for public input would increase confi dence where applicable. further. Transparency and input require substantial two-way communication that • Th e website must include a feedback goes beyond a traditional annual report function that allows users to post to the regulator. Th e already-established questions to be answered by the Keeyask website should be used consistently Proponent and to report problems or and frequently to achieve this goal. Updates, perceived infractions. community bulletins and project results should be posted as they become available. In on-going management of the Keeyask Consideration should be given to posting Generation Project, the Commission agrees committee minutes as appropriate. Two-way that an active adaptive management approach communication could be achieved through is most desirable. Using such an approach, a function allowing for comments, concerns the Proponent would not only continue to and observations. Th e following are the adapt its management techniques in order Commission’s recommended guidelines for to minimize environmental impacts, but using the website: would actively experiment with diff erent ways of managing issues. Th e assumptions and • Th e website must be updated as soon as results of such experiments would be publicly new information becomes available, and at reported through the website and kept on least quarterly for the life of the Project. fi le for future reference. Annual reports from the Proponent to Manitoba Conservation • Information must be based on the and Water Stewardship must contain such actions and progress outlined in the details, including quantitative measures, Environmental Protection Plans and the tests, modelling or other testable verifi cation various Environmental Management of results. Th is would allow Manitoba Plans. Conservation and Water Stewardship to verify the Proponent’s assumptions and • Categories of information must be easily predictions regarding environmental discernible either by topic or community impacts and mitigation and to compare area and be cross-referenced where there results of adaptive management to previous is overlap. Examples of information conditions of the environment. Annual that could be included are water quality reports to Manitoba Conservation and Water monitoring results, employment statistics, Stewardship must also contain reporting on water level monitoring results (at the the eff ects of the off setting program on the

147 regional environment. Any trends that are 13.2 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership apparent over the years of reporting should be maintain, for the life of the Project, its identifi ed and addressed. Keeyask website, containing all the information the Proponent has already Th e essence of active adaptive committed to in the EIS and Keeyask management is learning. Th e Proponent hearings related to monitoring and and Manitoba Conservation and Water assessing environmental impacts, Stewardship should ensure continued mitigation and management. This information is to be easily retrievable and learning from the Project. Once construction updated frequently. is completed, an in-depth review of procedures and fulfi llment of commitments 13.3 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership is needed. Under the direction of Manitoba provide to the Manitoba Government an Conservation and Water Stewardship, an annual report on the Keeyask Generation environmental audit should be carried out Project containing suffi cient detail that by an independent third party to assess the assessments can be made as to the success of the Environmental Protection accuracy of predictions, success of Plans for construction and the accuracy mitigation actions and commitment to of predictions and assumptions about future actions. These reports will provide environmental eff ects. Th e results of this assessment of any trends detected over audit must be reported back to Manitoba the entire reporting period. These reports are to be made public. Conservation and Water Stewardship and made public through the website. Ten years aft er submission of the construction audit, a follow-up review of commitments and predictions made regarding the operational phase should also be conducted by an independent third party and reported to Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship and the public.

Licensing Recommendations The Commission recommends that:

13.1 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, under the direction of Manitoba Water Conservation and Water Stewardship, on completion of the construction of the Keeyask Generation Project, undertake a third-party environmental audit to assess whether commitments were met and to assess the accuracy of assumptions and predictions. The results of this audit will be made public. This is to be repeated ten years after the fi rst environmental audit.

148 Chapter Fourteen Sustainable Development

14.1 Overview by Manitoba Hydro in 1993, and the Keeyask Cree Nations’ (KCNs) desire to restore Th e Keeyask Project was assessed in terms harmony and balance, enhance well-being, of its contribution to sustainable development, protect the environment and provide greater a concept popularized by the 1987 report of opportunities and hope for their people. the World Commission on Environment and Development, better known as the Bruntland During the public hearing for the Project, Commission. According to the defi nition the chair of the Keeyask Hydropower used in that report, “sustainable development Limited Partnership said the Keeyask is development that meets the needs of the Generation Project has been assessed under a present without compromising the ability of sustainability assessment protocol developed future generations to meet their own needs.” by the International Hydropower Association Key concepts within the defi nition are that using values and practices recommended priority should be given to addressing needs, by the World Bank’s World Commission particularly the needs of the poor, and that on Dams. Th is protocol is endorsed by there are limitations on the environment’s international environmental and social ability to meet present and future needs. Th e organizations including the World Wildlife Brundtland Commission report specifi cally Fund, the Nature Conservancy and Oxfam. noted that empowerment of indigenous Under this assessment, Keeyask was rated as people is an essential part of sustainable meeting international best practices on three development. Th e governments of Canada quarters of the applicable criteria and at least and Manitoba have sustainable development proven international good practice on the policy goals embedded in legislation: the remainder. federal Sustainable Development Act (2008) and Manitoba’s Sustainable Development Act (1998). Manitoba Hydro also has a sustainable 14.2 Keeyask and the development policy and a set of principles Federal Sustainable and guidelines. Th e Keeyask environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluated the Project Development Goals in light of the eight goals in the federal 1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions sustainable development strategy, the seven to mitigate climate change. A life-cycle principles and six guidelines in Manitoba’s assessment was conducted by the Pembina Sustainable Development Act, the 13 Institute to assess greenhouse gas production sustainable development principles adopted resulting from all aspects of the Project,

149 including manufacture of materials, future projects, for priority habitat types in construction, land-use changes, operations the area remain below 10 per cent. and eventual decommissioning. According to this study, a natural gas plant producing the 7) Production and consumption of same amount of electricity would produce biological resources are within ecosystem twice as much greenhouse gas in one year as limits. Sustainable harvest plans are being Keeyask in its 100-year lifespan. Electricity developed by CNP for moose and fi sh within exported to the U.S. Midwest will displace gas the SLRMA. and/or coal generation. 8) Minimize environmental footprint of 2) Minimize threats to air quality. government operations. Eff orts to minimise A hydroelectric station has very low air footprint of Keeyask include the original emissions, especially when compared to coal decision to change from a high-head dam or gas-fi red plants. fl ooding 18,000 hectares of land to the current plan, with 4,500 hectares of initial fl ooding. 3) Protect and enhance water quality. Creation of the reservoir will result in some long-term eff ects on water quality, but the 14.3 Keeyask and Manitoba’s area will generally remain suitable for aquatic Sustainable Development life. Good construction measures will help to minimize eff ects on aquatic life. Principles and Guidelines 14.3.1 Manitoba’s Sustainable 4) Enhance information to ensure Development Principles sustainable use and management of water. Th e Proponent has been conducting studies 1) Integration of Environmental and on rivers and streams for more than a decade Economic Decisions. Th e Proponent cites to assist in management, and Manitoba Hydro the involvement of KCNs, the training has been studying northern rivers and streams and employment opportunities, and the for more than 40 years. programs in the Adverse Eff ects Agreements (AEAs) that pay attention to potential social 5) Maintain or restore wildlife consequences of the Project as examples of populations to healthy levels. Habitat environmental and economic decisions being replacement and stocking are intended to integrated. mitigate eff ects on fi sh populations. Cree Nation Partners (CNP) are developing moose 2) Stewardship. In analyzing this and fi sh sustainability plans for the Split principle, which stresses that today’s decisions Lake Resource Management Area (SLRMA). need to be balanced with tomorrow’s needs, Monitoring of caribou populations will the Proponent cites the partnership with the guide programs to maintain sustainability of KCNs, in which they will have a long-term populations. role in monitoring eff ects as well as long-term benefi ts. As well, the Project will provide 6) Maintain productive and resilient energy for several generations of Manitobans. ecosystems. Th e Project was planned to avoid sensitive habitat as much as possible 3) Shared Responsibility and in routing roads and planning borrow pits Understanding. Th e Proponent cites the and excavated materials placement areas. creation of the partnership with the KCNs, Cumulative losses, including past, present and

150 including the Partnership’s commitment 2) Public Participation. Th e Proponent to meeting the social, cultural, economic notes that discussions began with and employment hopes of the KCNs, and a Tataskweyak Cree Nation in the 1990s, and growing understanding of the diff erent values were later expanded to all four of the KCNs, and worldviews of the KCNs and Manitoba leading to establishment of the Partnership. Hydro. Th ree rounds of the Public Involvement Program (PIP) brought other views into the 4) Prevention. Th e Proponent cites the Project. design parameters that were established early in negotiations, as well as the AEAs and the 3) Access to Information. Th e KCNs’ commitment to monitoring and follow-up. own internal consultations brought more information to their communities. Th e PIP 5) Conservation and Enhancement. and the regulatory review process provided In analyzing how Keeyask fi ts within this more information to the public. principle, which includes maintaining ecological processes and biodiversity, the 4) Integrated Decision Making and Proponent cites plans to develop new Planning. Th e Proponent cites the governance wetlands and rehabilitate some habitat types. structure of the Partnership, in which the Th is principle has been a primary focus in partners have had a strong role in assessment planning and design of the Project. and planning and will continue to have a role in monitoring and follow-up. 6) Rehabilitation and Reclamation. Th e Proponent states that once the Project is built, 5) Waste Minimization and Substitution. areas no longer needed for operation will be Th e Proponent acknowledges that decommissioned and rehabilitated. opportunities to recycle are limited in remote northern areas. 7) Global Responsibility. By displacing fuel used for generating electricity in gas or 6) Research and Innovation. Th e coal-fi red power plants, the Proponent says Proponent cites the many technical and the Project will contribute to a substantial Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. studies related to wildlife, fi sh, social and economic conditions, heritage resources, 14.3.2 Manitoba’s Sustainable history and culture that were carried out to Development Guidelines plan and assess the Project.

1) Effi cient Use of Resources. Th e Proponent notes that in comparison to 14.4 Manitoba Hydro’s earlier hydroelectric developments in Sustainable Development northern Manitoba, Keeyask was planned and Principles designed with mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures to reduce impacts An analysis of the Keeyask Project using on the environment. By incorporating these Manitoba Hydro’s sustainable development measures into the Project’s cost, Keeyask’s principles provided examples of the approach, budget more closely refl ects the full societal methods, and specifi c modifi cations or cost of the Project. Th e integration of mitigation measures incorporated into the environmental and social costs of a project is Project similar to those for the federal and a critical element in full-cost accounting. Manitoba sustainable development goals,

151 principles and guidelines. Manitoba Hydro’s through Project planning, attention paid to principles are: sensitive species and habitats, mitigation and monitoring measures, and the substantial • Stewardship of the Economy and the greenhouse-gas advantage of hydroelectricity Environment in comparison to fossil-fuel generated electricity. • Shared Responsibility

• Integration of Environmental and What we Heard – Sustainable Economic Decisions Development • Economic Enhancement Th e Panel heard several expert witnesses who discussed alternative approaches to • Effi cient Use of Resources assessing the overall sustainability of the Keeyask Project. • Prevention and Remedy An expert witness for the Consumers’ • Conservation Association of Canada (CAC) reviewed the • Waste Minimization Keeyask EIS and prepared a “Framework for Sustainability-Based Assessment for • Access to Adequate Information the Keeyask Hydro Project.” Th is witness proposed several basic considerations in • Public Participation conducting a sustainability assessment: that the basic criterion for evaluation and • Understanding and Respect decision-making should be whether or not a project makes a “positive contribution to • Scientifi c and Technological Innovation sustainability;” that the assessment should compare options and identify the one with the • Global Responsibility best, lasting and fairly distributed gains; that all core issues should be considered; and that a project should avoid doing lasting damage 14.5 EIS Conclusions on and all trade-off s must be identifi ed and Sustainable Development justifi ed. Th e witness stressed that mitigation Th e Proponent concludes that the does not replace the concept of making Project is consistent with federal, provincial, a positive contribution to sustainability. corporate and KCN approaches to sustainable Mitigating damage, he said, “is only helping development. Social and economic aspects the ship sink more slowly.” of sustainable development are addressed through aspects of the Project including Th e witness listed eight evaluation and employment, training, business opportunities, decision criteria for sustainability: participation of the KCNs in planning • Socio-ecological system integrity; and governance, the KCNs’ development of their own environmental assessments, • Livelihood suffi ciency and opportunity; and the measures included in the AEAs. Sustainable development principles related • Intragenerational equity; to environmental stewardship are addressed

152 • Intergenerational equity; the Joint Keeyask Development Agreement (JKDA), causing them to question whether • Resource maintenance and effi ciency; sustainability is truly a core value of the Project. Th e witnesses assessed the Sustainable • Socio-ecological and democratic Development section of the EIS and raised governance; the concern that the focus of this section suggested that sustainability was considered • Precaution and adaptation; and primarily from an environmental point of • Immediate and long-term integration. view and less from a socio-economic point of view. Th ey also asked if the EIS had In reviewing the Keeyask EIS, the witness adequately considered the sustainability concluded that the EIS is unsatisfactory goals of the City of Th ompson and the Town as a way of assessing progress toward of Gillam and found the references to waste sustainability, in part because the need for management, green procurement and green the project has not been established and there design to be weak. Th ey said that, instead of is no comparative assessment of alternatives developing solutions to recycling and waste and no explicit set of sustainability-based problems in the north, the EIS acknowledges decision criteria. He also cited uncertainty limited opportunities to recycle and commits about the potential impact of the project on to disposing of waste in accordance with sturgeon, boreal woodland caribou and the requirements. Th ey described a continuum potential boom-and-bust economic cycle as of approaches to sustainabilty in business. At preventing a full assessment of the Project’s the low end of the continuum is an approach sustainability. Accordingly, he recommended of “compliance” that seeks to do less harm to that the Clean Environment Commission the environment. At the high end is a truly defer its decision until these defi ciencies have sustainable approach that seeks to “do more been addressed. He also recommended that good.” In this team’s view, some aspects of future proponents be required to adopt a the EIS fall at the low “compliance” end of sustainability framework that includes a full sustainability, including the plan for waste justifi cation of project need and an assessment management, while other aspects, such as of alternatives. the partnership between Manitoba Hydro and the KCNs, are at the higher “sustainable Manitoba Wildlands brought in three development” end of the continuum. expert witnesses, or teams of expert witnesses, who spoke on methodologies for Manitoba Wildlands also presented assessing project sustainability. One team two expert witnesses who practise in the of expert witnesses made a presentation on fi eld of life-cycle assessment. Th ey made sustainability and sustainable development a presentation on the development of and critiqued aspects of the Keeyask EIS international standards for carrying out a related to sustainability. life-cycle assessment that allows impacts of a project to be assessed throughout its life, Among other things, this team made from the manufacture of materials through note of the number of times the EIS used to eventual decommissioning. Th ey did not the words and phrases ‘sustainability’ and actually carry out a review of the life-cycle ‘sustainable development.’ Th ey noted that, assessment of the Keeyask Project that was while the terms were used a total of 148 done by the Pembina Institute. times in the EIS, they do not appear at all in

153 Manitoba Wildlands had another expert region and results in a lack of information witness who prepared a presentation on “Th e that impedes informed decision making. need to monitor and report ecosystem service She said there is a critical need to report change for the Keeyask Generation Project.” ecosystem services impacts at the project level Th is concept is based on the idea of valuing and at the regional level over time, and to the goods and services that ecosystems make this reporting transparent. provide in their natural state. Th e witness described four categories of ecosystems Assessment of ecosystem services provides services: an opportunity to assess the health of the ecosystem in response to cumulative impacts. • Provisioning services – these include Th e witness said the Project requires baseline food, raw materials such as wood fi bre, data on ecosystem services, prior to hydro freshwater, biological resources such as development, in order to assess the impact of biochemicals with pharmaceutical uses, Keeyask added to previous projects. Manitoba and materials such as metals and rock; Hydro and the Keeyask Partnership have an excellent opportunity, the witness said, to • Regulating services – these are ecosystem assess the impact of cumulative projects on processes that provide a benefi t to ecosystem services throughout the Nelson and society, such as air and water fi ltration, Churchill watershed. water treatment and regulation, climate regulation, buff ering of fl ood fl ows, and erosion control; Commission Comment – • Cultural services – these include Sustainable Development non-material benefi ts obtained from Th e Panel heard specifi cally about three ecosystems, including cultural heritage, diff erent environmental management tools or spiritual and religious value, aesthetics, decision-making frameworks: sustainability education and recreation; and assessment, life-cycle assessment, and ecological goods and services. While it is • Supporting services – these are natural recognized that all three of these tools or processes that enable ecosystems frameworks have some environmental or to fl ourish, support resilience and resource-management applications, none of biodiversity, and thereby provide for the three is required for an environmental all the other ecosystems services. Th ese assessment in Manitoba or Canada. Th ey have services include soil formation, nutrient also rarely, if ever, been used on hydroelectric cycling and primary production. projects.

Th is witness expressed the concern that Th e three tools off er diff erent paradigms ecosystem services were not specifi cally from which to consider and assess projects considered in the EIS. Th e EIS did not and activities and have been promoted in include a cost-benefi t analysis of degrading some academic and professional circles. ecosystem services. Although it is common in Sustainability assessment seeks to off er a more environmental impact assessments not to have comprehensive and integrated approach to indicators that capture eff ects on ecosystem decision-making, in which social, economic, services, the witness said this makes it and environmental considerations are diffi cult to “scale up” and consider the eff ects assessed together in a format similar to a of multiple projects on a watershed or in a societal cost-benefi t analysis. Life-cycle

154 assessment is a tool that takes a “cradle- to-grave” approach for quantifying and interpreting environmental impacts associated with a product or service. Ecological goods and services seeks to quantify and assess the value of ecological functions and features that nature supplies.

While these tools can assist individuals or society in examining a project, many aspects of them have been considered directly or indirectly within the Keeyask Project. Some aspects of the tools have been directly considered by the Proponent, such as the life- cycle assessment conducted by the Pembina Institute. Others have been considered, albeit under the guise of some other planning or management tool. As well, the totality of decision making around Keeyask (including the environmental hearing process as well as the Need For and Alternatives To hearing conducted by the Public Utilities Board and the Crown consultations under Section 35 of the Constitution) addresses other aspects of these proposed tools. Some of these tools or aspects of them have not advanced far enough in their science or application for it to be clear how they would off er any new or valuable insights on Keeyask.

One subject that the Proponent could have addressed more fully is waste management. Th e Proponent has stated that all supplies will be shipped from outside the region and that waste will be burned or dealt with through the municipal waste management process. Th e Commission is of the opinion that more could be done in this regard by reducing the potential for waste material in the fi rst place, developing a more comprehensive recycling plan (perhaps in conjunction with the Town of Gillam) or fi nding innovative ways to reuse materials.

155 156 Chapter Fifteen Into the Future

15.1 Environmental 15.1.1 Manitoba Hydro Assessment As noted in the Foreword to this report, For at least the last decade, in all of its the environmental assessment conducted reports in regard to major project proposals, by Manitoba Hydro on behalf of the the Commission has off ered some of our Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, thinking on the process of environmental in conjunction with the three assessments assessment (EA). Th is might be referred to as conducted by the Keeyask Cree Nations, “off -the-record,” as it is not based on anything represented a considerable improvement from specifi c that we heard, or that was debated the Bipole III assessment. Still, there is room or discussed, during the hearings. Rather, it for improvement. is based on our extensive experience gained through a number of proceedings, and, most Manitoba Hydro is a large corporation importantly, is advice that the Commission with plans for many developments over the believes will improve the practice of next number of years. Th ese developments environmental assessment. will range from relatively small to very large. All will require some degree of environmental Whether due to our past advice or not, the assessment before being granted a licence to Commission is of the view that EA practice is commence a new project or make alterations getting better – slowly. We see both positive and to existing facilities. Within the Corporation negative signs on the horizon: positive in that are a number of large divisions, some of which the Government of Manitoba is undertaking are responsible for their own developments, a comprehensive review of its environmental including responsibility for the attendant legislation; negative in that the federal environmental assessments. government appears to have taken a backwards step with signifi cant amendments to the Th e Commission is of the view that this Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in 2012. can lead to inconsistency in standards and practice. For example, it was experienced in Th e Commission continues this practice this project, that a good deal of important by, once again, off ering some advice that we information gathered for the Bipole III believe will continue the improvement of EA Transmission Project environmental practice in Manitoba. Some of this advice is assessment could not be, easily and in a repetitive, having been off ered in previous timely manner, incorporated into the Keeyask reports; some is new. Generation Project because of diff ering

157 standards and methodologies. To address such environmental assessment has been concerns, Manitoba Hydro should establish a conducted under guidelines and practices centralized environmental assessment process established by the federal Canadian to set standards, and to guide, manage and Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). co-ordinate all environmental assessment Until very recently, this has been of little or and monitoring processes conducted by no concern. However, federal regulatory the Corporation. While each project team responsibilities have decreased markedly would continue to carry out the necessary with the passage of a new governing statute assessments based on their priorities, they in 2012. As a result, the Commission would be guided by consistent corporate questions whether environmental assessments environmental assessment standards and developed under the new Canadian procedures. Environmental Assessment Act guidelines still meet the needs of Manitobans in protecting Th e Commission is also of the view that it the environment. We believe that they will would benefi t the environmental assessment not. process if there were peer review of materials to ensure that the best and most appropriate In its statutory review, the Manitoba techniques for analysis are used and that results government must address this and establish are interpreted and presented appropriately. protocols and set specifi c standards that do meet Manitoba’s needs. Among the issues that 15.1.2 Government of Manitoba Manitoba should consider are:

As noted above, the Minister of • Environmental Assessment – When is it Conservation and Water Stewardship required; and to what degree? has committed to advancing the timing of a review of Th e Environment Act as • Environmental Impact Statement – What part of “Tomorrow Now,” the Manitoba triggers the requirement for an EIS? What government’s strategic plan for protecting the are the minimum requirements of an EIS? environment while ensuring a prosperous • Provincial Guidelines – Th e current and environmentally conscious economy. At legislation states that guidelines or the same time, the Manitoba Law Reform instructions may be provided, but there is Commission is conducting a review of no regulation or policy that defi nes how environmental assessment, the report of this action will be implemented. which will certainly inform the province’s statutory review. Th e Commission views these • Scoping Document – In current practice, as very positive steps. proponent-generated scoping documents have replaced government-issued Th e Commission reiterates the concerns guidelines. Is this eff ective? What is the regarding the environmental assessment role of the scoping document? process in Manitoba raised in previous Commission reports. Our intent in off ering • VECs – Develop criteria to guide the the following is that this advice will inform selection of VECs. and, ultimately, be incorporated into the resulting statutory regime. • Sustainability Assessment – During the Keeyask and recent hearings, it was It has long been common practice, recommended by Participants that the in much of Canada, that provincial Commission require the proponent to

158 conduct a sustainability assessment of a small adjustment in one element of a the Project. Th is was beyond the scope project may lead to a decrease in negative of our review. But the concept is one that impacts or a positive impact on the the Commission believes to be worthy environment in combination with the of further consideration for future associated projects. Consideration should environmental assessment. Th is process be given to how interrelated projects can could well go beyond just getting project be assessed as one or in tandem. approval to looking at the sustainability of the project, the tradeoff s and the balance on the socioeconomic-environmental 15.2 Public Consultations ledger sheet. Th ese comments are directed at both levels of government, as well as the • Cumulative Eff ects Assessment – Th e Proponent. Commission continues to be of the opinion that the process and practice for Communities in the geographical area Cumulative Eff ects Assessment needs to where hydroelectric development occurs be defi ned and prescribed in Manitoba’s have been subject to an inordinate number context. Chapter 12 of this report contains of meetings, workshops, negotiating sessions, some specifi cs that the Commission etc., sometimes for more than one project, at believes need to be addressed in this much the same time. (Cree Nation Partners regard. Th e Commission also welcomes representatives reported that, between TCN the endeavour by the Canadian Council and WLFN, there were more than 2,000 of Ministers of the Environment to meetings over an eight year period.) All of determine national standards for CEA. these sessions come with documentation to be reviewed. • Staged Licensing – Th ere were at least two other parts of the Keeyask Project Th ese interactions have been generated that were not subject to the Commission’s by: review, which made it diffi cult for the Panel to be confi dent about the cumulative • the Proponent – consultation, eff ects of Keeyask. Th e Keeyask information-sharing, negotiation, etc.; Infrastructure Project was underway before the Keeyask Generation Project • the federal government – environmental was being reviewed and the Keeyask review and Section 35 consultations; Transmission Project is awaiting licensing. Aspects of each of these other projects • the provincial government – were referenced in regard to the eff ects of environmental assessment and Section 35 the Keeyask Generation Project. Taken consultations; and together, all these are necessary parts of the electrical generation from the Keeyask • the Clean Environment Commission dam. In fact, one cannot proceed without hearings. the other. It would have been more favourable if at least these three projects Needless to say, this can lead to much could have been considered at the same confusion and frustration among the various time. In such a case, the overall impacts parties. For many in the communities, there could be better balanced. For example: is consultation fatigue, which, in turn, may result in individuals tuning out even though

159 they may have valid concerns, or missing an In doing this, the Partnership has taken a opportunity to participate because they do not very big and positive step. Th is demonstrates understand the various processes. good faith in making strides to understand and incorporate ATK into a process which Governments and proponents need has typically ignored it, relying, in the past, to be cognizant of the impacts of so much solely on Western Scientifi c Knowledge consultation on the communities and their (WSK). But, in the Commission’s view, this leadership. Th e current protocols should is only a fi rst step; it is still very much a be reviewed to establish a streamlined work in progress. Manitoba Hydro – and its communication process that is eff ective but partners – and the Government of Manitoba less of a burden on the communities. need to continue to develop this. A narrow approach to doing this will not succeed. Th e work must be collaborative with Aboriginal 15.3 Regional Cumulative communities, with academics and with Effects Assessment groups across country who are also pursuing respect for and incorporation of ATK and During the Commission’s hearings on Aboriginal worldviews into environmental Bipole III, it became apparent that there decision-making. A wealth of historical was a need for a Regional Cumulative information is available, as well as advice on Eff ects Assessment on the Nelson River the consequences of particular management system, to address past, current and future actions. Th e Commission encourages impacts of hydro development. We made Manitoba Conservation and Water a recommendation to that end, which was Stewardship to take into greater consideration accepted by the Minister of Conservation and Aboriginal worldviews and ATK in resource Water Stewardship. and environmental management. Th e Keeyask hearings underlined for the Given that a WSK environmental Panel that this was of the utmost importance. assessment seeks to fi nd no residual eff ects Th e Panel is pleased that this activity is aft er mitigation on individual VECs, when underway. Th e Panel encourages both the viewed from a global ecosystem perspective, Province and Manitoba Hydro to allocate this can be seen as a fl awed process. ATK, on all necessary resources to ensure that this is the other hand, places paramount importance completed as soon as possible. on protecting the whole of the ecosystem. Incorporating the two approaches could well 15.4 Aboriginal Worldviews provide great benefi ts to our environment. Th e Panel found the inclusion of the One method of facilitating these Cree worldview and Aboriginal Technical interactions could be through a Knowledge (ATK) to be a very positive and “Grandmothers Circle”. Th is concept was critical part of the information, providing a presented to the Panel by its one Aboriginal context for much of the scientifi c studies. member, Reg Nepinak, an Anishinabe member of the Pine Creek First Nation, who was raised in a traditional family with its values and respect for Askiy. It is described in the accompanying text-box, written by Mr. Nepinak. Th e Panel believes this is worth sharing.

160 Ke nocominanak (Our Grandmothers) In his testimony, Elder Joe Keeper talked about Archeologists fi nding that indigenous people had already established themselves in this area for at least 5,000 years. The people lived in harmony with nature; they understood not to mistreat Askiy or any part of it. Ceremony was done when Askiy was asked to provide for the people, prayers were made to the resource for giving its life, tobacco was given as a sign of respect. Manitoba became a province in 1870. One hundred and forty four years later the environment is in jeopardy or nearly destroyed surrounding the Churchill, Burntwood and Nelson Rivers, including Cedar Lake. In these hearings, it has been maintained that the Cree worldview is equal to Western science. However, the Cree are still not given credit for maintaining the environment for 5,000 years. We are aware that Manitoba Hydro is not the only contributor to the condition of the water; still, it has contributed a major portion to its condition and continues to do so. The indigenous people did have a governance structure that was unlike the western model and if the Europeans recognised it, it was dismissed, much the same way the indigenous worldview is dismissed today. In order for our two societies to come together, the whole of immigrant societies need to recognize that the indigenous people understood and managed the concept of a sustainable environment. Learn who we are, why our ceremonies are so important, learn about our languages, about making bannock, etc. The late Elder Floyd Red Crow Westerman wrote: “Before the white man came to our land, our women made all the major decisions for our clans. The European came here to our land and could not believe what they saw in the strong hearts and minds of our women. This is our Grandmother, and her Grandmother, and so on. This is the same Spirit which survives within us today.” Final decisions in governing our indigenous societies were made by our grandmothers – Ke nocominanak. The minister should support these long-standing and successful methods of the Cree/ indigenous worldview by incorporating a circle of Ke nocominanak with a mission to oversee safeguarding the environment. The Ke nocominanak terms of reference would be the teachings of Honesty, Respect, Courage and Truth. These four are engrained with Wisdom, Humility and Love. Elders of today do say these were all we were taught as children. Similar circles have been adopted or convened by international groups and the UN in recent years. Three are listed below: 1. The UN Elders 2. The International Council of the 13 Indigenous Grandmothers 3. The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature.

161 15.5 Rebuilding the to generate wealth for all Manitobans, Relationship while the wealth all goes south; In the past decade, the Commission • Th ere are very few full-time, meaningful has conducted hearings to review three jobs for First Nations residents beyond the major hydro projects in northern Manitoba construction period; – Wuskwatim, Bipole III and Keeyask. Inevitably, in each case, the hearings have • Th at many First Nations believed that the – to some extent – become a review of the Northern Flood Agreement promised entire history of development on the Nelson, prosperity, which they have yet to see. Burntwood and Churchill rivers. In more than one community, the While such a review is clearly beyond the Commission heard that Manitoba Hydro terms of reference of any of these projects, still needs to work on regaining the trust the Commission has taken the position that and respect of northerners. One presenter – given the statutory mandate of engaging described a continuum of oppression: from the public – the Commission will hear such the fur trade to the construction of the concerns, report on them and provide advice Hudson Bay railroad to residential schools to to the Proponent and/or the Government hydro development. Others spoke of racism – oft en in the form of Non-Licensing and bullying on the part of Manitoba Hydro Recommendations. employees. Still others lamented that their once-beautiful home territories had been left Keeyask was no diff erent in this regard. looking very unattractive (like a dump, in the In fact, global, or historic, issues may have words of one.) played a greater role in these hearings, due, in no small part, to the fact that the partner First From a number of presenters, we heard Nations have a long history of having been that, while Manitoba Hydro has provided aff ected by past development. In each of the much compensation, it has never apologized three hydro proceedings, we have heard of a for the past wrongs. 50-plus year history of pain and suff ering. Th e Commission heard about these issues Among the specifi c issues the from a number of individuals in a number of Commission heard during these hearings communities that will be aff ected by Keeyask. were: Th ey added to what was heard during the Wuskwatim and Bipole hearings. Indeed, • Th at the entire hydro development in these matters are widely accepted as common northern Manitoba be considered one knowledge. While these issues were not project with 35-plus parts to it; canvassed in depth, the Commission had no reason not to accept them as accurate. It was • Th at Manitoba Hydro should concede that not at all diffi cult for anyone to understand all of this development has compromised their feelings about this history. all of the Nelson River; Th e Commission believes it has had • Th at the First Nations in the immediate suffi cient experience over the past decade area of this development have received to off er some advice to address some of few, if any, tangible benefi ts; that First the hurt and pain still existent in northern Nations’ lands and waters have been used communities.

162 First, the Commission does not expect chip away at it, a little bit each year, engaging Manitoba Hydro to solve all of the problems a local workforce to do much of the work. existing in northern Manitoba. Th ey are hardly responsible for all of them. We Another positive step in this process of believe that today’s Manitoba Hydro is truly reconciliation would be to use Aboriginal committed to avoid repeating the mistakes names wherever possible. Th e Partnership of the past in regard to the Aboriginal people has taken the fi rst step in this regard by and communities in northern Manitoba. naming Keeyask in consultation with the And, Manitoba Hydro is sincere in its eff orts First Nations. Th is should continue, again to address these past concerns. But the in consultation with the local First Nations, Commission believes that more must be done; perhaps re-naming or assigning dual names to and it need not be overly costly or complex. some of the existing sites and structures.

Th e Commission is well aware that – Th e Regional Cumulative Eff ects under the Northern Flood Agreement and Assessment may also identify more other similar agreements – Manitoba Hydro opportunities to improve the relationship with has contributed a very signifi cant amount of First Nations and address past and on-going money in compensation. And, it is recognized impacts in a more holistic manner. that Manitoba Hydro is not in the business of community development. We encourage the Manitoba government and Manitoba Hydro to seize these Still, the Commission is of the view that opportunities as we all move forward. there is a need for a more formal process of reconciliation. We hasten to add that we are not suggesting a long and complex process similar to the residential schools process.

Th e Commission recommends a process to rebuild trust and respect, for what was lost, what remains and what may be in the future. Th e process must be designed in collaboration with all of the First Nations impacted by all hydro development in northern Manitoba. Th e governments of Canada and Manitoba should be parties to this process.

As part of this reconciliation process, Manitoba Hydro needs to rehabilitate the landscape, including: the Sundance townsite, unused borrow pits, storage yards, dumps, etc. Th e Commission realizes that this could be a major undertaking – but it doesn’t need to be done all at once.

In fact, it would be better to take the time to do it right, in consultation with the aff ected First Nations. Establish priorities and then

163 164 Chapter Sixteen Recommendations

Licensing recommendations productivity of bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the Keeyask project area to build and operate the prior to construction and annually for a Keeyask Generation Project minimum of fi ve years after operation begins to verify the impact of the Project The Commission recommends that: on the local and regional population.

1.1 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 10.5 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership be issued an Environment Act licence develop and apply a statistically robust for the Keeyask Generation Project, sampling system to monitor olive-sided subject to licensing conditions outlined fl ycatcher and rusty blackbird, that will in subsequent recommendations in this confi rm whether displaced birds are report. using alternate habitat or whether the project effects are impacting the regional 10.1 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership population. stock lake sturgeon for at least 50 years in order to allow for enough time to 10.6 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership determine whether a self-sustaining undertake a comprehensive pre- population can be re-established. construction survey to determine the current number and location of gull 10.2 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership and tern colonies and their nesting employ PIT tags or future best technology success in the Project area. During and to uniquely identify individual sturgeon following construction, establishment and to distinguish natural from stocked of new colonies or the expansion of individuals. Use this information to existing colonies should be monitored to evaluate the success of the recovery determine the effect of Keeyask on the program. local and regional population.

10.3 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 10.7 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership consult widely with other facilities to investigate the feasibility of creating collect and evaluate the most successful replacement gull and tern nesting habitat techniques in fi sh culture for rearing and by modifying existing islands or creating releasing lake sturgeon and apply them new ones in the Project area using the to the fi sh culture and recovery program. placement of excavated materials. If feasible, these areas should be created 10.4 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership as soon as possible after construction- monitor the location, number and related activities begin.

165 10.8 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 11.6 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, conduct a three- to fi ve-year telemetry for the life of the Project, monitor and study with at least 10 (preferably 15) report to Manitoba Conservation and “summer-resident” caribou radio-collared Water Stewardship on the effects of the during the snow-free season to delineate offsetting programs on: their current range and facilitate the collection of population parameters. • fi sh populations in lakes used in the offsetting programs; 10.9 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership limit fragmentation of habitat and • moose and caribou populations in disturbance of “summer resident” caribou areas that fall under the offsetting where possible through the retirement of programs; roads and trails required for construction. • any other impacts on local resources 10.10 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership as a result of offsetting programs. place signage along roadways alerting drivers to the potential for collision with 13.1 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, caribou and moose. under the direction of Manitoba Water Conservation and Water Stewardship, 10.11 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, on completion of the construction of the in co-operation with Manitoba Keeyask Generation Project, undertake a Conservation and Water Stewardship, third-party environmental audit to assess develop a public information program whether commitments were met and to that encourages the reporting of sightings assess the accuracy of assumptions and of “summer resident” caribou, and moose predictions. The results of this audit will and caribou road kills. be made public. This is to be repeated ten years after the fi rst environmental audit. 11.1 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership provide continuing education and 13.2 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership training opportunities on the Project for maintain its Keeyask website for the life of HNTEI-trained workers to advance their the Project, containing all the information employment prospects. the Proponent has already committed to in the EIS and Keeyask hearings related to 11.2 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership monitoring and assessing environmental carry out mercury monitoring in the Long impacts, mitigation and management. Spruce and Limestone forebays on the This information is to be easily retrievable same schedule as for Stephens Lake and updated frequently. and the Keeyask reservoir until it can be determined that there is no effect. 13.3 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership provide to Manitoba Conservation 11.3 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership and Water Stewardship an annual carry out pre-fl ood monitoring of fi sh report on the Keeyask Generation mercury in Gull Lake and Stephens Lake Project containing suffi cient detail that until fl ooding of the reservoir. assessments can be made as to the accuracy of predictions, success of 11.5 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership mitigation actions and commitment to monitor the number of workers coming future actions. These reports will provide to the site in private vehicles, and if the assessment of any trends detected over number proves to be signifi cant and of the entire reporting period. These reports concern, take steps to reduce the number are to be made public. of private vehicles on site.

166 Non-Licensing 12.1 The Manitoba Government establish provincial guidelines for cumulative Recommendations effects assessment best practices and include specifi c direction for proponents The Commission recommends that: in project guidelines.

10.12 Beyond the immediate Keeyask area, Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Government limit fragmentation of habitat, facilitate the rehabilitation of habitat, and limit human disturbance of “summer resident” caribou. Such actions could include, but are not limited, to the retirement and re-vegetation of roads, trails and cutlines, rehabilitation of borrow areas, limiting access on existing roads and trails, controlling access to calving islands, and limiting or restricting recreational trails.

10.13 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership and the Manitoba Government further investigate and incorporate ATK and local knowledge of historical “summer resident caribou” distributions and populations to inform current status and their management.

10.14 Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship determine the status of the “summer resident” caribou and apply the appropriate protections depending upon the determination.

10.15 Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship lead a long-term co- ordinated monitoring study of caribou in the Gillam area that includes the Keeyask Generation Project, the Keeyask Transmission Project, Bipole III Transmission Project, Conawapa, expansion of and alterations to existing Manitoba Hydro facilities and any other impacts on the landscape.

11.4 Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership carry out post-fl ood monitoring of mercury in sediments and in the water column in the Keeyask reservoir and Stephens Lake to inform the effects of future projects.

167 168 Works Cited

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. xi + 138pp.

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship. 2012a. Manitoba Fisheries Branch, Fisheries Management Objectives, Keeyask Dam/Gull Lake Area, October 2012. Draft In Keeyask, Fish Habitat Compensation Plan, Appendix A.

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship. 2012b. Manitoba Lake Sturgeon Management Srategy. (Final Draft , April 11, 2012).

169 170 Appendix I Terms of Reference

171 172 173 174 Appendix II List of Presenters

Presenter Affi liation

Adams, Ken Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Agger, Leslie Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Anderson, Karen Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Arthurson, Conway Private Beardy, Abraham Fox Lake Cree Nation Youth Group Beardy, Brandon Private, York Factory First nation Beardy, Edwin Kaweechiwasihk Kay-tay-a-ti-suk Beardy, Elizabeth Kaweechiwasihk Kay-tay-a-ti-suk Beardy, Eunice Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Beardy, Flora Kaweechiwasihk Kay-tay-a-ti-suk Beardy, Freddy Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Beardy, George Private, York Factory First Nation Beardy, Georgina Private, York Factory First Nation Beardy, Jeff Private, York Factory First Nation Beardy, Joyce Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Beardy, Nancy Kaweechiwasihk Kay-tay-a-ti-suk Beardy, Pearce Private, York Factory First Nation Beardy, Roy Private, York Factory First Nation Bedford, Doug Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Benoit, Al Manitoba Métis Federation Berger, Robert Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Birnie, Meghan Manitoba Métis Federation Blacksmith, Andrina Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation Bland, Ted Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Bowick, Matt Manitoba Wildlands

175 Presenter Affi liation

Braun, Tracey Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Braun, Will Interchurch Council on Hydropower Bresee, Karl Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Brightnose, Bobby Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation Brown, Gordon Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Buckland, Jerry Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Campbell, Anita Manitoba Métis Federation Campbell, Norman Manitoba Métis Federation Canibie, Malcolm Shamattawa First Nation Canibie, Sidney Shamattawa First Nation Chapman, Stella Kaweechiwasihk Kay-tay-a-ti-suk Chartrand, David Manitoba Métis Federation Chornoby, Len Manitoba Métis Federation Ciekiewicz, Allan Private Clarke, Amelia Manitoba Wildlands Cleveland, Robert Manitoba Métis Federation Cole, Vicky Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Constant, Louisa Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Cook, Melvin Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Cook, Sam Private, York Factory First Nation Craft , Aimee Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Da Silva, Judy Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens Davies, Stuart Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership DeWit, William Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Dick, Samson Private Dick, Terry Kaweechiwasihk Kay-tay-a-ti-suk Diduck, Alan Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Disbrowe, Illa Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Dolinsky, Kenneth Kaweechiwasihk Kay-tay-a-ti-suk Ehnes, James Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Fitzpatrick, Patricia Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Flanders, David Peguis First Nation Flett, Cheryl Private, York Factory First Nation Flett, Dawson Private, York Factory First Nation Flett, Robert Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership

176 Presenter Affi liation

Garson, Joe Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Garson, Michael Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Garson, Solange Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Gibson, Robert Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Guirguis, Cathy Peguis First Nation Gunn, Jill Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Head, Walter Manitoba Métis Federation Henley, Th omas Shamattawa First Nation Hicks, Elisabeth Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Hill, Jordan, Shamattawa First Nation Hudson, Glenn Peguis First Nation Kearns, Stephanie Pimicikamak Okimawin Keeper, Alan Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Keeper, Joe Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Kempton, Kate Pimicikamak Okimawin Kennedy, Betsy Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Kennedy Courcelles, Cheryl Private Kidd Hantscher, Jane Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Kinley, Janet Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Kitchekeesik, Gloria Private Kitchekeesik, Jonathan Private Kitchekeesik, Dana Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Knudsen, Brian Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Koenig, Kristina Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Kulchyski, Peter Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens Lagimodiere, Julyda Manitoba Métis Federation Land, Lorraine Peguis First Nation Larcombe, Patt Manitoba Métis Federation Lee, Murray Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Linklater, D’Arcy Kaweechiwasihk Kay-tay-a-ti-suk London, Jack Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Luttermann, Annette Pimicikamak Okimawin MacDonell, Don Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Madden, Jason Manitoba Métis Federation Malenchak, Jerry Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Manzer, Mark Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Massan, Christina Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens

177 Presenter Affi liation

Massan, Jack Private Massan, Khrystyna Fox Lake Cree Nation Youth Group Massan, Noah Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens Massan, Paddy Shamattawa First Nation Matkowski, Shelley Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Mayor, Janet Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Mazurat, Marilyn and Xavier Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation McCorrister, Nathan Peguis First Nation McHugh, Alyson Manitoba Wildlands McIvor, Janet Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation McIvor, Norma Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation McIvor, Norman Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation McKay, Edith Grace Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation McKay, Donald Senior Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation McKay, Katherine Elder Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation McKay, Violet Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation McLachlan, Stephane Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens McLeod, Nicholas Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Miles, Kerry Shamattawa First Nation Miles, Sam Shamattawa First Nation Miles, William Shamattawa First Nation Miller, Charles Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation Monias, Rita F. Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation Monias, Tommy Pimicikamak Cree Nation Moose, Andrew Private, York Factory First Nation Moose, Ivan Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens Muswaggon, David Pimicikamak Okimawin Nabiss, Sandra Private, Fox Lake Cree Nation Napoakesik, Brittany Shamattawa First Nation Neckoway, Ramona Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens Neepin, George Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Nelson, Baldur Private Nepetaypo, Th omas Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens Nepitabo, Tom Private Neville, Elissa Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Noble, Bram Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. North, Ettienne Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation

178 Presenter Affi liation

Northover, Carolyne Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership O’Gorman, Melanie Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Osborne, Jackson Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation Pachal, Shawna Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Pantel, Phillip Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Parenteau, Solomon Manitoba Métis Federation Park, Jack Manitoba Métis Federation Paupanakis, Darwin Pimicikamak Okimawin Pawlowska-Mainville, Agnieszka Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens Peake, Stephan Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Petch, Virginia Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Redhead, Daniel Shamattawa First Nation Redhead, Liberty Shamattawa First Nation Redhead, Roy Private, York Factory First Nation Redhead, Wayne Private, York Factory First Nation Regehr, Brad Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Rempel, George Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Riel, Marci Manitoba Métis Federation Robinson, Shirley Pimicikamak Okimawin Roddick, Bob Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Rosenberg, Sheryl Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Salazar, James Manitoba Wildlands Saunders, Doreen Kaweechiwasihk Kay-tay-a-ti-suk Saunders, Martina Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Saunders, Selina Private Schaefer, James Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Schick, Glen Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Schneider-Viera, Friederike Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Scott, Eleanor Private, Pimicikamak Cree Nation Settee, Darrell Pimicikamak Okimawin Sinclair, Joe Private, York Factory First Nation Sinclair, Niigaanwewidam James Peguis First Nation Soprovich, Dan Manitoba Wildlands Spence, Aubergine Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Spence, John Private Spence, Martha Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation

179 Presenter Affi liation

Spence, Rita Fox Lake Cree Nation Youth Group Spence, Robert Private Spence, Victor Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Spence, Walter Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership St. Laurent, Marc Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Stewart, Abbie Manitoba Métis Federation Sutherland, Mike Peguis First Nation Wastesicoot, Charlotte Private Wastesicoot, Frank Private, York Factory First Nation Wastesicoot, George Private, York Factory First Nation Wavey, Jim Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Wavey, Keanna Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Wavey, Mary Private, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Wavey, Shannise Fox Lake Cree Nation Youth Group Whelan Enns, Gaile Manitoba Wildlands Whelan, Jared Peguis First Nation Wilke, Aavory Fox Lake Cree Nation Youth Group Williams, Byron Consumers’ Association of Canada (MB) Inc. Williams, Nancy Private, York Factory First Nation Wilson, Ross Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership Wyenberg, Leane Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership

180 Presenters of written submissions Presenter Affi liation

Anton Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Campbell, Neil H.P. Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Chesney, Garett Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Davida Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Garson, Solange Private (Tataskweyak Cree Nation) Halcrow, Nick Sr. Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) McKay, Edith Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) McKay, Tony K.S. Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Monias, Shevon Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Orborne, Lindsay Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Pearson, Kori Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Robinson, Rae Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Braden Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Colan Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Daralee Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Davey Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Jordyne Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Kaylin Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Mary Verna Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Pierce Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Tammy Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Ross, Taylor Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Scott, Skyler Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Scott, Vince Gill Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Spence, Jodie Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Trout, Jo Dee Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Umpherville, Delfi na Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation) Umpherville, Konroy Private (Pimicikamak Cree Nation)

181 182 Appendix III Glossary of Acronyms

asl Above sea level AC Alternating current AEA Adverse Eff ects Agreement AFP Augmented Flow Program ATK Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge CAC Consumers’ Association of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. CEA Cumulative eff ects assessment CEC Clean Environment Commission CFLGC Concerned Fox Lake Grassroots Citizens cfs Cubic feet per second CLFN Cross Lake First Nation/Pimicikamak Okimawin CNP Cree Nation Partners (Tataskweyak Cree Nation and War Lake First Nation) COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CPUE Catch per unit of eff ort CRD Churchill River Diversion DC Direct current DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DNC Direct Negotiated Contract EAPF Environmental Act Proposal Form EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMPAs Excavated material placement areas EMS Emergency Medical Services FLCN Fox Lake Cree Nation GHG Greenhouse Gas GW Gigawatt HNTEI Hydro Northern Employment and Training Initiative IR Information Request

183 JKDA Joint Keeyask Development Agreement KCN Keeyask Cree Nations KHLP Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership KIP Keeyask Infrastructure Project KK Kaweechiwasihk Kay-Tay-A-Ti-Suk KTC Keewatin Tribal Council KTP Keeyask Transmission Project LWR Lake Winnipeg Regulation MAC Monitoring Advisory Committee MKO Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak MMF Manitoba Métis Federation MW Megawatt NCN Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation NFAT Need For and Alternatives To NFA Northern Flood Agreement NFC Northern Flood Committee PFN Peguis First Nation PIP Public Involvement Program PIT Passive Integrated Transponder PMF Probable Maximum Flood RCEA Regional Cumulative Eff ects Assessment RMB Resource Management Board SFN Shamattawa First Nation SLRMA Split Lake Resource Management Area TAC Technical Advisory Committee TCN Tataskweyak First Nation TLE Treaty Land Entitlement TSS Total suspended solids UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization VEC Valued Environmental Component WLFN War Lake First Nation WSK Western Scientifi c Knowledge YFFN York Factory First Nation YFRMA York Factory Resource Management Area YOY Young of the year

184 Appendix IV Glossary of Technical Terms

Adverse Eff ects Agreement Agreements between Manitoba Hydro and the four Keeyask Cree Nations that include agreed-upon mitigation measures to compensate for potential impacts of the project on the rights and interests of partners’ members, including such matters as resource use and cultural impacts.

Benthic Occurring at or related to the bottom of a body of water.

Bioaccumulation Th e accumulation of substances or other organic chemicals such as methylmercury in an organism. It occurs when an organism absorbs a toxic substance at a rate greater than that at which the substance is lost.

Biological oxygen demand (BOD) is the amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic biological organisms in a body of water to break down organic material present in a given water sample at certain temperature over a specifi c time period.

Bog Wetland dominated by sphagnum mosses and typically nutrient-poor and acidic.

Borrow pit Area where material (usually soil, gravel or sand) has been dug for use at another location.

Coff erdams and rock groins Temporary rock and earth fi ll structures built in the river to allow for construction work to be carried out. Coff erdams are constructed around a worksite, such as the spillway or powerhouse, so that the work area can be dewatered.

Conductor Object or type of material that permits the fl ow of electric charges in one or more directions. For example, a wire is an electrical conductor that can carry electricity along its length.

185 Core area Th e interior area of a block of habitat that is far enough from the edge to avoid edge eff ects.

COSEWIC Status Categories Th e Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was established by the Species at Risk Act as the authority for assessing the conservation status of species that may be at risk of extinction in Canada. COSEWIC’s categories for the status of wildlife species are: Endangered – A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Th reatened – A wildlife species that is likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. Of Special Concern – A wildlife species that may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identifi ed threats.

CPUE “Catch per unit of eff ort:” the number of shfi that could be caught over a specifi ed time.

Discontinuous permafrost Permafrost located, somewhat sporadically, across the subarctic. Unlike arctic permafrost, which is more or less continuous across the arctic, discontinuous permafrost is located sporadically and exists due to soil conditions, geography, moisture content, and other factors.

Edge eff ects Th e eff ect caused by the transition between two distinct ecological communities (for example, forest and grass- covered clearing).

Environmental Management Plan A plan containing measures focused on minimizing eff ects on a specifi c aspect of the aquatic, terrestrial or socio- economic environment.

Environmental Protection Plan A plan providing detailed site-specifi c protection procedures for use during various stages of construction of the Project.

Evapotranspiration Th e movement of water into the air from waterbodies, soil and plants.

Fen Peatland that receives nutrients from ground or surface water, is not acidic and is characterized by mosses and sedges.

Fire regime Th e pattern, frequency and intensity of the wildfi res in an area.

186 Fish passage A structure, such as a series of pools arranged like ascending steps at the side of a stream, enabling fi sh to swim upstream around a dam or other obstruction, or a program of trapping and transporting fi sh by vehicle.

Fragmentation Th e breaking up of continuous blocks of habitat into smaller blocks, as a result of human disturbances.

Frazil Ice Loose, randomly oriented needle-shaped ice crystals in water. It resembles slush and forms in super-cooled turbulent water.

Gamete A mature sexual reproductive cell, such as a sperm or egg, that unites with another cell to form a new organism.

Granular fi ll Any type of small grain-like fi ller that get poured in between large rock to fi ll the gaps, gravel.

Hydraulic head Th e distance or height that the water drops at a generating station.

Hydraulic Zone of Infl uence Th e portion of the Nelson River where water levels and fl ows will be aff ected by the Project.

Ice boom A fl oating structure anchored in the bedrock that will initiate the development of a solid ice cover earlier in the winter.

Indicator species Species whose presence, absence, or relative well-being in a given environment is a sign of the overall health of its ecosystem. By monitoring the condition and behavior of an indicator species, scientists can determine how changes in the environment are likely to aff ect other species that are more diffi cult to study.

Inorganic Not consisting of or deriving from living matter.

Insulators Materials whose internal electric charges do not fl ow freely, and therefore make it very hard to conduct an electric current.

Intactness Th e degree to which an ecosystem remains unaltered by human features that remove habitat and increase fragmentation.

187 Invasive Plants (Also called “non-indigenous” or “non-native” plants.) Th ose species of plants that grow outside of their region of origin and can out-compete species native to the region, oft en with adverse economic or ecological eff ects.

Life-cycle assessment A tool that takes a “cradle-to-grave” approach for quantifying and interpreting environmental impacts associated with a product or service.

Linear feature density Measure of the impact of linear features, such as roads, power lines, trails and cutlines, in an area, typically expressed as kilometres of linear features per square kilometre.

Marsh Wetland that is periodically inundated, and characterized by grasses, sedges, cattails and rushes.

Methylmercury An organic form of mercury, produced by the action of anaerobic organisms that live in aquatic systems, that can become concentrated in animal tissues.

Organic Of, relating to, or derived from living matter.

Peaking mode In hydropower generation, this mode allows water to be stored in the reservoir and then released to generate electricity during peak demand periods.

Person-year Estimated to be equivalent 2,090 to 2,295 hours of employment, corresponding to 52 weeks of work at 40 to 45 hours per week.

Photochemical degradation Damage caused or increased by exposure to light.

PIT tags Passive Integrated Transponder tags, consisting of an integrated circuit chip, capacitor, and an encased antenna coil, help scientists track individual organisms by providing a reliable lifetime “barcode.” PIT tags are dormant until activated; they therefore do not require any internal source of power throughout their lifespan. ppm Parts per million, commonly used as a measure of small levels of pollutants in air, water, body fl uids, etc.

Quarry An excavation or pit, usually open to the air, from which building stone, slate, or the like, is obtained by cutting, blasting, etc.

188 Radio telemetry studies Studies in which animals are equipped with electronic tags so that their movements can be tracked.

Recruitment Recruitment occurs when juvenile animals survive and are added to the population. Recruitment is a measurement of both birth and survival to the fi rst fall.

Re-runnering A method of upgrading the turbines to increase generating capacity in a hydroelectric generating station.

Riprap A layer of large stones used for purposes such as preventing erosion.

Spillway A structure that discharges excess water fl ows above those needed for the production of electricity.

Staging area Area used by birds for feeding and roosting during migration.

Tailrace Th e path through which water fl ows out of the hydroelectric power plant aft er power generation.

Tailwater Waters located immediately downstream from a hydroelectric structure, such as a dam.

Th ermal stratifi cation Th e phenomenon in which lakes develop two or more diff erent layers of water of diff erent temperatures: warm on top and cold below.

Trash rack Screen that prevents debris from passing through the turbines at a hydroelectric generating station.

Trophic level An organism’s feeding position in a food chain, such as primary producer, herbivore, primary carnivore, etc.

Umbrella species Species selected for making conservation-related decisions, typically because protecting these species indirectly protects the many other species that make up the ecological community of its habitat.

Volt Th e unit of measure of electric pressure which causes current to fl ow.

Watt Th e unit of measurement of electric power.

Weir A barrier across a river designed to alter its fl ow characteristics, typically to raise upstream water levels.

189 Wetland function Th e natural properties or processes that wetlands provide, including converting sunlight into biomass, storing carbon, creating soil, storing and purifying groundwater, protecting shorelines, contributing to biodiversity and providing habitat for certain plant and animal species.

Year class Th e number of fi sh born in a given year.

190 Appendix V Glossary of Cree Terms Cited in the Report

Aski/Askiy Aski (the spelling used by FLCN) and Askiy (the spelling used by TCN, WLFN and YFFN) refer to the environment, including the land and water and all the plants and animals.

Aski Keskentamowin Traditional knowledge, knowledge of Aski/Askiy.

Aspehnimowin Trust: important to relationships and developed over time.

Ayakohmisewin Caution: essential so that individuals and the community can avoid disrespectful and harmful actions towards others or towards Askiy.

Innado mechim Traditional foods.

Inninuwak Th e Cree people.

Ke nocominanak Grandmothers Circle: proposed as an advisory group of elders whose mission would be to oversee safeguarding the environment. Th e group would provide advice and its terms of reference would be the teachings of Honesty, Respect, Courage and Truth.

Kischi Sipi Th e Nelson River.

Kiskinohamakaywina Teachings: handed down through the generations, off ering daily guidance, and relevant and applicable to the assessment, planning, construction and operation of Keeyask.

Kistaynitakosewin Honour: as in, to honour life and Askiy through ceremonies.

Kistaynitamowin Respect: very important when speaking and acting towards Askiy.

Kwayaskonikiwin Reconciliation.

191 Mantayosipi neyahk Caribou from the point of land of the River of Strangers. (York Factory First Nation).

Mino pimatisiwin Living a good life: also including the protection of Aski/Askiy, health and social well-being, socio-economic prosperity, integrity of culture and language, integrity of governance and autonomy and healthy ecosystems. It is spelled as a single word in the YFFN evaluation report and as two words elsewhere.

Mistikoskaw utikuk Caribou of a wooded area: resident throughout the year and occasionally joining in one herd in autumn with the Pen island caribou. Th ese caribou are relatively larger in size than others, with darker hide and more hair. (Fox Lake Cree Nation)

Mitewewin Th e traditional and spiritual ways of life.

Namowin atikok Caribou from the north east. Th ese caribou migrate into the area in early winter, are resident on the south side of the Nelson River and occasionally converge into one herd along with barren land caribou. Th ese are the caribou oft en referred to as Pen Island coastal caribou. Th ey are described as small in size, lighter in colour and having white fur around the neck. (Fox Lake Cree Nation)

Noschimik atikok Caribou that stay in the bush. (York Factory First Nation)

Oochinewhin/ohcinewin Th e belief that negative consequences will result from harmful or disrespectful actions, including harming Aski/Askiy or other people or treating Aski/Askiy or other people with disrespect.

Pasko atikok No tree caribou (barren ground). (York Factory First Nation)

Pastamowin Making inappropriate, hateful, untrue comments about someone else.

Puskwaw utikosisak Small caribou of a barren land. Th ese caribou migrate into the Keeyask area in early winter and are resident on the north side of the Nelson River. Th eir meat is described as sweeter and they have a more rounded hoof print. (Fox Lake Cree Nation)

Tapwaywin Truth.

Wapanok atikok Caribou that come from the east. (York Factory First Nation)

192