LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION

REPORT 2015

LAKE WINNIPEG REGULATION

REPORT 2015 ii iii iv Table of Contents

Foreword ...... xi

Executive Summary ...... xv

Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1 1 .1 The Manitoba Clean Environment Commission ...... 1 1 .2 The Project ...... 1. 1 .3 The Proponent ...... 1 1 .4 Terms of Reference ...... 2 1 .5 The Hearings ...... 3 1 .6 Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution ...... 3 1 .7 The Report ...... 3

Chapter Two: The Lake Winnipeg-Nelson River Watershed ...... 5. 2 .1 Overview ...... 5 2 .2 The Lake Winnipeg Watershed at a Glance ...... 5 2 .3 Water Management in the Lake Winnipeg Watershed ...... 8 2 .3 .1 The Saskatchewan River ...... 8. 2 .3 .2 The Winnipeg River ...... 9 2 .3 .3 The Red and Assiniboine Rivers ...... 10 2 3. 4. The Dauphin River ...... 11 2 3. 5. Other Rivers ...... 11 2 4. Nutrient Inputs to Lake Winnipeg ...... 11 2 5. Drainage ...... 13 2 6. Major Flood Controls ...... 14 2 7. Basin Management Actions and Initiatives ...... 15 What We Heard: Watershed Issues ...... 17 Commission Comment: Watershed Issues ...... 19

v Chapter Three: Understanding Lake Winnipeg Regulation ...... 21 3 1. A Brief History of Lake Winnipeg Regulation ...... 21 3 1. 1. The Northern Flood Agreement ...... 23 3 1. 2. Recent Studies and Agreements Involving LWR ...... 24 3 2. Manitoba’s Hydroelectric System ...... 25 3 3. What is Lake Winnipeg Regulation? ...... 29 3 4. Operation of LWR ...... 31 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Operation of LWR ...... 31 Commission Comment: Operation of LWR ...... 34

Chapter Four: Licence Process, Terms and Compliance ...... 37 4 1. The Licensing Process ...... 37 4 2. Terms of Licence ...... 38 4 3. Licence Compliance ...... 39 4 3. 1. Licence Condition: Playgreen and Kiskittogisu Lakes ...... 39 4 3. 2. Licence Condition: Maximum Discharge ...... 40 4 3. 3. Licence Condition: Minimum Outflow ...... 40 4 3. 4. Licence Condition: Forecasting Levels and Flows ...... 40 4 3. 5. Licence Condition: Outflow Rate of Change ...... 40 4 3. 6. Licence Condition: Kiskitto Lake ...... 41

Chapter Five: The Public Hearing Process ...... 43 5 1. Clean Environment Commission ...... 43 5 2. Public Participation ...... 43 5 2. 1. Community Hearings ...... 43 5 2. 2. Participant Assistance Program ...... 44 5 3. Presenters ...... 44 5 4. Written Submissions ...... 44 5 5. Access to Information ...... 44 Commission Comment: The Public Hearing Process ...... 44

Chapter Six: Reports of Clean Environment Commission Experts ...... 47 6 1. Overview ...... 47 6 2. Influence of Isostatic Rebound on Lake Winnipeg ...... 48 6 3. Lake Winnipeg Erosion and Accretion Processes ...... 50 6 4. Climate in the Lake Winnipeg Watershed and the Level of Lake Winnipeg ...... 54 6 5. Water Level Regulation in the Lake Winnipeg Basin and its Effect on Nutrient Status of the Lake ...... 55 6 6. Coastal Wetlands and Lake Winnipeg and the Netley-Libau Marsh ...... 56 6 7. Review of Hydrologic and Operational Models Presented to Manitoba Clean Environment Commission ...... 59

vi Chapter Seven: Physical/Environmental Effects of Lake Winnipeg Regulation ...... 61 7 1. Overview ...... 61 7 2. Water Regime ...... 61 7 2. 1. Water Regime – Lake Winnipeg ...... 61 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Water Regime – Lake Winnipeg ...... 61 What We Heard: Water Regime – Lake Winnipeg ...... 64 Commission Comment: Water Regime – Lake Winnipeg ...... 66 7 2. 2. Water Regime – Downstream ...... 67 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Water Regime – Downstream ...... 67 What We Heard: Water Regime – Downstream ...... 71 Commission Comment: Water Regime – Downstream ...... 74 7 3. Shoreline Erosion ...... 74 7 3. 1. Shoreline Erosion – Lake Winnipeg ...... 74 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Shoreline Erosion – Lake Winnipeg ...... 74 What We Heard: Shoreline Erosion – Lake Winnipeg ...... 75 Commission Comment: Shoreline Erosion – Lake Winnipeg ...... 76 7 3. 2. Shoreline Erosion – Downstream ...... 79 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Shoreline Erosion – Downstream ...... 79 What We Heard: Shoreline Erosion – Downstream ...... 80 Commission Comment: Shoreline Erosion – Downstream ...... 81 7 4. Water Quality ...... 83 7 4. 1. Water Quality – Lake Winnipeg ...... 83 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Water Quality – Lake Winnipeg ...... 83 What We Heard: Water Quality – Lake Winnipeg ...... 84 Commission Comment: Water Quality – Lake Winnipeg ...... 84 7 4. 2. Water Quality – Downstream ...... 85 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Water Quality – Downstream ...... 85 What We Heard: Water Quality – Downstream ...... 86 Commission Comment: Water Quality – Downstream ...... 86 7 5. Fish Populations and Fisheries ...... 87 7 5. 1. Fish Populations and Fisheries – Lake Winnipeg ...... 87 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Fish Populations and Fisheries – Lake Winnipeg . . . . . 87 What We Heard: Fish Populations and Fisheries – Lake Winnipeg ...... 88 Commission Comment: Fish Populations and Fisheries – Lake Winnipeg ...... 88 7 5. 2. Fish Populations and Fisheries – Downstream ...... 89 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Fish Populations and Fisheries – Downstream ...... 89 What We Heard: Fish Populations and Fisheries – Downstream ...... 90 Commission Comment: Fish Populations and Fisheries – Downstream ...... 91 7 6. Wetlands ...... 92 7 6. 1. Wetlands – Lake Winnipeg ...... 92 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Wetlands – Lake Winnipeg ...... 92 What We Heard: Wetlands – Lake Winnipeg ...... 95 Commission Comment: Wetlands – Lake Winnipeg ...... 95 7 6. 2. Wetlands – Downstream ...... 96 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Wetlands – Downstream ...... 96

vii What We Heard: Downstream Wetlands – Downstream ...... 97 Commission Comment: Wetlands – Downstream ...... 98 7 7. Ungulates (Moose and Caribou) ...... 100 7 7. 1. Ungulates ...... 101. Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Ungulates ...... 101. Commission Comment: Ungulates ...... 101.

Chapter Eight: Socio-economic Effects ...... 103 8 .1 Overview ...... 103. 8 .2 Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources ...... 103. 8 .2 .1 Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources – Lake Winnipeg ...... 103 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources – Lake Winnipeg ...... 103. What We Heard: Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources – Lake Winnipeg ...... 103 Commission Comment: Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources – Lake Winnipeg ...... 104. 8 .2 .2 Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources – Downstream ...... 105 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources – Downstream ...... 105 What We Heard: Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources – Downstream ...... 105 Commission Comment: Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources – Downstream ...... 106 8 .3 Resource Use ...... 107. 8 .3 .1 Resource Use – Lake Winnipeg ...... 107. Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Resource Use – Lake Winnipeg ...... 107. What We Heard: Resource Use – Lake Winnipeg ...... 108. Commission Comment: Resource Use – Lake Winnipeg ...... 108 8 .3 .2 Resource Use – Downstream ...... 108. Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Resource Use – Downstream ...... 108. What We Heard: Resource Use – Downstream ...... 109. Commission Comment: Resource Use – Downstream ...... 110 8 .4 Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety ...... 111. 8 .4 .1 Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety – Lake Winnipeg ...... 112 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety – Lake Winnipeg ...... 112 What We Heard: Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety – Lake Winnipeg . . . . .112 Commission Comment: Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety – Lake Winnipeg ...... 112 8 .4 .2 Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety – Downstream ...... 112 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety – Downstream ...... 112 What We Heard: Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety – Downstream ...... 114 Commission Comment: Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety – Downstream ...... 116 8 .5 Health Issues and Concerns ...... 117 8 .5 .1 Health Issues and Concerns – Lake Winnipeg ...... 117. Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Heath Issues and Concerns – Lake Winnipeg ...... 117. viii What We Heard: Health Issues and Concerns – Lake Winnipeg ...... 117. Commission Comment: Health Issues and Concerns – Lake Winnipeg ...... 117 8 .5 .2 Health Issues and Concerns – Downstream ...... 117. Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Health Issues and Concerns – Downstream ...... 117 What We Heard: Health Issues and Concerns – Downstream ...... 119. Commission Comment: Health Issues and Concerns – Downstream ...... 119 8 .6 Employment, Training and Business Opportunities ...... 120. 8 .6 .1 Employment, Training and Business Opportunities – Lake Winnipeg ...... 121 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Employment, Training and Business Opportunities – Lake Winnipeg ...... 121 What We Heard: Employment, Training and Business Opportunities – Lake Winnipeg ...... 121 Commission Comment: Employment, Training and Business Opportunities – Lake Winnipeg ...... 121 8 .6 .2 Employment, Training and Business Opportunities – Downstream ...... 122 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Employment, Training and Business Opportunities – Downstream ...... 122. What We Heard: Employment, Training and Business Opportunities – Downstream ...... 122. Commission Comment: Employment, Training and Business Opportunities – Downstream ...... 123.

Chapter Nine: Public Policy Issues ...... 125 9 .1 Overview ...... 125. 9 .2 The Water Power Act ...... 125. 9 .3 Other Legislation Relevant to Water and Environment ...... 125. 9 3 1 . The. Manitoba Hydro Act ...... 125. 9 3 2 . The. Water Rights Act ...... 126 9 3 3 . The. Water Resources Administration Act ...... 126. 9 3 4 . The. Environment Act ...... 127 9 3 5 . The. Water Protection Act ...... 127 What We Heard: Public Policy ...... 127. Commission Comment: Public Policy ...... 132.

Chapter Ten: Going Forward ...... 135. 10 .1 Overview ...... 135. 10 .2 Operating Rules and Models ...... 135. 10 .3 Climate Change ...... 138 Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Climate Change ...... 138. What We Heard: Climate Change ...... 138. Commission Comment: Climate Change ...... 139. 10 .4 Planning for a Future Environmental Assessment for LWR ...... 140. 10 .5 Legacy Project Licensing ...... 143. 10 .6 Supporting Watershed Thinking ...... 144 10 .7 Communication and Cooperation ...... 145 10 .8 Conclusion ...... 146.

ix Chapter Eleven: Recommendations ...... 149.

Works Cited ...... 153. Appendices Appendix I – Terms of Reference ...... 155 Appendix II – Lake Winnipeg Regulation Licences ...... 159 Appendix III – Hearing Participants ...... 177 Appendix IV - Acronyms ...... 185 Appendix V – Sources of information regarding the Lake Winnipeg watershed ...... 187.

x Foreword

In the summer of 2011, the Minister of Finally, this project is not one awaiting Conservation asked the Clean Environment an environmental licence to proceed . It was Commission to hold hearings seeking public constructed four decades ago; and has been input on Manitoba Hydro’s request for a in full operation since 1976 . As such, there final licence for Lake Winnipeg Regulation . was no looming deadline for issuance of a Given the long and, sometimes, controversial licence so that development could proceed . history of this project, these hearings would This explains why this report is only going give the public an opportunity to express their to the minister now, four years after being concerns . referred to the commission for a public review . Subsequent to receiving this referral, It would be an understatement to say that the commission was asked to conduct this proceeding is different from the usual reviews of licence applications for the Bipole hearings that the commission undertakes . III Transmission Project, as well as the First, this proceeding was not conducted Keeyask Generation Project, both of which under The Environment Act, under which the took precedence over the Lake Winnipeg Clean Environment Commission is established Regulation review . and given its authority . It is also under this act that the commission is asked to review certain Under The Water Power Act and applications for an environmental licence to Regulation, Manitoba Hydro is entitled to a develop a project, or to review broad issues of final licence upon fulfillment and compliance environmental concern . The Lake Winnipeg with the terms and conditions of its Interim Regulation licence, under consideration in this Licence . This would seem to indicate that review, is issued under The Water Power Act¸ Hydro would have a fairly easy test to meet, which, while it allows for the minister to call one that would not be subject to much for a hearing, has no requirement for a public scrutiny . However, given that there is a large review . and diverse amount of public interest in matters related to Lake Winnipeg, in general, Second, there was no environmental and to its regulation, in particular, the assessment to be assessed . This is not minister asked the commission to conduct a requirement of The Water Power Act . this review . Furthermore, at the time of construction of the facilities for Lake Winnipeg Regulation, As we conducted this review, two truths environmental assessment was not a legal became very obvious . One is that Lake requirement . Winnipeg is in serious trouble . This is not a

xi surprise to Manitobans who have followed Not only did the documentation, the problems of the lake in recent years . It especially the historical information, provide was already well known to the commission for interesting reading, it contributed from experience in previous reviews . The significantly to the overall review process . second truth is that Manitoba Hydro and, to a lesser extent, the Province of Manitoba have As I have written in past reports, the a communication problem when it comes to Clean Environment Commission takes very matters relating to the lake . We found much seriously the important role in environmental misunderstanding about the state of the lake . protection given it by The Environment Act of Manitoba . The commission seeks to fulfill While we were not asked to look at the this mandate, in part, by offering advice that state of Lake Winnipeg, we did hear much – we believe will contribute to improving the in all communities – which we cannot ignore, art and science of environmental assessment, about which we cannot help but have some which, in turn, will better protect the opinions, and which we will share in this environment . report . Although much of this is outside of our mandate, expectations may have been In recent reports, the commission was raised that the many and varied concerns we critical of both the Manitoba government heard will be addressed . and Manitoba Hydro for what we perceived to be a lack of attention to this goal . In the There is, in particular, a widespread lack last year or two and, in particular, during of understanding as to what Lake Winnipeg the Lake Winnipeg Regulation hearings, Regulation is, what its purpose is, and how the commission began to see that both it operates . The belief that Manitoba Hydro the government and Hydro have turned controls the levels of the lake and keeps an important corner . Through policy the lake at higher than normal levels is so and legislative initiatives, the province pervasive, it will be extremely difficult to is addressing many of the elements the change views . commission believes to be critical to improved environmental assessment . We are of the view Prior to embarking on our work in this that “TomorrowNow – Manitoba’s Green review, the commission asked Manitoba Plan” will prove to be an important step in Hydro to prepare documentation to assist this . We are further of the view that many of us and the other parties engaged in these the recommendations we make in this report proceedings . To the extent possible, we asked can be incorporated into the management that this be done in a manner not unlike an strategies that flow from this plan . environmental impact assessment . Given that the project is four decades old and that Manitoba Hydro, in the course of these no baseline information would be available, hearings, went so far as to ask the commission we did not expect a traditional impact to give advice to the minister that would assessment . In the end, Manitoba Hydro lead to new approaches in environmental generated new documentation, as well as assessment . Hydro asked that the commission a long and comprehensive list of historical set out a “road map” to guide future documents relevant to the project . In spite of environmental assessment and environmental the recognized limitations, Manitoba Hydro licensing . The commission welcomes this new, did produce a comprehensive report on Lake open approach of Manitoba Hydro . Winnipeg Regulation . In this report, we will offer advice in this

xii regard . This advice will not result in the “last Acknowledgements word” in the licensing process . But we believe it will be one more positive step towards the As with any hearing process conducted goal . by the Clean Environment Commission, many people made significant contributions . In the coming years, a number of existing I would like to acknowledge the great work Manitoba Hydro facilities will come due done by these folks . My co-panelists included for relicensing . These will include all but Neil Harden, Beverly Suek and Edwin Yee . one of its 15 generating stations, as well as Special thanks are due to the very skilled Lake Winnipeg Regulation and Churchill and dedicated commission staff: Cathy River Diversion, which will need to be Johnson, Joyce Mueller and Amy Kagaoan . relicensed in the next decade . While there is We received great assistance from Melissa no legal requirement that these relicensing Hotain in liaising with the many Aboriginal applications be subject to a full environmental communities where we held meetings . Our assessment, the commission would strongly legal advice came from Michael Green, encourage the Manitoba government to do so William Bowles and Kelly Dixon . Our report and to hold public hearings to review these writer was Bob Armstrong . Finally, we were assessments . ably supported by a team of consultants and service providers, without whom we A well-defined, more open and would have had great difficulty navigating comprehensive review process will this process . In particular, I would like significantly smooth the path for these to acknowledge Phil Shantz and George reviews . It will also benefit any reviews of McMahon . other applications for environment licences . Finally, I would like to acknowledge the The recommendations made in this report many people – members of the public – who will not be easy to implement, in particular took part in our proceedings, attending the to do so in a timely manner . The commission meetings to share their stories and concerns . believes that much work needs to be done in Their knowledge and personal experience a relatively short time – by both Manitoba added much insight into the issues before us . Hydro and the Government of Manitoba .

If the recommendations and advice given are implemented quickly, the commission Terry Sargeant will take some pride in having made another Chair, The Clean Environment Commission important contribution towards ensuring a better environment in our province . September 2015

xiii xiv Executive Summary

In July 2011, the Minister of Conservation 300 individuals in 20 communities and asked the Clean Environment Commission received a number of written submissions . to conduct hearings into the application Many Manitobans spoke about personal by Manitoba Hydro for a final licence for experiences with Lake Winnipeg, the Nelson Lake Winnipeg Regulation (LWR) . The River, and other water bodies . Technical LWR project, which went into operation in analysis was provided by experts on behalf of 1976, regulates the level of Lake Winnipeg Manitoba Hydro, several of the participating to provide a reliable supply of water for organizations and the commission itself, Manitoba Hydro’s Nelson River generating which retained several specialists to provide stations and to reduce the extent of flooding insights into important matters related to in communities around the lake . Manitoba LWR . Hydro was issued an Interim Licence in 1972 and the project was completed and put into This process has underlined, for the operation in 1976 . After approximately 40 commission, the need for Manitoba to address years of operation, Manitoba Hydro applied a wide range of watershed management issues for a final licence . This licence will be for affecting Lake Winnipeg and the Nelson 50 years from the time the project was put River . It has also prompted the commission to into operation . The final licence for LWR recommend a roadmap for future relicensing will, therefore, expire in 2026, at which time reviews of other Manitoba Hydro projects . Manitoba Hydro will require a new licence . The intent of this roadmap is to help to assess the past and current impacts of these projects In conducting these hearings, the and develop operational rules for them that commission was asked to review the public could mitigate or reduce future impacts and policy rationale for LWR, hear evidence on its balance economic, social and environmental effects, consider successes and failures of these concerns . policy goals, and comment on the concerns raised regarding Manitoba Hydro’s application Ultimately, the commission believes that, for a final licence . After a delay caused by based on evidence it has seen and heard, Lake the need to conduct hearings on Manitoba Winnipeg Regulation has reduced the extent Hydro’s Bipole III Transmission Project and of flooding that would have been experienced Keeyask Generation Project, the commission on Lake Winnipeg during the heavy began hearings in January of 2015 . A series of precipitation years of the last two decades . hearings was held until early May, in which On the other hand, LWR has caused a variety the commission heard from approximately of environmental and socio-economic

xv concerns downstream of Lake Winnipeg along the Nelson River, many of which have been the subject of years of negotiation and compensation under the Northern Flood Agreement, and other agreements . The commission hopes that the roadmap for the relicensing of LWR and for other Manitoba Hydro projects that will require relicensing in the years ahead will create opportunities to identify ways of reducing or mitigating some of these impacts . In the report that follows, we will describe the evidence we have heard and seen that leads us to make a series of recommendations, many of which are focused on research, monitoring and public policy . It is our hope that continuous improvement of policy on environmental matters will lead to a healthy natural and social environment for all Manitobans .

xvi Chapter One Introduction

1.1 The Manitoba Clean oversees these activities. For the sake of clarity, this report will refer to “the Environment Commission minister” responsible for these activities The Manitoba Clean Environment at a given time, rather than employ the Commission is an arms-length, provincial various titles that have been used in the past. agency established under the authority of The Environment Act (1988) . Under the act, the commission is mandated to provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of 1.2 The Project Conservation and Water Stewardship, and Lake Winnipeg Regulation is a series of to develop and maintain public participation excavated channels between Lake Winnipeg in environmental matters . Typically, the and the Nelson River and a control structure commission conducts reviews on projects on the Nelson River, designed to control requiring an environmental licence under the flow of water from Lake Winnipeg The Environment Act . However, from time to for generation of electricity and to reduce time, the commission may also be mandated flooding on Lake Winnipeg . The project, to gather information and public views on operated by Manitoba Hydro, went into other matters of environmental concern . operation in 1976 . It includes additional In the context of the review of Manitoba works designed to keep the project from Hydro’s application for a final licence for Lake affecting a nearby body of water, Kiskitto Winnipeg Regulation (LWR or the project) Lake . under The Water Power Act, this meant holding open hearings to allow members of the public to provide their perspective on 1.3 The Proponent and experience with LWR or to challenge the information prepared by Manitoba Hydro in Manitoba Hydro is a Crown corporation its application for a final licence . established in 1961, mandated to provide for the power needs of Manitobans . The utility Note: The name of the department responsible is overseen by the Manitoba Hydro-Electric for administering water and/or Board, which is appointed by the Government environmental management has changed of Manitoba and reports to the minister a number of times in the period covered responsible for The Manitoba Hydro Act . by this report. Currently, the Minister of Conservation and Water Stewardship

1 1.4 Terms of Reference Scope of the Review

On July 5, 2011, the minister wrote to the The Commission is asked to review commission requesting that the commission Manitoba Hydro’s request for a final hold public hearings on Manitoba Hydro’s licence under The Water Power Act . application for a final licence for Lake Pursuant to the Water Power Regulation, Winnipeg Regulation . Manitoba Hydro is entitled to a final licence upon fulfillment and compliance In August 2011, the terms of reference with the terms and conditions of its specified the commission’s mandate for the Interim Licence . The scope of this hearings and the scope of the review, as review is to provide a public forum to follows: consult with stakeholders regarding the performance of Hydro under their Interim Mandate of the Hearings Licence . The Environment Act does not apply to the Lake Winnipeg Regulation The Commission shall conduct project as it was completed before this public hearings, in appropriate locations legislation came into force . Specifically, around the north and south basins of the commission may solicit comments on Lake Winnipeg, in the City of Winnipeg the following topics: and northern Manitoba as determined by the Commission, to hear evidence about • Review the broader public policy the impacts of the regulation of Lake rationale regarding the regulation of Winnipeg since the project was authorized lake levels on Lake Winnipeg in effect under an Interim Water Power Act Licence at the time leading up to the issuance issued on November 18th, 1970 . of the Interim Licence in 1970 .

The Commission shall conduct the • Hear evidence from Manitobans hearing in general accordance with its regarding the effects and impacts of Process Guidelines Respecting Public Lake Winnipeg regulation since the Hearings which include procedures for project was put into commercial use Pre-Hearing Meetings or Conferences and by Manitoba Hydro on August 1, 1976 . Proprietary Information . • Review the successes and failures of Following the public hearings the the implementation of those broader Commission shall provide a report to the public policy goals that led up to the Minister of Conservation summarizing issuance of the Interim Licence and the public comments received during the the construction and subsequent hearing . operation of the project .

The Commission may, at any time, • Summarize and make comment on request that the Minister of Conservation the concerns raised pertaining to the review or clarify these Terms of Reference . issuance of a final licence to Manitoba Hydro under The Water Power Act including but not limited to future monitoring and research that may be beneficial to the project and Lake Winnipeg .

2 The Clean Environment Commission’s 1.6 Section 35 of Canada’s report shall incorporate, consider and Constitution directly reflect, where appropriate, the Principles of Sustainable Development Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982) and Guidelines for Sustainable stipulates that “[t]he existing aboriginal and Development as contained in the treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed ”. Manitoba . (Appendix I) . While Section 35 is not an “environmental” statute, it does require consultation with Aboriginal peoples whose rights may be 1.5 The Hearings impacted in some fashion by a project . The process of consulting with Aboriginal Public hearings were held from January 12 peoples in accordance with Section 35 is not a to May 1, 2015, at 20 communities near Lake “regulatory process ”. The obligation to initiate Winnipeg or downstream along the Nelson and carry out consultations with respect to River, as well as in Winnipeg . Hearings were Section 35 is that of the province and/or of held in Thompson, Wabowden, York Factory Canada, depending upon the nature of the First Nation, Misipawistik Cree Nation, Fisher project under consideration, its location and River Cree Nation, Pine Dock, Peguis First its ownership . Nation, Ashern, Grand Marais, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Selkirk, Gimli, Manigotagan, In the case of the final licence for LWR, Black River First Nation, Berens River First the Government of Manitoba is conducting Nation, Sagkeeng First Nation, Pimicikamak Section 35 consultations . The commission Okimawin, Cross Lake, Norway House hearings played no role in these consultations . Cree Nation and Norway House . Written submissions were welcomed and the hearing record closed on May 8, 2015 . 1.7 The Report During these hearings, testimony was This report to the minister presents an given by representatives of Manitoba Hydro overview of LWR and a summary of the and participant groups and organizations hearings . The commission provides comments and by the public at large . Approximately on environmental, process and policy issues 300 individuals, including those who made as identified by the public, participating written submissions, actively participated in groups and the commission . All testimony the hearings . As a result of this information made during hearings has been transcribed gathering, the commission has gained and is available on the commission’s website, sufficient understanding of uncertainties as are written presentations and presentation and concerns regarding the process of Water materials, such as PowerPoint presentations . Power Act licensing to offer analysis and non- A list of all hearing participants is included in licensing recommendations regarding future Appendix III to this report . management, monitoring and research . This report is divided into 11 chapters, covering the licensing and hearing process, the history of LWR, its context within the Lake Winnipeg-Nelson River watershed, topics raised in hearings and community

3 visits, issues raised by experts contracted by the commission, and the commission’s recommendations to the minister .

Metric and Imperial Measurements

A word about units of measurement: the metric system is the standard for use in modern government publications. However, many of the licence conditions for LWR employ Imperial measurements, such as feet above sea level (asl) or cubic feet per second (cfs). When discussing these licence conditions, this report will use these Imperial measurements, which have become familiar to many Manitobans over the past 40 years. For many other measurements, such as discussions of the area of a water body, for example, this report will use metric measurements.

4 Chapter Two The Lake Winnipeg-Nelson River Watershed

2.1 Overview water. As life givers, we must protect the water for future generations. We must Early in the hearing process, the keep it clean and pure so that it can commission hearing panel recognized that continue to offer us, offer gifts of life to Lake Winnipeg Regulation cannot be treated everyone on Mother Earth.” in isolation . The Lake Winnipeg/Nelson River watershed upstream affects how LWR is For these reasons, this report will begin operated, and the operation of LWR affects the with a description of the Lake Winnipeg/ Nelson River downstream . The importance of Nelson River watershed, touching on considering the entire watershed was stressed major alterations to it and to its current by presenters in communities around Lake state . This description of the “big picture” Winnipeg and along the Nelson River, as will serve to connect our comments and well as in Winnipeg . Many presenters raised recommendations regarding LWR to actions concerns about activities throughout the within the watershed, both inside and outside Lake Winnipeg watershed and about effects of Manitoba . The chapters that follow will on water quality and water quantity that have include specific commentary that is focused their origin far upstream of the lake . on LWR . In the Aboriginal communities the commission visited, we heard many times 2.2 The Lake Winnipeg that “water is life” and that individuals and communities have a profound connection Watershed at a Glance to both the land and water . The commission The Nelson River watershed, which was told that women, as “water keepers,” have includes Lake Winnipeg, is one of the a special connection to Lake Winnipeg and largest in Canada, draining portions of the Nelson River . This was stressed to the four provinces and four U .S . states . The commission during hearings in First Nations total drainage area of the Nelson River is and by First Nations presenters, as well as approximately 1 .07 million square kilometres through ceremonies and songs . and the distance from the farthest headwaters of the system, at Bow Glacier in Alberta, to “As an Anishinabe person, water is the mouth of the Nelson River on Hudson very central to our belief system. In our Bay is 2,575 km . If it were a separate nation, culture it is the responsibility of the kwe, the Nelson River watershed would be the which is the women, to take care of the 30th largest in the world, larger than France

5 and Germany combined . The Lake Winnipeg share has declined over this same period, watershed, nearly 1 million square kilometres, in part as a result of more water being used makes up most of the area of the Nelson River for irrigation in the drier prairies in Alberta watershed . The Nelson River is the outlet and Saskatchewan . The amount of water for water from the lake . The river drops 217 in the tributaries is not simply a reflection metres as it runs 644 km from Lake Winnipeg of the size of their watershed . Although it to Hudson Bay . On its run to Hudson Bay, the contributes substantially more water than the Nelson River is joined by two rivers that drain Saskatchewan River, the Winnipeg River has a portions of northern Manitoba: the Grass smaller watershed . River, which runs approximately 500 km from its headwaters near the Saskatchewan The majority of the population in the border, and the Burntwood, which runs Lake Winnipeg watershed lives outside of approximately 200 km from the northwest at Manitoba, which means they are upstream Burntwood Lake . Since the completion of the of this province . The watershed is home to Churchill River Diversion (CRD) project, the well over seven million people, including Burntwood River also carries water from the approximately 95 per cent of the residents Churchill River . The Churchill River basin of the three prairie provinces . Major covers 280,000 square km, encompassing metropolitan areas in the watershed include parts of northern Saskatchewan, northern Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Alberta and northern Manitoba . Regina, Fargo and Grand Forks . More than one million people live in the American Lake Winnipeg, the 11th largest lake in portions of the Lake Winnipeg watershed . the world, receives water from rivers draining Several of the cities within the watershed have a vast area of forest, grassland, agricultural been growing rapidly in recent decades . The land, wetlands, and built-up areas . In addition metropolitan areas of Calgary and Edmonton, to stretching west to the Rocky Mountains, which have well over one million residents Lake Winnipeg’s watershed extends east each, had fewer than one half million almost to Lake Superior and south to the residents as recently as the 1970s . northern tip of South Dakota . The watershed contains 55 million Water flows into Lake Winnipeg from hectares of farmland . Of this total, 45 million four main sub-watersheds . Based on averages hectares – approximately two-thirds of from 1999-2007, the four main tributaries Canada’s farmland – are in the Canadian to the lake are the Winnipeg River, which portion of the watershed . Numbers of contributes roughly 49 per cent of the lake’s farm animals in the watershed vary with water; the Saskatchewan River (25 per fluctuations in the agricultural sector, but cent); the Red River (16 per cent) and the as of 2006, there were more than 10 million Dauphin River (4 per cent) . All other rivers cattle and more than 14 million pigs within (Brokenhead, Berens, Bloodvein, Poplar, the watershed, producing approximately Fisher, Icelandic, etc) add up to 6 per cent of 97 million tonnes of manure per year . the total input into the lake . It is worth noting Approximately 37 per cent of the watershed is that the relative contributions of the rivers classified as cropland, 16 per cent is classified have changed over time . The portion of water as cropland/woodland mosaic and 3 per cent contributed by the Red River is substantially is cropland/grassland mosaic . Evergreen, higher today than during the early and mid- mixed and deciduous forest makes up more 20th century . The Saskatchewan River’s than 17 per cent of the area, water and

6 Figure 2.1: The Lake Winnipeg 2.1: The watershed. Figure Lake

7 wetlands make up 9 per cent, and grassland in Alberta . Many of these, especially those in and shrubland make up approximately 6 per and near the Rocky Mountains, generate fairly cent . Built-up areas occupy only about 0 .2 per small amounts of power, but those further cent of the total area (Environment Canada downstream create large reservoirs and and Manitoba Water Stewardship 2011) . generate relatively larger amounts of power . In southwestern Saskatchewan, the Gardiner Dam on the South Saskatchewan River 2.3 Water Management generates 186 megawatts (MW) of power, in the Lake Winnipeg creating the 225-km long Lake Diefenbaker . Watershed The Gardiner Dam also diverts water into the Qu’Appelle River . Two large dams on All of the four main tributaries to the Saskatchewan River in northeastern Lake Winnipeg are managed by control Saskatchewan, the E .B . Campbell and structures of various kinds for hydroelectric Nipawin Hydroelectric Stations, form production, flood control, or water supply reservoirs known respectively as Tobin Lake management . Management of these rivers, and Codette Lake . These two dams have a some of which cross provincial borders total generating capacity of nearly 550 MW . and the Canada-U .S . border, requires co- In Manitoba, the Grand Rapids dam creates operation across jurisdictions . The Souris a large reservoir at Cedar Lake and generates River provides an example of the complexity approximately 480 MW of power . of managing the Lake Winnipeg watershed . The river originates in marshes southeast Other impoundments within the of Regina, and winds past the small cities Saskatchewan River watershed are used of Weyburn and Estevan, Saskatchewan, to manage water supply for domestic before descending into North Dakota and consumption, cooling of thermal generating passing through Minot . After re-entering stations, and irrigation . Canada and passing through Souris, it joins the Assiniboine River near Wawanesa . The For the portion of the Saskatchewan River complexity of management increases when within Manitoba, the Kelsey Conservation more jurisdictions are involved . As a result of District addresses watershed issues . There is the boundary-spanning nature of these rivers, no official inter-jurisdictional management a large number of governmental and non- group addressing the entire Saskatchewan profit organizations are involved in water- River watershed . However, there are management decisions and planning . non-profit organizations in Alberta and Saskatchewan that function to support and 2.3.1 The Saskatchewan River address management and research of the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers and of The Saskatchewan River has the the watershed as a whole . largest watershed of the Lake Winnipeg As well, water management decisions tributaries, at 435,000 square km . It also regarding the North and South Saskatchewan has the largest number and most varied Rivers are made in the context of agreements assortment of control structures and dams . between the three prairie provinces and The Saskatchewan and its tributaries have the federal government to share prairie 19 hydroelectric dams, including the Grand river water equitably . This is established by Rapids Generating Station in Manitoba, three the Master Agreement on Apportionment, generating stations in Saskatchewan and 15 administered by the Prairie Provinces Water

8 Board, which specifies how much water a of water into Lake of the Woods are also province may use from a river that crosses regulated further upstream by hydroelectric provincial borders . In the case of prairie rivers generating stations on the Rainy River and such as the North and South Saskatchewan, its tributary, the Seine River . The English Alberta is allowed to manage one half of the River, which flows into the Winnipeg River natural flow of the river that originates in downstream of Kenora, has four generating that province; the other half must flow into stations operated by Ontario Power Saskatchewan . Saskatchewan is then allowed Generation: Caribou Falls, Ear Falls, Lac Seul, to manage one half of the flow that comes into and Manitou . the province from Alberta, plus one half of the flow originating in Saskatchewan . The other Lake of the Woods is both an half must flow into Manitoba . This applies interprovincial and international water body, both to the Saskatchewan River system and to sharing shoreline with Manitoba, Ontario the Assiniboine River . The Prairie Provinces and Minnesota, and several interprovincial Water Board has representatives from the and international management bodies are federal government, Alberta, Saskatchewan involved in its control . The (Canadian) Lake and Manitoba . The board also addresses of the Woods Control Board is mandated concerns regarding water quality . Measures to control the outflow from the Lake of of water quality and quantity are made at the Woods, Lac Seul and both the English strategically placed stations, mostly along and Winnipeg Rivers, as well as a diversion provincial boundaries . Subcommittees have upstream . Membership on this board been formed to address specific topics of includes one representative from Canada, interest or concern (Prairie Provinces Water two from Ontario and one from Manitoba, Board, 1969) . each of whom is a professional engineer . The board includes additional representation 2.3.2 The Winnipeg River from cottage owners, hydropower utilities (including Manitoba Hydro), a local The Winnipeg River watershed, covering municipality, Aboriginal communities, a 150,000 square km, is also highly controlled . paper company and the tourism industry . The largest lake in this watershed, Lake of the The strategy for regulation of outflow is Woods, has been regulated since the 1880s . based on assessment of current and projected The lake’s drainage was enhanced in the hydrological conditions, coupled with late 1800s and early 1900s by increasing the knowledge of water level and flow objectives number of outlets from two to six, including and information provided by specific interest the City of Winnipeg aqueduct taking Shoal groups and resource users (Lake of the Woods Lake water to Winnipeg . Control works at the Control Board 2002) . Winnipeg River outlet near Kenora manage flooding on the Lake of the Woods and feed Two international boards, created under Ontario Power Generation’s Whitedog Falls the International Joint Commission (IJC), Generating Station north of Kenora . Once the are also involved in management of the Winnipeg River enters Manitoba, it powers Winnipeg River watershed . (The International six Manitoba Hydro generating stations on Joint Commission was established through this province’s portion of the Winnipeg River a 1909 treaty to prevent and resolve disputes (from east to west, Pointe du Bois, Slave Falls, over waters shared by Canada and the Seven Sisters Falls, McArthur Falls, Great Falls United States .) The International Lake of and Pine Falls generating stations) . Flows the Woods Control Board is responsible

9 for approval of outflow from Lake of the and water supply by the Shellmouth Dam Woods when the lake level is below or above in western Manitoba . During flood years, normal levels . Under most conditions, a portion of its flow is directed to Lake the Canadian control board manages the Manitoba via the Assiniboine River Diversion flow, but when the level is extremely low or at Portage La Prairie to prevent flooding in extremely high, the international board takes Winnipeg . responsibility . The International Rainy-Lake of the Woods Watershed Board co-ordinates Several of the tributaries to the Red River the management of water levels and flows in the United States have controls, including on Rainy Lake and the Rainy River on the the Baldhill Dam on the Sheyenne River in Ontario-Minnesota border and assists in North Dakota, which creates a reservoir for co-ordination of water quality efforts for the irrigation . Flowing through one of the flattest watershed . This board has recently sponsored landscapes in the world, the Red River itself studies examining ecological parameters to is not amenable to control structures, as take into consideration in managing the river there are no places where the river has high system for all uses (International Rainy-Lake banks that could contain a storage reservoir . of the Woods Control Board nd) . Upstream cities such as Grand Forks employ levees to prevent flooding when the Red River 2.3.3 The Red and Assiniboine rises, while the Winnipeg Floodway diverts Rivers flood water around the city of Winnipeg .

The Red River watershed includes both Because the Red River watershed the 130,000 square km Red River basin, encompasses portions of Manitoba, extending into North Dakota, Minnesota Saskatchewan and three states, there are and South Dakota, and the 162,000 square several interprovincial and international km Assiniboine River watershed, which bodies involved in water management and extends west of Moose Jaw in southwestern environmental issues . Included in these is a Saskatchewan and south to Minot in North committee of the IJC, called the International Dakota . Red River Board (International Red River Board nd) . The two main issues for the Red The Assiniboine River portion of the River itself are flooding and water quality . watershed is highly controlled . Water from The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) the South Saskatchewan River is diverted is a co-operative, non-profit organization into this watershed at the Qu’Appelle Dam . with a 25-member board representing basin The Qu’Appelle River is then managed by cities, counties, municipalities, watershed the Buffalo Pound Dam as a water supply boards, water resource districts, power for Regina, Moose Jaw and industrial and boards, First Nations and other local interests . agricultural users, before it flows into the The federal (Canadian and American), Assiniboine River just east of the Manitoba- provincial and state governments also have Saskatchewan border . The Rafferty-Alameda representatives on the board . The RRBC’s Project in southern Saskatchewan manages first priority is to evaluate projects addressing flows on the Souris River (another major human health and safety . The commission contributor to the Assiniboine) for flood has nine inventory teams that collect control and residential, industrial and information in the basin on water law, water agricultural water supply . The Assiniboine institutions, hydrology, water supply, water River itself is managed for flood control quality, drainage, flood damage reduction,

10 conservation, fish and wildlife, and outdoor 2.3.5 Other Rivers recreation . It facilitates co-operative solutions to water-related issues within the basin (Red Only on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, River Basin Commission nd) . to the north of the Winnipeg River, do the lake’s tributaries flow in a natural state, neither The International Souris River Board regulated for water storage, flood control or monitors the sharing of water between the electrical generation nor highly affected by U .S . and Canada and helps implement and constructed drainage . Many of these rivers, review the Joint Water Quality Monitoring such as the Bloodvein, Poplar, Pigeon and Program (International Souris River Board Berens, flow through the area that is currently nd) . There is currently no designated entity being proposed for World Heritage Site that addresses water management issues for status on the basis of its outstanding natural the entire basin . However, since the flood and cultural value . The Bloodvein River is of 2011, the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and designated as a Canadian Heritage River for North Dakota governments have made its nationally significant natural, cultural and a commitment to form a coalition, the recreational values . Assiniboine River Basin Commission, similar to that for the Red River Basin (Manitoba 2014a) . 2.4 Nutrient Inputs to Lake Winnipeg 2.3.4 The Dauphin River A growing population and a large The fourth-largest contributor to Lake agricultural sector combine to increase the Winnipeg, the Dauphin River, flows a flow of nutrients, specifically nitrogen and relatively short distance from Lake St . Martin phosphorus, which make their way down the to Lake Winnipeg . It carries water from a watershed to Lake Winnipeg . Sources of these basin that includes both Lake Manitoba and nutrients include sewage treatment plants, Lake Winnipegosis, and is fed by a large chemical fertilizers and livestock manure, number of smaller rivers and creeks flowing as well as natural processes . These nutrients from Riding Mountain and the Duck and allow for increased growth of algae and Porcupine Mountains in western Manitoba . cyanobacteria (bacteria capable of obtaining Flows on the Dauphin River are influenced by energy through photosynthesis, often referred the Fairford River Control Structure, which to as blue-green algae) in bodies of water, controls the flow out of Lake Manitoba and which have the potential to affect the ability into Lake St . Martin . The Fairford Control of the water body to support many kinds of Structure was completed in 1961 to regulate aquatic life . Microbes feed on organic matter, the level of Lake Manitoba between 811 .0 feet such as algae, in a process that removes asl and 813 .0 feet asl . Flows on the Dauphin dissolved oxygen from the water . High density River are further influenced by use of the of algae, therefore, can lead to depletion Assiniboine River Diversion at Portage La of oxygen, reducing the ability of a water Prairie, which diverts flood water from the body to support fish populations and other Assiniboine River to Lake Manitoba (Lake aquatic organisms . Algae blooms can also be Manitoba Regulation Review Advisory unsightly and some types of blue-green algae Committee 2003) . can be toxic . Nutrient inputs to Lake Winnipeg originate in several different jurisdictions .

11 Based on 1994-2001 data, approximately 53 per cent of the phosphorus inputs to Lake Nitrogen and Phosphorus: Winnipeg originated upstream (outside) of Two Essential Nutrients Manitoba, and 47 per cent within Manitoba . Upstream sources included the American Nitrogen and phosphorus are portions of the Red River (32 per cent of elements essential to all plant and total phosphorus), the Winnipeg River in animal life. Nitrogen is a basic element Ontario (10 per cent) and the Saskatchewan of plant and animal proteins, including River system in Saskatchewan and Alberta the genetic material DNA and RNA. (5 per cent) . Manitoba sources are broken It is also an element of chlorophyll down in greater detail . Natural background and is necessary for photosynthesis. and undefined sources of phosphorus in the Phosphorus is essential to animal and Manitoba portion of the watershed contribute plant processes, such as the growth 17 per cent of the total and agriculture and division of cells, storage of energy within Manitoba contributes 15 per cent . and photosynthesis. In animals, it is a building block of bones and teeth. Point sources in Manitoba, such as sewage Nitrogen is the most common element treatment plants, contribute 9 per cent of the in the Earth’s atmosphere, but most total, with the City of Winnipeg amounting plants lack the ability to access to a little more than half of that . For nitrogen, nitrogen in this form. Phosphorus 51 per cent came from upstream of Manitoba is much less common and is mostly and 49 per cent from within Manitoba stored in rock deposits and oceanic (Environment Canada and Manitoba Water sediments. Plants draw nitrogen and Stewardship 2011) . phosphorus from the soil they grow in, and these nutrients then are available Because water and nutrients originate to the animals that eat plants. from several different jurisdictions, interprovincial and international co- Both elements are added to crops in ordination is required to address the issue . the form of chemical fertilizers and in manure that is spread as a fertilizer. Lakes that have higher levels of these nutrients are known as “eutrophic” lakes. Lake Winnipeg is a eutrophic lake.

When plants and animals die, the nitrogen and phosphorus in them is returned to the soil or, in the event of water plants and animals, to the sediments below the water. When sediments are disturbed, such as by storms, this nitrogen and phosphorus can be returned to circulation and be used by other plants and animals (Manitoba Clean Environment Commission, 2009).

12 2.5 Drainage settlement since the late 1870s has been based on drainage . Earlier in Manitoba’s history, The Lake Winnipeg watershed contains a there was little regulation of draining land, large amount of land that has been modified and, in fact, it was encouraged . Regulation by human development . One of the most has evolved over time . In Manitoba, significant of these modifications is the drainage districts were established to manage drainage of wetlands and large areas of wet drainage, based on the boundaries of rural prairie and the forest-prairie margin land municipalities . These boundaries have since known as aspen parkland . This has been been altered to reflect watershed boundaries done through the construction of drainage and the drainage districts have been given channels, ditches and diversions, and the a new name and mandate as Conservation straightening of natural streams . Districts . Drainage continues to be in demand, as farmers seek to maximize crop Especially in low-lying areas of the production or reduce operating costs . In Red River valley, the creation of a system many areas, tile drainage has been added to of drains has transformed wet prairie or cropland to allow rain and snow melt to drain marsh into cropland . Historical maps of the more quickly . prairies indicate that extensive wetlands once covered many places that are now farmland Cities and towns, with expanses of or residential developments . The pattern of impermeable surfaces, such as roadways,

Figure 2.2: Historical distribution of land class types in southern Manitoba in the 1870s. (Hanuta 2006)

13 Figure 2.3: Recent distribution of land class types in southern Manitoba, in 1995. (Hanuta 2006)

parking lots and rooftops, where water runs contributes about two-thirds of the Manitoba off instead of sinking into the ground, include portion of the nutrients that flow into Lake their own drainage networks that contribute Winnipeg, so more rapid drainage of land to the flow of streams and rivers . contributes to higher inputs of nutrients into the lake . The effect of this has been to reduce the amount of water stored in ponds, sloughs, marshes, bogs and other wetlands and on 2.6 Major Flood Controls fields . It has also resulted in more rapid Since the 1950 Red River flood, which travel time for water in streams and rivers, inundated large parts of Winnipeg, the increasing and compressing the flood peak Manitoba government has developed an on the rivers that drain the prairie provinces extensive flood protection system in the Lake following rain or snow melt . Since this water Winnipeg watershed . In addition to the Red ends up in Lake Winnipeg before passing River Floodway, this infrastructure includes down the Nelson River, high-flow events the Assiniboine River Diversion at Portage occurring far upstream in different parts of La Prairie, which diverts floodwaters to Lake the watershed can make the level of the lake Manitoba, and the Shellmouth Reservoir on rise . Lack of control and co-ordination of the Assiniboine River, which provides storage drainage in Saskatchewan contributed to the for flood control and other uses . A number 2011 flood on the Souris and Assiniboine of other control structures have been built rivers, when heavy snow and rain resulted on the Souris, Pembina, Little Saskatchewan in record high water . Run-off from land also

14 and other rivers, and protective dikes have current activities that are significant to Lake been built near many communities near rivers Winnipeg and the Nelson River . Links to and lakes . Among those protective dikes are these information sources are provided in ring dikes that protect 18 Red River valley Appendix V . communities . The Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium The Manitoba government is currently was established in 1998, as a not-for-profit evaluating designs for a permanent outlet to organization, to co-ordinate scientific research drain Lake St . Martin, which receives water on the lake following the 1997 flood . The from Lake Manitoba and was flooded during consortium is funded by a combination of the major Assiniboine River flood of 2011 and donations and government grants . It acquired again after heavy rains in 2014 . The Manitoba the former Canadian Coast Guard vessel government built an emergency channel in Namao as a floating laboratory to conduct 2011 to lower the level of Lake St . Martin research on the lake . and Lake Manitoba and was required under federal regulatory authorization to close the The Lake Winnipeg Action Plan was emergency outlet in November, 2012 . The instituted by the Province of Manitoba emergency channel was reopened in July 2014 in 2003, with a goal of reducing nitrogen after heavy rains . and phosphorus in the lake to pre-1970s levels . It was developed out of Manitoba’s Six design options have been prepared and Nutrient Management Strategy . The plan a further public and Aboriginal consultation included establishment of the Lake Winnipeg and environmental review is expected prior to Stewardship Board, measures to prevent construction . erosion and reduce nutrient run-off along the Red and Assiniboine rivers, expanding soil testing to ensure appropriate application 2.7 Basin Management of fertilizer, introduction of new sewage and Actions and Initiatives septic field regulation, development of a shoreline protection project with assistance Management of water flowing through the from Manitoba Hydro, commencing cross- Lake Winnipeg-Nelson River watershed is a border nutrient management discussion, complicated matter . Control, use, diversion licensing City of Winnipeg wastewater and drainage of water create many potential treatment centres and other facilities to impacts downstream . Many projects and address nutrients, and introduction of The programs are undertaken in watersheds Water Protection Act . – large or small – within the larger Lake Winnipeg watershed . Several government and The Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board multi-party initiatives have been undertaken was established in 2003 and released a report to co-ordinate research, education, policy and to government in December 2006 with action over issues affecting Lake Winnipeg . 135 recommendations in 38 different topic These actions have been prompted by growing areas, followed by a 2010 progress report . concern regarding the health of the lake, Drawing on input from a workshop attended especially the presence of large algae blooms, by approximately 50 scientists from across some of which contain potentially toxic Canada and the northern United States, blue-green algae . Other actions have been the board’s recommendations are largely prompted by flooding in Lake Winnipeg’s focused on reducing nutrient inputs to Lake tributaries, including the 1997 Red River Winnipeg . The board is now disbanded . flood . Highlighted below are a few of the 15 The Lake Winnipeg Foundation is a At the local level, Manitoba has a series not-for-profit, non-governmental, largely of Integrated Watershed Management Plans, volunteer organization, founded in 2005, which are developed in co-operation with that has played a role in heightening local Conservation Districts, community public awareness about the plight of Lake members, stakeholders and the provincial Winnipeg . Its mandate is to promote the government . These plans are developed under health of Lake Winnipeg through support The Water Protection Act to identify priority for research, public education, advocacy and land and water-related issues in a local management . watershed, determine projects or policies to address these issues, and identify how water- The Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative is a management programming will be carried federal program that provides funding for out . Development of these plans involves a a variety of research and development and partnership with Manitoba’s 18 Conservation public education projects carried out around Districts, covering most of the agricultural the lake . portion of Manitoba . These districts are a partnership between the provincial The Lake Friendly campaign, established government and local municipalities to by south basin mayors and reeves and protect, restore and manage land and water partially funded by the Lake Winnipeg Basin resources on a watershed basis . They are all Initiative, is a non-governmental public responsible to develop plans for improving education campaign focused on nutrient watershed health . reduction . This campaign has grown into an international program seeking commitment Manitoba’s Conservation Districts from individuals, organizations and are primarily in the agricultural regions government at all levels to reduce nutrient of the province . Those that are entirely inputs and help in restoring the health of Lake or partially within the Assiniboine-Red Winnipeg . watershed are the Whitemud Watershed, Little Saskatchewan, Assiniboine Hills, Manitoba’s Surface Water Management West Souris, Upper Assiniboine, Lake of the Strategy was launched in the spring of 2014 by Prairies, Pembina Valley, Turtle Mountain, the Manitoba government following a series Seine-Rat River, LaSalle Redboine, Cooks of workshops and face-to-face meetings . The Creek and East Interlake Conservation strategy identifies 50 specific actions grouped Districts . Conservation Districts that are around three central “pillars” – improving entirely or partially within the watershed of and protecting water quality, preparing the Dauphin River are Swan Lake Watershed, for extreme events, and co-ordination Intermountain, Turtle River Watershed, and awareness . Key aspects of the strategy Alonsa and West Interlake . The Kelsey include a renewed focus on water retention, Conservation District is the only one in identification and protection of wetlands, a Manitoba’s portion of the Saskatchewan River “no net loss of wetland benefits” approach watershed . and initiatives to support planning and governance on a watershed basis . Part of this In Saskatchewan, the Water Security strategy is to overhaul the drainage licensing Agency (WSA) is currently working to program to focus it on a watershed basis, with develop a 25-year Saskatchewan Water no increase in water releases from present Security Plan . A key element of this plan quantities (Manitoba 2014b) . relates to drainage of agricultural land . The

16 minister responsible for the WSA announced Winnipeg Foundation and the Centre for in 2012 that tighter regulation and increased Indigenous Environmental Resources . enforcement would be part of the plan to prevent damage caused by unregulated farm What We Heard: Watershed Issues drainage . As part of this process, the agency released a research report in November 2014 Watershed issues were frequently compiling attitudes of Saskatchewan residents discussed during the LWR hearings . In many toward drainage . Stakeholders surveyed in the communities, presenters expressed concerns process agreed that drainage should not be that activities upstream had an impact on the allowed unless specific impacts of a drainage quality, quantity and timing of water entering project can be mitigated . Lake Winnipeg and the Nelson River .

The Water Innovation Centre, a project “If we don’t try and find a solution, within the International Institute for we’re not going to have a healthy Lake Sustainable Development (IISD), focuses Winnipeg, we’re not going to have a place on water management policy and practice, to swim, we’re not going to have a place particularly in reference to the Lake Winnipeg to do recreational fishing, commercial watershed . One of its projects examines ways fishing. It’s just going to be one big green to remove nutrients from the watershed – by algae lake. And if any one of you has harvesting cattails in wetlands – to reduce ever had the experience of driving out the problem of excess nutrients (particularly on Lake Winnipeg, going on a fishing or phosphorus) downstream . hunting trip, and if you ever come across hitting that sludge, you know, that’s The recent creation of the Lake Winnipeg a scary feeling. That’s just like green Indigenous Collective, formally established in soup or something. I don’t know how to March 2015, provides a voice for First Nations explain it, but it just stinks.” from around Lake Winnipeg . The collective’s mission is “to seek healthy and equitable The commission heard concerns about solutions for our waters and our people the Lake St . Martin emergency outlet during from the diverse communities who have a some of the hearings, especially those held in relationship with Manitoba’s great sacred the northern Interlake . Some presenters were lake ”. The organization plans to address issues concerned that the diversion of Assiniboine related to past effects of LWR, future decisions River water to Lake Manitoba, and from there about LWR, impacts of algae blooms due to to Lake Winnipeg via the Dauphin River nutrient loading, lack of representation of and the planned diversion, could raise the Indigenous voices in decision making, and the level of Lake Winnipeg . Several presenters connection between the health of the lake and from Dauphin River and other north basin social and economic health of communities . communities said that creation of the Initially established with representation emergency channel caused additional debris from Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Sagkeeng and silt to enter Lake Winnipeg, affecting the First Nation, Misipawistik Cree Nation, distribution of fish and causing additional Norway House Cree Nation, Pinaymootang damage to fishing nets . The commission also First Nation and Black River First Nation, heard from presenters whose homes were the collective plans to engage other First damaged by flood waters at the community of Nations to join . It is initially being supported Dauphin River . by Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, the Lake

17 Presenters at Peguis First Nation spoke During Winnipeg hearings, the about industrial development throughout commission heard from advocates the Lake Winnipeg watershed, and were for upstream water storage, including concerned about effects on water quality representatives of the IISD, who spoke from resource industries upstream . They also about the nutrient management benefits of raised concerns that agricultural drainage storing and gradually releasing flood water . in the Interlake increased flooding risks at One such project, the South Tobacco Creek Peguis and peat mining reduced the amount project in the Manitoba Escarpment area, of natural filtration of water flowing into uses a series of small dams to retain water the lake . Peguis presenters spoke of the toll in ponds . Another project, in Minnesota, that overland flooding and flooding of the creates a nearly 800-hectare impoundment Fisher River have taken on the physical and to store flood waters from a drainage area psychological health of individuals who have of 186 square kilometres . Harvesting the been displaced from their homes or had their cattails that grow in this impoundment homes damaged by flooding . Flooding along could prevent thousands of kilograms of the Fisher River was also a concern at Fisher phosphorus each year from flowing into River Cree Nation, located where the river the river . Such approaches, it was argued, flows into Fisher Bay . offer an excellent opportunity to address water quality problems on Lake Winnipeg . Presenters at Sagkeeng and Black River The importance of nutrient management First Nations, and those from Hollow Water and upstream water management were First Nation who presented on video, spoke emphasised by some statistical comparisons about the effects of development of the made by the IISD . With a watershed 40 times Winnipeg River on traditional resource larger than its surface area, Lake Winnipeg harvesting . Some presenters also spoke about has the largest proportion of watershed area impacts of the forest industry in Ontario, to lake area of any of the world’s largest lakes further upstream in the Winnipeg River (Great Slave Lake has the next largest ratio, watershed . A group of owners of property with a watershed almost 35 times larger than along the Winnipeg River spoke about their the lake’s surface) . Comparing the volume of concerns that the Pine Falls dam, located lake water to the size of the watershed, Lake just upstream of their properties, had caused Winnipeg is even more of a statistical outlier . problems with erosion on their property . Lake Winnipeg’s ratio of basin size to lake volume is 7 .5 times greater than that of Great At communities around both the north Slave Lake . This emphasizes the potential of and south basins and downstream along Lake Winnipeg to be affected by changes in the Nelson River, the commission heard land use, drainage and population within its frequent concerns about algae blooms and watershed . water quality . Presenters spoke about the impact of algae blooms on fishing, concerns Another presenter advocated storage over skin irritation caused by swimming in of excess water on farmland through a Lake Winnipeg or downstream water bodies, system called “waffle storage”, in which some and the potential impact of declining water upstream fields are deliberately allowed to quality on health . Many presenters stated that flood and the water on them is released only they are at the receiving end of everything after the peak flood has passed . Such systems that is done to water in the Lake Winnipeg would require a greater degree of watershed watershed . planning, but would have the potential to

18 support better management of water in high- sustainability . Manitoba needs to manage flow years . water on a watershed basis and, indeed, many programs are doing that . However, a number Commission Comment: Watershed of significant water management projects, Issues such as the operation of major flood control structures, have not been adequately assessed Much of what the commission heard went and licensed in this context . beyond the discussion of the effects of LWR . Many of the concerns the commission heard When considering the impacts of LWR, it about the effects of high water or increased is important to remember that Manitoba is at levels of nutrients in the lake are reflections of the mercy of other jurisdictions for the water the pressures felt by the entire watershed . that ends up in this province . Manitoba Hydro needs to assess and plan for the decisions on The commission is aware that there are water management, use and drainage taken many projects and programs dealing with upstream of this province, but cannot be held management, planning and protection of responsible for major rains or snowfalls, nor water in the Lake Winnipeg-Nelson River for upstream decisions that direct water more watershed . However, there is no specific set rapidly to Lake Winnipeg . of management goals or policy objectives uniting all of these programs and planning The commission believes that upstream and advisory bodies, with the exception storage of water should be supported to slow of unspecified nutrient reduction targets . down the flow of water to the lake and reduce Many of these programs and bodies the magnitude of floods . Combined with are local in nature, without a great deal ideas for harvesting cattails, upstream storage of consideration of long-range results may also offer a promising way of reducing downstream . Furthermore, although there inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to the lake . are many programs and bodies focusing on However, it is important to remember that Lake Winnipeg, they pay little consideration such developments are unlikely to be able to to water issues further downstream along the prevent all floods . Even in a fully natural state Nelson River . The commission believes that in the early 19th century, the Red River valley the Manitoba government, in consultation experienced floods as large as or larger than and co-operation with jurisdictions within the 1997 flood . the Lake Winnipeg watershed, should set specific and practical goals for Lake Winnipeg However, all such ideas, promising as and the Nelson River that all programs can they are, require a degree of basin-wide co- be measured against . The federal government operation and planning . The commission should take a greater role in cross-border believes that the Manitoba government co-ordination to assist in establishing and must continue with a basin-wide approach reaching these goals . and work with other upstream jurisdictions to manage water in this way . The actions The commission considers that all in Manitoba’s Surface Water Management activities affecting the Lake Winnipeg- Strategy offer many practical ways to have an Nelson River watershed should be assessed impact on the timing and amount of water in light of all impacts, taking into account entering Lake Winnipeg as well as on the the three pillars of sustainable development: quality of that water . social, economic and environmental

19 Regarding concerns about the diversion of water to Lake Manitoba and the planned drain from Lake St . Martin to Lake Winnipeg, it must be kept in mind that this is not water transferred to Lake Winnipeg from an entirely separate watershed . The diversion to Lake Manitoba probably changes the timing of the water’s arrival in Lake Winnipeg, but not the quantity of water . It could, however, lead to a slight difference in quality . Environmental study and consultation regarding the planning of a new diversion will need to explore and address a variety of issues and concerns, including the operation and contributions from the Shellmouth Dam and the Assiniboine River Diversion, the specific goals upstream and downstream of the diversion, alternatives that may also accomplish the stated goals, and specific environmental effects on the Dauphin River and Lake Winnipeg .

Recommendations The Commission recommends that:

2.1 The Government of Manitoba, in co- operation with other jurisdictions in the watershed, set specific management goals and policy objectives for Lake Winnipeg, against which projects within the watershed can be assessed.

2.2 The Government of Manitoba undertake an environmental assessment of key operations within the Manitoba portion of the Lake Winnipeg watershed, such as the Shellmouth Dam and the Assiniboine River Diversion at Portage La Prairie, to better understand their impact on the watershed and ensure that ecological as well as social and economic impacts are fully considered.

20 Chapter Three Understanding Lake Winnipeg Regulation

3.1 Brief History of Lake reducing flooding in lakeshore communities Winnipeg Regulation and as a way of ensuring a dependable supply of water on the Nelson River to generate Lake Winnipeg Regulation was developed electricity . Following major flooding in 1950, to meet growing demand for electricity in Interlake residents urged the Manitoba and Manitoba in the decades following the Second Canadian governments to address flooding on World War and in response to the desire to the lake by opening up a new outlet . This led reduce the damage caused by flooding along to the first engineering studies of the technical Lake Winnipeg . feasibility of LWR, which preceded studies of the environmental and social effects of the As use of electricity grew in Manitoba project . in the 20th century, the Winnipeg River’s generating potential was developed, with a The Manitoba government initiated the series of six hydroelectric generating stations Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba Board in built between 1920 and 1955 . By the time 1956 to explore options to mitigate damage the last Winnipeg River station was built, caused by seasonal flooding along the shores Manitoba had an electricity transmission of the lakes . The board examined regulating system that extended throughout the the level of Lake Winnipeg as a means of province, and 75 per cent of farms had reducing property damage caused by flooding . joined the grid through the post-war rural It concluded, in its 1958 report, that LWR electrification initiative . Meanwhile, the would be viable, but that it would only be growth of the post-war consumer society cost-effective if undertaken as part of a had brought electrical appliances into homes plan to generate power on the Nelson River . throughout Manitoba . Once the Winnipeg By the 1960s, developments in the field of River was fully developed, new sources of high-voltage, long-distance transmission of electricity were needed . The Nelson River had electricity made it technologically feasible to been surveyed as early as 1913 as a source for transmit electricity from northern Manitoba hydroelectric power, and in 1960, the Kelsey to consumers in the more heavily populated Generating Station was built to supply power south . to the city of Thompson and the adjacent nickel-mining operation . The next major studies were carried out in 1963 and 1964 by the engineering firm G .E . Beginning in the 1950s, regulation of Lake Crippen and Associates for the newly formed Winnipeg was examined both as a means of Nelson River Programming Board, which

21 was established through a federal-provincial Indian Lake (now O Pipon Na Piwin Cree cost-sharing agreement . The engineering firm Nation) . This became a highly controversial was hired to study the economic feasibility issue in the lead-up to the 1969 provincial of developing the hydroelectric resources of election and galvanized the growing the lower Nelson River . Because hydroelectric environmental awareness of many people in generating stations require a dependable Manitoba . flow of water – especially during the winter, when electrical consumption is highest – At the same time, additional research the firm examined the economic feasibility into LWR was conducted on behalf of the of regulating Lake Winnipeg to provide Manitoba Water Commission, leading to this dependable flow . It also examined the the identification of an operating range of economic feasibility of diverting water from 711 0. to 715 .0 feet asl as one that fell within the Churchill River into the Nelson River, Lake Winnipeg’s historical water level range via the Rat and Burntwood Rivers . The study of 709 .0 to 717 .5 feet asl . This research also asserted that carrying out both LWR and examined how LWR would be accomplished, CRD would produce an 80 per cent increase with several options considered for location of in dependable flow on the Nelson River for control structures and channels . Options that generation of electricity, which would be were ultimately rejected included building enough to support the operation of at least six a control structure at Warren Landing and generating stations . As a result of this study, a pumping station to transfer water from Manitoba Hydro commenced work on the Lake Winnipeg to Playgreen Lake, building a first phase of its Nelson River development second control structure on the east channel in 1966, with the beginning of work on the of the Nelson River, and even a proposal to Kettle Generating Station, near the town of divide Lake Winnipeg into two pools, with a Gillam . Work on Manitoba Hydro’s first high- control structure built across the narrows of voltage Bipole transmission line began at this Lake Winnipeg, which would allow the north same time . Kettle was the first of three dams and south basins to be at different elevations . built on the Nelson from the late 1960s to 1990 . After the 1969 provincial election, Manitoba Hydro was denied a licence to Following the Crippen Report in 1964, a proceed with high-level diversion of the report commissioned by the Manitoba Water Churchill River . Instead, it was directed Commission in 1968 called for creation to investigate options for proceeding with of a large storage reservoir at Southern LWR . Ultimately, Manitoba Hydro applied Indian Lake by raising levels of the lake for a licence in 1970 for LWR, to be followed by approximately 35 feet (10 .6 metres) . It by a low-level diversion of the Churchill was expected that creation of such a large River, flooding Southern Indian Lake by reservoir, through what was known as “high- approximately 10 feet (3 metres) instead of level diversion” of the Churchill River, would the originally proposed 35 feet (10 6. metres) . provide enough water for the generating In the public announcement by the Manitoba stations on the lower Nelson River that government that September, LWR was LWR would not be needed for a number of described as intended both for flood control years . High-level diversion of the Churchill, on Lake Winnipeg and regulation of the however, would come at a cost of substantial Nelson River for power production . environmental damage and the relocation of the residents in the community of South In 1971, recognizing that LWR and CRD were major undertakings with considerable

22 environmental and social impact, the Board was examining the potential impacts of governments of Manitoba and Canada jointly the projects, First Nations in the surrounding initiated the Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and area formed the Northern Flood Committee Nelson Rivers Study Board (the Study Board) . (NFC) . The NFC, representing the First The Study Board’s report, published in 1975, Nations of Norway House, Cross Lake (now was intended to determine the potential Pimicikamak Okimawin), Split Lake (now effects of the regulation and diversion projects Tataskweyak Cree Nation), Nelson House and to recommend modification in design (now Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation), and York and operation of the project, as well as Factory, plus Fox Lake, South Indian Lake remediation measures to lessen its undesirable and Ilford, sought to protect the environment effects . At the time, this was one of the most and Aboriginal rights through lengthy comprehensive studies of a major project, negotiations with the Manitoba and Canadian although it is worth remembering that many governments and Manitoba Hydro . The environmental sciences were then in their communities were prompted to take action infancy . Environmental impact assessments in part by the experience of the community were only formally introduced in Canada in of Chemawawin, which had been inundated 1973 in the federal Environmental Assessment in the early 1960s after the construction of and Review Process . As well, prior to the the Grand Rapids Generating Station on the 1982 Constitution Act and the subsequent Saskatchewan River . Initially, the NFC sought court rulings on matters of Aboriginal and a court injunction to halt work on LWR, but, treaty rights, the legal environment governing in 1975, proposed conditions for a negotiated relations between governments and Aboriginal settlement . The NFC’s work led to the signing people was substantially different in the of the Northern Flood Agreement (NFA) 1970s . The Study Board report included 47 in December 1977, which was subsequently recommendations for implementation by ratified by referendums in the member First Manitoba, Canada or Manitoba Hydro, many Nations in 1978 . The five signatory First of which were focused on environmental Nations were Norway House, Cross Lake, monitoring and management, mitigation of Split Lake, Nelson House and York Factory impacts, community capacity building, and (Canada 1977) . protection of community infrastructure . Among the issues covered in the NFA’s LWR was largely complete when the 25 articles are exchange of land for land lost Study Board released its report . This is the to flooding, maintenance of water levels, opposite of the order that would be followed land use, navigation, debris management, today . Today, an Environmental Impact water quality, cemeteries affected by flooding, Statement (EIS), using a substantial amount the need for consultations before future of baseline research into environmental developments, minimizing damage to wildlife, conditions and identification of potential community infrastructure, clearing of land, effects on the biophysical and socio-economic awarding of damages, formalizing resource environments, would precede the beginning use areas, development of community of construction . plans, implementation of Study Board recommendations, employment and training, 3.1.1 The Northern Flood Agreement trapping and fishing, remedial works, arbitration, communication and community In 1974, while Manitoba Hydro was liaison . constructing LWR and CRD and the Study

23 Again, it is worth noting that, just as same area . In 2008, the Coordinated Aquatic a modern EIS precedes construction on a Monitoring Program (CAMP) began carrying project, today consultations with affected out studies of water quality, aquatic life, Aboriginal communities are legally required fisheries and other topics in lakes and rivers before construction . In the case of the NFA, affected by LWR and CRD and in nearby, the ratification in 1978 was followed by many unaffected (off-system) water bodies (Know years of negotiations of claims resulting from History 2015) . impacts of both LWR and CRD . Eventually, between 1992 and 1997, all of the signatory 3.1.2 Recent Studies and First Nations, except for Pimicikamak Agreements Involving LWR Okimawin, signed implementation agreements to streamline implementation More recently, four First Nations of the NFA . As well, other First Nations negotiated an agreement with Manitoba and northern communities have signed Hydro known as the Joint Keeyask Implementation agreements in this regard . Development Agreement (JKDA), which implementation agreements were signed with sets out the terms for them to become equity Fox Lake Cree Nation in 2004, War Lake partners in the Keeyask Generation Project . First Nation in 2005, and the community of One of the terms of the JKDA, which was Cross Lake (the small community adjacent signed in 2009 by Manitoba Hydro, York to the reserve at Pimicikamak Okimawin) Factory First Nation, Fox Lake Cree Nation, in 1990 and 2010 and Wabowden in 1992 . and Cree Nation Partners (a partnership An agreement in principle has been signed of Tataskweyak Cree Nation and War Lake with the Norway House community (the First Nation), was that development of the community adjacent to Norway House Keeyask Project would not require any change Cree Nation) and work continues with to the existing licences for LWR or CRD . The the communities of Thicket Portage and regulatory process for the Keeyask Project Pikwitonei to resolve outstanding issues . involved completion of an EIS focusing largely on the reach of the Nelson River from Split Several follow-up environmental studies Lake to Stephens Lake . have been carried out since completion of LWR and CRD, many of them mandated by As of summer 2015, Manitoba Hydro the NFA . From 1982 to 1986, the Cross Lake is compiling an assessment of the effects Environmental Impact Assessment Study was of multiple hydroelectric projects in the carried out, leading to recommendations that Nelson and Churchill river sub-watersheds in included building of the Cross Lake Weir to northern Manitoba . The Clean Environment reduce water level extremes on Cross Lake . Commission, in its 2013 report on Manitoba From 1983 to 1986, the Canada-Manitoba Hydro’s application for an Environment Mercury Monitoring Agreement Study Board Act licence for the Bipole III Transmission carried out studies on mercury levels in fish, Project, had recommended that such a study water, soils and people along the CRD and take place before additional development LWR routes . Between 1985 and 1992, the on the Nelson River . The purpose of the Manitoba Ecological Monitoring Program and study, known as a Regional Cumulative the Federal Ecological Monitoring Program Effects Assessment (RCEA), is to examine carried out studies of subjects such as water how impacts of various projects may quality, fish and fish habitat, waterfowl and work in combination or how a series of resource harvesting, largely focused on the smaller impacts may add up to a large

24 impact . Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba 715 0. feet asl, Manitoba Hydro can discharge government are currently working on the 150,000 cfs from the lake . In the winter, RCEA, which will include a consideration though, ice cover reduces discharge capacity of LWR in this regional context . (Manitoba to about 75,000 cfs . Under those conditions, Clean Environment Commission 2013, 2014) . water from CRD is required to allow the lower Nelson River stations to operate at their full capacity . CRD consists of two 3.2 Manitoba’s Hydroelectric control structures and one excavated channel . System The Missi Falls structure raises the level of Southern Indian Lake by three metres so that To understand the role of LWR, it is water will flow via an excavated channel into helpful to view Manitoba’s hydroelectric the Rat and Burntwood River system . The system as a whole . Electricity in Manitoba Notigi structure on the Rat River regulates the is generated and transmitted by Manitoba flow into the Burntwood River, which flows Hydro, which operates a total of 17 generating into the Nelson River at Split Lake . Manitoba stations, 15 of which are hydroelectric, Hydro is licensed to divert 30,000 cfs (850 and also buys electricity from two wind cubic metres per second) from the Churchill farms . Most of Manitoba Hydro’s generating to the Nelson system . While CRD has an capacity is supplied by generating stations impact on the environment at Southern on the Nelson River . Three large generating Indian Lake, along the Churchill, Rat and stations on the Nelson River – Kettle, Long Burntwood Rivers, and on the Nelson River Spruce, and Limestone – have a combined from Split Lake to Hudson Bay, it is not a part capacity of more than 3,500 megawatts (MW) of this review . and represent approximately 70 per cent of Manitoba Hydro’s generating capacity . (One In addition to the Nelson River generating MW is enough to light more than 16,000 60- stations, Manitoba Hydro operates the watt light bulbs .) They went into operation in Grand Rapids Generating Station on the 1974 (Kettle), 1979 (Long Spruce) and 1990 Saskatchewan River, which has a capacity of (Limestone) . The Jenpeg Control Structure, 480 MW, the Wuskwatim Generating Station though built primarily for regulating on the Burntwood River, which has a capacity outflow from Lake Winnipeg, contains a of 200 MW, and a series of six generating relatively small generating station, capable stations along the Winnipeg River, with a total of producing 125 MW of electricity . The capacity of approximately 580 MW . These Kelsey Generating Station, the oldest on the Winnipeg River stations include the oldest in Nelson River, generates 220 MW of electricity . Manitoba: the Pointe de Bois station, which Kelsey was completed in 1960 to provide went into service in 1911 . In addition to the power for the city of Thompson and adjacent hydroelectric generating stations, Manitoba mining operations . Another Nelson River Hydro operates thermal generating stations generating station, Keeyask, is currently under in Brandon and East Selkirk, which burn construction upstream of the Kettle station, natural gas and have a generation capacity of and will add nearly 700 MW of generating 458 MW of electricity . The Brandon station capacity to the total . also has one coal-fired unit . Manitoba Hydro purchases electricity from two independently The generating stations downstream owned wind farms at St . Leon and St . Joseph, on the Nelson require about 160,000 cfs to providing a maximum of nearly 240 MW of produce electricity at maximum capacity . electricity . In the summer, when Lake Winnipeg is at

25 Figure 3.1: Manitoba’s hydroelectric system. (Manitoba Hydro)

26 Figure 3.2: Manitoba Hydro’s northern hydroelectric generating stations. (Manitoba Hydro)

27 Figure 3.3: Major hydro generating stations by generation capacity. (Manitoba Hydro)

Manitoba Hydro’s system of transmission the amount of hydraulic head provides greater lines includes connections to Saskatchewan, power to turn the turbines that generate Ontario, North Dakota and Minnesota, electricity . Therefore, the greatest potential which allow for surplus electricity to be to generate electricity is on a large river, such sold when it is not needed in Manitoba and as the Nelson, at a place such as set of rapids for electricity to be purchased from other where it drops a relatively large amount in jurisdictions in the event of a shortfall in a relatively short distance . Water stored in Manitoba . Manitoba’s period of peak demand a reservoir upstream of a generating station for electricity is winter, as a result of the therefore represents stored energy, like a giant use of electricity for heating . In Minnesota, battery . By controlling the release of the water Wisconsin and other American states, peak through the turbines of a generating station, demand is in summer, as a result of the this potential energy can be turned into widespread use of air conditioning . electricity when it is needed . It’s necessary to be able to store potential energy in this The Nelson River’s prominence in manner because once electricity is generated, Manitoba Hydro’s generating system reflects it cannot be stored . its status as the largest river in Manitoba, with the most electrical generating capacity . The electrical generating capacity of a river is a result of the amount of water in the river and the height it drops, referred to as the hydraulic head . Increasing either the amount of water or

28 Figure 3.4: Bulb type turbine at Jenpeg. so releases at Jenpeg are not based on hour- (Manitoba Hydro) by-hour power demands, but on forecasts of expected demand several weeks in the future .

3.3 What is Lake Winnipeg Regulation? LWR consists of a series of excavated channels to allow for increased drainage of Lake Winnipeg, combined with the Jenpeg Control Structure on the west channel of the Nelson River, just upstream of Cross Lake . The channels allow for water to flow more freely into the Nelson River, while the Jenpeg Control Structure allows for regulation of the discharge of water down the Nelson River . The channels and channel improvements allow up to 50 per cent more water to flow out of Lake (Note: this cross-section depicts the Winnipeg than was possible in the past with Jenpeg Generating Station, which has only the natural channel at Warren Landing . unique bulb-style turbines to generate All of the components of LWR are on the electricity at a site with relatively little west channel . The east channel is not directly hydraulic head, where the water is regulated by LWR, but is affected by altered essentially running horizontally. Manitoba Hydro’s other generating stations employ water levels on Playgreen Lake . a style of turbine in which the water runs past them vertically and drops a greater To understand what LWR is, it helps first distance.) to understand the geography of the affected area . The natural drainage outlet from Lake Winnipeg, at the north end of the lake near LWR therefore allows Lake Winnipeg to Warren Landing, is a relatively shallow be used as a storage reservoir so that water channel leading to Playgreen Lake, the first of can be released as needed to generate power a series of lakes known as the Outlet Lakes . at the downstream generating stations on the Because this channel is only two to three Nelson River . LWR is also designed to allow metres deep, natural water flow is restricted, Manitoba Hydro to discharge more water especially when the lake surface is covered by from Lake Winnipeg in winter, resulting in ice approximately one metre thick . Outflow more power, than would be possible under from Lake Winnipeg through the Warren natural conditions . The four feet of storage Landing channel is thus reduced in the winter, allowed under Manitoba Hydro’s licence for when demand for electricity in Manitoba is LWR ensures enough water to provide the about 1,000 MW higher . In Playgreen Lake, corporation with almost one quarter of its the Nelson River is split into west and east dependable energy . channels . The west channel, which flows from Playgreen to Kiskittogisu Lake via a Water released at the Jenpeg Control complex network of shallow channels, and Structure takes weeks to reach the three large into the western end of Cross Lake, carries generating stations on the lower Nelson River, approximately 85 per cent of the water flowing

29 out of Lake Winnipeg . The east channel when it was excavated . It is 30 feet (9 carries the remaining 15 per cent and flows metres) deep and approximately 600- past Norway House Cree Nation, through 700 feet (180-210 metres) wide . As will Pipestone Lake and into Cross Lake . be discussed in Section 7 .3, Shoreline Erosion, the dimensions of Two-Mile Most of the water flowing out of Lake Channel have changed somewhat Winnipeg, therefore, either passes through since the construction of LWR . the turbines or the spillway of the Jenpeg Generating Station . Raising or lowering the • Eight-Mile Channel, which connects spillway or turbine gates allows Manitoba the southern end of Playgreen Lake Hydro to control the amount of water with the southern end of Kiskittogisu continuing downstream . Lake . This channel is wider than Two- Mile Channel (ranging from 700 to Figure 3.5: Lake Winnipeg Regulation 1,200 feet or 213 to 366 metres) and project area. (Manitoba Hydro) approximately 20 feet (6 metres) deep . It allows water leaving Playgreen Lake to flow more readily into Kiskittogisu Lake instead of being constricted by narrow passages in the natural channel between the lakes further to the north .

• Kisipachewuk Channel Improvement, a relatively short excavation of a channel that leads from Kiskittogisu Lake to the Nelson River . This excavation deepens the river bed to increase flow over a length of about 260 feet (80 metres) and a width of 200 feet (60 metres) .

• The Ominawin Bypass Channel, a channel at the north end of Kiskittogisu Lake that allows water to bypass the natural constrictions of the previously existing Ominawin Channel . This Bypass Channel is 2 .1 miles (3 4. km) long, 1,400 feet wide (425 metres), and 20 feet (6 metres) From south to north, the elements of deep . It also has a centre division, LWR are: made of rock, which allows the channel to freeze with a more even • Two-Mile Channel, excavated to covering of ice in the winter, reducing provide an additional outlet from Lake the risk of ice impeding the flow of Winnipeg to Playgreen Lake through water . the narrow peninsula west of the natural outlet at Warren Landing . As • The Jenpeg Control Structure, a dam the name suggests, Two-Mile Channel across the west channel of the Nelson was nearly two miles (3 .2 km) long River about 100 km north of Lake 30 Winnipeg . This structure includes six demonstrating that it has carried out the turbines through which water passes, terms of the Interim licence . The Manitoba generating a maximum of 125 MW government has determined that this final of electricity . When the flow in the licence is valid for a period of 50 years . river is greater than the capacity of the Manitoba Hydro’s current application is for a turbines, the excess is discharged over 50-year licence running from 1976, the year the spillway . the project went into operation, to 2026, at which point it will require a new final licence . Other components of LWR include the A copy of the licences is included in Appendix Kiskitto Control Structure, which prevents II of this report . water on Kiskittogisu Lake from flowing back into Kiskitto Lake, and the Black Duck Control Structure and Diversion Channel, 3.4 Operation of LWR which regulate Kiskitto Lake within its natural range . These components of LWR Manitoba Hydro’s Information: were constructed to prevent the project from Operation of LWR affecting Kiskitto Lake . The Jenpeg Control Structure manages In 1970, the Manitoba government issued approximately 85 per cent of the flow out of an Interim licence to Manitoba Hydro under Lake Winnipeg, the remainder of the flow The Water Power Act to develop LWR . A going through the unregulated Nelson River supplementary Interim licence, reflecting east channel . Jenpeg functions primarily as modifications in the design of the project, a water control facility, though it also has a was granted in 1972 . In the years since generating capability . the project went into operation in 1976, Manitoba Hydro has been engaged in a series Lake Winnipeg serves as an important of studies, negotiations and agreements with reservoir for the storage of water within First Nations and other communities in the Manitoba Hydro’s system . Manitoba Hydro region, leading to a variety of compensation has calculated that Lake Winnipeg contributes and mitigation programs . In response to approximately 40 per cent of total system questioning during the hearings, Manitoba storage, with 20 per cent provided by other Hydro stated that the long lapse in time Manitoba lakes and 39 per cent by other between the completion of the project and provinces . the application for a final licence was a result of this long process . Manitoba Hydro also acknowledged that, by law in the state of Figure 3.6: Relative system storage Wisconsin, a utility can only count a purchase contributions. (Manitoba Hydro) of power from Manitoba Hydro as renewable energy if Manitoba Hydro has a final licence for LWR . A final licence for LWR is, therefore, necessary for the corporation’s export plans . Manitoba Hydro is also developing a new high-voltage transmission line to Minnesota, which can be used for exporting surplus power or importing power .

Under The Water Power Act, a proponent is entitled to a final licence upon 31 By raising or lowering the five gates on losses of water to evaporation increase in the the Jenpeg Control Structure spillway or by late summer and early fall . At this time of opening or closing the gates on each of the year, releases also decline, conserving water six water passages that direct water to the in storage for the winter high-demand period turbines, Manitoba Hydro is able to determine and for future drought protection . how much water passes through the structure . Staff based at Jenpeg operate the facility from There are, of course, exceptions to this a control room on-site . Manitoba Hydro has general operating pattern, particularly with stated that LWR cannot be operated to meet the wet conditions and high water levels of short-term power demands because several the last few years . These high-precipitation weeks are required for releases from the lake conditions typically result in Jenpeg being to arrive at the large downstream generating operated at maximum discharge for an stations . Therefore, Manitoba Hydro regulates extended period of time . In such protracted Jenpeg releases based on current Lake wet conditions, Manitoba Hydro has limited Winnipeg level, forecasts of near-term inflows options for managing levels and flows . In to the lake, and typical seasonal load patterns . 2014, Jenpeg was under maximum discharge from June through October . That entire On average, Jenpeg flows from late fall period was required to bring Lake Winnipeg through the winter and in the mid-summer water levels below 715 .0 feet asl, from a peak are the greatest, with the lowest flows in of slightly above 716 .0 feet asl in late July/early spring and late summer/early fall . Following August . It should also be noted that maximum freeze-up, flows are normally increased, when discharge in winter is significantly lower than demand for electricity in Manitoba is at its in other times of year as ice constrictions limit highest . In all but one of the years since 1977, water flow . flows have been maximized during the winter, with generally limited variability . Winter flows Manitoba Hydro has in place a decision can vary, depending on Lake Winnipeg water support system to assist with short-term levels and ice constrictions, but the range of energy operations planning and impact winter flows is narrower than any other time assessment of various and sometimes of the year . competing system demands on power generation . A number of computer models The spring thaw, or freshet, normally are used to support Manitoba Hydro’s produces higher inflows . Spring flows, in energy operations and long-term system combination with seasonally reduced power development planning . demand and the need to limit releases to avoid flooding of the lower Nelson River, afford Using its short-term energy operations some opportunity to re-fill Lake Winnipeg . planning models, Manitoba Hydro staff Releases through Jenpeg and the spillway are members incorporate information about most variable during the summer, sometime precipitation, runoff into Lake Winnipeg, falling to the minimum licence requirement, the current level of the lake, current outflow depending on Lake Winnipeg’s level and from the Jenpeg spillway and powerhouse, inflow . Under wet conditions, maximum electricity provided to the grid, system releases can continue into the spring and demands, export obligations and the summer to avoid Lake Winnipeg rising to wholesale electricity market . Manitoba Hydro the upper end of the operating range . Inflow has stated that, while day-to-day decisions and electricity demand typically decline and at Jenpeg are generally economic in nature, they are made with consideration of both

32 Figure 3.7: Typical Lake Winnipeg Regulation operations by season: Jenpeg total flow. (Manitoba Hydro) (Manitoba flow. total season: by Jenpeg operations Lake Regulation Winnipeg 3.7: Typical Figure

33 upstream and downstream stakeholders, as has modified its operations and developed well as within the constraints of the operating informal ways, such as its Best Management licence . Manitoba Hydro has stated that Practices, to address some of the specific operations at Jenpeg have been modified to environmental, socio-economic, safety and reduce the creation of slush ice downstream other considerations . of the generating station (see Section 8 .4, Navigation, Transportation and Public Safety) As was evident during the hearings, there and to limit the rate of change of the flow are only a few conditions on the LWR licence during the open-water season to reduce the and some of those that do exist, such as the impact on waterway users . Manitoba Hydro minimum flow requirement or maximum rate has stated that operators also sometimes of change, not only lack scientific rationale, increase outflow at Jenpeg before the level of but have never been rigorously assessed in Lake Winnipeg reaches 715 .0 feet asl, in an any public planning process to see if they effort to reduce the magnitude and duration are appropriate to address environmental or of maximum discharge . socio-economic conditions .

Commission Comment: Operation Beyond the licence conditions themselves, of LWR Manitoba Hydro has operated LWR and other waterway systems in Manitoba in Managing a large, integrated hydroelectric the absence of (or based on very limited) system with various generating stations, externally reviewed and approved rules control structures and reservoirs requires governing operating conditions, such as a balancing act among supply (including levels and flows on various water bodies and supply of water and supply of imported at various structures . This informal way of and non-hydro forms of energy), demand, operating means Manitoba Hydro can address and regulatory, environmental and socio- the particular needs of certain stakeholders, economic factors . The latter considerations but it also means the priorities, conditions include the LWR licence conditions, but and trade-offs are very much determined by also involve issues such as public safety Manitoba Hydro, without public scrutiny or and community concerns and interests a consideration of a broader public interest . related to flows and levels on waterways . At times, it may actually put Manitoba Hydro The commission considers that the record in an awkward position having to make demonstrates that Manitoba Hydro has certain decisions which really should be aired improved in its efforts to balance these through a more public planning process with factors . government oversight and involvement .

The commission heard during the The above should not be interpreted hearings of how other jurisdictions have as a criticism of Manitoba Hydro . Up managed their surface water systems, many until this point, the corporation has not of which face far greater competing needs . In been asked to undertake a public water contrast to many other jurisdictions and other management planning exercise . During the systems, LWR is subject to only a few formal hearing, Manitoba Hydro acknowledged licence conditions (see Sections 4 .2, Terms the deficiencies in the current LWR licence of Licence and 4 .3, Licence Compliance) and indicated that they are open to a more and rules that directly address how LWR modern approach and to examining practices is operated . Over time, Manitoba Hydro in other jurisdictions . The current informal way of managing LWR and other river

34 systems in Manitoba stands in stark contrast to other jurisdictions that have engaged in multi-stakeholder water management planning processes under government oversight for major water management projects . During the hearings, Manitoba Hydro, some of the participating groups and organizations and some of the independent experts identified other jurisdictions from which lessons could be drawn .

Taking a more rigorous and public approach to planning future LWR operations would most likely lead to some environmental enhancements, as well as addressing certain socio-economic concerns more directly . Moreover, it might help the public to better understand the multiple and often competing environmental, social and economic demands in water management planning .

The commission heard discussions of the computer models Manitoba Hydro uses in energy operations and long-term system development planning . It is not clear that these models support both long-term planning of the hydroelectric system and real-time decision-making about operations in a way that incorporates environmental and social needs in addition to reliability and economic needs .

In Chapter 10 of this Report, “Going Forward” the commission will provide a more detailed discussion and recommendations on reviewing the operating regime for LWR with more formal, transparent, scientifically and publicly established rules, along with models and other decision-support tools that can help the public to better understand trade-offs in water management decisions .

35 36 Chapter Four Licence Process, Terms and Compliance

4.1 The Licensing Process Hydro prepare a document in plain language describing LWR and its effects . The process The process of working toward a final of reviewing the application for a final licence for Lake Winnipeg Regulation began licence was delayed, however, by two new in December 2010, when Manitoba Hydro developments proposed by Manitoba Hydro, requested a final Water Power Act licence both of which required public hearings held from the Manitoba government . In July, by the Clean Environment Commission . In 2011, the minister announced that the Clean December 2011, the Environmental Impact Environment Commission would hold public Statement for the Bipole III Transmission hearings on Manitoba Hydro’s request for a Project was released, leading to a review final licence . In August 2011, the minister and public hearings, which concluded in the provided the commission with the terms of winter of 2013 . Shortly after the commission reference for hearings regarding the licence . completed its review of the Bipole III Project, it began hearings on the Keeyask Generation The commission was asked to review Project, which concluded in the winter of the public policy surrounding regulation 2014 . of Lake Winnipeg and to hear evidence from Manitobans regarding the effects and In July 2014, Manitoba Hydro published impacts of LWR . The commission was asked “A Document in Support of Manitoba to review the successes and failures of the Hydro’s Request for a Final Licence Under implementation of the public policy goals of The Manitoba Water Power Act,” which LWR . Although the commission may make was intended to provide the commission comments on concerns raised regarding the and the public with information about the issuance of a final licence, including future history, operations and effects of LWR . This monitoring and research, the commission was document was based on information from not asked to provide an opinion on whether many of the follow-up research programs or not a final licence should be issued, nor described in Section 3 .1, A Brief History of on whether or not LWR should have been Lake Winnipeg Regulation . This document developed in the first place . Nor was the included information on the potential effects commission asked to review other aspects of of revisions to the LWR licence, which the the Manitoba Hydro system . commission had posed to Manitoba Hydro . Publication of this report set in motion the After receiving its terms of reference, hearings that began in January 2015 . The the commission requested that Manitoba document was not an environmental impact

37 statement, as it did not contain baseline Figure 4.1: Water Survey of Canada gauges environmental data on the pre-project on Lake Winnipeg. (Manitoba Hydro) environment, as such baseline data were not available, nor did it contain new research .

4.2 Terms of Licence Manitoba Hydro is licensed under The Water Power Act to regulate Lake Winnipeg between the elevations of 711 .0 and 715 .0 feet asl for the purposes of generation of electricity . Under the licence, if the level of the lake reaches 715 .0 feet asl, Manitoba Hydro is required to operate the Jenpeg Control Structure at maximum discharge to lessen flooding impacts on Lake Winnipeg . If the level of the lake falls below 711 .0 feet asl, Manitoba Hydro is required to operate Jenpeg in accordance with instructions from the minister . Lake levels referred to in the licence are for the wind-eliminated level of the lake . Wind-eliminated levels of Lake Winnipeg are calculated using eight Water Survey of Canada stations (four in the north basin and two each in the south basin and the narrows area), Jenpeg . In a 24-hour period, the flow rate at using a formula established in 1982 by the Ad Jenpeg is not permitted to change by more Hoc Committee on Lake Winnipeg Datum, than 15,000 cfs . The licence for LWR also sets chaired by the Manitoba Water Resources ranges for the elevations of the Outlet Lakes, Branch, with representation from Manitoba with Playgreen set at 707 .0 to 714 .9 feet asl Hydro and the Water Survey of Canada . and Kiskittogisu set at 706 .0 to 714 .8 feet asl . Because strong winds can move water to the north or south in Lake Winnipeg and cause The original 1970 licence authorized variations, it is necessary to calculate what Manitoba Hydro to build two control the level would be without the effect of wind . structures on the west channel of the Nelson This process was independently reviewed by River: one at Ominawin Rapids and one at W F. . Baird and Associates Coastal Engineers Metchanais Rapids . The 1972 supplementary in 2000 in a report prepared for the Lake licence was modified to reflect the final design Winnipeg Shoreline Erosion Advisory Group of LWR . It authorized Manitoba Hydro to (2000) and was considered appropriate . build one control structure at the Jenpeg site on the west channel and to create the Under another condition of the licence, Ominawin Bypass Channel at Ominawin the combined flow from all natural and Rapids, as well as the Kisipachewuk Rapids artificial channels from Lake Winnipeg must channel improvements, in addition to the not be less than 25,000 cfs . The licence also Two-Mile and Eight-Mile Channels and the sets a maximum rate of change for flows from Kiskitto Lake works . Conditions regarding

38 lake water levels, minimum outflows on rate possible at Jenpeg to return the lakes to the Nelson River and the maximum rate of their licensed range . change to outflows were the same for both the 1970 licence and the 1972 supplementary Both the 1970 licence and the 1972 licence . supplementary licence state that upon satisfactory completion of the project and Figure 4.2: The Outlet Lakes and Jenpeg. fulfillment of all terms and conditions (Manitoba Hydro) required in the Interim Licence, the minister will issue a final licence . The Interim Licence states that the final licence will be issued “subject to the regulations then in force ”.

4.3 Licence Compliance Manitoba Hydro reported that it has met some licence conditions 100 per cent of the time since the beginning of the project, while other conditions have not always been met . Wind-effects, ice jams, emergencies and errors in operation of the Jenpeg Control Structure were listed as causes of occasions when licence conditions were not met .

Manitoba Hydro instituted a combined reporting program for all operations in 2005, in co-operation with the Manitoba government, to monitor compliance with all of its Water Power Act licences . Any deviation from a licence condition is reported to Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship .

4.3.1 Licence Condition: Playgreen It is important to remember that when and Kiskittogisu Lakes the licence refers to a maximum level for Lake Winnipeg or the Outlet Lakes, it does Water levels on Playgreen and Kiskittogisu not mean that Manitoba Hydro is required Lakes have been within their mandated to ensure that the lakes in question never levels 99 .9 per cent of the time . Typically, rise above those levels . Since the maximum when water levels have been outside of their inflow capacity into Lake Winnipeg, via the mandated range, it has been the result of wind Winnipeg, Saskatchewan, Red, Dauphin set-up, which occurs when prolonged strong and other rivers, is greater even than the winds force large amounts of water on Lake expanded outflow created through LWR, it is Winnipeg in one direction . A strong wind still possible for the levels of the lakes to rise from the south can cause wind set-up by above these specified elevations . The licence forcing more water than usual through Two- stipulates that when these levels are exceeded, Mile Channel and the Warren Landing outlet water must be discharged at the maximum into Playgreen Lake .

39 4.3.2 Licence Condition: Maximum the lowest flow recorded pre-LWR at Bladder Discharge Rapids, 30 km downstream of Jenpeg, which was 24,600 cfs . Those occasions when it has The licence states that Manitoba Hydro not met this condition have been the result must operate the Jenpeg Control Structure of wind effects reducing the flow into the east to maximize discharge when the wind- channel . eliminated water level on Lake Winnipeg exceeds 715 .0 feet asl . Since the project went 4.3.4 Licence Condition: Forecasting into operation, Manitoba Hydro has operated Levels and Flows at maximum discharge 100 per cent of the time when Lake Winnipeg has reached The licence requires Manitoba Hydro to 715 .0 feet asl . Between 1977 and 2013, there provide a 90-day forecast of water levels and were nine periods during which Jenpeg was flows for LWR each month to the minister, operated at maximum discharge because of including forecasts of daily inflows to Lake levels over 715 .0 feet asl on Lake Winnipeg . Winnipeg, flows for the Nelson River east and As of the end of the hearings, these periods west channel, and levels for Lake Winnipeg, were: Playgreen and Kiskittogisu Lakes . These forecasts are also posted on Manitoba Hydro’s • May-August 1979 website . • May-June 1986 4.3.5 Licence Condition: Outflow • May-July 1997 Rate of Change

• May-October 2005 The licence states that Manitoba Hydro must operate the Jenpeg Control Structure • July-August 2008 so the amount of water discharged does not change by more than 15,000 cfs in a 24-hour • May-September 2009 period . This condition has been met 94 .8 per cent of the time . Manitoba Hydro states that • July-December 2010 this condition was exceeded more frequently during the first decades of operation of • April-October 2011 LWR . From 1976 to 1999, this condition was • July 2013 exceeded seven to eight per cent of the time, but from 2000 to 2012 it was exceeded less • June-October 2014 than two per cent of the time . Approximately half of the occasions when this condition was 4.3.3 Licence Condition: Minimum exceeded involved changes in flow rate of Outflow less than 2,000 cfs in excess of the maximum change . Reasons for exceeding this condition The licence states that the combined include unexpected outages of powerhouse outflow from the east channel of the Nelson units or power lines, operator error during River and the Jenpeg Control Structure must adjustments to flow or power generation, not be less than 25,000 cfs . Manitoba Hydro wind effects, ice jams and emergencies . One states that it has met this condition 99 .9 per of the periods when Manitoba Hydro deviated cent of the time . This condition is based on from this condition was authorized in advance by the Manitoba government . This occurred

40 in 2010, when the corporation installed an ice boom upstream of Jenpeg to allow ice cover upstream of the control structure to form more smoothly . An ice boom is a floating structure designed to prevent ice from flowing down the river .

4.3.6 Licence Condition: Kiskitto Lake

The licence states that water levels on Kiskitto Lake must remain within their natural range . This condition has been met 100 per cent of the time .

41 42 Chapter Five The Public Hearing Process

5.1 Clean Environment and assess impacts, gather community views Commission on LWR and prepare for the hearings . Those participating were: The panel assigned to conduct the public hearings consisted of Terry Sargeant • Black River First Nation (Chairperson of the panel and of the Clean Environment Commission), Neil Harden, • Consumers’ Association of Canada Beverly Suek and Edwin Yee . Panel members (Manitoba Branch) for any given set of hearings are selected from among the members of the Clean • Interlake Reserves Tribal Council Environment Commission based on expertise • Keewatinook Fishers of Lake and availability . Members of the commission Winnipeg are appointed by the minister . • Manitoba Métis Federation

5.2 Public Participation • Manitoba Wildlands All groups and members of the public were able to ask questions of Manitoba Hydro • Norway House Fishermen’s Co- and provide their own perspective on LWR . operative A number of groups and organizations were • Peguis First Nation substantially involved in the hearing process . Many of these groups and organizations took • Pimicikamak Okimawin part in the pre-hearing process, during which they reviewed Manitoba Hydro’s “Document • Tataskweyak Cree Nation in Support of Manitoba Hydro’s Request for a Final Licence under The Manitoba Water • York Factory First Nation Power Act” and sought further information before the beginning of hearings . Many of 5.2.1 Community Hearings the participating groups were represented by counsel and brought their own expert Given the size of Lake Winnipeg and witnesses to the hearings . Many of them also the downstream area affected by LWR, received funding through the Participant community hearings were held over a large Assistance Program to help them analyze part of Manitoba . In early September 2014,

43 the commission invited First Nations or other 5.3 Presenters communities with an interest in LWR to host meetings . Commission staff also began Presenters are individuals or scheduling community hearings in other cities representatives of organizations who attended and towns in the region to allow community and spoke only at the hearings . They were members to provide the commission with allowed 15 minutes per person in which their first-hand experiences with LWR . to present their views or information and, Hearings were held in 10 First Nations, 11 in some cases, were asked questions of cities, towns and villages, and in the Winnipeg clarification by the panel . Special times, such head office of the Manitoba Métis Federation . as evening sessions, were set aside to enable Hearings were held in Thompson, Wabowden, members of the public to make presentations York Factory First Nation, Misipawistik Cree at the hearings . Nation, Fisher River Cree Nation, Pine Dock, Peguis First Nation, Ashern, Grand Marais, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Selkirk, Gimli, 5.4 Written Submissions Manigotagan, Black River First Nation, Berens As an alternative to appearing at the River First Nation, Sagkeeng First Nation, hearings, members of the public and Pimicikamak Okimawin, Cross Lake, Norway interested organizations are invited to submit House Cree Nation and Norway House . written presentations . The commission received 15 written submissions, covering 5.2.2 Participant Assistance a variety of topics . These are taken into Program consideration along with in-person presentations . Typically, when the commission conducts hearings into a project requiring a licence under The Environment Act, funding is 5.5 Access to Information available for Participants as governed by All the information presented to The Environment Act Participant Assistance the commission during the hearings is Regulation . This creates a Proponent-funded available on the commission’s website (www . program that ensures the qualifying public cecmanitoba .ca) . This includes background organizations have access to resources to documents, presentations, verbatim participate effectively in hearings of this transcripts of in-person submissions and nature . Participants usually use these funds written submissions . A list of those who to hire legal counsel and/or specialists presented information to the commission is on environmental assessment and to pay available in Appendix III of this report . travel and accommodation expenses for representatives to make presentations . For these hearings, funds were also made available Commission Comment: The Public for communities to prepare for and host a Hearing Process community meeting with the commission . The hearing process for this report was Although these hearings were carried one of the most extensive ever conducted out under The Water Power Act, a pool of by the commission, in terms of the number Participant Assistance funding was available of individuals who spoke or made written for this purpose . submissions and the number of communities visited . The degree of passion and interest

44 demonstrated is an indicator of the importance of water, in general, and Lake Winnipeg and the Nelson River, in particular, to the people of Manitoba .

As a result of this information gathering, the commission has gained sufficient understanding of uncertainties and concerns regarding the process of Water Power Act licensing to offer analysis and non- licensing recommendations regarding future management, monitoring and research .

45 46 Chapter Six Reports of Clean Environment Commission Experts

6.1 Overview • Peter J . Zuzek, W .F . Baird and Associates Coastal Engineers, “Lake In order to provide analysis of a variety of Winnipeg Erosion and Accretion factors affecting Lake Winnipeg Regulation Processes: A Compendium to the Lake or the Lake Winnipeg/Nelson River area, the Winnipeg Shoreline Management commission contracted with several specialists Handbook ”. to write and present independent reports on subjects relevant to the hearings . These reports • Raymond Hesslein, “Water Level broadened the commission’s understanding of Regulation in the Lake Winnipeg several technical and scientific issues relevant to Basin and its Effects on Nutrient Status a discussion of LWR and informed the thinking of the Lake ”. of commission members as they considered the wide range of views presented during the • Gregory K . McCullough, The hearings . These reports were made available University of Manitoba, Centre for to the public and to all the participating Earth Observation Studies, “Climate parties, including participating organizations, in the Lake Winnipeg Watershed and government representatives and Manitoba the Level of Lake Winnipeg ”. Hydro . (These reports are available in full on the Clean Environment Commission website at • Gordon Goldsborough, The University www .cecmanitoba .ca) . With few exceptions, the of Manitoba Department of Biological specialists who presented them were available Sciences, “Coastal Wetlands of Lake for questioning during the hearings . Winnipeg and the Netley-Libau Marsh,” a summary of studies on the The specialists and the reports they state of the marsh at the mouth of the presented, were: Red River, where it empties into Lake Winnipeg . • Harvey Thorleifson, The University of Minnesota, Department of Earth • George F . McMahon, SENES Sciences, “Influence of Isostatic Consultants, An Arcadis Company, Rebound on Lake Winnipeg,” an “Review of Hydrologic and Operation examination of the influence of the Models Presented to the Manitoba earth’s crust rebounding after having Clean Environment Commission,” been depressed by the weight of ice a technical analysis of the models sheets during the last Ice Age . used by Manitoba Hydro to assess

47 theoretical changes to the terms of the Figure 6.1: Depression of earth’s surface licence for LWR . under the ice sheet (a) and rebounding (b). (https://oncirculation.files.wordpress. com/2012/11/rebound.png) 6.2 Influence of Isostatic Rebound on Lake Winnipeg Isostatic rebound is a geological process that has been changing the shape of Lake Winnipeg for thousands of years and that continues to make Lake Winnipeg expand and grow toward the south .

Isostatic rebound is the very gradual upward movement of the earth’s crust in areas where it had been depressed by the weight of the massive ice sheets of the Ice Age . Between 10,000 and 20,000 years ago, all of Manitoba was covered by thick sheets of ice, like those that currently cover Antarctica . They were thickest – about four kilometres – over Hudson Bay . The pressure of this immense depth of ice pushed down on the earth’s crust, which floats on top of the earth’s interior . and the surface of the earth at the north basin In effect, this great weight caused the crust is rising more rapidly than at the south basin . underneath the ice to sink further into the As a result, the outlet of the lake at Warren earth, just as a heavy weight on a boat will Landing is rising more rapidly than the south cause the boat to ride lower in the water . The basin inlets of the Winnipeg and Red Rivers, weight of the ice sheets pushed the earth’s causing the lake to expand to the south . surface as much as one kilometre lower in the Essentially, this can be visualized by taking region where the sheets were thickest . As the a basin partially filled with water and raising ice melted, the earth’s crust began to rise, just one end; water will run into the end that isn’t as a boat will rise when a load is taken out of raised . it . This rebound is a slow and gradual process, taking thousands of years, and is occurring This process was already occurring at the over a widespread area of Canada that was time when Lake Agassiz, a huge lake of glacial covered during the Ice Age . melt water, covered much of Manitoba and produced the lake-bottom sediments that Because the crust was depressed the most resulted in the wide, flat Red River valley . below what is now Hudson Bay, isostatic Lake Agassiz’s ancient shoreline beaches still rebound is occurring most rapidly in that remain in many places on the landscape . At area . The earth’s crust is rising by about one the time they were formed, these shorelines metre per century around Hudson Bay, with would have been at the same elevation, but the rate of rebound diminishing farther from today shorelines to the northeast (closest Hudson Bay . The effect of isostatic rebound to Hudson Bay) are at a higher elevation on Lake Winnipeg is intensified because the than other shorelines from the same period, lake runs some 400 km from south to north

48 because they have risen more rapidly than the at the south end, it is approximately 20 cm shorelines farther from Hudson Bay . per century . This means that, as the lake essentially pivots, the water level in the Isostatic rebound has changed the shapes south basin rises by approximately 20 cm of lakes and the flows of rivers over the last per century . The rate of rebound is gradually several thousand years . After Lake Agassiz slowing down . Research shows that several drained, for some time what is now Lake thousand years ago, the surface was rising at Winnipeg’s north basin was entirely separate a faster rate than today . A variety of studies from the south basin . A small lake in the in the south basin confirm the rate and the south basin flowed through a river where long-term nature of rebound . For example, the narrows of Lake Winnipeg is today and radiocarbon dating indicates that the south emptied into the north basin lake . The north basin was dry land until about 4,000 years basin lake then flowed into a river, which ago . At a site offshore from Gimli, scientists flowed into an entirely separate Playgreen examining the layers of sediment and clay Lake . For some time after the melting of underneath the water have found evidence the ice sheets and the draining of Lake of what was once dry land beneath 10 metres Agassiz, the Saskatchewan River flowed of lake water and four meters of sediment into the Nelson River downstream of Lake deposited after the flooding of the land . Winnipeg . As a result of isostatic rebound, the Saskatchewan River was forced into a new This gradual rise in the lake level means channel, flowing into Lake Winnipeg, leading that the natural state of Lake Winnipeg is to an increase in the amount of water flowing to expand through shoreline erosion . This into the lake . allows for shorelines to recede by observed rates of 0 .5 to 5 metres per year in the south As early as the late 1800s, evidence for basin . The author notes that it may seem like isostatic rebound began to be recognized a paradox that a small, gradual rise in lake when scientists mapped Lake Agassiz’s ancient level can cause shorelines to recede, given shorelines . The development of radiocarbon the much larger fluctuations produced by dating provided further evidence beginning in flooding and wind setup . This is explained the 1950s . Evidence for isostatic rebound can by looking at the angle of the shoreline itself . be seen around Hudson Bay, where there are The drop-off between the high and low water shorelines high above the surface of the Bay that lines along the shore is typically 10 per cent, are dated to about 8,000 years ago and others or a 1 metre drop over 10 metres of horizontal much closer to the Bay dated to 1,000 years or distance . That means the lake level can rise less . The tide gauge at Churchill continues to and fall by much more than 20 cm as a result provide data (since 1940) that indicate that sea of wind effects and seasonal variations and level has been retreating at a rate of about 70 cm still be contained by the relatively steep bank . per century . In thousands of years, as isostatic However, a permanent rise in lake levels, even rebound continues, Hudson Bay itself will a small one, exposes the base of the slope to a gradually become dry land . sustained increase in the power of waves, with the result that the lakeshore is continually A variety of scientific studies, involving weakened and the shoreline is gradually radiocarbon dating of marine shorelines, pushed back . tide gauges, lake gauges and measurements of gravity, have indicated that, at the north Several geographic features along Lake end of the lake, the rate of rebound amounts Winnipeg are the result of isostatic rebound – to approximately 40 cm per century, while

49 and are also known to be signs of rising water isostatic rebound, shoreline erosion would levels in other places . On Lake Winnipeg, the occur sporadically and in places, but because sandy beach that separates the south end of of the unstoppable rise of the earth’s crust, the lake from Netley-Libau Marsh is a barrier Lake Winnipeg is expanding southward and island . So too is Willow Island, near Gimli . will continue to do so . The current Netley- The sandy barrier separating Delta Marsh Libau Marsh will in time become part of Lake from Lake Manitoba is also a sign that that Winnipeg as a result of isostatic rebound, lake is expanding to the south as a result of and, in fact, research shows that as recently as isostatic rebound . Other barrier islands are 1,500 years ago, the marsh was dry ground . As found in the Great Lakes at Hamilton and this happens, the marsh will gradually move Duluth, and along the east coast of the U .S . further south . Barrier islands are a sign of rising water levels . They erode through wave action on the side One implication of isostatic rebound facing the lake or ocean, and are built up on for LWR is that gradually it becomes more the side facing the lagoon or marsh . Over of a challenge to use the project to control time, barrier islands move toward the land, flooding on the lake . Because the outlet even as the land recedes farther inland as a is steadily rising relative to the rest of the result of rising water . Another feature of Lake lake, a commitment to reduce flood levels Winnipeg that indicates rising water levels is will require a more aggressive promotion of the existence of drowned valleys, also known outflow . However, even if it were possible to as estuaries, such as those of the Icelandic use LWR to maintain a constant lake level, the River and Netley Creek . A drowned valley is landscape will still take decades or centuries one that has become an inlet of the ocean or to respond to uplift that has already occurred . lake into which a river empties, as a result of Therefore, greater co-operation will be the ocean or lake rising . required in the future involving communities on the lake, on the Nelson River, Manitoba Isostatic rebound is occurring on other Hydro and the Manitoba government as they large lakes in Manitoba, but its effects vary attempt to respond to these changes . depending on the placement of the inlet and outlet of a lake . Lake Winnipegosis, for As for the recorded rise in average lake example, is actually contracting as a result levels since LWR went into operation in of isostatic rebound, because its outlet, the 1976, the author of the paper said isostatic Waterhen River, is at the south end of the lake . rebound likely played some role, but a greater That means the north end of the lake is rising role in this short-term (by geological time relative to the lake’s outlet, so that gradually scales) change has been a pattern of greater the water is moving toward the outlet . Ancient precipitation for most of the years since 1976 . shorelines inland from the current shoreline of Lake Winnipegosis demonstrate this process . A similar process is occurring at Lake 6.3 Lake Winnipeg Erosion Nipigon, in Ontario, because its outlet is also and Accretion Processes at the lake’s south end . This report was a compendium The author concludes that isostatic of technical studies completed by the rebound is inevitable and is the main driver engineering consulting firms Baird and of shoreline erosion on Lake Winnipeg, Stantec for the Lake Winnipeg Shoreline particularly on the south basin . If not for Management Handbook (Manitoba

50 Conservation, 2001), as well as other recent to erosion . Shorelines comprised of glacial observations . sediments such as glacial till and clay, on the other hand, are very prone to erosion when A starting point for the discussion of exposed to waves . Eroding sand deposits erosion on Lake Winnipeg is that it is a are those shorelines where large deposits of natural process that occurred before LWR, as sand, often mixed with rounded pebbles or well as after, and occurs on almost all lakes in larger rocks, form bluffs along the edge of Canada and around the world . Erosion creates the lake . When wave action weakens these many of the ecosystems that exist around the bluffs, the sediment will slump into the lake lake, including beaches and mudflats . and be transported by currents along the shore until some natural barrier causes the Erosion is caused when the force of waves sediment to accumulate on the shore of the or currents is greater than the ability of the lake . Where this occurs, depositional beaches shoreline to resist . Larger storms, with more are created . An example of this phenomenon powerful waves, exert greater forces on the can be seen at Grand Beach, where sand that shore than calm conditions . eroded into the lake from sand bluffs to the north is transported by wind and wave action The geology of a lake largely determines along the shore until the headland at Grand how shoreline erosion occurs . In the case Beach disrupts this flow and causes the sand of Lake Winnipeg, bedrock is covered by to be deposited . Another area where sand is complex layers of glacial sediment left behind deposited by moving currents is the sand bar after the melting of continental ice sheets that between Elk Island and Victoria Beach, which once covered Manitoba . During the melting of has grown substantially over the last 60 years . the ice sheets, which caused the ancient Lake Agassiz to form, large amounts of loose sand Shoreline erosion, therefore, continually and gravel were also washed into the Lake changes the shoreline of Lake Winnipeg, with Winnipeg area by melt water rivers . When some areas eroding more rapidly than others the last of the glaciers retreated 10,000 years and some areas gaining new material . ago, the bedrock under and around most of Lake Winnipeg was covered by sediments, including glacial till, Figure 6.2: Along-shore transport of sediment. lacustrine (lake bottom) clays, and sandy outwash deposits where ancient glacial rivers had dropped their loads of sediment .

Wind, wave and ice actions working on the bedrock and surface deposits have given Lake Winnipeg a number of different kinds of shorelines, some of which erode much more quickly than others . Bedrock shorelines are not common on Lake Winnipeg, but where they do occur, as on the southwestern tip of Elk Island, they are very resistant

51 The level of the lake does not determine in a given decade will occur in one or two whether or not there will be erosion . Rather, major storms . This rate of erosion is generally the lake’s level determines where erosion will consistent with findings on other lakes with take place . Therefore, if the lake is at 711 .0 similar conditions and shorelines . The average feet asl, waves will still cause erosion, but the rate of retreat on Lake Michigan is 0 .3 metres erosion will occur at a lower point on the per year and on Lake Ontario it is slightly less shoreline . A computer simulation carried out than 0 .3 metres per year . On the north shore by Baird and Stantec for the Lake Winnipeg of Lake Erie at an area called Long Point, Shoreline Erosion Study in 2000 supports bluffs are retreating by 4 metres per year (120 this conclusion . The simulation showed metres recorded in the last 30 years) . that if the level of Lake Winnipeg had been one or two feet lower from 1971 to 1994, a An important point in understanding particular stretch of south basin shoreline shoreline erosion is that shorelines maintain would have receded less, but the amount of a consistent profile over time even as erosion downcutting (erosion) of the nearshore area causes them to recede . As the illustration of (the lake bottom up to one km out from the lake bed downcutting and failure of shoreline shore) would have been greater . Lakebed protection shows, the natural tendency of downcutting is an important driver of erosion any area of shoreline is to maintain the same because, as the nearshore area is further angle or curve from the lake bed to the beach eroded, more wave energy is able to reach the or bluff . Placing rip rap or concrete along shore . the shore temporarily changes that profile as the lake bed erodes below the protected Shoreline erosion is therefore a natural area . Because downcutting off shore occurs process that will occur at faster or slower regardless of what protection is placed on rates for different parts of the lake shore, the shore, in time, the deepening of the lake depending on the force of waves and currents bed off shore allows more wave energy to affecting a portion of shoreline and on the reach the shore . As a result, the force of these ability of the shoreline material to resist waves will erode the lakebed at the toe of these forces . When the shoreline consists of the shoreline protection, undercutting it and cohesive sediments (clays and glacial tills), causing it to collapse . In time, the shoreline erosion occurs both at the shore and further protection will either fail or require costly from shore on the lake bottom . Lakebed maintenance, making shoreline protection downcutting is irreversible . Downcutting is ultimately a temporary measure . greater closer to shore and decreases further offshore . At the shore, waves Figure 6.3: Shoreline profile. remove consolidated material from the bank or bluff, and keep the bluff in a near vertical condition as it migrates inland . The rate at which bluffs along Lake Winnipeg retreat varies depending on the exposure to waves and the materials of the shoreline, but averaged out over many years is typically between 0 .3 and 0 .6 metres per year . This rate is not constant and often the majority of shoreline erosion

52 Shoreline protection also cuts off the It is possible to predict where erosion will supply of new sand and gravel from existing occur by using computer models that consider beaches . The author described the process water levels and the varying characteristics known as “accretion” in which new material is of the existing shorelines . Collecting data to deposited in some areas of a lake shore . When use in such a model can be expensive and sand and gravel are eroded away from one time-consuming . However, future planning portion of shoreline, they are transported by decisions regarding development around Lake wave currents along the shoreline until they Winnipeg would benefit greatly from such a come to some kind of obstruction, such as a data-gathering and forecasting exercise . This point of land, where they are deposited . As would allow for the creation of maps showing a result, armouring a large area of shoreline where the greatest erosion hazards exist . Such prevents new sand and gravel from being a process occurs in many other jurisdictions . eroded into the lake (for as long as the In Ontario, shoreline development policies protection continues to work) and cuts off require that erosion hazards are mapped this supply of sand and gravel from beaches . with a 100-year prediction, so that new This effect has been well documented in construction is not allowed unless hazard- studies on the Great Lakes . One portion of mapping shows that it’s safe from erosion Lake Erie, where 90 per cent of the shoreline threats for at least 100 years . A similar rule is armoured, has had dramatic changes in its in the state of Michigan uses a 50-year beaches as a result . erosion-hazard prediction . By comparison, Manitoba has limited policies and regulations This report was not an investigation into to manage shoreline hazards and guide new the effects of LWR on shoreline erosion, development . Manitoba would benefit from which would have required considerable provincial government policies requiring such additional study . The author did, however, forecasting and mapping and from strong summarize applications of an erosion- lakeshore development policies reflecting modelling program called COSMOS on the ongoing and inevitable reality of erosion . erosion at sites on Lake Diefenbaker, in The author recommended development of Saskatchewan, and on Lake Ontario . At policies that would encourage the resilience of Lake Diefenbaker, a reservoir on the South shoreline communities so that they were less Saskatchewan River, the greatest shoreline vulnerable to erosion hazards . Such policies recession was seen to occur in years when the would include enhancing development reservoir was at or near its full supply level . setbacks along shores, artificially nourishing At Lake Ontario, application of the model to shorelines to address shoreline erosion and one area of eroding bluffs showed that rates protecting shoreline habitat and function . of bluff recession were reduced by 50 per cent by reducing the range of Lake Ontario water Regarding the impact of LWR on levels from the natural range of 2 .0 metres to erosion, the author concluded that a detailed the post-regulation range of 1 .2 metres . Given investigation would be needed to determine that estimates based on historical inflows to whether LWR has increased or decreased Lake Winnipeg and outflows through the erosion . This would require mapping Nelson River indicate that the lake would have shoreline change since 1976 and creating had a greater range of levels without LWR, computer modeling tools to simulate pre- shorelines might have receded more rapidly LWR erosion rates based on known water- along the lake without LWR . level data . It would then require simulating what erosion would have occurred since 1976

53 without LWR, based on known inflows from three of the four largest tributaries to Lake that period . Predicting future erosion, given Winnipeg has increased over time . From 1910 estimates about climate change, would require to 2010, the annual discharge of the Red River studies both of possible changes in inflows increased by 160 per cent, while the discharge to the lake (such as the forecasts of increases of the Dauphin River increased by 95 per cent in precipitation for portions of the Lake and the Winnipeg River by 53 per cent . Only Winnipeg watershed) and possible changes the Saskatchewan River’s discharge declined to winds which could increase the amount of over that time – attributed to causes such as wave energy affecting the lake’s shorelines . water loss from irrigation and the creation of Lake Diefenbaker, as well as increased evaporation – by 19 per cent . Comparing 6.4 Climate in the Lake the relative contributions of the four rivers Winnipeg Watershed and the to Lake Winnipeg, the Winnipeg River Level of Lake Winnipeg contributes roughly half of the total water in the lake, followed by the Saskatchewan This report summarized information on (25 per cent), the Red (16 per cent) and the historical temperature, precipitation and river Dauphin (4 per cent) (Environment Canada discharge in the Lake Winnipeg watershed, and Manitoba Water Stewardship 2011) . predictions of future climate and runoff and In the first half of the twentieth century, their effects on lake levels . the Winnipeg and Saskatchewan Rivers contributed roughly equal amounts of water . Weather data show increased precipitation over the last 100 years in all parts of the Increases in precipitation can cause Lake Winnipeg watershed: 14 per cent in dramatic increases in runoff, depending southwest Alberta, 12 per cent along the on how the additional precipitation falls . North Saskatchewan, 7 per cent along the If additional precipitation comes in the South Saskatchewan, 13 per cent in southern form of more frequent or severe storms, the Manitoba and northern North Dakota, 9 additional moisture can’t be absorbed into per cent in northwest Minnesota, and 8 per the ground and will run off into creeks and cent in northwest Ontario . Looking at more rivers . As a result, while precipitation in the recent changes, a comparison of average eastern Red River watershed was 20 per cent precipitation and runoff for 1996-2005 to higher (increasing from 550 mm/year to 660 average precipitation and runoff for 1946- mm/year) in the decade 1996-2005 than the 1995 indicates significant spring precipitation average for most of the 20th century, the increases in various parts of the Red, amount of run-off from that watershed more Winnipeg and Saskatchewan River watersheds, than doubled (from 50 mm to 110 mm) . with the largest percentage increases in runoff in the Red River basin . A gradual, long- Long-term study of precipitation and term temperature increase has also occurred runoff shows that the Lake Winnipeg over the last century of about one degree watershed has had a series of high-flow Celsius in July/August temperatures, with periods separated by drier periods over the a corresponding one degree Celsius rise in last century . However, each period of high summer water temperatures . flows has exceeded the one before . Comparing the average of annual peak flows for two wet Translating precipitation and runoff into periods (the current decade and a wet period river discharge reveals that the discharge of at the beginning of the 20th century) shows

54 that the high flows in the current decade have the world community at limiting future been almost 50 per cent higher than the high greenhouse gas emissions . However, for the flows in the earlier decade . most part, the climate change models predict moderate increases in precipitation in the Another factor that increases the damage Red and Winnipeg watersheds, which will caused by high water on Lake Winnipeg be magnified into larger increases in runoff is the effect of wind setup . The author and, in the Saskatchewan watershed, either examined wind setup events going back to no change or a drying trend . Ultimately, 1914, identified as occasions when the daily the author concluded that if increases in mean water level at Gimli or Winnipeg Beach precipitation and runoff in the Winnipeg and rose above its median level for the previous Red watersheds occur as predicted, it will be week . The study showed that high wind very difficult to manage Lake Winnipeg below setup levels and years of frequent wind set up 715 0. feet asl in the future . occurred both before and after LWR went into operation . 6.5 Water Level Regulation in As a result of increased precipitation and the Lake Winnipeg Basin and runoff, Lake Winnipeg is now, on average, 1 foot (0 .3 metres) higher than in the early its Effect on Nutrient Status 20th century . However, without LWR, of the Lake the combined effect of increased flow and This report assessed the possible impact isostatic rebound (see Section 6 .1, above) of LWR on the level of nutrients (primarily would have increased Lake Winnipeg levels phosphorus) in Lake Winnipeg that result by 2 feet (0 .6 metres) over early 20th century in algae growth . Plants use phosphorus in levels . Modelling shows that without LWR, processes such as photosynthesis, storing the extreme high water levels in flood years energy, cell division and growth . Therefore, would have been even higher . For example, phosphorus is the primary driver for algae in the 1997 and 2011 flood years, modelling growth . Lake Winnipeg has always been a shows that Lake Winnipeg would have nutrient-rich lake, with large quantities of reached 718 .0 feet asl, 2 feet higher than the nutrients delivered by the inflowing rivers, 1997 peak . especially the Red River, which delivers 60-80 Regulation has affected Lake Winnipeg’s per cent of the lake’s phosphorus . Population level differently in dry periods and wet growth in the Lake Winnipeg watershed, periods . In the drier 1980s and early ‘90s, the greater use of fertilizer and increased intensity annual mean lake level tended to be increased and extent of drainage have all resulted in by regulation and the seasonal peak was increased amounts of phosphorus reaching shifted from May or June to late summer or Lake Winnipeg in the last two decades . fall . In the wetter years since 1996, the annual This result has been intensified by higher mean level has been reduced by LWR, and the precipitation during the last two decades, timing of the spring peak has not been shifted causing more phosphorus to run off into by regulation . creeks and rivers that feed the lake .

Examining forecasts of future The concentration of any nutrient in a precipitation, the author noted that various lake will depend both on how much of the climate change models offer a range of nutrient is flowing into it and how much is scenarios, depending on the success of flowing out of it . Manitoba Hydro uses the

55 Jenpeg Control Structure to manage outflow it was estimated that seasonal variations from Lake Winnipeg, but averaged out over in nutrient concentrations caused by LWR the year, Manitoba Hydro cannot significantly would be low, at 2 .5 per cent or lower . This change outflow from what it would be variation is much lower than the dramatic naturally . In other words, if Manitoba Hydro increase (as much as 100 per cent) in nutrient maintained outflows higher or lower than concentrations in Lake Winnipeg over the inflows for long, the lake would in time either last 20 years, during which time inflows from be emptied or overfilled . The limited capacity rivers have also dramatically increased . As of LWR to significantly change the residency a result, the author concludes that effects time of water can be illustrated by considering on nutrient concentrations resulting from the terms of the licence for LWR . Manitoba LWR would be insignificant in comparison Hydro is licensed to regulate Lake Winnipeg to the changes resulting from increased for power production when the level of the nutrient inflow in the Red and other rivers . lake is between 711 .0 and 715 .0 feet asl . Four Management of inflows in the watershed and feet of Lake Winnipeg is equivalent to about changes in land use will continue to influence one third of the lake’s annual inflow . In theory, both the magnitude and timing of phosphorus if the lake level were at 711 .0 feet asl and inputs into the lake . Regulation of inflows into outflows were stopped, it would take one third the lake will have as great an effect on water of a year to bring the lake to 715 .0 feet asl, the levels and timing of those levels as regulation point at which Manitoba Hydro is obligated of outflows . Regulation of outflows and levels to operate the Jenpeg Control Structure at on the lake to achieve multiple objectives maximum discharge . This means that the of hydroelectric power, shoreline stability, residence time for water in the lake cannot flood control, the fishery, recreational use for long be greater than it would be naturally . and ecosystem health will require integrated Over the past two decades, the residence time management of flows and land use across the of water in the lake has been three to four entire basin . years . Each year during this time the amount of water flowing out of the lake has been about one-quarter to one-third of the lake’s 6.6 Coastal Wetlands and total volume . Lake Winnipeg and the If the concentration of nutrients flowing Netley-Libau Marsh into the lake varies from season to season, it This report presented information would be possible for regulation of outflows on coastal wetlands in general and the to cause short-term increases in nutrients . environmental benefits they provide and the For example, under LWR, Manitoba Hydro threats they face, as well as the specific issues increases outflows above their natural level facing Netley-Libau Marsh, the wetland at in winter in order to generate power . If the south end of Lake Winnipeg around the Manitoba Hydro limits outflows in summer mouth of the Red River . Defining criteria to maintain enough water for winter power of a wetland are that water is less than two production, the result could be a seasonal metres deep, soil is saturated and low in increase in nutrient concentrations in the oxygen and vegetation is adapted to wet, lake if water flowing into the lake in summer low-oxygen conditions . Coastal wetlands are carries a higher concentration of nutrients . next to a large body of water and can be of While further study would be needed to verify several types . Lacustrine wetlands are within seasonal variations in nutrient concentrations, a lake; riverine wetlands are located around

56 the mouths of rivers or creeks, and barrier- research . Across Canada, they are threatened protected wetlands are located behind barrier by agricultural activity, including construction islands or beaches . of drains and dikes, urban and residential encroachment, peat removal, grazing by Lake Winnipeg has an abundance of livestock, resource extraction and surface coastal wetlands . A preliminary estimate of flow or aerial drift of pesticides, fertilizers and the lake’s coastal wetlands, based on Forest manure . Coastal wetlands are threatened by Resource Inventory classifications using aerial shoreline development, altered lake hydrology photographs and satellite images, indicates and invasive species . Shoreline development approximately 140,000 hectares of coastal of coastal wetlands or near coastal wetlands wetlands along the lake . This total is only exposes them to increased possibility 20,000 hectares less than the total amount of chemical contamination, increased of coastal wetland of the five Laurentian destruction of native vegetation, increased risk Great Lakes combined (Michigan, Huron, of exotic plants, altered hydrology when roads Erie, Superior and Ontario) . Together, Lakes and other construction interrupt the flow of Winnipeg, Winnipegosis and Manitoba are water in and out of the wetland, and obstacles estimated to have some 271,000 hectares of to the movement of fish and other animals coastal wetland, which is substantially more caused by construction of dikes and roads . than the total of 160,000 hectares in the Laurentian Great Lakes . Manitoba’s great lakes One essential need for a marsh is a (Winnipeg, Manitoba and Winnipegosis) have period of low water levels . Low water levels a large amount of wetland habitat because expose mudflats and thereby provide an Manitoba’s flat topography provides a shallow opportunity for wetland plants to germinate relief profile where wetland plants can develop . and reproduce . Emergent vegetation – plants Flat shorelines and slow-moving rivers allow like cattails and bulrushes that rise out of for large transitional areas between lake the water – is an essential characteristic environments and dry upland environments . of a wetland . If water levels remain high The majority of Lake Winnipeg’s wetlands (76 without ever exposing the mudflats, the area per cent by this estimate) are of the riverine of emergent vegetation may decrease and a type . These totals do not include the even wetland may become simply a shallow lake . larger amounts of treed muskeg along the This has been the trend at the Netley-Libau shore of Lake Winnipeg . North of Hecla Island Marsh, which is the largest coastal wetland in on both the east and west shores, much of Manitoba and believed to be one of the largest the land surrounding Lake Winnipeg is treed in North America . From 1979 to 2001, the muskeg . For the purposes of this paper, these open-water portion of this marsh increased areas were identified, but not included in the from approximately 8,900 hectares (about 35 analysis or the totals . per cent of the total area) to more than 13,000 hectares (about 51 per cent), while the area Wetlands are environmentally, covered by cattails and bulrushes declined economically, socially and culturally important steeply from 3,200 hectares to a little more in many ways, providing control of erosion than 300 hectares . Aerial photos of the marsh and floods, storage of carbon, assimilation in 1979 and 2001 show the substantial decline and metabolism of wastes, habitat for fish in emergent vegetation over these decades . and wildlife and protected species, sources of domestically and culturally important plants, Four causes of the decline in the Netley- and locations for recreation, education and Libau Marsh were examined, in chronological

57 order . The first factor considered was the the seeds of marsh plants could germinate . dredging of a channel connecting the Red During a one-year drought occurring in what River directly with the marsh in 1913, known was otherwise a long cycle of wet years, the as the Netley Cut . Originally carried out to open-water portion of Netley-Libau Marsh allow the marsh to drain so that farmers could declined by some 2,500 hectares as cattails cut wild hay and to provide boat access to and bulrushes grew in newly exposed ground . Netley Lake, the Netley Cut allowed water Even after the drought ended, some of the from the Red River to flow into the marsh, regained vegetation cover (mostly cattails) has substantially increasing the size of Netley remained in place . Although the author states Lake . The Netley Cut rapidly grew wider, the opinion that the lack of low-water periods with the result that more Red River water has contributed to the decline of Netley-Libau flowed into the marsh . The cut has continued Marsh, he concludes that LWR alone would to widen and today appears to be widening not have resulted in the magnitude of change even faster, approaching 0 .5 km in width . recorded at the marsh . The Netley Cut now carries a greater share of the Red River than any of the three channels A third cause of the decline in Netley- (east, west and centre) that flow into Lake Libau Marsh is the cessation of dredging on Winnipeg . By allowing more water into the the Red River in 1999 . This dredging had been marsh, the Netley Cut contributes to the carried out by the federal government to keep drowning of marsh vegetation and erosion a channel open for boating to Lake Winnipeg . of upland areas in the marsh, as well as to Since the end of dredging, the main channel increases in algae growth in the marsh . has become more constricted with silt, which results in more water going through the The lack of periodic low water periods Netley Cut instead of continuing down the since the beginning of LWR in 1976 was also former channels of the river . cited as a contributing factor . Long-term data on lake levels show that LWR has limited A fourth and more recent factor is the the range of water levels on Lake Winnipeg, breaking of ice on the Red River to prevent so that high water periods are lower than flooding upstream on the Red River . Cutting they were in the past and low water period ice on the Red River prior to spring break-up are not as low as previously . For example, may facilitate the movement of water into during the dry decades in the 1930s and the marsh . The Red River and Netley Lake 1940s, Lake Winnipeg’s level dropped at one become ice-free weeks before Lake Winnipeg, point to just over 709 .0 feet asl and there so water flowing to the lake may hit an ice were several years when the level was below blockage and flow through the Netley Cut into 711 0. feet asl . Since the beginning of LWR, Netley-Libau Marsh . Lake Winnipeg has never gone as low as 711 0. feet asl . (Given the high precipitation Based on the effects of the 2003 drought of recent years, even without LWR, the lake in stimulating regeneration in the Netley- would only have reached 711 .0 once since Libau Marsh, the author said management 1976, as mentioned in Section 7 .6 .1, Lake strategies to address the decline in the marsh Winnipeg Wetlands .) The beneficial effect of may include: periodic reductions in Lake periodic low-water years on marsh health is Winnipeg water levels for up to two years, indicated by the way the marsh responded on a 10- to 20-year cycle; developing a way to the 2003 drought . Low water levels in the to regulate the flow through the Netley Cut; marsh that year exposed mud flats where and resuming dredging at the mouth of the Red River . The author also described a

58 recent restoration of the Metzger Marsh on for LWR as “simple, generalized and only Lake Erie . Like Netley-Libau, this marsh minimally prescriptive . Rules for maximum had lost much of its emergent vegetation, and minimum releases are neither adjusted in this case because of the loss of a barrier seasonally nor in response to hydrological ridge that separated it from the lake . Since priorities or conditions within the basin . The the U .S . Army of Corps of Engineers rebuilt most significant gap, however, is the fact that the barrier ridge in the early 1990s, new no targets, priorities or conditions govern plant growth has been “remarkable ”. The Jenpeg release decisions relative to system author also discussed research on the use power, in-stream flows, or distribution of of emergent plants such as cattails and reed storage within the MH [Manitoba Hydro] grasses to absorb nitrogen and phosphorus system . Consequently, when Lake Winnipeg in the water and keep these nutrients out of is within its normal power range, which is the lake . Developing a system to harvest this most of the time, Jenpeg release decisions are vegetation from the marsh – possibly for use largely based on operator discretion, informed as a biomass energy source – could remove by past practice and judgement . While these large amounts of nutrients from the water . are legitimate and essential elements of One approach currently being studied is the reservoir system operation, they are not easily development of “bioplatforms” planted with reduced to a set of logical operating rules cattails to allow cattails to grow in parts of the that can be replicated in a true operational marsh where the water is too deep for them to model ”. The author therefore recommended grow rooted in the ground . These platforms development of a “rule-based system may help to dissipate waves and promote operational simulation model ”. sediment accretion and the biomass from the cattails can be harvested, removing nutrients The lack of rule-based operation from the water . simulation capabilities limits the ability of Manitoba Hydro to factor in needs other than A more thorough inventory of Lake power generation, such as environmental, Winnipeg’s coastal wetlands was also flood or drought risks, and limits public recommended, as well as a historical review of understanding of the rationale for decisions changes to coastal wetlands . This could help about release of water at Jenpeg . Without such distinguish the relative contribution of the a model, Manitoba Hydro’s forecasts regarding Red River to changes in Netley-Libau Marsh, what would happen if the LWR licence terms versus the hydrological influence on Lake were changed (either to a lower or higher Winnipeg’s coastal marsh ecology . maximum level) are less certain . The author also states that Manitoba Hydro’s existing modeling system is ill-equipped to forecast 6.7 Review of Hydrologic responses to, and effects of, drought and and Operational Models climate change . Presented to the Manitoba While the limitations in modelling do Clean Environment not call into question the conclusions in Commission Manitoba Hydro’s documents about the environmental effects of LWR, the author This report examined the models and data states that limitations in the model make used in Manitoba Hydro’s documentation those conclusions less certain than they in support of its application for a final otherwise would be . licence . It described the operating rules

59 60 Chapter Seven Physical/Environmental Effects of Lake Winnipeg Regulation

7.1 Overview LWR . In the downstream area, concerns focus on the quantity of water released through Lake Winnipeg Regulation has a direct Jenpeg and changes to the seasonal nature effect on Lake Winnipeg and the Nelson of flows . Because of the constructed and River by changing water levels and the expanded outlet channels, LWR allows greater flow regime of water . The changes have the flow in winter than would naturally be the potential to create physical and environmental case, allowing more water to flow to lower impacts on the water bodies that affect other Nelson River generating stations at the time of aspects of the environment . This chapter year when electricity use is highest . In many will examine potential effects on the water years, this results in higher flows in winter regime, shoreline erosion, water quality, than in summer, a reversal of the natural fish populations, wetlands and ungulates . seasonal pattern, and in greater fluctuations, For each of these subjects, potential effects both day to day and year to year, than would on the environment of Lake Winnipeg will naturally be the case . be discussed first, followed by potential effects on the downstream environment . The 7.2.1 Water Regime – Lake downstream environment includes the entire Winnipeg length of the Nelson River starting from Warren Landing, including the Outlet Lakes, Cross Lake, Sipiwesk Lake and Split Lake . Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Potential impacts on people and communities Water Regime – Lake Winnipeg resulting from these changes will be discussed in Chapter Eight: Socio-Economic Effects . A comparison of Lake Winnipeg’s levels over time shows that the average level of the lake has been 0 .2 feet (6 centimeters) 7.2 Water Regime higher since the completion of LWR in 1976 . Manitoba Hydro made this calculation based Water regime is a term that refers to on data from eight gauges operated by the the levels and flow of water and its seasonal Water Survey of Canada, providing a record timing . On Lake Winnipeg, the concern of the lake’s levels since 1913 . The process for regarding water regime focuses on Manitoba calculating the level of the lake is described in Hydro’s operating range (711 .0 to 715 .0 feet Section 4 .2, Terms of Licence . asl) for the lake and whether or not Manitoba Hydro uses the Jenpeg Control Structure to Manitoba Hydro calculated the long-term raise the level above what it would be without average level of Lake Winnipeg at 713 .4 feet

61 Figure 7.1: Lake Winnipeg water levels, before and after Lake Winnipeg Regulation. (Manitoba Hydro) (Manitoba WinnipegRegulation. after Lake and levels, before 7.1: Lake water Figure Winnipeg

62 asl for the years before LWR and 713 .6 feet level since 1976 was 716 .9 feet asl . Manitoba asl since LWR . The record shows that the Hydro estimates that without the increased range of water levels has been reduced since outflow capacity created by LWR, the peak LWR . Prior to LWR, water levels (based on would have been 718 .6 to 719 .5 feet asl . Since average monthly levels) on Lake Winnipeg 1976, water levels over 715 .0 feet asl have ranged from a low of 709 .4 feet asl, during an occurred approximately five per cent of the extended dry period in the 1930s and ‘40s, to time . Manitoba Hydro’s calculations indicate 718 1. feet asl during an extended high-water that such water levels would have occurred period from the mid-1960s to mid-1970s . five to seven times as often if LWR had not Since LWR came into operation, water levels been constructed . During the high-inflow have ranged between 711 .4 feet asl and 716 .9 year 2011, according to Manitoba Hydro’s feet asl . These changes in water levels have calculations, average monthly levels on Lake occurred as climate-caused stream flows into Winnipeg would have been 1 .7 to 2 5. feet Lake Winnipeg have been higher on average (0 52. to 0 .76 metres) higher without LWR . in the post-LWR years . As an indicator of the higher flows, measured outflows from Lake The corporation’s calculations also Winnipeg have averaged 76,400 cfs since indicate that without LWR, the lowest levels LWR, compared to an average of 73,200 cfs in since 1976 would have been 709 .8-710 .7 feet the pre-LWR period . asl, compared to the actual lowest recorded level post-LWR of 711 .4 feet . Lake levels Manitoba Hydro used two techniques below 711 .0 feet asl would only have occurred to estimate what the level of Lake Winnipeg in 1988, at a time of a multi-year drought . would have been over the last 40 years if LWR Manitoba Hydro states that, although LWR had not been built . One process involved has reduced the extreme highs and lows from using Water Survey of Canada gauges on Lake Winnipeg levels since 1976, it has not rivers flowing into Lake Winnipeg (Winnipeg, necessarily resulted in a “narrow” range of Saskatchewan, Red, Fairford, Bloodvein, levels . Levels have varied by 5 .5 feet since Pigeon, Manigotagan, Poplar and Gunisao) LWR . to calculate inflows to the lake . The other involved using outflow data from Bladder The seasonal pattern of lake levels on Rapids on the Nelson River to estimate Lake Winnipeg – higher in summer and inflow . In both approaches a “water balance lower in winter – is similar with LWR to what model” compared the calculated inflows would occur in a natural state . However, the to the natural outflow capacity that existed increased outflow in winter and spring, made before the excavation of the additional and possible by the constructed and expanded expanded outflow channels . Determining if outlet channels, allows Lake Winnipeg’s level inflows exceed outflows (and by how much) to rise more slowly in the spring than would at any given time will allow for an estimate of occur naturally . Although LWR creates greater how much the level of the lake would rise as a capacity for outflow during the winter, when result . power demand is highest, Manitoba Hydro states that the winter draw-down on Lake Manitoba Hydro’s calculations indicate Winnipeg has changed only slightly from the that without LWR, peak levels would have pre-LWR average . Since the project went into been higher during the last 40 years and high operation, winter drawdown has averaged water levels would have occurred more often . 0 .16 feet (4 .9 cm), compared to 0 .15 feet (4 .6 The highest recorded wind-eliminated water cm) before LWR .

63 Figure. 7.2 Lake Winnipeg water levels and predicted levels without LWR. (Manitoba Hydro)

In anticipation of public calls for a lower an operating rule would be more frequent maximum for Manitoba Hydro’s licence events downstream of Jenpeg in which the for LWR, the commission asked Manitoba rate of flow changed rapidly . Lowering the Hydro prior to the hearings to assess the upper end of the LWR operating range would potential effect of reducing the upper end of also result in a loss of revenues for Manitoba the operating range to 714 .0 feet asl . Manitoba Hydro estimated at $27 million per year Hydro responded that such a change would through to the year 2047-2048 . As a result of have little effect on high water levels and the corporation having less water to generate would cause greater environmental impacts dependable energy, Manitoba Hydro would downstream . A maximum operating range of either need to import more electricity or have 714 .0 feet asl would reduce the lake’s average less ability to make long-term export sales . level by 0 4. feet (12 cm) . During peak floods, such as those of 2005 and 2011, the lake’s level What We Heard: Water Regime – would be 0 .2 feet (6 cm) lower . Because such Lake Winnipeg a change would require operating Jenpeg at maximum discharge whenever the level of The commission heard concerns about Lake Winnipeg reached 714 .0 feet asl, Jenpeg high water levels from many Manitobans who would operate at maximum discharge more live or own property near Lake Winnipeg . frequently . If the upper limit of the LWR licence had been 714 .0 feet asl, Jenpeg would At Fisher River Cree Nation, a portion have operated at maximum discharge 24 times of the reserve being developed for cottages since 1976, instead of the nine times it has was flooded in 2011 . The planned cottage been at maximum discharge . A result of such development has since been stalled because

64 of persistent high water . The same high water to come south to where their nets are . But event also damaged a large amount of existing now, they said, even when there is a strong housing . High water in recent years has cut north wind, the current still flows from the off access to hay land and areas for harvesting south . traditional medicinal plants . High water levels have also affected fishers Representatives of Peguis First Nation in the south basin . One fisher at Grand Marais presented a theory that high levels on Lake spoke of high water levels affecting the Balsam Winnipeg prevent water from draining Bay Harbour, where the permanent dock was off the land on the First Nation . The chief said to be below water level . During high said increased drainage upstream of the water in 2010, several boats in the harbour First Nation allows more water to flow into were lost as a result of waves overtopping the the community, but the high level of Lake harbour’s protective structure and the floating Winnipeg prevents it from draining rapidly . docks were blown away from the harbour . Peguis presented satellite images showing This phenomenon was described as recent . large areas of the First Nation’s land covered with water at various times in the last several At Black River First Nation, presenters years . Although Peguis has long had flooding spoke about high water inundating the problems and representatives personally former site of the community and the recalled floods that occurred in 1972 and community’s traditional hay lands . At 1974, the problem of rapid overland flooding Sagkeeng First Nation, concerns were raised was described as a recent development that that high water on Lake Winnipeg backs up has become a major issue since the middle of the Winnipeg River to the Pine Falls dam, the last decade . Because of chronic flooding, affecting their community . The written and the number of farmers at Peguis has declined video submission from Hollow Water First from approximately 75 to only three today . In Nation referred to high and fluctuating water 2011, Peguis had 60 per cent of its farmland levels on Lake Winnipeg that were impacting unavailable because of flooding . housing, fishing, wildlife habitat, and resource harvesting . At Pine Dock, several fishers reported that their docks have been underwater for the Presenters in many communities last few years and either they have no access expressed the concern that eight gauges on to a dock now or need to buy a floating dock . Lake Winnipeg may not be enough to provide One fisher spoke of fluctuating water levels, accurate measurements of water levels . describing a dock that was 5 feet above water in the 1980s and is now 2 feet below water . In several communities, including Black River, Grand Marais and Gimli, the Fishers in several north basin commission heard presenters argue for a communities, including Fisher River First reduced upper limit in the LWR licence, Nation and Pine Dock, spoke of changes in from the current 715 .0 feet asl to 714 .0 feet the currents on the lake that they believed asl or lower . A number of presenters stated were a result of the high water levels . These that basing the regulated levels on the wind- currents were said to make fishing and eliminated level of the lake is a problem, given navigation more difficult, as well as dispersing that sustained high winds can raise water fish from their usual locations . Fishers near levels by a metre to a metre and a half in a few the Lake Winnipeg narrows explained that hours . they require a current from the north for fish

65 Commission Comment: Water The commission heard from several Regime – Lake Winnipeg presenters who were concerned about the number or location of gauges used to measure There is no doubt that high levels on the level of Lake Winnipeg . However, it has Lake Winnipeg are a serious issue for been confirmed by independent analysis that residents, property owners and the province the number of gauges and the method used to as a whole . However, the fact of high water measure the wind-eliminated level of the lake levels does not prove that LWR is a cause are appropriate . of this problem . Evidence from a variety of historical and technical sources indicates that Some of the tendency to blame Manitoba Lake Winnipeg reached high flood levels on Hydro for high water on Lake Winnipeg – many occasions before LWR was built . As expressed at many locations around the lake well, the commission is aware that the high- – may be based on a misunderstanding of the water problems on the lake in recent years conditions of the licence for LWR . On several have occurred in a period marked by several occasions during hearings, the commission historic floods within the Lake Winnipeg heard members of the public suggest that watershed, such as the record flooding on Lake Winnipeg levels of greater than 715 0. the Assiniboine River in 2011, the record feet asl constitute a “violation” of the licence . flooding in the Calgary region in 2013 and This, however, is not the case, as the expanded the record high levels on Lake of the Woods drainage capacity created by LWR cannot in 2014 . Independent analysis conducted for prevent Lake Winnipeg from rising above the commission confirms that if LWR had this level during high-precipitation years . The not been built, peak levels in the last 40 years licence condition referred to above requires would have been even higher . This analysis Manitoba Hydro to operate the Jenpeg agrees with Manitoba Hydro’s assessment of Control Structure at maximum discharge the effect of LWR on peak levels . when lake levels reach 715 .0 feet asl, and the evidence presented was that Manitoba Hydro Some of the specific concerns, such as the has done that . frequent flooding problems at Peguis, are more likely connected to watershed issues than to There is also a strong sense in lakeside LWR . Peguis’s serious flooding concerns are communities that Manitoba Hydro made worse by an extended wet period and deliberately holds water back during the may also be affected by upstream drainage . summer, using the Jenpeg Control Structure, Satellite maps of flooded ground at Peguis that in order to have enough water to generate were presented as evidence of a connection power during the peak demand season in to LWR, however, do not establish such winter . This, it is believed, means that the a connection . The commission notes that lake level is high in the fall when the most the level of flooding on the First Nation, as powerful windstorms, such as the “weather indicated by the images, did not appear to be bomb” of 2010, tend to strike . This perception connected to the level of Lake Winnipeg at the may have been prompted by the Study Board time the image was made . There is little, if any, report in the 1970s, which predicted that LWR evidence to suggest that a high level on Lake would result in an increase in the average level Winnipeg causes flooding on Peguis . Rather, it of the lake of 0 .7 feet . In fact, water gauge is much more likely that both factors are caused data show that the increase has been 0 .2 feet . by the same combination of high precipitation At the time of the Study Board prediction, and reduced upstream water retention . Manitoba lacked the interprovincial and

66 international transmission connections that The commission notes that Manitoba allow Manitoba Hydro to export excess power Hydro conducted modelling to show what in summer and import power in winter Lake Winnipeg levels would have been since during high demand periods . The ability to 1976 had the project not been built . It would import electricity in winter when demand is provide a more complete picture of the impact highest in Manitoba has reduced the need to of the project if Manitoba Hydro extended the maintain higher water levels in winter . While modelling back to the beginning of the period it is true that Jenpeg is used to hold back in which there are known recorded levels for water in low-precipitation years in order to Lake Winnipeg and provided estimates of ensure adequate flow in the winter, Manitoba what Lake Winnipeg’s levels would have been has not had a low-precipitation year in more from early in the 20th century if the project than a decade . In six of the last seven years, had been in place . This would help to confirm Manitoba Hydro has operated Jenpeg at the understanding of the contribution LWR maximum discharge for all or a substantial has made to the management of water levels part of the summer because of high levels of on Lake Winnipeg under a wide range of inflow . Lake Winnipeg would have been at weather conditions . a higher level during the season of autumn windstorms without LWR during the last several years . Recommendation The Commission recommends that: Several lakeside residents or property owners suggested that to reduce flooding on 7.1 Manitoba Hydro extend its modelling Lake Winnipeg, the licence for LWR should of Lake Winnipeg levels back to 1913 to be altered to require maximum discharge indicate how Lake Winnipeg Regulation at 714 0. feet asl . However, this suggestion would have influenced lake levels does not take into consideration the impact throughout the entire period of record. of increased discharge on the downstream environment and communities . Manitoba 7.2.2 Water Regime – Downstream Hydro’s modelling predicted that, under such a licence condition, the Jenpeg Control Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Structure would have been operated at Water Regime – Downstream maximum discharge 24 times from 1977 to 2013, instead of the nine times it has operated Manitoba Hydro’s figures on downstream in that manner . Because the inflow capacity water levels show the varied impacts of the to Lake Winnipeg is greater than the outflow project . Upstream of the Jenpeg Control capacity, the lake would still have flooded in Structure, it has resulted in generally higher heavy precipitation years . Manitoba Hydro’s water levels . Downstream of Jenpeg, LWR has models predict that, had the 714 .0 feet asl changed the seasonal pattern of water levels, condition been in place during flood years with many lakes experiencing higher water in 2005 and 2011, Lake Winnipeg’s level levels in winter . would have been only 0 .2 feet (6 centimetres) lower . Therefore, imposing such a condition Mean monthly water levels on Playgreen would, in all probability, result in harmful Lake are 0 .5 feet (0 .15 metres) higher since downstream effects with virtually no flood- LWR, although given the generally greater reduction benefits for Lake Winnipeg outflows from Lake Winnipeg since LWR, properties . it is not clear how much of this increase is

67 a result of LWR and how much is a result compared to the pre-LWR period . Average of recent wetter conditions in the Lake mid-winter levels since 1991 are 682 .0 feet Winnipeg watershed . On Kiskittogisu Lake, asl (compared to 679 .0 asl pre-LWR), with a LWR appears to have increased minimum drop of about 1 foot in spring, followed by a and mean water levels by 1 to 2 feet (0 .3 to rise to about 682 .0 feet asl in mid-summer 0 6. metres) and increased the range of water (compared to a mid-summer level of 681 .0 levels, with higher levels in summer and lower feet asl pre-LWR) . While the Cross Lake Weir levels in winter . Kiskitto Lake has remained contributes to keeping water levels higher within its natural historic range . since 1991, the high outflows from Lake Winnipeg during the recent prolonged wet The Jenpeg forebay is the portion of the period in the Lake Winnipeg watershed also Nelson River immediately upstream of the play a role . Jenpeg Control Structure . It extends from the Kisipachewuk Channel to Jenpeg and includes Pipestone, Walker and Duck Lakes are the Ominawin Bypass Channel . In this area, all influenced by water levels on Cross Lake . LWR has increased the average water level Walker Lake is approximately 40 km east of and the range of water levels (from 681 .0 to Cross Lake, connected by the Walker River . 688 0. asl feet pre-LWR to 702 .0 to 714 .0 feet When Cross Lake’s elevation is above 681 0. asl post-LWR) . This increase in water levels feet asl, it will influence the level of water on resulted in flooding of 65 square kilometres . Walker Lake . As a result, all three of these lakes are affected by LWR because it directly Cross Lake has experienced a reversal of influences the level of water on Cross Lake . natural seasonal patterns in water level since LWR went into operation, with higher average Sipiwesk Lake is affected both by LWR flows in winter and lower average flows in and the Kelsey Dam, completed in 1960 . LWR summer . From the beginning of LWR until has increased average monthly water level 1991, monthly average water levels in Cross variation on Sipiwesk Lake, from 0 .7 feet (20 Lake were as much as 1 .5 feet (46 cm) higher cm) to 1 .1 feet (34 cm), adding to the effects in winter and 4 feet (1 .2 metres) lower in of the operation of Kelsey . Sipiwesk Lake has summer than during the pre-LWR period . experienced a reversal of natural seasonal Since the construction of the Cross Lake flows, with the lowest monthly averages in Weir in 1991, water levels have been higher May and June and the highest in mid-winter . throughout the year, with less variation, than

Figure 7.3: The Cross Lake Weir. (Manitoba Hydro)

68 Figure 7.4: Pre and post-Lake Winnipeg Regulation water levels on Cross Lake. (Manitoba Hydro)

Split Lake is affected by both CRD and a 100-year flood, including wind and wave LWR and now has average water levels 1 .2 feet events . This process also factors in shoreline (37 cm) higher than in the pre-CRD/LWR composition and susceptibility to future period . The seasonal pattern of water levels in erosion . Under the NFA, lands granted to Split Lake was also altered, with higher levels Manitoba Hydro are to be compensated on in winter than in summer since 1976 . Average a four-to-one basis, so that the First Nation January levels post-LWR are nearly 550 .0 receives four acres of land for every one that feet asl, compared to just over 546 .0 feet asl is flooded . The implementation agreements pre-LWR . Average June levels post-LWR, at allow for replacement for easement land based approximately 548 .0 feet asl, are slightly lower on a substantially higher ratio . than pre-LWR June levels on Split Lake .

Reserve land lost to flooding and future land lost to erosion are identified and compensated through a process described in the NFA and the implementation agreements . Under this process, Manitoba Hydro is granted an easement on land below a certain elevation known as a “severance line ”. The severance line is defined as the boundary of

69 Figure 7.5: Downstream area affected by Lake Winnipeg Regulation. (Manitoba Hydro)

70 Comparing highs and lows, not just average water levels

Comparing average water levels before and after LWR does not provide a complete picture of the change in the water regime caused by the project. A more complete picture emerges by comparing times of high and low water and comparing ranges between the highest and lowest levels before and after LWR.

A series of graphs provided by Manitoba Hydro in response to a question by the commission showed the periods with the highest and lowest water levels on a seasonal basis, before and after LWR. The results for different parts of the system are summarized below.

On South Playgreen Lake and the east channel of the Nelson River at Norway House, the average water level has been about 1 foot higher since the project went into operation, with a variation between recorded highs and lows of a little less than 2 feet. This compares to a maximum variation of about 4.5 feet before LWR.

On Kiskittogisu Lake, the variation has remained about the same, between 1 and 2 feet. The average lake level is approximately 1 foot higher in summer and 1 foot lower in winter, than pre-LWR. The seasonal peaks (summer and winter) are 1 foot higher than the recorded highest levels pre-LWR.

Cross Lake experiences greater seasonal variations, with the greatest differences recorded between the start of the project and the completion of the Cross Lake Weir in 1991. During these years, up to 11 feet of variation between the recorded high and low points was experienced. Since the construction of the weir, this variation has been reduced to 6 feet, which is similar to a pre-LWR level of 4 to 5 feet.

Post-weir, in years of average to above-average flows, the seasonal pattern is for higher water levels in summer than in winter. But in low-flow years, the seasonal pattern is reversed, with lower flows in summer than in winter.

The greatest variation is experienced on Sipiwesk Lake, with an 11-foot difference between the highs and the lows. In comparison, a 5-foot difference was recorded between 1965 and 1976, pre-LWR. Seasonal reversal is also experienced. Overall levels on Sipiwesk are higher post-LWR, with the maximums and averages up to 2 feet higher than under pre-LWR conditions.

The level of Sipiwesk was raised 15 to 17 feet when Kelsey Dam was constructed. The effects of LWR are in addition to those from Kelsey.

What We Heard: Water Regime – representative of the Co-op reported that he Downstream has had to replace his dock four times since the 1980s because of fluctuating water levels . Representatives of the Norway House Fishermen’s Co-op reported that high water For Pimicikamak Okimawin, fluctuating levels on Playgreen Lake have resulted in their water levels and a reversal of the natural docks no longer being available for use . One seasonal pattern since LWR have been a major

71 source of problems . Using Water Survey of Pimicikamak noted in their submission Canada data, the First Nation’s representatives that Article 10 .2 of the NFA in 1977 demonstrated that the pattern of water levels anticipated the construction, in 1991-1992, on Cross Lake remained largely the same of the Cross Lake Weir . “Without limitation, during the decades before LWR, although the for the purpose of avoiding many adverse water levels themselves had ups and downs effects on the community of Cross Lake, it is depending on climate trends . In all decades, contemplated that it may be appropriate for the lowest water levels of the year would be Hydro to construct a control structure at or reached in late April when the ice began to near the outlet of Cross Lake and to operate melt, followed by a surge in water levels in this structure so as to prevent the occurrence May/June and a gradual drop in late summer/ of low water levels which adversely affect fall . This seasonal pattern held true both the community and to restore, to the extent during dry periods, as in the 1930s, and wet practical, the natural pattern of seasonal periods, as in the 1960s . In the 1930s, levels fluctuation in lake levels ”. Nearly a decade on Cross Lake reached as low as 674 .0 feet later, in 1986, the Cross Lake Environmental asl (205 .5 metres) in the spring and rose to Impact Assessment Study Report proposed a little over 676 .0 feet asl (206 metres) in the a “water control scheme” to mitigate the summer . In the 1960s, the spring levels in negative effects of LWR on fish and wildlife many years were between 677 .5 and 679 .0 habitat and human uses of Cross Lake . This feet asl (206 .5 to 207 metres) and the summer led to the construction of the Cross Lake high levels were typically between 679 .0 and Weir, which includes both a weir to prevent 682 0. feet asl (207 to 208 metres) . During the water levels on the lake from getting too low wet years in the 1960s, summer levels could and excavation and channel widening to allow be 3 to 5 feet (1 to 1 .5 metres) higher than the the lake to drain when water levels get too spring low point . After LWR began operating, high . a greater range of fluctuation began, both within a given year and year to year . At the Although Manitoba Hydro asserts that same time, the seasonal pattern changed, with the weir has improved riparian and aquatic high levels in the early winter and the lowest habitat and returned Cross Lake to a more levels, in most years, in the summer . In the natural seasonal pattern, Pimicikamak argues 1980s, before the construction of the Cross that the data do not show a return to “near Lake Weir, summer levels on Cross Lake normal” water regimes on the lake . Cross were below 676 .0 feet asl (206 metres) several Lake has continued to experience relatively times, and in one year reached a record low rapid increases and decreases in water level, of 672 .5 feet asl (205 metres), exposing 300 as well as erratic patterns in summer and square kilometres of the bottom of the lake . autumn, the latter sometimes the result of Since the construction of the Cross Lake Weir the “November cutback” when flow through in 1991, summer water levels on the lake have Jenpeg is reduced just prior to freeze-up to remained above 677 .5 feet asl (206 .5 metres), allow a smooth ice cover to form in the Jenpeg except for the drought year of 2003 . More forebay . As well, in some years since the recently, the wet years of the last decade have completion of the weir (typically during dry seen Cross Lake levels as high as 685 .5 feet years), there have still been seasonal reversals asl (209 metres) . Pimicikamak’s presentation of the water regime (i .e: lower water levels in stressed that, although the Cross Lake Weir summer than in winter) . has eliminated the lowest summer levels on Cross Lake, it has not returned the lake to a Pimicikamak stresses that Manitoba natural water regime . Hydro makes positive assumptions about

72 the likely impact of the Cross Lake Weir on Lake Weir, the level has been above that level whitefish, aquatic furbearers, and waterfowl, 92 per cent of the time . From 1976 to 1993, but has not done research on the weir’s effects . Cross Lake’s minimum level was below this Pimicikamak argues that when the Cross point, while it has only gone below 679 .0 feet Lake Environmental Impact Assessment asl in seven years since 1993 . Historically, Study recommended construction of a prior to LWR, there were 15 years in which weir to improve habitat on Cross Lake, it Cross Lake levels were recorded below 679 .0 recommended that it be built in conjunction feet asl . with changes to operating procedures for LWR . These operating recommendations Graphs of Cross Lake water levels also were: reveal the impact of Manitoba Hydro’s fall ice management activities, when the Jenpeg • That the licence provision for a discharges are slowed down to allow a smooth minimum allowable outflow of 25,000 layer of ice to form upstream of the control cfs be replaced by a requirement that structure in the forebay . Once this smooth Manitoba Hydro not permit Cross ice cover is formed, water discharge from Lake to fall below an elevation of 679 .0 Jenpeg is typically increased, which causes feet asl as a result of actions within a short, sharp rise in the level of Cross Lake Hydro’s control; in late November or early December . It is this process that causes much of the slush ice • That the licence condition requiring problem discussed in Chapter Eight: Socio- maximum outflow at Jenpeg when economic Effects in the section on Navigation, Lake Winnipeg reaches 715 .0 asl feet Transportation and Public Safety . be replaced by a provision requiring that regulation of Jenpeg at its upper Members of the Manitoba Métis limit come under the direction of the Federation who hunt, fish or trap in the minister; downstream area discussed a number of effects of fluctuating water levels along the • That the November cutback be Nelson River and, especially, on Sipiwesk prohibited; and Lake, including erosion and making access to resource harvesting areas more difficult . • That Manitoba Hydro establish a Similar concerns were expressed by residents management objective to minimize of communities in the area during the negative impacts on fish and hearings . furbearers in Cross Lake . A representative of Tataskweyak Cree Pimicikamak notes that these changes Nation stated that, until about 2005, the have not been implemented . However, it normal state of affairs since LWR was for acknowledges that hydrological data suggest lower water levels on Split Lake in the that Manitoba Hydro has attempted to follow summer . Since then, though, water levels some of these recommendations in the way it on the lake have been high year round . For operates Jenpeg . the first 20 years after LWR, Tataskweyak experienced flooding three times, but Although the recommended licence in the last 20 years the community has condition of a minimum water level on Cross experienced flooding every two or three Lake of 679 .0 feet asl was not added to the years . Representatives from Tataskweyak licence, since the installation of the Cross and York Factory First Nation noted that the

73 terms of their Joint Keeyask Development appear to have been developed with little Agreement with Manitoba Hydro included or no scientific basis . The minimum-flow that development of the Keeyask Generating condition of 25,000 cfs appears to reflect the Station would not require a change to the record low flow for the Nelson River, while operating conditions of LWR and CRD . It was the condition referring to the maximum rate argued that changes would add a new element of change does not appear to have been based of uncertainty to life for the communities . on any evidence . The commission believes that a system should be developed that allows Commission Comment: Water other interests in addition to hydroelectric Regime – Downstream generation and reduction of flooding on Lake Winnipeg to come into play . Chapter 10 of Changes to the water regime have had a this report contains a discussion of ideas for variety of impacts on the natural environment developing operating rules for LWR that could and on social, cultural and economic life formally take into account these other values . for the communities downstream of Lake Winnipeg . LWR has changed the seasonal pattern of flows on the Nelson River and 7.3 Shoreline Erosion resulted in higher levels downstream of Shoreline erosion concerns on Lake Jenpeg . Operations have resulted in greater Winnipeg are focused largely on the effect variation, both year-to-year and, sometimes, of high water levels, combined with strong day-to-day . The specific kinds of impacts winds, which cause banks to collapse and will be discussed later in this chapter and in land to be lost around the lake . As lake Chapter Eight: Socio Economic Effects . communities are home to more than 20,000 permanent residents and many seasonal The construction of the Cross Lake Weir residents, this has an effect on property values appears to have partially mitigated the effect and use and enjoyment of the lake . on the water regime, by reducing the extreme high and low water levels on Cross Lake . In the downstream area, erosion concerns However, it has not returned conditions to a are focused on the impact of the altered water natural water regime . regime, which has accelerated erosion at many places through increased flows . Erosion One of the concerns the commission can result in an increased amount of debris heard – which the commission shares – is entering the water, as a result of forested that the system for making decisions about shorelines collapsing, with a variety of impacts operation of LWR has no explicit set of rules on resource use and travel . It can also result in that allow environmental and social needs to an increase in suspended solids in the water . be incorporated . Although Manitoba Hydro representatives said such considerations do come into play, there is no set of rules 7.3.1 Shoreline Erosion – Lake mandating such consideration . Beyond the Winnipeg fairly simple licence conditions mandating a minimum flow and a maximum daily Manitoba Hydro’s Information: rate of change in flow, it is up to Manitoba Shoreline Erosion – Lake Winnipeg Hydro’s discretion to make decisions affecting the water regime of the Nelson River . The shoreline of Lake Winnipeg consists Furthermore, these two licence conditions largely of easily erodible materials, such as

74 clay, sand and deposits left behind by Ice Age What We Heard: Shoreline Erosion – glaciers . As a result, erosion has been recorded Lake Winnipeg along the shoreline for as long as mapping has been conducted . This has become an ongoing The Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg, issue for residents, especially in the south an organization representing north basin basin, where many homes, businesses and fishers from many communities, provided cottages are built along the shore . photographic evidence of shoreline erosion on Long Point . Photos indicated that, in the last 10 Manitoba Hydro maintains that shoreline years, erosion has resulted in the tip of the point erosion on Lake Winnipeg is driven by natural becoming an island . Other photos indicated processes unrelated to LWR . Since LWR that, in the last five years, fishing cabins have has caused lake levels to be lower than they been flooded as a result of advancing shorelines . otherwise would have been, given the high Many other fishing camps were reported to precipitation of recent years, the corporation be underwater as a result of shoreline erosion, concludes that the project has not increased affecting the ability of families to travel to the erosion rates . fishing camp to work together as in the past . The commission was also shown photos of Manitoba Hydro cited information gathered shoreline erosion near Misipawistik Cree Nation prior to the construction of the project, such as and heard about shoreline erosion at Gull Bay, the Study Board report, which plotted historic near Grand Rapids, which had affected a fishing shorelines on Lake Winnipeg since 1876 . This camp used by members . study showed that typical south basin shores were eroding at 1 to 2 feet (0 3-0. 6. metres) per Shoreline erosion was a major issue during year, with extremes of up to 25 feet/year (7 .6 hearings in the south basin . One landowner metres) . Furthermore, erosion was found not at Grand Marais spoke of losing more than to be a steady process . Rather, one extreme half of his shoreline property as a result of storm could cause more shoreline erosion in erosion . The commission also heard about the one area than had been experienced in several efforts of communities to protect shorelines preceding years . As one example, in 1974, the from erosion, including an engineering study Study Board report pointed out a section of commissioned by the Rural Municipality shoreline about five kilometres north of Gimli, of Victoria Beach . Similar experiences were which had eroded by 700 feet (213 metres) from described by property owners near Gimli, 1876 to 1971 . Additional erosion at this site, especially those on Willow Island, who according to the 2000 Lake Winnipeg Shoreline reported losing a large amount of lakefront Erosion Study, amounted to 108 feet (33 metres) land . South end property owners, including between 1971 and 1994 . those on Chalet Beach, also described the large amount of beachfront that has been The Study Board predicted that LWR lost over the decades . The commission heard would increase shoreline erosion on the lake, many examples of specific beaches that had based on the assumption that the project been eroded . In Gimli, the commission heard would increase average lake levels by 0 7. that the Rural Municipality of Gimli at one feet (20 cm) . In fact, since LWR went into time had approximately 35 km of beaches operation, average lake levels have been 0 .2 and now the amount of beach has been feet (6 cm) higher than the pre-LWR average, reduced by half . At Manigotagan, shoreline despite the higher precipitation levels of the erosion was said to have taken away a beach past 15 or more years . as well as 30 campsites in a privately operated

75 campground . At Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, and portions of the Lake Winnipeg shoreline . one speaker referred to Stony Point at Patricia Sagkeeng presented a map showing successive Beach, which was formerly a wide area of firm shorelines at and around the mouth of the sand and is now described as mud and silt . Winnipeg River from the years 1874, 1948, Brokenhead residents also discussed the loss 1970 and 1983 . A councillor for Sagkeeng of land, including cottages and a lodge, at the said the First Nation required $1 4. million mouth of the Brokenhead River . several years ago to move 10 houses that were threatened by shoreline erosion and will Loss of property value was discussed soon need to move another 15 houses along in relation to shoreline erosion during the Winnipeg River . At Black River, historic commission hearings at Gimli, Grand maps and air photos showed that the former location of the community, closer to the mouth of the Black River, has been partially Figure 7.6: Willow Island on Lake submerged . Other photos indicated the Winnipeg. (www.gimlicommunityweb.com) amount of lost shoreline near the community’s beach area . A group of Winnipeg River property owners discussed erosion along the Winnipeg River downstream of the Pine Falls Generating Station .

Discussions of shoreline erosion often made reference to autumn windstorms, in which strong north winds blow large amounts of water south and raise the water level rapidly in the south basin . The major storm, known as the weather bomb of October 2010, was frequently mentioned . Concern was raised in several lake communities that Manitoba Marais and Selkirk . In beach communities, Hydro is keeping the level at the 715 .0 feet asl the commission heard from presenters who operating limit maximum in order to produce suggested that periodic low water levels energy during the peak winter season, and allow beaches to regenerate, and that LWR, in the process exposing lake communities to by regulating water levels, has prevented greater risk from autumn storms . this regeneration . Several property owners, particularly at locations on the south basin, Commission Comment: Shoreline spoke of spending tens of thousands of dollars Erosion – Lake Winnipeg in the attempt to protect their property from erosion . At Gimli, we heard of the unsightly Shoreline erosion, like high water, is effect of boulders and other shoreline undoubtedly a serious issue for residents, protection placed along the lake shore to property owners and all users of Lake prevent erosion damage . Winnipeg . Erosion takes a financial and emotional toll on many families and At Sagkeeng First Nation and Black River communities . High water levels in recent First Nation , photos and maps illustrated years have accelerated shoreline erosion, long-term shoreline erosion . Hollow Water especially during episodes of high wind- First Nation’s written submission described driven waves, such as the 2010 weather bomb . erosion on Black Island and other islands

76 Both the independent experts retained lakeshore consists of highly erodible clay, by the commission and those retained by sand and glacial deposits . Unlike a lake Manitoba Hydro have characterized shoreline where the shoreline is defined by bedrock – erosion as a natural phenomenon that would such as those in the Canadian Shield – Lake occur on Lake Winnipeg with or without Winnipeg has a shoreline that offers relatively LWR . In some cases, even those arguing little resistance to prolonged wave energy . The that LWR had accelerated shoreline erosion east shore of the north basin is considerably presented evidence that erosion is a natural less erodible than the west shore, but most of process . In one community, the commission the population living along the lake is found heard testimony and saw maps showing in the areas with greater susceptibility to locations of historic shorelines dating back erosion . to the late 1800s . According to these maps – which had been submitted by presenters Another factor is the natural who believe Manitoba Hydro has caused phenomenon of isostatic rebound, described Lake Winnipeg’s shoreline erosion – most of in Section 6 .2, Influence of Isostatic Rebound the shoreline erosion in this area occurred on Lake Winnipeg . This irreversible process decades before the construction of LWR . causes the north basin of Lake Winnipeg to rise more rapidly than the south basin, raising One of the reasons shoreline erosion the level of the lake in the south basin by has had an impact on Lake Winnipeg approximately 0 .7 feet (20 cm) per century . communities and property owners may be that many shoreline developments were built That said, the idea has been raised that by without a full understanding or consideration keeping Lake Winnipeg within a narrower of shoreline erosion . The commission is band of elevations, LWR has resulted in aware of cottages that were developed on wave energy being concentrated on a smaller areas of shoreline that could be classified as portion of the shoreline than would naturally barrier islands . Barrier islands, as described be the case . Additional research on the causes by our independent experts, are a feature of erosion on Lake Winnipeg would be of eroding shorelines and naturally tend to needed to determine if LWR has contributed erode and migrate in toward the main shore . to some portion of shoreline erosion in Other developments, such as the Gimli the last 40 years, although it would be Harbour, may be preventing the natural prohibitively expensive and time-consuming process by which sand is added to existing to carry out such research on a scale beaches further along the shore . (Sand necessary to reach a definitive conclusion . naturally is moved along the shoreline until As erosion would be on-going whether LWR an obstruction causes it to settle, so such a is in operation or not, a more beneficial structure may prevent sand from settling on approach may be to do additional targeted the down-current side .) In such places, it may research that would lead to better planning be necessary to artificially nourish existing and development decisions regarding where beaches by adding sand . buildings and other structures can safely be placed for long-term stability . Experts point to several natural factors that make Lake Winnipeg susceptible to Experts with considerable experience in shoreline erosion . One factor, as described other jurisdictions highlighted the fact that in Section 6 .3, Lake Winnipeg Erosion and Manitoba has lacked appropriate regulations Accretion Processes, is that much of the on development . There are many examples

77 of these types of restrictions from other The Manitoba government, under The jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, Water Power Act, has set out a hydro reserve particularly around the Great Lakes . around Lake Winnipeg, at 722 .0 feet asl, which applies only to Crown lands . This elevation Manitoba’s Provincial Planning Land Use was arrived at by taking into consideration Policies recognize watershed connections the upper operating limit of LWR, with an and protection of shorelines, riparian areas allowance for wave action and wind set-up, and their ecology . These policies include plus two feet for flood reserve . Development recommendations for setbacks from water below this line is not allowed without special bodies and areas of erodible soils and for permission and then must follow strict retention of vegetation in riparian areas . These guidelines . This elevation is still above much policies, however, are planning guidelines that of the development that has taken place on relate only to new developments . As suggested private, municipal and other lands around by the independent expert who reported the lakeshore . There are, for example, several on erosion for the commission, studies cottage areas along the shore of the south are needed to project the future impact of basin that are below this hydro reserve level . erosion and determine where appropriate For example, Chalet Beach and Willow Island development limits are . New configurations are below this elevation, as is most of Long for future developments should be explored Point in the north basin, where a number in response to predictable impacts from of fishing camps have been damaged by future erosion . This may mean that new erosion . Given that isostatic rebound and developments cannot continue to line a shore climate change ensure more erosion in the with waterfront properties, because such an future, it will be necessary for provincial approach is more likely to put structures at and municipal governments to work risk from future erosion . together, using the results of erosion studies and current knowledge, to take definitive While a new approach for the future is actions to determine the limits of waterside needed, dealing with existing developments developments, include them in development is also a challenge . Many current structures plans and strictly enforce these limits . around Lake Winnipeg, particularly in the south basin, are much closer to the shoreline than they were in the past and are closer to the Recommendations water than would currently be recommended . Given that erosion is expected to continue at The Commission recommends that: similar rates, this creates a challenge for the 7.2 The Government of Manitoba, in co- future . Adaptation and mitigation measures operation with Manitoba Hydro, as a will be needed for current structures, properties basis for development and planning and communities that are likely to be affected decisions, undertake erosion studies in by projected future erosion . Municipalities and highly vulnerable and developed areas the provincial government need to take action in the south basin to determine the rate and establish definitive limits in erosion-prone of erosion, the cause of erosion, and areas and ensure they are enforced . Adaptation mitigation measures. plans are required for existing developments . 7.3 The Government of Manitoba re-examine the 722.0 feet asl limit on the Lake Winnipeg hydro reserve to determine if

78 it is still effective in protecting property indicated that most of the shoreline along and activities on Crown land around Kiskittogisu Lake showed signs of ongoing Lake Winnipeg or if and where a new line erosion . In the Jenpeg forebay, bank recession should be implemented. rates from 2003 to 2012 were found to vary depending on the shoreline type, with the 7.3.2 Shoreline Erosion – greatest recession rates averaging 0 .7 feet (0 2. Downstream metres) per year . Some 65-70 per cent of the shorelines in the forebay are vulnerable to Manitoba Hydro’s Information: erosion from wave action . Shoreline Erosion – Downstream Higher water levels on Cross Lake, Shoreline erosion and the generation resulting both from LWR and from the of debris (including tree trunks and roots construction of the Cross Lake Weir as a that are washed into the water) have been mitigation measure, have increased erosion accelerated by LWR in several downstream on Cross Lake . Under the NFA, Manitoba areas, through the flooding of the Jenpeg Hydro began a shoreline protection program forebay, increased water levels on Cross Lake in the community of Cross Lake that resulted and, at times, increased flows in the Nelson in placement of rock to protect approximately River . This has resulted in the loss of beaches 14,400 feet (4 .3 km) of shoreline in 2011- and islands and difficulty accessing the 2012 . In 2011, during a time of record high shoreline, as well as hazards for navigation . water levels, a new channel was created by Erosion within Two-Mile and Eight-Mile erosion altering flows in the area of Duck Channels has also occurred since the Rapids . This new channel will result in development of LWR . significant debris and sediment entering Sipiwesk Lake . Greater erosion on Sipiwesk Both Two-Mile and Eight-Mile Channels Lake has necessitated shoreline protection have been deepened (scoured) by erosion measures, undertaken by Manitoba Hydro since 1976 by approximately 5 feet (1 .5 under the NFA, to protect burial sites so that metres) and 6 .5 feet (two metres), respectively . they will not be disturbed during times of The bank of Two-Mile Channel near its inlet high water . Sipiwesk Lake has been affected has eroded more than 150 feet (46 metres) by erosion caused by impoundment of the since 1978 as a result of wave action on Lake Kelsey Generating Station forebay, which Winnipeg . Near its outlet into Playgreen raised levels on the lake in the 1960s, as well Lake, the bank has eroded approximately 25 as by LWR . Reports on Sipiwesk Lake erosion, feet (7 .6 metres) . A smaller amount of bank issued in 1974 and 1992, stated that 50 per erosion has been observed on the banks cent of the lake’s shoreline had experienced of Eight-Mile Channel . Along the shore of severe erosion, with greater erosion occurring Playgreen Lake, Manitoba Hydro’s studies after LWR . indicate shoreline erosion in some places, while others have minor or no evidence of On Split Lake, which is affected by LWR shoreline erosion . Manitoba Hydro cited the and CRD, high water has caused slumping of 1985 study by the firm MacLaren Plansearch the shoreline and erosion . High water levels Inc ,. which concluded that a highly erodible in 2005 necessitated emergency shoreline southwest shore of Playgreen Lake had eroded protection work by Manitoba Hydro and at virtually the same rate before and after again in 2008 . In total 19,000 feet (5 .8 km) LWR . A 2004 report by Manitoba Hydro of shoreline protection projects have been

79 completed at Tataskweyak Cree Nation and residents of Norway House expressed another 7,900 feet (2 .4 km) at York Factory concerns about erosion at Two-Mile Channel . First Nation . The channel is being both widened and shortened by erosion and large amounts of Under the NFA, Manitoba Hydro is sediment are flowing into Playgreen Lake as responsible to monitor shoreline erosion and a result . Erosion at the channel was said to install shoreline protection along affected have been so great that the navigation light reserve lands, cemeteries and burial sites . at the south end of the channel has had to be moved . Manitoba Hydro’s figures indicated What We Heard: Shoreline Erosion – the length of the channel had been reduced Downstream by approximately 370 feet (112 metres) since the completion of LWR . In places, as a result The commission heard and saw of sediment deposition, new sandbars appear considerable evidence of extensive erosion to have been formed in Playgreen Lake . occurring from Two-Mile Channel to Split Concerns were expressed about the effect of Lake . This erosion has an impact on resource this deposition on spawning areas in the lake . use and navigation, which will be discussed in The west shore of Playgreen Lake near Eight- greater detail in Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Mile Channel and islands in Playgreen Lake Effects, and has a visual impact on the have also experienced substantial amounts of appearance of the Nelson River and lakes in erosion . This erosion has exposed one former the downstream area . dump site containing construction debris from the building of LWR . Loss of islands The commission heard a presentation by in Playgreen Lake may make navigation a mapping expert retained by Peguis First more difficult by removing route-finding Nation, who compared pre-LWR and post- landmarks . LWR maps to provide an estimate of the amount of land lost to erosion as well as the “Today, I don’t even take my grandkids amount of new shoreline created through out in the lake where we used to spend deposition . This study looked at a small many summers as well, called Sandy portion of the north basin of Lake Winnipeg Island. Sandy Island was called exactly and at Playgreen Lake . The map comparison what it was, it had sand, it had a beach indicated a loss of approximately 477 hectares almost all the way around the island. from an area that included Two-Mile Channel Now we will be lucky if we can find a and the southwest shore of Playgreen Lake . quarter mile of a beach on that island. This includes 145 hectares of land lost due And our kids can’t, my grandkids can’t to the excavation of Two-Mile Channel and even swim in the water because the a strip of 169 hectares along the shore of water is so dirty.” Playgreen Lake . Near this latter stretch of shoreline, an additional 62 hectares of land Representatives of the Norway House was lost from a point that appears to have been Fishermen’s Co-op presented video showing eroded . Material from this lost point appears the effects of shoreline erosion on Playgreen to have been deposited nearby to form a new, Lake, which depicted lake ice extending smaller point and some small islands . into the forest on the lakeshore and a large number of dead or dying trees . The Co-op Members of Norway House Cree Nation, has participated in five shoreline stabilization Manitoba Métis Federation members and projects, funded by Manitoba Hydro, since

80 2012 along the west shore of Playgreen Lake . Commission Comment: Shoreline The most recent, in 2014, involved removing Erosion – Downstream 8,000 dead trees along an 8,500-foot (2 .6 km) stretch of shoreline, preventing the trees The commission was concerned to learn from becoming floating debris . As on Lake of the amount and rate of shoreline erosion Winnipeg, shoreline erosion has had an effect occurring at Two-Mile Channel . This channel on beaches in the Playgreen Lake area . – which remains open long after the rest of Lake Winnipeg and Playgreen Lake are iced Erosion of the Nelson River shoreline over because of the amount of current passing downstream of Jenpeg is exposing gravesites through it – has eroded by approximately 370 and artifacts . Pimicikamak members spoke feet (112 metres) in length since construction of grave sites along the Nelson River, on of LWR . Given that this channel is not a Sipiwesk Lake and on the Walker River that are natural feature, clearly this is not erosion that threatened by erosion and presented a photo of can be attributed simply to natural processes . a human skull that had been exposed . Shoreline The effects of this erosion on water quality erosion was also described as resulting in (through increased turbidity – cloudiness of rivers and lakeshores lined with dead trees and the water caused by suspended solids) and “spiders” – the local term for a tree stump and fish habitat (through damage to spawning roots that have been exposed and made mobile sites) are not fully understood because of in the water as a result of erosion . Pimicikamak a lack of focused research . Likewise, more members also expressed concern about the investigation of the other constructed or new channel that was eroded in 2014 between expanded channels is needed to determine Duck Lake and Sipiwesk Lake through a marsh their erosion rates and the possible effects described as formerly a good hunting area for of erosion . The reports we heard of exposed moose and waterfowl . dumpsites at the locations of former work sites or camps for Two-Mile and Eight- Members of the Manitoba Métis Mile Channels are an immediate concern . Federation, who fish on Sipiwesk Lake or The possibility of erosion exposing former further downstream, noted that Sipiwesk is construction materials and other matter particularly prone to erosion . Erosion along should be addressed immediately . Sipiwesk has continued to result in large amounts of debris entering the Nelson River . We were also concerned to learn about the new channel that had eroded at Duck Lake . At both Tataskweyak and York While high flows down the Nelson River Factory First Nation, shoreline protection resulting from years of heavy precipitation projects have been carried out within naturally would cause erosion along the river, the communities . At Tataskweyak, these the effect of fluctuations caused by releases projects were prompted by a flood in 2005 from Jenpeg, plus the reversal of the natural that threatened community infrastructure, seasonal pattern of flows, may also have including the cemetery . A representative played a significant role in this dramatic of Tataskweyak reported that continued change to the landscape . As Sipiwesk Lake high water on Split Lake has caused islands is affected by fluctuations in water level to disappear in the last 10 years . As well, caused by the Kelsey forebay, Kelsey may also Tataskweyak’s representatives noted that the have played a role in the erosion of the new Study Board had predicted that it would take channel . Evaluation of the Jenpeg operating 50 years for shorelines along Split Lake to regime, as will be discussed in Chapter 10, stabilize after the creation of LWR and CRD . must consider these effects .

81 Erosion has also exposed cultural and Efforts must be made to stabilize the heritage sites, including burial sites, and has shoreline along the upper Nelson River . forced several downstream communities, Methods employed must be ecologically, including Pimicikamak Okimawin, socially, culturally and economically suitable Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Norway House and offer long-term protection . It is likely First Nation and York Factory First Nation, that it will be necessary to employ a variety of to protect shorelines with rip rap within their methods to find the right fit for the differing built-up areas . These protected shorelines situations along the river . are neither natural nor visually attractive environments . As was pointed out during the hearings, a shoreline covered with rip Recommendations rap lacks the diversity of species and natural The Commission recommends that: habitats found in natural shorelines . In addition, armouring a shoreline is ultimately a 7.4 Manitoba Hydro undertake a study to temporary solution, as erosion continues off- determine where erosion is occurring shore from the protective works . Additional along the upper Nelson River and at study is needed to determine causes of what rate since implementation of Lake downstream erosion, as well as methods of Winnipeg Regulation. Through the use reducing or mitigating erosion damage that of aerial photographs and in-stream are effective, practical and ecologically sound . measurements of the shoreline made before and after construction, Manitoba All parties agree that there has been Hydro prepare a map identifying eroded erosion downstream of Jenpeg since the sections and vulnerable areas. construction of LWR and all agree that 7.5 Manitoba Hydro closely examine LWR has played a role . What proportion erosion in the constructed channels of shoreline erosion is a result of LWR, and determine the overall change that compared to natural processes and the high is occurring. If this erosion is found to precipitation cycle of the last 15 to 20 years, be causing negative effects, Manitoba is less clear . The Study Board predicted that Hydro should undertake erosion-control it would take 50 years for new shorelines measures. to stabilize following LWR and CRD, but it appears that little stabilization has occurred 7.6 Manitoba Hydro determine if the current after 40 years . It may be that the Study Board’s methods of erosion control are effective forecast was based on the environmental and acceptable to local residents and conditions at the time and does not take resource users in the long term and if these methods are working, delaying into account the increased precipitation in shoreline losses or deflecting them to recent years . Additional research is needed to another area of shoreline. determine if there has been any downstream shoreline stabilization, if and how the rate 7.7 Manitoba Hydro research and implement of erosion has changed and where the most more ecologically friendly methods of vulnerable areas will be in the near future . erosion control wherever feasible. Methods to assist in this analysis include, but are not limited to, aerial photography and in- 7.8 Manitoba Hydro examine all former stream measurements comparing conditions construction areas, locate any former before and after LWR construction, as well as dump sites, determine their contents local knowledge . and take appropriate action to prevent

82 contamination of water and soil and visual Manitoba Hydro notes that the recent impact on the landscape. increases in nutrients in Lake Winnipeg have come at a time (since the 1990s) when high inflows, especially from the Red River, have 7.4 Water Quality contributed to increased nutrient loading in Many concerns about water quality have the lake . their origin in nutrient run-off occurring upstream in the Lake Winnipeg watershed . Although Lake Winnipeg is one of the On Lake Winnipeg, the concern is largely world’s largest in terms of area it covers, focused on whether or not LWR allows it is a very shallow lake and has a much nutrients to become more concentrated by smaller volume of water than other lakes of preventing them from being flushed down comparable area, such as Lake Ontario . One the Nelson River . In the downstream area, in consequence of this is that Lake Winnipeg has particular, the concern is often that erosion a very short water residency time, described caused by LWR reduces water quality by as the amount of time water spends in the raising the level of suspended solids in the lake before flowing out to the Nelson River . water . Lake Winnipeg’s water residency time is approximately 3 .8 years, which compares to 6 .0 years for Lake Ontario . LWR does not 7.4.1 Water Quality – Lake appear to have caused significant changes in Winnipeg the residency time of water in Lake Winnipeg . In the driest years – the multi-year drought Manitoba Hydro’s Information: of the 1980s and the 2003 drought – LWR Water Quality – Lake Winnipeg increased water residency time because water was held back in summer to keep the level Lake Winnipeg has experienced of the lake from falling below 711 .0 feet asl . increased loading of the nutrients nitrogen During times of high inflows, Lake Winnipeg and phosphorous in recent decades . These has had a hydrological cycle more like that nutrients are essential to plant growth of a natural lake (ex: rising in spring with the and have allowed for growth in algae and snow melt and declining over the winter), cyanobacteria (bacteria capable of obtaining so any effects of LWR would be reduced at energy through photosynthesis, often referred the same time as the lake has had increased to as blue-green algae) . Lakes with large nutrient levels . amounts of nutrients, known as eutrophic lakes, can be highly productive for fish . A recent study indicated that the ratio However, over time, they can also become of total phosphorous flowing out of Lake inhospitable to fish and other organisms Winnipeg compared to total phosphorous that require high concentrations of dissolved flowing into Lake Winnipeg did not change oxygen . This can happen because the between the period 1971-1980 and 1996-2005 microbes that cause algae to decay consume (McCullough et . al . 2012) . This would suggest dissolved oxygen during that process . Lower that increases in phosphorous in the lake are dissolved oxygen levels have been recorded a result of increased inflows and not a result in the central part of the north basin in some of LWR reducing the outflow of phosphorous . recent studies, while the south basin has The report notes that the Red River is the maintained dissolved oxygen levels that are major source of nutrients flowing into Lake adequate for the protection of aquatic life . Winnipeg . Although the Red River only

83 supplied an average of 16 per cent of the water First Nation, it was stated that when the level to the lake between 1999 and 2007, the river of Lake Winnipeg is high, and especially provided 68 per cent of total phosphorus and when there is a wind from the northwest, 34 per cent of total nitrogen during the years lake water is forced up the river to the intake 1994-2007 . In addition to external loading of for the community’s potable water system, nutrients (ex: nutrients flowing into the lake creating water treatment problems . At Peguis from rivers), Lake Winnipeg is affected by First Nation, presenters were concerned that “internal nutrient loading” in which nutrients the high level of Lake Winnipeg forces the such as phosphorus, located in the sediments water table higher and allows groundwater on the floor of the lake, are re-suspended in that is used for drinking to be contaminated . the lake’s water column, as a result of wind Frequent flooding of the community, and wave action . This then makes these combined with a high water table, was said to nutrients available to feed algae . result in contaminated well water and wells that need to be treated regularly . What We Heard: Water Quality – Lake Winnipeg Lake Winnipeg’s growing problem with algae blooms was also discussed in many Increased siltation was a water quality communities . Fishers from Dauphin River concern for many north basin fishers . In Pine reported that the algae bloom in the north Dock, fishers spoke of a “silt blanket” – a basin has been located near Reindeer Island layer of silt-laden water which they believed in recent years, but since the opening of the to be spreading out from the Dauphin River . emergency channel from Lake St . Martin, As this “silt blanket” reaches further into the another bloom has formed closer to their lake, it pushes the fish away . Nets in the water community in Sturgeon Bay . are fouled with mud and algae when the silt reaches them . In communities throughout Commission Comment: Water the north basin, this was attributed to erosion Quality – Lake Winnipeg caused by the Lake Manitoba emergency drainage channel . As with high lake levels and shoreline erosion in the previous chapter, the At several Lake Winnipeg communities, commission heard from many residents of including Black River, Sagkeeng, and Berens Lake Winnipeg communities who are deeply River First Nations, presenters spoke of concerned about water quality on the lake . children acquiring rashes, as a result of Their concerns were heartfelt and legitimate swimming in Lake Winnipeg . and point to a continuing need to address problems, such as nutrient inputs into the Effects on potable water were discussed Lake Winnipeg watershed, and the need to frequently at First Nations . A common develop watershed plans to manage surface experience mentioned during hearings at water . many First Nations was the memory of drinking water directly from Lake Winnipeg . It is unclear, however, how LWR might This memory was contrasted with the lake’s have an impact on water quality of Lake current murky condition . Some communities Winnipeg . On several occasions, we heard have specific problems with potable water presenters suggest that the Jenpeg Control that they consider connected to the state of Structure blocks the outflow of nutrients Lake Winnipeg water quality . At Berens River from the lake and causes them to increase in

84 concentration . However, it appears that LWR 7.4.2 Water Quality – Downstream has not increased the residence time of water in the lake and has increased the outflow Manitoba Hydro’s Information: capacity of the lake through constructed Water Quality – Downstream and expanded outflow channels . One theory suggested was that LWR reduces outflow Manitoba Hydro reported that water in summer in order to ensure that there is quality in the Outlet Lakes is generally enough water in winter to generate electricity within the levels set by the Manitoba Water during the high-demand season . This would Quality Standards, Objective and Guidelines, then mean that nutrient-rich water was although some parameters are in excess . Total retained in the lake during the growing phosphorus exceeds the Manitoba guidelines season, encouraging algae blooms . However, for nutrients . As well, aluminium and iron given the high precipitation of recent years, exceed guidelines, but such excessive levels Manitoba Hydro has been operating Jenpeg are fairly common on rivers and lakes not at maximum discharge for all or part of six of affected by Manitoba Hydro’s operations . the last seven summers . Phosphorus and nitrogen are key nutrients in the production of algae and have been An expert retained by the commission identified as causing abundant algae growth estimated that a small (less than 2 .5 per cent) on Lake Winnipeg . However, studies of the increase in concentration of phosphorous in Outlet Lakes in comparison to Setting Lake, the lake could happen in years when LWR which is not connected to the Manitoba reduces outflow in summer, but research Hydro system, indicate that algae production would be needed to confirm this . This is not notably higher in the Outlet Lakes than would be due to the fact that phosphorous in Setting Lake . concentrations in the lake are higher in summer than in winter . However, the expert In measurements of the water quality concluded that this would amount to a parameter known as total suspended relatively insignificant portion of the increase solids (TSS), Playgreen Lake has a higher in phosphorous concentration in the lake concentration than Little Playgreen Lake or in the last 20 years (as much as 100 per cent Cross Lake, but all are within the guidelines . increase) . For more information, see Section The lower Nelson River has a higher 6 5,. Water Level Regulation in the Lake concentration than the upper Nelson . Lakes Winnipeg Basin and its Effect on Nutrient on the Nelson River have a higher TSS than Status of the Lake . off-system lakes, a result of higher levels of erosion along the Nelson River . Ultimately, it appears likely that any impact of LWR on Lake Winnipeg’s water Downstream of the Jenpeg Control quality problems is far less significant than Structure, similar water quality conditions the impact caused by nutrient inputs, loss of are found on Cross Lake . Samples of water wetlands and other issues upstream . from Cross Lake exceed guidelines for total phosphorus and aluminum and some samples exceed guidelines for iron . As well, in some winters, dissolved oxygen at deep levels of Cross Lake fell below the guidelines . Low dissolved oxygen levels are not uncommon in late winter in water bodies covered by ice .

85 Some of the studies made over time affected swimming, to the point where indicate that phosphorus in Cross Lake has children at Norway House don’t want to increased in the years since LWR went into swim in the lake anymore or parents don’t operation, while nitrogen levels in the lake are allow children to swim in the lake . Similar indicated in some studies to have decreased . concerns about swimming and water quality Several studies have stated that turbidity were expressed at communities further (cloudiness of the water caused by suspended downstream . Several presenters at Norway solids) increased on Cross Lake after LWR . House also spoke about landfill sites that were Overall, Manitoba Hydro’s compilation of buried and left behind following construction information states that changes to water of Two-Mile and Eight-Mile Channels . The quality are uncertain, with some studies sites were said to contain old fuel containers reporting declines in dissolved oxygen and and other kinds of waste with the potential to increases in turbidity and others reporting no affect nearby waters . significant change . Representatives of the Cross Lake Further downstream, in Sipiwesk Lake, Community Council told the commission studies reported a decrease in nitrogen, an that because of high turbidity, water increase in fecal coliform and in several ions treatment costs twice as much as it should (chloride, sodium, potassium) and no change for a community of its size . This is because to phosphorus since LWR . the suspended solids in highly turbid water reduce the effectiveness of the treatment For water quality, as for other parameters, process . Manitoba Hydro notes that, downstream of the Kelsey Generating Station, it is difficult Representatives of Norway House Cree to separate the effects of LWR from those of Nation, Pimicikamak Okimawin and other CRD . Water samples from Split Lake exceed individuals expressed the concern that the Manitoba guidelines for total phosphorus, increased outflow from Lake Winnipeg iron and aluminum . Studies cited by at Two-Mile Channel has allowed more Manitoba Hydro indicate that phosphorous sediment and algae to flow downriver . The in Split Lake either decreased or remained previous shallow channel at Warren Landing, the same after LWR, with the exception of it was argued, would have constricted flow of one study, which indicated a temporary sediment out of the lake . increase . Concentrations of aluminum in Split Lake are likely influenced by the higher At York Factory First Nation, high levels concentrations of this element in the water of on Split Lake were said to have an effect on the Burntwood River, which flows into Split drinking water . The community’s water intake Lake . CRD is thought to be the most likely is on the Aiken River, but when levels are high source of suspended solids in Split Lake, as on Split Lake, lake water can back up to the the Burntwood River brings a large sediment intake, making water treatment more difficult . load into the lake . Commission Comment: Water What We Heard: Water Quality – Quality – Downstream Downstream While some of the water-quality problems As on Lake Winnipeg, declining water downstream of Lake Winnipeg are caused by quality on Playgreen Lake was said to have nutrient run-off or land-use changes upstream

86 of Lake Winnipeg, LWR plays a role as well . along the Nelson River, fishing is an important Erosion resulting from the current in Two- cultural tradition . Commercial fishing is also Mile Channel, the flooding of the Jenpeg a major local industry throughout the area . forebay and increases in current downstream of Jenpeg cause sediment to enter the water . 7.5.1 Fish Populations and Fisheries The higher level of suspended solids in – Lake Winnipeg Playgreen Lake may be a result of the large amount of erosion along Two-Mile Channel Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Fish and the adjoining lake shores . This erosion Populations and Fisheries – Lake must be assessed and addressed, as does the Winnipeg possibility of contamination from former dump sites at the camp and work sites for the Manitoba Hydro discussed concerns project . about Lake Winnipeg fish populations by focusing on the commercial fishery . The Increases in algae in the Nelson River Lake Winnipeg commercial fishery is the and lakes such as Cross Lake and Split Lake largest in Manitoba, and, in 2008-2009, had are partly related to increased nutrient levels more than 800 licensed fishers and produced on Lake Winnipeg, but likely also to climate more than 73 per cent of the total value of change (longer or warmer summers and fish in Manitoba, with a total value, that shorter winters) . Rashes reported in many year, of more than $19 million . Because of communities are likely swimmer’s itch, the importance of the commercial fishery to an annoying but not dangerous condition many communities around Lake Winnipeg, caused by a parasitic worm carried in the the possible effects of LWR have long been a intestines of waterfowl and aquatic mammals . matter of concern . Additional monitoring could help to confirm this and perhaps could lead to improved Manitoba Hydro cited a 2011 study of public education to prevent swimmer’s itch commercial harvest, by decade, going back (towelling off immediately after swimming to the 1940s . The harvest numbers show helps to prevent swimmer’s itch, as does that in the 2000s, approximately 3 .9 million showering right away) . kilograms of walleye were harvested each year on the lake, nearly double the annual Actions the commission is recommending harvest in the 1940s, the decade with the next to address nutrient retention upstream in highest walleye harvest . The same study shows the watershed and erosion studies in the a decline in sauger catch, to 450,000 kg/year area affected by LWR may help to address in the 2000s, compared to 2 .7 million kg/ some of the water quality issues identified by year in the 1940s and 1 .8 million kg/year in downstream communities . the 1980s . The whitefish harvest in the 2000s, 1 .4 million kg/year, was second to the harvest 7.5 Fish Populations and in the 1980s, almost 1 .6 million kg/year . Manitoba Hydro cautions, though, that the Fisheries available fisheries information is not adequate Changes to the water regime, erosion, and to determine past or present biological physical disruption of specific fish habitats productivity of the lake . are among the impacts hydroelectric projects can have on fish populations . In many Manitoba Hydro cited a review that was communities around Lake Winnipeg and conducted by independent fisheries experts in 1992, after a period of declining whitefish 87 catches . It concluded there was no evidence water that would not support fish, were also that LWR had any impact on the whitefish heard from a number of presenters, especially fishery . In the meantime, data on the annual in north basin communities that were harvest of fish from Lake Winnipeg show that visited . whitefish catches have had ups and downs, while catches of walleye (the highest-priced In several communities, presenters fish) have steadily risen and have been at discussed fish being caught with record levels . Total commercial catch in the abnormalities, sores, cysts or tumours . The decade of the 2000s was substantially higher Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg than the 1950s or the 1960s . A more recent presented a photo of one such fish and said (2011) task force on the Lake Winnipeg that such fish have become more common on fishery, established by the minister, reported Lake Winnipeg in recent years . that the lake’s fisheries were in a generally healthy state . The task force reported that the Although the commission heard from main environmental stressors for the fishery many fishers who had concerns about fishing were eutrophication, invasive species and on the lake, it is worth noting that such climate change . concerns did not emerge everywhere on Lake Winnipeg . At our meeting in Gimli, despite What We Heard: Fish Populations the presence of a large fishing industry, the and Fisheries – Lake Winnipeg discussion was focused on erosion and high water levels, rather than fishing . At Pine Dock, In several communities around Lake the comments of the commercial fishers were Winnipeg, we heard that fishers now need to largely focused on high water levels and their travel farther to catch fish . The Keewatinook effects on docks and on lake currents . Fishers of Lake Winnipeg presented a map indicating current and former locations for Commission Comment: Fish summer and winter fishing, identified by their Populations and Fisheries – Lake members . Several locations near Berens River Winnipeg and Grand Rapids were identified as former fishing locations . As with water quality, it is difficult to see a connection between LWR and reports We heard in several communities that of concerns about fish populations on Lake former spawning locations had changed as Winnipeg . Many of the presenters concerned a result of changes in currents or declines about fish populations referred to sediment, in water quality . Formerly productive areas, algae blooms and the eutrophication of especially on the west side of the north basin, Lake Winnipeg . These concerns are more were said to no longer have fish . Whitefish likely linked to the large inflows of nutrients were said to be particularly affected . We heard resulting from land-use changes, high from Dauphin River fishers that whitefish precipitation and population growth within were scarce in that area and were now found the Lake Winnipeg watershed . mostly in the south basin . We also heard, at Brokenhead Ojibway Nation in the south basin, The commission understands that Lake that fewer fish were being caught in local nets . Winnipeg continues to be a productive fishery and, in fact, total catch has been at or near Descriptions of a “silt blanket” in which record levels for many years . A long-term fish could not be caught, or of rust-coloured historical study of the Lake Winnipeg fishery

88 has indicated that fishing on the lake has long location for a hydroelectric project), may been cyclical, with several periods of high have affected a former spawning location for catches in the first half of the 20th century sturgeon although the decline in sturgeon, alternating with periods of much lower was a result of overfishing that preceded catches (Franzin, et . al . 2003) . development of LWR . Commercial fishing in Cross Lake was closed in 1983 and reopened One of the challenges in considering in 1995 . Since then, it has produced just fish populations on Lake Winnipeg, relative over one quarter of the annual catch of to LWR, is that fisheries information is quota species prior to LWR . Moreover, the not adequate for assessing the biological composition of fish species in the lake has productivity of the lake . Changes in catch changed since LWR, with whitefish greatly may reflect changes in price and market reduced . Stocking of whitefish fry and eggs for different species . Harvest numbers do since 1992 has not resulted in a substantial not provide a snapshot of the overall health improvement in the number of whitefish . of all fish populations, including those not Possible factors for the decline of whitefish commercially harvested . and the failure of mitigation efforts to restore whitefish numbers include the effect of water 7.5.2 Fish Populations and Fisheries levels and flows on spawning and spawning – Downstream habitat, the placement of Jenpeg on a site that may have been spawning habitat, changes Manitoba Hydro’s Information: in predator-prey dynamics resulting from a Fish Populations and Fisheries – larger proportion of pike and walleye in Cross Downstream Lake, and the recent presence of rainbow smelt consuming small fish such as young Manitoba Hydro cited a variety of whitefish . studies in the Outlet Lakes, conducted since completion of LWR, that indicate healthy fish Walker Lake, located to the east of Cross populations . From 2008-2009 to 2010-2011, Lake and affected by LWR when water levels Playgreen, Kiskittogisu and Kiskitto Lakes are high on Cross Lake, has maintained a produced an average of more than 150,000 commercial fishery . Prior to 1992, the quota kg of quota species . The Study Board in 1975, species on Walker Lake were whitefish and had predicted a reduction in productivity in walleye, but since then, the quota species have Playgreen Lake lasting for 50 years (referred been walleye and northern pike . to in Manitoba Hydro’s LWR document as five Problems related to low water levels years) as a result of sedimentation . in Cross Lake led to the building of the In Cross Lake, whitefish populations Cross Lake Weir, completed in 1991 . The were negatively affected by the changes to construction of LWR resulted in very the water regime caused by LWR . Declines unnatural monthly average water levels on in whitefish populations in Cross Lake have Cross Lake, which likely had a very negative been attributed to drawdown of water levels effect on the fishery . The construction of the that reduced habitat and the spawning success weir resulted in more natural monthly water of fish and to at least one major winter fish elevations . Post-weir monitoring, however, kill resulting from a rapid drawdown . The has indicated no sustained increase in catch location of the Jenpeg Control Structure, built per unit of effort (CPUE), a measurement of on the site of a stretch of rapids (a common fisheries productivity .

89 Sipiwesk Lake was affected both by LWR op also has a larger quota on Lake Winnipeg . and the construction of the Kelsey Generating Travelling the greater distance to fish on Lake Station . Sipiwesk Lake appears to have initially Winnipeg has increased the cost of fishing suffered some decline in fish populations, for Co-op members, which one presenter followed more recently by an increase to levels reported as $180 per day for a boat . Figures at or higher than pre-LWR levels, as indicated presented by the Co-op indicated peak fishing by CPUE . Recent studies on Sipiwesk also years between 2000 and 2006, with a drop indicate a decline in whitefish . Effects on occurring around 2007-2008 . fish populations on Sipiwesk Lake that may have been caused by LWR are difficult to One representative of the Co-op reported distinguish from effects that may have been that an elder had told him the area around caused by the Kelsey Generating Station . Two-Mile Channel was a particularly important fishing location prior to LWR . The Monitoring of fish populations on Split area was said to have been a spawning site and Lake via CPUE indicates that fish numbers to have had a combination of currents and a appear to have increased in the lake during weedy area that made it ideal for fish . Because the 1980s, followed by a decline in the 1990s . of sediment from Lake Winnipeg, the south Recent studies on Split Lake, since the late end of Playgreen Lake was described as less 1990s, show a decline in the proportion of productive than in the past . cisco and whitefish, and an increase in the proportion of walleye and northern pike . We also heard that the composition Split Lake is the only water body along the of the fish community has changed along lower Nelson River that currently supports a the Nelson River, with a growing number commercial fishery . Overall, the lower Nelson of northern pike and declining number of River has the lowest CPUE of any of the whitefish in many areas . As the price paid for currently monitored water bodies, although northern pike is relatively low, this change it is difficult to discern if these are effects in community composition is a concern for from LWR and/or CRD . Studies show that commercial fishers . As well, the decline in CPUE on Split Lake increased substantially in whitefish populations that has been part of the 1980s and has since declined, but is still this shift in the fish community has reduced higher than in the two years studied prior to access to an important food for domestic LWR and CRD . consumption in many communities .

What We Heard: Fish Populations “I went and set a net in there last fall, and Fisheries – Downstream just to see if the whitefish were still there. I got whitefish, not as many, I Representatives of the Norway House got more jackfish than normally, didn’t Fishermen’s Co-op, representing about 50 get any carp, didn’t get any perch ... no licensed commercial fishers at Norway House, red suckers, no goldeye. And these were plus helpers, said fishing has declined in all the fish that were there when I was recent years on Playgreen Lake . The Co-op younger. So I noticed a difference.” has a total quota of 115,000 kg of fish from Members of the Manitoba Métis Playgreen Lake, but, in recent years, members Federation spoke about the effect of LWR have caught about 80,000 kg on Playgreen – and also the Kelsey Generating Station and have had to have some of their Playgreen – on Sipiwesk Lake . We were told that a quota transferred to Lake Winnipeg . The Co-

90 formerly productive area for whitefish near given year’s production of whitefish is related Duck Rapids became much less productive to water levels or flows since an analysis was following LWR . carried out in 1982 and 1984, before the construction of the Cross Lake Weir . Some Commission Comment: Fish annual reports since then suggest possible Populations and Fisheries – reasons why the whitefish population has Downstream not rebounded, but these are speculative . It should also be noted that sampling done One of the challenges of understanding more recently, under the CAMP, uses nets the effect of LWR on fish populations is that with different mesh sizes and different systematic monitoring of the effects has been configurations of nets than previous sampling, lacking throughout much of the post-LWR making systematic comparisons and analysis period . A long-term co-ordinated monitoring difficult . The commission also has questions program was recommended in 1975 by the regarding the interpretations of such data as Study Board, leading, in 1981, to a claim do exist . Manitoba Hydro states that “although under the NFA that Manitoba Hydro had overall whitefish numbers do not appear to be not carried out this recommendation . In increasing, the numbers caught in the Middle response to this, the Manitoba Ecological Basin [of Cross Lake] have generally increased Monitoring Program (1985-1989) and Federal since 1995 ”. However, the commission’s Ecological Monitoring Program (1986- review of annual reports indicated higher 1992) were carried out . Eventually, in 2004, catches and CPUE in the years 1995-98, the environmental review process for the followed by a decline, with no whitefish Wuskwatim Generating Station identified the caught in 2002 and 2007 . As well, no whitefish need for a systematic monitoring program were caught during the 2009 and 2010 CAMP (Manitoba Clean Environment Commission gill net sampling . This uncertainty about 2004), leading to the establishment of the whitefish populations points to a great need Coordinated Aquatic Monitoring Program to determine what has caused this decline and (CAMP), in 2006 . to determine if changes to the water regime have affected habitat needed for the whitefish The commission notes that life history population in Cross Lake . data on fish, answering questions such as where they travel and where they spawn, were The impact of LWR on fish populations generally lacking prior to LWR . Therefore, a and fisheries is one of several areas in which full understanding of the project’s effects on an assessment of LWR would have benefitted fish populations is not possible . Knowledge of from greater inclusion of Aboriginal Technical habitat use under current conditions would Knowledge (ATK) . People who have fished be useful in order to identify opportunities these waters all their lives, and who learned to improve conditions for the fishery and to to fish from parents, grandparents and elders evaluate the effect on the fishery of potential who fished there before them, are likely to changes to the operating regime . Such have an understanding of historical and knowledge could help to determine if changes current fish habitats, spawning, movements to the operating regime could have some and populations . This knowledge could help beneficial effect on the fishery . to fill some of the knowledge gaps regarding the effects of LWR, as well as identify possible The commission is not aware of any mitigation measures to address some of those attempts to determine if the health of any effects .

91 7.6 Wetlands Aboriginal Traditional Changes to the water regime on Lake Knowledge Winnipeg and downstream can affect wetlands, which are important for nesting, Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) is knowledge that is held by spawning, feeding and other habitat needs of and unique to Aboriginal people. It many animals, as well as playing an important is a living body of knowledge that role in influencing water quality . There are is cumulative, dynamic and adapted three main kinds of wetlands in the project over time to reflect changes in the area: marshes, bogs and fens . Marshes have social, economic, environmental, standing or slowly moving water seasonally spiritual and political spheres of or for long periods, are rich in nutrients, and Aboriginal knowledge holders. are characterized by reeds, rushes and sedges . Fens and bogs are both low in nutrients and have a high water table . Bogs are dominated Recommendations by sphagnum mosses, low shrubs and often black spruce . Fens are dominated The Commission recommends that: by black spruce, tamarack, sedges, grasses 7.9 Manitoba Hydro, in co-operation with and mosses and have very slow internal resource users, seek out and collect drainage, rather than draining directly into ATK, local knowledge and documented a water body . Because of the importance of information on pre-Lake Winnipeg wetlands to many species of fish and wildlife Regulation distribution of fish species, that are harvested for food or furs, impacts their spawning areas and movement on wetlands can affect the ability of people patterns in Cross Lake, the Outlet to take part in traditional resource-use Lakes, Sipiwesk Lake and in the adjacent activities, such as trapping, fishing, hunting connected lakes. and collecting traditional medicines . Issues regarding wetlands on Lake Winnipeg include 7.10 Manitoba Hydro, in co-operation with the declining health of the Netley-Libau resource users, evaluate the current status Marsh . In downstream communities, flooding of the identified sites, determine their capabilities to support fish populations of wetlands and the seasonal reversal of the and identify and implement alternative water regime are major issues . methods to rehabilitate or replace these sites. 7.6.1 Wetlands – Lake Winnipeg

Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Wetlands – Lake Winnipeg

Wetlands were not specifically addressed by Manitoba Hydro, except for a discussion of the Netley-Libau Marsh at the south end of Lake Winnipeg . Manitoba Hydro attributes the decline of the marsh largely to the Netley Cut, an excavation made in the bank of the Red River in 1913 to help drain the marsh, which had the opposite effect by allowing

92 Figure 7.7 Netley-Libau Marsh. (Manitoba Hydro)

93 Red River water to enter the marsh . Manitoba discontinued in 1999, which allowed siltation Hydro notes that high water levels on Lake to restrict flow through the main channels Winnipeg can cause high water in the Netley- of the river . As a result, even more water is Libau Marsh, which in turn can kill the marsh thought to have gone through the Netley Cut vegetation . Even with normal water levels, into the marsh . More recently, the Manitoba strong winds from the north can inundate the government’s flood-fighting efforts have marsh in this manner . involved cutting ice on the Red River late each winter to prevent ice jams and improve water The Netley-Libau Marsh is a large flow to Lake Winnipeg . However, it is possible complex of wetland, channels and shallow that this may lead to ice jams near where lakes at the south end of Lake Winnipeg near the Red River flows into Lake Winnipeg, the mouth of the Red River . The marsh is which again could result in more water going one of the largest in Canada and contains through the Netley Cut . important habitat for fish and waterfowl, as well as serving to filter water entering into The introduction of the common carp into Lake Winnipeg . However, the Netley-Libau the Lake Winnipeg watershed has also had an Marsh has been losing marsh habitat for many impact on the marsh . Carp feeding behaviour years and is becoming less environmentally dislodges vegetation in the marsh, which productive . LWR has been examined as one of results in greater turbidity, resulting in further the potential factors causing this decline . loss of vegetation .

Manitoba Hydro provided some history Manitoba Hydro noted that the Study on the Netley Cut, which was carried out to Board predicted that higher water levels allow high water on the marsh to drain into on Lake Winnipeg and the elimination of the river so that farmers could cut wild hay . extreme highs and lows would have a negative Prior to the Netley Cut, most water from the effect on the Netley-Libau Marsh . Hydro Red River flowed directly into Lake Winnipeg, notes that this prediction was based on the except in times of extreme flooding . Over the assumption that LWR would raise the lake’s years, through erosion, the Netley Cut has average level by 0 .7 feet (20 cm), while instead increased from about 40 feet (12 metres) in it has raised the lake’s average by 0 .2 feet width to more than 1,400 feet (425 metres), (6 cm) . Manitoba Hydro notes as well that and an ever-increasing share of Red River research has shown that the decline of the water has flowed directly into the marsh . A marsh was already occurring before LWR . marsh requires periodic low-water periods Mapping of the marsh has shown that, since when seeds of plants such as cattails and the 1920s, it has been losing islands, upland bulrushes can germinate on exposed mudflats . habitats and emergent vegetation, such as With much of the Red River flowing into cattails and rushes . The decline of marsh Netley-Libau Marsh, these low-water periods vegetation is often attributed to season-long seldom occur . As a result, a large part of what periods of high water that inundate the marsh was once a marsh is now the large, shallow enough to cause plants to die . Manitoba Netley Lake . Hydro states that even when the level of Lake Winnipeg is not high enough to cause water Manitoba Hydro examined several other, to back up into the marsh, the effect of strong more recent, factors that have contributed to north winds is enough to cause an increase the loss of marsh vegetation . Dredging of the of more than one metre in the water level, Red River, which had been carried out by the pushing water into the marsh . federal government to aid navigation, was

94 Manitoba Hydro is a member of the and on medicinal plants as a result of high Netley-Libau Marsh Working Group, which water in wetlands . Presenters in several is supporting research into the health of the communities said not only are fewer muskrats marsh . caught today, but signs of muskrat activity, such as push-ups (holes in the ice where What We Heard: Wetlands – Lake winter feeding takes place and vegetation Winnipeg accumulates) are much less common today . The commission heard from individuals who Presenters in several communities around in the past hunted waterfowl in Netley-Libau Lake Winnipeg noted that consistent high March, before the current flooding of large water levels have flooded many of the lake’s portions of the marsh made it much less coastal marshes . In Selkirk, the commission productive for waterfowl . At Grand Marais, heard from several presenters who were we heard of a marsh that now “stinks” and no concerned about the health of the Netley- longer supports bird populations . Libau Marsh, including people who formerly hunted or fished in the marsh . Pruden Bay “Netley Marsh, as it is now, is hardly there was also mentioned as a location that used anymore. The centre channel is probably to be a productive marsh, with a hunting four times as wide as it once was. The lodge, but is now a lake . At Grand Marais, the west channel and the Salamonia channel commission heard that Beaconia Marsh has are basically non-existent…” also declined in health in recent years . Commission Comment: Wetlands – Several presenters said Manitoba Hydro Lake Winnipeg should control lake levels to provide periodic low-water years, which would help to The commission is concerned about the regenerate vegetation in Netley-Libau Marsh . state of Lake Winnipeg’s wetlands and the level of study they have received . The commission Declining health of marshes has an heard, from the wetland expert it commissioned, impact on several activities of importance that much more needs to be known about in Aboriginal communities . Presenters at Manitoba’s wetlands . The commission would several First Nations spoke about the flooding agree, especially given the area that wetlands of wetlands where medicinal plants had cover adjacent to the lake and our very limited previously been picked . Loss of wetlands knowledge about them . A comprehensive caused by high water therefore limits access to inventory of Lake Winnipeg wetlands and a traditional medicines . In several communities calculation of their ecological and economic along Lake Winnipeg, the commission value to the province are necessary . Many heard of a decline in the population of methods to conduct such evaluations have been muskrats, which was frequently linked to developed for the Laurentian Great Lakes that a decline in the health of wetlands . In First could be applied to Lake Winnipeg . Nations, including Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Sagkeeng First Nation and Peguis As with many of the other challenges First Nation, muskrats were mentioned as facing Lake Winnipeg, the impacts observed formerly being of particular importance, in the surrounding wetlands are likely the both for income and for food . Hollow Water result of very high flows into the watershed First Nation’s written and video presentations as well as from development and land-use referred to effects on muskrat populations practices .

95 Modeling of Lake Winnipeg’s water levels Recommendations suggests that even without LWR, levels below 711 .0 feet asl might only have been reached The Commission recommends that: once in the last 40 years . LWR likely, therefore, 7.11 The Government of Manitoba, in co- played only a very small role in the decline operation with other parties, conduct a of some marshes, such as Netley-Libau, by comprehensive wetland inventory around preventing the very low water levels that are Lake Winnipeg. caused by extended dry periods . In the case of Netley-Libau, the consensus of experts 7.12 The Government of Manitoba take steps appears to be that the Netley Cut began the to permanently protect marshes and deterioration of the marsh long before LWR wetlands around Lake Winnipeg. was put into operation . Deliberately creating low water levels to stimulate regrowth of 7.6.2 Wetlands – Downstream marsh vegetation would be impossible during a time of high inflows such as over the last Manitoba Hydro’s Information: decade . To intentionally lower Lake Winnipeg Wetlands – Downstream during a time of low inflows would create great impacts on the power generation system In Manitoba Hydro’s compilation that could put Manitobans at risk, personally of information prepared for the LWR and economically . hearings, downstream wetlands were not a separate category for the consideration of The commission understands that Lake environmental effects . They were discussed Winnipeg’s wetlands are of vital importance in the context of waterfowl and aquatic to breeding, migrating or staging waterfowl, furbearers . Manitoba Hydro noted that aquatic furbearers, fish and other wetland- flooding of the Jenpeg forebay resulted in dependent species . Populations of both the loss of some marsh habitat . A 1990 study waterfowl and aquatic furbearers are closely concluded that high water levels in the fall linked to wetlands, particularly marshes, and reduced water levels in the spring had a so declining health of wetlands, such as negative effect on productive marsh habitat on Netley-Libau Marsh, has affected trapping Duck Lake, with some converted to mud flats . and hunting opportunities for people who previously used Lake Winnipeg’s Manitoba Hydro presented no new marshes . Because of their importance to research on aquatic furbearers, but the environment and the local culture acknowledged that the Study Board predicted and economy, steps need to be taken to that changes to water levels related to permanently protect wetlands, whether they LWR would have a negative impact on the are held by the Crown, the local government population of aquatic furbearers (especially or private land owners . muskrat and beaver) in both the Outlet Lakes area and downstream of Jenpeg . Manitoba Hydro noted that in both Norway House Cree Nation and Pimicikamak Okimawin, community members reported furbearers being killed by fluctuating water levels, such as when rising water levels in winter flood them in their dens . Manitoba Hydro stated that the Cross Lake Weir likely improved

96 conditions for aquatic furbearers on Cross CRD, but notes that erosion and fluctuating Lake, but had no studies to verify that shorelines are thought to have damaged hypothesis . On Sipiwesk Lake, furbearer waterfowl habitat . populations were previously affected by the construction of the Kelsey Generating Station, Overall, Manitoba Hydro stated that making it difficult to isolate the effects of natural variability in waterfowl populations LWR from those of Kelsey . Manitoba Hydro and alterations in flyways make quantifying acknowledges that fluctuations in water levels local impacts difficult . have negatively affected aquatic furbearers in Split Lake and further downriver . What We Heard: Downstream Wetlands – Downstream Habitat changes caused by LWR appear to have reduced duck populations in the The commission heard from an expert Outlet Lakes . Studies conducted in 1986-1987 retained by Pimicikamak Okimawin of the showed a substantial decline in the density of loss of species and habitat diversity resulting diving ducks in the area . Later studies showed from changes to shorelines downstream that the population of ducks on Playgreen of Jenpeg . It was stated that up to 90 per Lake remained substantially below the pre- cent of the living things found in lakes are LWR level, but the population on Kiskitto and in the shallow water at the edge and in the Kiskittogisu Lakes had increased substantially . periodically flooded land along the shore . Another study indicated that the area around These riparian zones and wetlands have the Warren Landing had been particularly greatest biodiversity . However, Pimicikamak’s negatively affected following LWR . Research representatives stated, there is no long-term was conducted to test the hypothesis that study of riparian and wetland zones along increased water levels resulting from LWR the Nelson River . Natural shorelines in this had affected waterfowl populations by area would have a variety of vegetation zones, reducing the number of benthic invertebrates from submerged aquatic plants in the shallow (organisms that live on the bottom of lakes areas closest to shore, to emergent wetland or rivers, which are an important food vegetation (sedges and rushes) on shore source for some waterfowl), but no definitive closest to the water’s edge, to herbaceous reason for the decline in numbers could be plants and small shrubs further from the demonstrated . shore and then larger deciduous shrubs (such as willows) farther still from shore . This range On Cross Lake, changes in flows and of vegetation zones was described as typical flow patterns may have reduced the amount of a sheltered reach of a boreal river . The or suitability of habitat for geese and diving commission was shown photos of shoreline ducks . On Duck Lake, high water levels in marshes in the Cross Lake area that have the fall and reduced water levels in the spring been flooded throughout the summer and of have had a severe impact on a previously shoreline debris that prevents the growth of productive marsh habitat . Impacts of LWR other vegetation . The commission also saw on Sipiwesk Lake are difficult to determine photos of a controlled embayment created because of the combination of effects from near Cross Lake in an attempt to to re- Kelsey Generating Station . establish a cattail marsh .

Manitoba Hydro stated that impacts on Resource users at Norway House Cree waterfowl on Split Lake and further down the Nation and Norway House community river are difficult to separate from those of

97 spoke about the effect of high water levels productive as a result of the seasonally altered on Playgreen Lake on wetlands and wildlife . and extreme variation in water levels . Trappers said formerly productive marsh and shoreline areas no longer produce muskrats We also heard at York Factory First Nation and other aquatic furbearers and report that that muskrats and beaver have become less they seldom see signs of muskrats, such as common along the Aiken River and elsewhere push-ups . in the Split Lake area .

Resource users at Pimicikamak Okimawin “Our trappers will tell you how the spoke extensively about the effects of LWR changes in water levels have changed on wetland wildlife . Muskrat and beaver the abundance of furbearers. You now populations declined significantly in the rarely see muskrat and beaver...where affected areas because of flooding . In some they used to be common.” cases, beavers or muskrats are drowned within their winter lodges downstream of Jenpeg Resource users at both Pimicikamak by a winter release of water . The commission Okimawin and Norway House Cree Nation was shown photographs of furbearers killed spoke of a decline in the numbers of by winter flooding and of beaver lodges left waterfowl and specifically referred to a decline high and dry as a result of low water levels . in the population of coots, which are small, One trapper said that muskrats are seldom dark-coloured water birds also known as seen in areas near Cross Lake that formerly mud hens . Pimicikamak presented several produced 700 to 800 muskrats per year . A photos of flooded waterfowl nests, which presenter for Pimicikamak noted that in the were described as a common sight on Cross 1980s, the Cross Lake Environmental Impact and Pipestone Lakes . Pimicikamak residents Assessment report called for the creation of have noted a decline in population of geese, muskrat marshes . It was also stated that the scaup, grebes, scoters, mallards, black ducks, most productive muskrat marshes require buffleheads and goldeneye, as well as declines about two feet (0 .6 metres) of annual water in the populations of invertebrates and aquatic level fluctuation, as well as lower levels about plants that waterfowl eat . once every five years to allow for germination of cattails and rushes on an exposed seedbed . Commission Comment: Wetlands – Downstream Sipiwesk Lake was described as a formerly productive water body where the populations The commission notes that wetlands were of beaver and muskrat were affected both by not an environmental component considered fluctuations caused by LWR and flooding separately by Manitoba Hydro and considers caused by the Kelsey Generating Station . One that the impact of the project on wetlands resource user said muskrat were plentiful would have been worthy of much more on Sipiwesk Lake in the 1980s, but have consideration . Wetlands should be considered since declined in number . An expert witness as the backbone of a healthy ecosystem that retained by Pimicikamak Okimawin said the can support aquatic furbearers, waterfowl health of muskrat populations is symptomatic and water birds and all of the other life forms of the health of riparian (shoreline) that depend on them . Ecosystems such as ecosystems along the Nelson River . Nelson wetlands should be understood as a source River riparian ecosystems downstream of important ecosystem services – a term of Jenpeg have become less diverse and that refers to the benefits provided by an

98 ecosystem, including, in the case of wetlands, – that broader regional habitat alterations and removing toxins and nutrients from the water, flyway pattern changes may have been a factor stabilizing shorelines, and providing habitat in changes in the abundance of waterfowl for culturally and economically important along the Nelson River – was also made fish, mammals and birds . without supporting evidence .

During the recent hearings on the Keeyask The commission is also concerned by Generating Station on the lower Nelson a gap in knowledge regarding the effects of River, Manitoba Hydro’s assessment of that the project – and especially the effects of the project noted that Nelson River wetlands Cross Lake Weir – on aquatic furbearers . were “already highly disrupted by water level Manitoba Hydro states that the Cross Lake regulation” including CRD and LWR, due to Weir, by preventing the occasional extreme fluctuation in water level, ice scouring, erosion low water levels that were experienced in and the seasonal reversal of flows . The EIS for the 1980s, has probably helped to mitigate Keeyask characterized Nelson River wetlands effects of the project on the habitat of in that area as “low quality, disturbed, non- aquatic furbearers . However, no focused native wetland types ”. It seems likely, therefore, monitoring has been conducted to determine that the same characterization would apply to the impact of the weir on these populations wetlands in the areas immediately downstream and no repopulation of muskrats has been of Jenpeg as well, which are affected by all of observed in this area . From an analysis of the those same factors . hydrographic data presented in the Manitoba Hydro document on LWR, it appears that the Although Manitoba Hydro examined Cross Lake Weir has reduced the amount that both waterfowl and aquatic furbearers in water levels on Cross Lake decrease in late its preparation for the LWR hearings, those fall or early winter, which may be a benefit examinations were missing important for muskrats . However, the average amount information . Given that LWR was predicted that water levels increase later in winter after to negatively affect downstream waterfowl freeze-up has not changed with construction populations, Manitoba Hydro failed, in the of the weir, and it is this mid-winter increase years after the project was developed, to collect in water levels that can cause drowning sufficient data to determine the project’s of muskrats . As for beaver populations, it impact . The material compiled by Manitoba appears that no beaver house surveys have Hydro for the hearings acknowledged that, been conducted since 1986 along the upper between 1972 and 1992, only 13 days of aerial Nelson River to monitor long-term trends . As surveys of waterfowl were carried out, despite well, no telemetry studies involving captured the fact that both Environment Canada and and marked furbearers appear to have been the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had carried out along the Nelson River . Aerial recommended surveys of ducks and geese in surveys have been conducted more recently the study area to be of sufficient intensity and along the lower Nelson River as part of the duration to enable assessment of waterfowl environmental assessment of the Keeyask trends . Furthermore, Manitoba Hydro Generation Project . Aerial surveys for assumes that the Cross Lake Weir has had a muskrat push-ups were also conducted along positive effect on waterfowl, despite having the lower Nelson for the Keeyask Project . conducted no waterfowl monitoring on Cross Lake since the construction of the weir in Additional monitoring is needed to better 1991 . Another statement by Manitoba Hydro understand the effect of LWR on wetlands,

99 waterfowl and aquatic furbearers . This should Recommendations include mapping of historical habitat using ATK and air photos, as well as assessing The Commission recommends that: current availability of habitat, to assess 7.13 Manitoba Hydro, in co-operation with changes in the abundance of habitat . ATK, air resource users, evaluate the success photos and satellite images would also help and/or failure of the Cross Lake Weir in determining the current functional quality in improving water levels and re- of wetland habitat . Once habitat is mapped, it establishment of ecological components, would be possible to identify areas that can be particularly whitefish and aquatic rehabilitated or re-established . Re-establishing furbearers, and reducing impacts on muskrat or beaver populations could require travel. identifying areas where control structures could be put in place to manage water levels . 7.14 Manitoba Hydro, working with resource Telemetry studies of aquatic furbearers have users, determine the pre-Lake Winnipeg Regulation distribution of wetlands, using not been carried out to assess the impact of aerial photos, satellite images and other LWR or the Cross Lake Weir, but they would methods to reconstruct their distribution be useful to determine the success or failure of and compare this to the current any efforts to restore furbearer populations . distribution.

The commission understands that 7. 15 Manitoba Hydro seek out possible areas aerial photos and other information exist for wetland enhancement, rehabilitation for the LWR area, which could allow for an and re-establishment to support assessment of the amount of affected wetland . ecosystem services and populations A better understanding of the loss of wetlands of aquatic furbearers, waterfowl and could lead to proposals for establishment or waterbirds. restoration of them . Monitoring of wetlands, and selected species that depend upon them, 7.16 Manitoba Hydro include wetland and wetland species monitoring in the CAMP should become part of the regular monitoring program. cycle under CAMP .

Assessment of the impact of the project on wetlands could lead to a better 7.7 Ungulates (Moose and understanding of the environmental needs Caribou) of wetlands and the species that depend on Loss of habitat and increased access them (such as amount and timing of water resulting from LWR had some affect on local flow) . Incorporation of these environmental populations of ungulates – moose and boreal needs into operational models for Jenpeg woodland caribou – in the downstream area, could allow for mitigation or reduction of though this was not a topic of major concern LWR’s effects . These models could be used to raised in the hearings . explore possibilities for mitigation of impacts on wetlands and the species that depend upon them without seriously impacting power generation . The development of such models is described in Section 10 .2, Operating Rules and Models .

100 7.7.1 Ungulates level drops later in winter) and shoreline debris may have made it more difficult for Manitoba Hydro’s Information: caribou to use islands in the Nelson River Ungulates and lakes for calving or as a refuge from wolves . The project area borders on two Flooding in the Jenpeg forebay was identified boreal woodland caribou ranges: predicted by the Study Board to lead to the Norway House range to the east of the the loss of 20 to 48 moose from the total Nelson River west channel and the Wabowden population, through the loss of nearly 100 range to the west of the west channel . The square km of moose habitat . No current Wabowden herd is the only one intersected estimates are presented for local populations . by the LWR area . The Norway House range is Downstream of Jenpeg, the effects of LWR considered by the Manitoba Boreal Woodland are combined with the effects of the Kelsey Caribou Management Committee to have an Generating Station, and these were predicted “acceptable” population of more than 100 and by the Study Board to affect 140 square a low level of human-caused disturbance . The kilometres of moose habitat, with most of Wabowden range is considered to have a high that impact from Kelsey . The region had level of human-caused disturbance (including relatively low population densities of moose Highway 6 and Bipoles 1 and 2) and a high both before and after LWR (ex: 5 to 10 priority conservation status although its animals per 100 square km) . Manitoba Hydro population is also identified as “acceptable ”. concludes that increased road access since the creation of LWR is likely to have played Commission Comment: Ungulates a larger role in observations of a decline in numbers of ungulates, by allowing for The commission agrees that LWR has increased hunting pressure in some portions likely had only a small direct impact on of the region . The corporation cites a 1985 ungulate populations, primarily through the Manitoba Department of Natural Resources loss of a small amount of habitat in the Jenpeg study that found good quality moose habitat forebay . Increased human populations in the that was underutilized by moose . This was neighbouring communities, increased road interpreted as a sign that hunting is affecting access since the creation of LWR and an aging populations rather than loss of habitat . For forest have likely had a greater impact . the area further downriver, at Split Lake and beyond to Gull Rapids, effects on ungulate populations have been caused by some localized loss of shoreline habitat . However, ungulate populations and distribution are related to forest age and forest fire history, which has a greater effect on available habitat . However, Manitoba Hydro states that the moose population in the Split Lake Resource Management Area is thought to have remained stable since 1994 .

Regarding caribou populations, changes in the water regime, shoreline hanging ice (ice that freezes at a higher level before the water

101 102 Chapter Eight Socio-economic Effects

8.1 Overview way-of-life impacts include loss of recreation opportunities or places for community or Flooding, shoreline erosion and changes family gatherings caused by changes to water to the water regime have had an impact quality or shorelines . In some places, erosion on many aspects of social, community and and flooding have caused a direct loss of economic life around Lake Winnipeg and heritage resources . along the Nelson River . Manitoba Hydro did not conduct a detailed assessment of 8.2.1 Culture, Way of Life and socio-economic effects of LWR as part of its Heritage Resources – Lake application for a final licence . Many socio- Winnipeg economic effects in the downstream area are addressed in some way through mitigation or compensation programs – in most cases, they Manitoba Hydro’s Information: were agreed to under the NFA or the various Culture, Way of Life and Heritage implementation agreements . Resources – Lake Winnipeg

As Manitoba Hydro concludes that LWR 8.2 Culture, Way of Life and has not had an impact on Lake Winnipeg, it Heritage Resources did not describe cultural or heritage impacts on lakeside communities . This category of effects includes impacts on tangible cultural and heritage resources, What We Heard: Culture, Way of such as buildings or places of cultural and Life and Heritage Resources – Lake spiritual significance, and impacts on less Winnipeg tangible aspects of culture, such as way of life, customs, practices and traditions . Many In several First Nations communities cultural concerns about the impact of LWR around Lake Winnipeg, the cultural effect are related to changes affecting resource of lost resource-harvesting and recreation use, such as fishing, hunting, trapping and opportunities was discussed . gathering, that may have resulted from changes to the water regime or shoreline In Black River First Nation, presenters erosion . Since resource use is such an showed a documentary film about traditional important part of Aboriginal societies, skills such as snowshoe-making, which was impacts on it have wide-ranging effects on shot in the community decades ago . This was culture and way of life . Other cultural and an illustration of a way of life that has largely

103 been lost over time . In Brokenhead Ojibway swimming in the lake . Nation, presenters spoke of the decline of fishing and trapping as activities passed on At Sagkeeng First Nation, we heard that from generation to generation . Changes in high lake levels have exposed burial sites the organization and structure of commercial along the shore of Lake Winnipeg . fishing have also had an impact on the culture and way of life of many communities . Hollow Commission Comment: Culture, Water First Nation’s written submission Way of Life and Heritage Resources discussed the social, spiritual and cultural – Lake Winnipeg importance of the harvest of wild rice, which was said to be affected by flooding on Lake Lake Winnipeg is without a doubt of great Winnipeg and on neighbouring rivers and importance to the culture, way of life and lakes . The commission heard from several heritage of all Manitobans . Changes to the presenters who described how families or resource economy of the lake have an impact communities would spend the summer on the way of life of lakeside communities . together at fishing camps that no longer exist . Changes to the lake’s recreational character – In their presentation to the commission, such as the loss of beaches – have an impact the Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg on the way of life of tens of thousands of called for language renewal, to be funded by Manitobans for whom a summer or a day at Manitoba Hydro, for Aboriginal fishers on the the lake is an important part of life . While it lake . appears likely that high precipitation in recent decades has been the major cause of high Many presenters spoke of the great water levels, which, along with high winds, importance of Lake Winnipeg in the culture, have been the reason for high erosion rates history and spiritual beliefs of Aboriginal along the lake, additional research on lake peoples . It was explained on several occasions erosion is required . Such research could help that, in First Nations cultures, women are to determine places most at risk from erosion considered the carriers or protectors of water . and inform policy regarding development This is related to the fact that women carry near the lake . It could also lead to recognition water within them to give birth to children . of locations where measures may be taken, As a result, the declining condition of Lake such as artificial nourishment of beaches, to Winnipeg is felt especially powerfully by maintain recreational areas . women . The commission acknowledges there Many presenters spoke about the loss have been great changes to the way of life and of recreational opportunities resulting from impacts on culture in communities around the disappearance of beaches along Lake Lake Winnipeg, but there is no evidence that Winnipeg . The loss of beaches has taken away this is directly related to LWR . places for family and community gatherings in many areas on both basins of the lake . The loss of beach recreation was an important point both in Aborginal communities and in Gimli, Selkirk and Grand Marais . At hearings in First Nations around the lake, concerns about skin rashes were said to have led parents to direct their children away from

104 8.2.2 Culture, Way of Life and through its effects on travel or through its Heritage Resources – Downstream effects on populations of fish and wildlife species – it has a cultural impact . Some of Manitoba Hydro’s Information: these impacts are discussed in Section 8 .3, Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resource Use and Section 8 .4, Navigation, Resources – Downstream Transportation and Public Safety . Provisions in the NFA and settlement agreements are Manitoba Hydro acknowledged that LWR has intended to address these impacts . affected culture, way of life and heritage resources in the downstream area, both by physical impacts What We Heard: Culture, Way on tangible heritage and cultural resources and of Life and Heritage Resources – by changes to the way of life caused by flooding, Downstream erosion and other impacts . Many presenters of Aboriginal Regarding tangible heritage and cultural background spoke eloquently on the resources, LWR and other hydroelectric importance of the land and how their lives developments have flooded or caused are intertwined with it . The land, the trees, erosion at archaeological, cultural and burial the waterways, the animals, the fish – all sites along affected waterways . Attempts to are connected in a long history of living in mitigate these impacts include work at the harmony with the environment . For them, Hunting River Burial Site, in collaboration these forests and waterways are not just a with the Province of Manitoba, Cross place to live, but part of who they are as Lake First Nation (now Pimicikamak) and people and as communities . They expressed Pikwitonei Community Council; the Sipiwesk their desire to live in harmony with the land Lake Archaeological Program, funded by and uphold a duty to protect it . Manitoba Hydro and carried out by the Heritage Resources Branch; a 10-year System- Presenters talked about growing up on Wide Archaeological Program, encompassing traplines and in fishing camps and learning not just the Nelson, but the Winnipeg and history, traditions and spiritual ways from other rivers; shoreline protection measures their grandmothers and grandfathers . This at a number of at-risk sites along LWR was an important way of passing on their waterways; and erosion-protection measures language and culture to the next generation . near the Anglican Church, cemetery and a cultural site in Tataskweyak Cree Nation . “I wanted to answer your question about what fishing does to a family. First of all, Some areas of significant cultural and it brings them together, it brings them heritage resources at risk of erosion along the growth, and everybody there has a role, Nelson River have been protected with the a responsibility. And it builds character construction of gabion baskets – wire baskets in the kids, it builds a family unit, it filled with rock – to prevent erosion caused by builds love. All of that stuff, hunting, high water levels . fishing, gathering of herbs, medicines, all of that stuff families do together. And if Intangible cultural impacts include effects one fishing family can act – if the whole on resource use, travel and recreation . To world can act – like a family that has the extent that LWR prevents people from gone fishing together, our world is a lot engaging in these traditional pursuits – better place.”

105 They spoke of learning to navigate on fishing . One presenter noted that, in the past, water and ice and knowing every turn based these activities were possible within a few on the trees, rocks and shorelines . Now all minutes of the community . Now, because they that has changed, they said . Banks have require a long boat or snowmobile trip, both eroded along the shores, trees have fallen the time and the travel cost are barriers for into the water, and the fish and other animals many in the community . that once sustained them are no longer in abundance . Not only is much of that lost, but At Pimicikamak Okimawin, presenters they also described how their joy in travelling referred to the experience of the community the waterways had turned to fear – fear of as a trauma that has affected generations . hitting a log or a “spider” floating in the The loss of connection to the land and water (discussed in Section 8 .4, Navigation, opportunities to engage in traditional Transportation and Public Safety) . They had activities has led to depression, substance stories of people being injured or having boats abuse and suicide, some presenters said . and motors damaged by these collisions, and said the dangers were too common to ignore . Presenters at a number of northern They talked about their reluctance to bring communities, including Pimicikamak and their children onto the water as a result of Norway House, referred to compensation debris, changing and unpredictable water programs that paid resource users (trappers levels, and damaged shorelines that make or fishers) for the loss of resources . access difficult . In winter, hanging ice makes Compensation, even if it made up the travel more difficult and dangerous and slush economic losses, does not replace the loss of ice makes traditional routes to traplines or way of life and self-worth that comes from hunting places very uncertain . What used carrying out traditional work in nature . to be a positive experience is now fraught with unpredictable conditions that are often Impacts on recreation have also affected dangerous . the way of life of communities . Several presenters said a swimming pool is now At Norway House Cree Nation, we heard needed in their community because of the about the loss of gathering places for families state of the water . At Pimicikamak and and communities caused by erosion within Norway House we heard that fluctuating Playgreen Lake . In some of these lost places, winter water levels make it difficult to including islands and beaches, extended impossible to create and maintain a skating families would spend the summer together surface on the lake in winter . fishing . Others were described as places for recreation and visiting . Commission Comment: Culture, Way of Life and Heritage Resources “We have also lost many beaches, landing – Downstream sites, camp sites that allowed us to come together as families. These places were In our visits to communities along the key to our community recreation and Nelson River, the commission heard many h e a l t h .” heartfelt discussions of the loss of culture . We heard of efforts in many communities to pass We heard that changes to the environment on cultural teachings to young generations by, mean that fewer people, and fewer in the for example, taking students camping, fishing, younger generation, take up traditional hunting or trapping . And although many activities such as trapping, hunting and students are introduced to these experiences

106 through such programs, we heard as well adjustment . Arising out of the NFA were a that comparatively few young people take up large number of measures intended to address these traditional pursuits . The result is not some of the impacts of this rapid change, just a loss of that traditional activity, but of the including programs to encourage fishing and storytelling, cultural teaching and language trapping or to reduce the effects of the project learning that are traditionally carried on on access to fishing and trapping areas . It was through these activities . clear to the commission from the words of many presenters that impacts on culture and The commission notes that the NFA way of life have been profound and are still contained a provision to create alternative being felt . opportunities for recreation in the affected communities . Cross Lake, Norway House Actions the commission is recommending and Tataskweyak Cree Nation have recreation to address erosion and restoration of aquatic centres that include skating rinks and and wetland habitats in the area affected by community halls, built as a result of the LWR, may make available some additional NFA . Such institutional gathering places may opportunities to practise cultural traditions . become an important part of community life, but they do reflect a change from traditional, spontaneous forms of recreation . 8.3 Resource Use Effects on resource use – a category that Cultural impacts are inherently difficult to includes commercial and domestic harvest quantify and difficult to mitigate . It is difficult activities such as fishing, hunting, trapping to measure the magnitude of the loss when and gathering – are typically easier to confirm a community loses the ability to practice an and measure than effects on culture or way important tradition . Can a compensation of life . Effects on resource use may have been payment truly make up for the loss? At the caused by direct loss of fish and mammals or same time, it is inherently difficult to trace a changes to aquatic or terrestrial habitat . These direct cause-and-effect line between cultural kinds of impacts were discussed previously changes and any specific cause . In other in Section 7 .5, Fish Populations and Fisheries words, LWR likely caused some of the loss of and Section 7 .6, Wetlands . Other project cultural traditions and way of life that were effects on resource use may be a result of discussed in communities we visited, but did changes to waterways, shorelines or ice it have a larger or smaller impact than the surfaces that make it more difficult to access arrival of television and the internet, other harvest areas and damage equipment . modern conveniences, or the creation of an all-weather road? At the time of the Study Board report in the 1970s, it was noted that 8.3.1 Resource Use – Lake Winnipeg northern communities were undergoing a steady transition from traditional or hunter- Manitoba Hydro’s Information: gatherer societies to wage economies . Hydro Resource Use – Lake Winnipeg development, the Study Board predicted, would lead to an accelerated rate of change Manitoba Hydro discussed three key exceeding the capacity of the community environmental issues of concern regarding to adjust . Much of what we heard in the Lake Winnipeg, one of which is the Lake downstream communities focused on Winnipeg fishery . As discussed in Section the cultural consequences of such rapid 7 .5, Fish Populations and Fisheries, Manitoba

107 Hydro stated that there is no evidence to Black River, and in the Hollow Water First suggest LWR has had an impact on the Nation written submission, we heard of fishery . effects on trapping, with once-plentiful marshes no longer producing muskrat . The What We Heard: Resource Use – loss of muskrat results in both a loss of a Lake Winnipeg traditional income stream but also the lost of a traditional food source . In communities around the lake, the commission heard that fishing has been Commission Comment: Resource difficult at least since the beginning of this Use – Lake Winnipeg current period of extreme high precipitation years . Fishers in the north basin spoke The commission was concerned by of a “silt blanket” emanating from the references made by resource users in a Dauphin River since the construction of number of communities to unusual currents the emergency drain from Lake Manitoba . in Lake Winnipeg and growing amounts They said fish cannot be caught within the of debris and silt affecting fishing . It seems area of the silt blanket . They also said that most likely that these are related to the high nets are consistently being fouled by algae or levels of precipitation in recent years, which destroyed by large floating debris . Members have caused lake levels to rise and increased of the Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg erosion . The concern that larger amounts of said that since the implementation of LWR, sediment have entered the lake as a result fishers go through 30-40 nets per season, of the Assiniboine River water diverted into whereas fishers would lose about 15 nets Lake Winnipeg, via Lake Manitoba and Lake per season before LWR . We heard that nets St . Martin, needs to be further explored . cost $120-$150 each, so this adds up to a Additional research on flows of water within significant expense . The Keewatinook Fishers Lake Winnipeg would also be helpful to better also showed photos of fishing camps on Long understand if the existence of two outlets Point that have been damaged or destroyed (Two-Mile Channel and Warren Landing) has by erosion . We also saw photos of erosion affected local currents . impacts on fishing at Misipawistik Cree Nation . Impacts on fishing nets were cited by The commission agrees that LWR has not fishers at many other First Nations . affected fish populations in Lake Winnipeg . Muskrat populations may have been affected We heard of currents that have changed by the loss of coastal wetlands, but there is no and fish no longer being found in the former evidence that this is directly related to LWR . locations . In some cases, fish that were once found in the north basin are now in the south, 8.3.2 Resource Use – Downstream we were told . At Pine Dock, we heard that the strength of the current flowing north in Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Lake Winnipeg can prevent fish from coming Resource Use – Downstream south through the narrows . Because of fish movements, fishers in several locations said Manitoba Hydro describes a number of they need to travel farther, spending more programs negotiated as part of the NFA or money on fuel as a result . the implementation agreements that relate to impacts of the project on resource use . Many At Peguis, Brokenhead, Sagkeeng and of the programs are for compensation for

108 effects on fishing, which are highly varied in were no fish caught when the water was the downstream areas . warmer, which participants believed would cause a greater difference in the taste of the One program that is ongoing is the fish . domestic fishing program at Pimicikamak, which pays fishers to fish on Cross Lake or Regarding trapping, Manitoba Hydro some off-system lakes and bring the fish back acknowledges that the project has impacted to the community, where it is made available the population of furbearers through direct to community members . This program also mortality (as a result of fluctuating water includes a hot lunch program for the schools levels) and habitat loss and has affected and a gardening program . the ability of trappers to access traplines by making travel more difficult . The NFA Concerns about the impact of contains several provisions to relocate or hydroelectric projects on sturgeon have compensate trappers affected by the project . resulted in a variety of initiatives, including It also includes support for improvements the Lake Sturgeon Stewardship and to portages and access routes for trappers . Enhancement Program (which rears and One specific claim by Pimicikamak led to stocks sturgeon and conducts research and specific trapping programs in the Cross public education programs), the Nelson River Lake Registered Trapline Area, including a Sturgeon Board (a stakeholders’ group that subsidy program, a loan program, trapline focuses on protecting and enhancing sturgeon improvement, habitat enhancement, trapping stocks between Cross Lake and Kelsey training and annual review and consultation . Generating Station), and Kischi Sipi Namao (a stakeholders’ group focusing on sturgeon in Other provisions in the NFA, addressing the lower Nelson, Hayes, Gods and Echoing loss of resource use opportunities, included Rivers) . These are all focused on developing an article giving First Nations priority for and implementing measures to protect and resource harvesting in the areas they most enhance sturgeon populations, which were commonly used . These are identified as reduced primarily through over-exploitation Resource Management Areas . Resource in the first half of the 20th century . Management Boards were established under the implementation agreements to consider Manitoba Hydro acknowledged that broader resource management issues in each in communities affected by LWR there is a First Nation’s Resource Management Area . perception that the project has affected the taste or texture of fish . In response, Manitoba What We Heard: Resource Use – Hydro engaged the assistance of Fisheries Downstream and Oceans Canada and the University of Manitoba to conduct several taste tests . In Members of the Norway House one study, all fish passed all the taste tests . Commercial Fishermen’s Co-op told us that In the other study, participants from lower they are now unable to obtain their quota Nelson River communities expressed a slight of fish from Playgreen Lake and must fish (described as not statistically significant) increasingly in the north basin of Lake preference for fish caught from water bodies Winnipeg, increasing their fuel expenses . Like not affected by hydroelectric development . fishers on Lake Winnipeg, Norway House However, Manitoba Hydro notes that in at fishers said they have more nets destroyed by least one of the communities, participants debris now than in the past . We also heard believed the study was flawed because there

109 of the cost and labour involved in building a living with muskrats. We did okay. We a dock . One fisher said the summer season got to save some money. Nowadays, I’m typically begins with repairing the dock, lucky if I see one push-up in that bay.” and if it needs to be rebuilt it can require a week’s worth of time and can cost anywhere Members of the Manitoba Métis from $1,000 to $5,000 . As a result, when high Federation told us that the creation of water levels make a dock unusable, it creates resource management areas, as a result of the a substantial cost, in time and money, for the NFA and implementation agreements, cut owner . them off from lakes where they previously fished . We also heard from another member At Pimicikamak, we heard that few who said the decline of the whitefish fishery members of the community engage in on Sipiwesk Lake forced him to travel farther commercial fishing now . We also heard to catch fish . from resource users who fish, trap or hunt in locations very far from Cross Lake, which Commission Comment: Resource makes it more of a challenge to take part in Use – Downstream these activities . Changes to the water regime, including “Used to be in the fall, we would catch the seasonal reversal of flows, winter-time the whitefish coming in, we would catch fluctuations, flooding and dewatering them in our rivers. We would – our (especially during the periods of low water on elders, our people, our fishermen would Cross Lake before construction of the Weir) be smoking whitefish, and they would have had a variety of impacts on resource be hanging them up for the winter. use in the downstream area . These impacts Those days are gone. They are not there on resource use – particularly trapping of anymore the way they used to be.” muskrat and beaver – were anticipated in the Study Board report in 1975 . It is therefore At Norway House and Pimicikamak, surprising that, in some cases, there was little we heard of some of the difficulties faced follow-up monitoring of impacts and of the by trappers as a result of changes to winter major mitigation measure intended to address ice conditions . Fluctuating water levels in these impacts – the Cross Lake Weir . Impacts winter can freeze traps in place . Hanging ice on fisheries were predicted by the Study creates a barrier preventing shoreline access Board to be minor, though it was anticipated for trappers in winter . These problems, which that the project could be harmful to whitefish result in loss of equipment or difficult access, by reducing the success of spawning . Both are in addition to the many reports of reduced the experience of community members and numbers of aquatic furbearers, discussed in the results of fisheries monitoring indicate Section 7 .6, Wetlands . that the project has been especially harmful to whitefish populations . It is, therefore, “Growing up, too, I trapped muskrats in also surprising that no detailed research the bay with my brother. My grandfather has been conducted to assess the impact taught us how to trap muskrats. And of the Cross Lake Weir on whitefish or to there was always push-ups, all the way identify the possibility of modifications in along that bay, and we would have plenty operations that could reduce the effect on of traps on this side of RCMP Point. We whitefish . The commission notes that the always, as young kids, we made a bit of effect on whitefish has an impact on domestic

110 consumption, because these fish were in the 8.4 Navigation, past a particularly important part of the diet Transportation and Public of many Aboriginal people . Safety The commission is aware that many Flooding, erosion and changes to the initiatives have arisen from the NFA and water regime have had an impact on water implementation agreement processes to and ice travel in the downstream area and, to address impacts on resource use . However, a lesser extent, on Lake Winnipeg . Shoreline it seems the focus of efforts has been on erosion causes debris to enter the water, which compensation for negative effects, rather than creates a hazard for navigation . Debris on on mitigation, such as restoration of wetlands the shore – including large, tangled masses that could support furbearer populations or of dead trees – can also make access to the spawning habitat for fish . water or ice more difficult . Changes to the water regime in the downstream area have a Actions the commission is recommending variety of impacts on ice travel, resulting in to address erosion and restoration of aquatic unpredictable or uneven ice surfaces, water and wetland habitats in the area affected by flowing on top of the ice and other challenges . LWR may mitigate some of the past impacts Rapid currents and high water on the Nelson and provide for some expanded opportunity River affect both boat travel and the ability to for resource harvesting . construct winter ice roads .

Figure 8.1: Shoreline debris at Sipiwesk Lake. (Darrell Settee)

111 8.4.1 Navigation, Transportation Several other boats were damaged during the and Public Safety – Lake Winnipeg low-water period in 2003 .

Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Commission Comment: Navigation, Navigation, Transportation and Transportation and Public Safety – Public Safety – Lake Winnipeg Lake Winnipeg

Concerns about navigation, transportation As with the sections on water regime and and public safety on Lake Winnipeg relevant erosion, the commission believes that the to LWR, primarily focus on debris entering challenges to navigation, transportation and the lake as a result of erosion . Manitoba safety on Lake Winnipeg are primarily a result Hydro has concluded, based on a variety of of high precipitation in recent years, which studies, including those of the Lake Winnipeg has caused the level of Lake Winnipeg to rise . Shoreline Erosion Advisory Group and the As in some earlier sections, the commission corporation’s own analysis, that LWR has believes that the very real challenges of not increased shoreline erosion on the lake . flooded docks and dangerous floating debris Manitoba Hydro cited data to show that LWR provide another incentive for watershed has reduced the level of flooding that would management actions, such as wetland have been experienced on the lake as a result protection and upstream water storage that of high inflows . could hold back flood waters from Lake Winnipeg . Concerns about debris entering What We Heard: Navigation, as a result of the emergency drain from Lake Transportation and Public Safety – Manitoba are worthy of follow-up and any Lake Winnipeg work on a permanent drain from Lake St . Martin to Lake Winnipeg will require study to The commission heard a variety of ensure that it does not cause more debris to be concerns about debris entering Lake introduced in the lake . Winnipeg as a result of erosion . While this was often discussed in relation to fishing, with 8.4.2 Navigation, Transportation references to nets destroyed by debris, there and Public Safety – Downstream were comments about the safety concerns regarding floating debris in the water . In Manitoba Hydro’s Information: several lakeside communities, we also heard Navigation, Transportation and of docks being flooded by high lake levels . Public Safety – Downstream This was a major concern in Pine Dock and Matheson Island, for example, where several Manitoba Hydro acknowledges that fishers said they could not gain access to their changes to water flows have had a direct docks . It was also discussed by presenters in impact on navigation, transportation and Selkirk and Grand Marais and in the Hollow public safety in downstream communities . Water First Nation written submission . These impacts have occurred both in the open water season, as a result of floating debris, We also heard discussion of the last and during the winter, as a result of slush ice low-water year on Lake Winnipeg . The and hanging ice caused by changes in flow Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg under the ice . These impacts can also affect showed photos of a fishing boat that had been travel by damaging equipment, such as boats, damaged when it ran aground in low water . motors and snowmobiles . In addition to

112 making travel more difficult or dangerous on northern communities to reduce the danger the ice or water, the project has made it more of ice travel on affected waterways . Seasonal difficult to get access to the ice or water as a contract employees, typically Aboriginal result of shoreline erosion and accumulations resource users, are hired to prepare the safe of dead trees along stretches of shoreline . ice routes . These trails are mapped, tested These accumulations of debris have blocked for ice thickness, cleared of obstructions and access to some portages, gathering areas and routinely monitored (generally twice a week) shorelines . and patrolled . Safe cabins that can be used in emergencies have been built into the ice travel A number of programs, negotiated system . Ice routes may vary from year to through the NFA and the various year because of water levels, weather and the implementation agreements, are intended quality of ice . to address these challenges . The Waterways Management Program is intended to support In addition to the three components of the safe travel through three main activities: the Waterways Management Program, Manitoba Boat Patrol Program, the Debris Management Hydro has a Water Level Forecast Notice Program and the Safe Ice Travel Program . Program intended to ensure that people living near affected waterways are informed about The Boat Patrol Program is a seasonal water level and flow conditions . As a result of program (usually June to October) in which the NFA, Manitoba Hydro has been providing two-person crews gather floating debris, the five NFA First Nations with water level place hazard markers, record and map travel forecasts since the 1970s . Notices are made in routes, identify safe travel routes for resource Cree and English and are sent to a growing users and provide emergency assistance to number of recipients . Notices are posted more waterway users . Workers in the program frequently during times of rapidly changing are hired from downstream Aboriginal conditions . Since the 1990s, they have also communities as seasonal Manitoba Hydro been posted on Manitoba Hydro’s website . employees or contract workers . In 2012, 35 Manitoba Hydro employees and five contract Debris, slush ice and other effects of workers made up 19 boat patrols . the project have also caused damage to a number of boats, motors and snowmobiles The Debris Management Program, in the downstream area . Under the NFA, established in 1998, formalized Manitoba members of the five signatory First Nations Hydro’s response to concerns about debris . are eligible to make claims for loss . In the case Under the program, priorities are established of a claim, the agreement put the onus on for clearing debris along shorelines and work Manitoba Hydro to prove it did not cause the areas are established . Seasonal workers in the damage . With the exception of Pimicikamak program gather shoreline debris in piles above Okimawin, the other NFA First Nations the high-water line . Floating debris gathered have signed implementation agreements that by boat patrol workers is also added to these result in the claims process being managed piles . Debris piles, built up in the summer, by the First Nation and funded by Manitoba are typically burned in the fall, after the first Hydro . At Pimicikamak, claimants work snow, to minimize the risk of forest fire . directly with Manitoba Hydro . The principle of compensating for property loss, with the The Safe Ice Travel Program is developed onus on Manitoba Hydro to prove that it did by Manitoba Hydro in conjunction with not cause the loss, is also included in other

113 settlement agreements with communities and Regarding ice travel, we heard of several resource user groups in the downstream area . different kinds of problems . One set of problems is created when the ice forms in What We Heard: Navigation, early winter at a high level, but then the water Transportation and Public Safety – underneath the ice drops as water is released Downstream at Jenpeg to generate electricity . This can lead to air pockets underneath the ice . We heard The commission heard many detailed from one resource user at Norway House descriptions and first-hand experiences who lost a snowmobile and nearly lost his of the effects LWR has had on navigation, life when his snowmobile crashed through transportation and public safety . We heard one of these air pockets . A related problem stories of dangerous encounters with floating is hanging ice . When the water level under debris and of winter journeys rendered the ice drops over the winter, for the most extremely difficult and sometimes dangerous, part, the level of the ice drops with it . But at as a result of the condition known as slush the shore, there will still be a shelf of ice at ice . We were shown photos and videos that the higher, early-winter level . This hanging illustrated the magnitude of the challenge ice acts as a barrier to prevent access to the posed by debris along shorelines where shoreline and can be hazardous to travel on, erosion is causing thousands of trees to fall as it can collapse . into the water only to wash up on shore downstream . During an autumn visit to the Another major challenge in winter travel Jenpeg Control Structure, we saw crews from is caused by slush ice, which forms when the Debris Management Program working to water is released in winter and is able to clear debris along one stretch of the Jenpeg get above the level of the ice . Areas affected forebay shoreline . by slush ice may look like any other snow- covered lake or river, but will have a layer As described in Section 7 .3 .2, Shoreline of wet slush hidden below the surface snow . Erosion – Downstream, the Norway House Snowmobiles travelling over slush ice may get Fishermen’s Co-op spoke of the effects of bogged down in this slush . shoreline erosion on Playgreen Lake, noting in particular, the impacts dead trees floating The commission heard several personal in the river have on travel . experiences of slush ice and saw several photographs of snowmobiles stuck in slush . At The commission heard of drownings that Pimicikamak, we heard stories of individuals Pimicikamak residents believe were connected whose expected hour or two-hour snowmobile to changes in water regime caused by LWR trips turned into day-long struggles with slush and of dangerous encounters with floating and even unexpected nights in emergency debris . Collisions with debris have damaged cabins . The combination of a long day on the equipment and have led to fear of travelling trail and the wet slush brought on a danger on the water, cutting off some community of hypothermia in some of these cases . The members from traditional activities . commission also heard of snowmobile drivers striking ice ridges, damaging their machines “I go hunting up in the Nelson River and suffering injuries . and it is crazy. If you don’t hit a log, you are going to hit willows. If you don’t hit While a program exists to compensate willows, you hit something else.” people for damage to equipment (including

114 snowmobiles and outboard engines) At York Factory First Nation, we heard resulting from LWR, even when property that high water levels and strong flows are owners are compensated, they still have the affecting the community’s winter ice road . inconvenience of being unable to travel until The road is becoming harder to maintain and repairs can be carried out . One presenter a new location may be needed in the future from the Manitoba Métis Federation said he because of the faster currents on the northeast damaged a motor by striking floating debris end of Split Lake . Because of the greater while fishing on the Nelson River but his costs to maintain the road, the First Nation is repairs weren’t covered . concerned that it may not be able to keep the

Slush Ice, Hanging Ice, and the November Cutback

Slush ice is a natural phenomenon that occurs any time currents create cracks in the ice that allow water to rise to the surface. However, it becomes a much more intense and widespread problem when winter releases of water at Jenpeg flood the ice. The commission understands that one of the causes of slush ice is the operation known as the November cutback, when flows of water through Jenpeg are reduced for a time just before freeze-up. The purpose of the November cutback is to slow the flow of water through the Jenpeg forebay, which then allows ice to form a more even, smooth surface. A smooth ice surface then allows water to flow more freely under the ice in winter.

Upstream of Jenpeg, the November cutback causes ice to form at a higher level than it will be at later in the winter. Downstream of Jenpeg, the November cutback causes ice to form at a lower level than will be experienced later in the winter. During the winter, when there is greater demand for electricity and more water is released through Jenpeg, areas downstream of the control structure will experience slush ice as this additional water is released onto an already-existing ice surface. Upstream of Jenpeg, however, hanging ice and air pockets are more likely a concern as the water level decreases below the already-existing ice surface.

After the 1985 November cutback, in which a nearly two-foot drop in the Cross Lake water level over two weeks was followed by a three-foot rise by the end of December, the 1986 Cross Lake Environmental Impact Study recommended discontinuing the practice. While Manitoba Hydro continues to carry out a November cutback, typically the drop in Cross Lake levels is not more than one foot, followed by a two-foot rise during winter. It is this rise in Cross Lake levels after the November cutback period that causes slush ice.

The installation of an ice boom, just upstream from the Jenpeg Control Structure, in 2010, was intended to help create an even, smooth ice surface in the forebay. In response to questions in the hearings, Manitoba Hydro said the ice boom has allowed for the November cutback to be less abrupt, which should reduce some of the problems of slush and hanging ice. The commission heard that Manitoba Hydro employs an ice specialist during this period to monitor ice formation through daily flights in order to advise on Jenpeg operations at this time of year.

115 contract to build and maintain it, thus losing It appears that a substantial, ongoing a contract that creates some employment for commitment of resources is made through the its members . York Factory First Nation’s ferry Waterways Management Program, including service has also been affected by fluctuating boat patrols, debris management and safe water levels in the open water season . During ice travel . It is clear, however, that these will a low-water year, the ferry was unable to reach remain challenges for as a long as LWR exists . the community’s ferry landing . More recently, during a high-water year, the ferry landing In the development of models for the was under water . Presenters also said that operation of LWR, discussed in Section 10 .2, many islands in Split Lake have eroded away Operating Rules and Models, one goal should as LWR and CRD have raised water levels . In be to determine if there are ways to operate many cases, what were once islands are now Jenpeg that will reduce ecological and socio- reefs and pose a hazard to navigation . economic effects, such as slush ice, without significantly impacting electrical generation . Commission Comment: Navigation, Additional measures to control erosion may Transportation and Public Safety – also help to reduce some transportation Downstream concerns caused by floating debris . It is likely that the current high water level, resulting Through changes to the water regime, from a sustained wet period across much of LWR has made it more difficult for residents the Lake Winnipeg watershed, has caused of downstream communities to travel to their additional challenges both for reducing slush traditional resource use areas to follow their ice and debris . culture and way of life through living on the land . That this was identified as a concern early in the history of LWR is made clear by 8.5 Health Issues and the presence in the NFA of Article 5 dealing Concerns with navigation, and specifically mentioning Health concerns surrounding LWR debris . include the effects of changes to diet and

Figure 8.2: Hanging ice. (Pimicikamak)

116 lifestyle that may be connected to flooding, and debris had an effect on the community’s erosion and changes in the water regime, and water treatment plant, and when water levels the effect of increased nutrients or suspended are high on Lake Winnipeg, lake water backs solids in the water . One concern specifically up into the river where the treatment plant’s focused on the downstream area is the intake is located . At Misipawistik, we heard a potential for flooding caused by hydroelectric number of concerns about the Grand Rapids developments to lead to an increase in methyl Generating Station, including community mercury in fish . concerns about contamination from oils and fluids originating in the generating station . 8.5.1 Health Issues and Concerns – We also heard of anxiety in the community Lake Winnipeg over fears of a dam breach .

Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Commission Comment: Health Health Issues and Concerns – Lake Issues and Concerns – Lake Winnipeg Winnipeg

As with several other subjects, Manitoba The commission recognizes that many Hydro did not discuss this category of of the communities around the lake have socio-economic impacts in relation to Lake serious health-related issues, but believes Winnipeg communities, because Manitoba that there is little evidence to link these to Hydro maintains that LWR has not caused LWR . In many cases, these are systemic flooding or increased erosion on the lake . problems that must be addressed by the federal and provincial governments in co- What We Heard: Health Issues and operation with the First Nations . Concerns – Lake Winnipeg 8.5.2 Health Issues and Concerns – At several First Nations around Lake Downstream Winnipeg, we heard of health concerns related to lifestyle changes, including the switch from Manitoba Hydro’s Information: country food to store-bought food . Diabetes Health Issues and Concerns – rates were discussed, as were the health effects Downstream of no longer working outside at traditional physical activities such as fishing, hunting and Manitoba Hydro acknowledges concerns trapping . At Peguis First Nation, we heard of from the downstream communities, especially health concerns related to mould in flooded those on Cross Lake, of increased turbidity houses . Hollow Water First Nation raised a and algae . Research in Cross Lake, before similar concern in its written submission . and after LWR, indicated no increase in total suspended solids and in several other In many communities, people spoke measured water quality parameters, including about the decline in water quality on Lake coliform bacteria . Parameters that changed Winnipeg . Many presenters said that in the were increases in total organic and inorganic past, especially while fishing, it was common carbon and chloride and decreases in colour to drink water directly from Lake Winnipeg . and nitrogen . This was particularly the case for presenters from north basin communities such as Berens Concerns about potential effects of the River First Nation and Misipawistik Cree project on drinking water led to Article 6 Nation . At Berens River, we heard that silt of the NFA, which states that potable (ex: 117 drinking/cooking) water in the affected not indicate any increase in mercury after First Nations is the responsibility of the the project was completed . In Cross Lake, Government of Canada, but that Manitoba small increases in mercury in walleye and Hydro will reimburse the government for 50 pike were detected in the years after LWR per cent of any increased cost resulting from was completed, though in both cases average the project . This was related to the concern concentrations remained below the limit for that the project would result in an increase commercial sale . Mercury concentrations in suspended solids in the water that would have since declined . In both Cross Lake make water treatment more expensive . and the Outlet Lakes, mercury content in walleye and pike is lower than it is on Setting Another potential effect on health Lake, which is not connected to any hydro identified during the development of the developments . This is an indication of the project was an increase in mercury levels in natural variability related to the mercury that fish consumed by local residents . Mercury is naturally present in the underlying geology is naturally present in the environment as of a water body . The fishery on Sipiwesk Lake a result of its presence in the underlying was closed from 1970 to 1977, and again in geology, and mercury levels in aquatic life 1979 and 1985, as a result of elevated mercury vary depending on the concentration of this levels, but it is believed that this was a result of naturally occurring mercury . Hydroelectric the flooding caused by the Kelsey Generating development can result in elevated mercury Station . Current mercury levels in fish in the levels when additional land and vegetation is area are similar to pre-LWR levels . flooded . When vegetation from flooded land breaks down in the water, bacteria absorb the In response to a claim under the NFA, naturally occurring mercury and convert it to testing of hair and umbilical-cord blood methyl mercury, which is a form of mercury samples from residents of Cross Lake and that is readily absorbed in the flesh of the Norway House was conducted from 1977 to organisms that consume the bacteria . It then 1990 . It indicated the two communities had becomes concentrated higher up the food the lowest mercury levels of the six northern chain so that those organisms at the top of communities sampled (the other communities the food chain, such as walleye and pike, have were South Indian Lake, Split Lake, Nelson the highest concentrations of methyl mercury House and York Landing) . From 1977 to 1985, in their flesh . Elevated mercury levels in fish 92 per cent of the samples indicated mercury can pose a health hazard to humans, based levels in the acceptable range (20 parts per on the level of methyl mercury in the fish, the billion) and no samples in the “at risk” range amount of fish consumed, and the sensitivity (100 parts per billion or higher) . Testing of the person consuming the fish (ex: in 1989 and 1990 indicated 98 per cent of restrictions on consumption of fish are more samples in the acceptable range and again stringent for children and pregnant women) . none in the “at risk” range .

Because LWR flooded a relatively small Average mercury levels in walleye and amount of land in the Jenpeg forebay (in pike in Split Lake currently are well below comparison with CRD or the Kelsey and the standard for commercial sale, while those Kettle Generating Stations), it would be in whitefish are substantially lower . The Split expected to result in a smaller increase in Lake fishery was closed for five years prior to mercury levels in fish than would other hydro the completion of LWR (from 1971 to 1976) developments . Testing of fish in the Outlet due to high mercury levels . Levels in pike and Lakes, since LWR came into operation, does walleye remained high through the 1980s and

118 began to decline late in that decade . the community .

Manitoba Hydro acknowledges that the “They cannot do what their parents mercury program itself caused anxiety in could do, and what their parents did the downstream communities . As there was was live off the land. The land was no Cree word for “mercury,” some of the their economic base. The land was their information provided by government sources hospital. The land was their psychiatric shortly after construction of LWR used the help. The land was everything to them. Cree word for “poison ”. Anxiety surrounding But you take away a part of that land, the use of this wording could cause some you take away from their spirit. You take residents of the area to stop eating fish . away from their pride, their self-esteem.”

What We Heard: Health Issues and In several downstream communities, Concerns – Downstream including Pimicikamak and York Factory First Nation, presenters expressed concern about As in Lake Winnipeg communities, flooding of harvesting areas for traditional the commission heard many concerns Aboriginal medicines . about water quality . A representative of the Cross Lake Community Council said the Several presenters in Pimicikamak said community’s drinking water treatment plant their community needs to have a hospital, costs more to operate than it should, and not just a nursing station, because of its attributed that to sediment in the water . population and the number of health issues faced by residents . Many presenters spoke about the health impact of lifestyle changes . The commission Commission Comment: Health was told about high rates of diabetes in the Issues and Concerns – Downstream communities and heard from one presenter who said that many of the older people in his The commission acknowledges that family have had amputations as a result of the there are many health concerns faced by the disease . Growth in diabetes was attributed downstream communities . Many of these, to a number of factors, including people such as high rates of diabetes, are shared not wanting to eat fish from the Nelson by Aboriginal communities across Canada River anymore, the great distance involved where modern conveniences, fast food, high in getting to resource harvesting areas, and prices for fruits and vegetables and reduced the change away from an active lifestyle of dependence on country foods have made fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering . more people susceptible to illness . Changes in taste and texture of fish were reported by presenters at Norway House Cree To the extent that LWR may have reduced Nation, Pimicikamak and York Factory First the availability of country foods – such as its Nation . The commission heard that many effects on the populations of whitefish – it people prefer to eat fish that were caught is a contributing factor . To the extent that at off-system lakes . The change away from perceptions of contamination related to LWR, a traditional, active, self-sufficient lifestyle such as fears of mercury, discourage people was also said to be a factor in mental health from consuming country foods, that also problems, including suicide and addictions, in contributes to health effects in downstream communities . As well, to the extent that LWR

119 has encouraged people to stop pursuing created uneasiness about the safety of eating traditional active lifestyles (by creating fish and may have led to dietary changes in challenges for people travelling on the ice or communities along the Nelson River, with water), it may also have contributed to some individuals switching from consumption of health effects . fish to less healthy processed foods .

Although the commission heard members The commission saw signs in several of downstream communities express concerns communities of determined efforts to improve that changes to water quality in the Nelson health, especially for the next generation . We River have affected health, it is unclear what heard from teachers in outdoor education impact LWR has had on this . Two studies programs who take young people out to cited by Manitoba Hydro compared water learn to fish, hunt and trap . We saw the ropes quality data near Norway House before and course built in Norway House Cree Nation after construction of LWR and found no to encourage healthy, active living . We heard change to turbidity or total suspended solids . from presenters in Pimicikamak who coach Increases were recorded in total phosphorous youth hockey teams . The commission is near Norway House, but this would likely recommending actions to address erosion, be a result of the increase in phosphorous fish habitat and restoration of wetlands that entering Lake Winnipeg during this period . could support efforts by communities to The same water quality studies at Cross Lake encourage traditional activities and food also indicated no change for total suspended consumption . solids, though one indicated a possible short- term increase in turbidity . Several other studies have stated that LWR caused an 8.6 Employment, Training increase in turbidity on Cross Lake . Overall, it and Business Opportunities is not clear what the effect has been because of the relatively small amount of pre-LWR data . Flooding, erosion and changes to the water regime can affect resource use and The commission understands that tourism industries on Lake Winnipeg or in the issue of mercury and hydroelectric the downstream area and, as a result, may development is primarily a concern in reduce employment, training and business areas where there has been a large amount opportunities . Conversely, construction, of flooded land, relative to the overall size operation, monitoring and mitigation of of the reservoir . Further, the commission a hydroelectric project can create both understands that elevated mercury levels in a temporary and continuing employment, body of water are a temporary phenomenon . training and business opportunities . Making Following impoundment of a reservoir, sure that their residents have an opportunity mercury levels in fish increase initially and to benefit through employment and training gradually decline to natural levels after from hydroelectric development is an approximately 20-30 years . Accordingly, then, important concern for many communities . the flooding of the Jenpeg forebay might have caused a small increase in mercury levels in fish in the 1970s, but this effect would have decreased some time ago . The more significant effect of mercury, as a result of LWR, is likely that the awareness of mercury

120 8.6.1 Employment, Training and fishing, as described in Section 8 .3, Resource Business Opportunities – Lake Use . Hollow Water First Nation’s submission Winnipeg stated that in the past wild rice harvesting was the largest income source for many people in Manitoba Hydro’s Information: the community . Buyers would come to the Employment, Training and Business community from the United States and the Opportunities – Lake Winnipeg community had a large processing plant for the crop . However, high water and turbidity As with many of the other categories are harmful to wild rice and the community of potential impacts of the project, has lost a great deal of revenue as a result . Manitoba Hydro did not discuss impacts on employment, training and business We also heard presenters discuss the opportunities on Lake Winnipeg . Manitoba employment and business impact of high Hydro presented employment figures for the water on other industries, such as agriculture . corporation as a whole and for two current Presenters from Peguis First Nation and from construction projects that illustrated its efforts the Interlake Reserves Tribal Council said to recruit Aboriginal employees, including agriculture once played an important role in members of First Nations in the Lake their communities . The representative from Winnipeg area . the Tribal Council said his home community once had 40 farmers, raising wheat and cattle, but has only two today because of high water . What We Heard: Employment, At Peguis, there are only a few farm families Training and Business Opportunities left because of overland flooding . – Lake Winnipeg Economic impacts on the tourism The commission heard many industry were discussed in many presentations that underlined how important communities . As described in Section 7 .2, Lake Winnipeg is to the economy of Water Regime, and Section 7 .3, Shoreline Manitoba . We heard presentations from Erosion, cottage developments and property numerous fishers, including members and values in many south basin communities representatives of the Keewatinook Fishers have been affected by high water and erosion . of Lake Winnipeg . In communities, such Several presenters mentioned former hunting as Misipawistik Cree Nation and Berens or fishing lodges that no longer function . River First Nation, commercial fishing is the A former lodge at Brokenhead Ojibway most important industry . One presenter at Nation no longer exists . Netley-Libau Marsh Misipawistik said that without commercial was once a world-renowned destination for fishing there would be no employment in waterfowl hunters . the community . A presenter in Berens River expressed concern for the future of the Commission Comment: industry, stating that it will be difficult to find Employment, Training and Business a young person to buy the fishing quota and Opportunities – Lake Winnipeg take over the operation . The employment impact of commercial fishing is much greater The commission understands that some than just the number of licensed fishers, as businesses on and around Lake Winnipeg there are also many helpers in the industry . have been affected by high water levels, Presenters in several communities described erosion and debris . However, we found no increased expenses related to commercial

121 evidence to link this to LWR, given that high northern Manitoba, the corporation has water in recent decades has been a result slightly exceeded its target of 45 per cent for of high precipitation in the Lake Winnipeg the proportion of employees who identify as watershed . Aboriginal . On the Bipole III project, 1,170 out of 2,270 hires as of March 15, 2015, were 8.6.2 Employment, Training Aboriginal, while on the Keeyask project and Business Opportunities – 2,183 out of 3,897 hires were Aboriginal . One Downstream hire is not the same as one employee . One individual hired for one period of temporary Manitoba Hydro’s Information: work, and again for a second period of Employment, Training and Business temporary work, would count as two Opportunities – Downstream hires . Of all the First Nations in Manitoba, Pimicikamak has the largest number of Employment on LWR peaked during members with “active employment status” construction in 1974 when the project with Manitoba Hydro as of April, 2015 . employed 1,385 people, including 360 northern residents . Since then, LWR has What We Heard: Employment, produced employment in the operation of the Training and Business Opportunities Jenpeg Control Structure, temporary work – Downstream on mitigation projects such as the building of the Cross Lake Weir, and seasonal work, such Several presenters referred to high as the jobs in the Waterways Management unemployment in the downstream Program (boat patrol, debris management, communities as a sign that aspects of the safe ice travel) . The corporation has policies NFA have not been fulfilled . The agreement to enhance Aboriginal representation in calls for employment “to the maximum its workforce, including the Manitoba possible extent” of residents in “all works and Hydro Pre-Placement Training Initiative, operations related to the project” and creates which provides training to help Aboriginal an Employment Task Force to maximize candidates enter into the corporation’s opportunities at each of the signatory electrical, mechanical, station operator and communities . One presenter at Pimicikamak power line training programs . advocated for more focus on environmental study and monitoring in the community’s Manitoba Hydro presented figures on schools, leading to more employment of Aboriginal employment in the corporation community members in environmental as a whole, in northern Manitoba, and on the mitigation and monitoring . construction of its Bipole III Transmission Project and Keeyask Generation Project . Several presenters said employment In the corporation as a whole, 17 per cent opportunities in hydroelectric projects of employees self-identify as Aboriginal are limited to temporary work during (1,120 out of 6,247), which Manitoba Hydro construction and a very small number of representatives said is a higher proportion operational jobs afterwards . One presenter than the total proportion of Aboriginal people at Norway House pointed out that, after in Manitoba’s population . As well, more than large numbers of people worked on the 25 per cent of the approximately 250 summer construction of Jenpeg, it only takes 20 people students hired each year are Aboriginal . In to operate it .

122 The commission also heard about Commission Comment: efforts by the neighbouring communities to Employment, Training and Business create their own employment not related to Opportunities – Downstream Manitoba Hydro, including the newly-opened Salisbury House restaurant at Norway House The commission has heard the criticism Cree Nation . Local job creation is important, a that Aboriginal employment in many representative of Norway House Cree Nation resource projects, including hydroelectric said, because First Nations people are tied development, tends to focus on temporary to their home community, unlike workers in or lower-paid employment . However, the Alberta’s oilpatch, who leave homes thousands commission also knows of Aboriginal people of kilometres behind to work . learning skilled trades through Manitoba Hydro programs or studying fields such One presenter from the Manitoba Métis as engineering through the University of Federation said he has worked on recent Manitoba’s Engineering Access Program, Manitoba Hydro projects where, during site to which Manitoba Hydro is a donor . We clearing and preparation, there were a large encourage all parties to continue in efforts number of Aboriginal workers . However, not only to create employment but to enhance once the contractors begin working on the educational and training opportunities for actual construction, most of the workers are Aboriginal people in northern Manitoba . flown in from outside of the region or outside The commission believes that additional of Manitoba . At York Factory First Nation, monitoring and follow-up research that we we heard that only one or two members of are recommending, as well as monitoring and the community have continuing work with research elsewhere in the hydroelectric system Manitoba Hydro . – have the potential to create employment, training and business opportunities in the At several downstream communities, downstream communities . we heard a reference to the intent of the NFA to “eradicate mass poverty ”. Presenters said hydro development has failed to create economic opportunities that would eradicate mass poverty . The phrase in question is used in Schedule E of the NFA regarding creation of community development plans: “The Community Development Plan shall serve as a policy co-ordinating instrument, setting forth the best-case community development scenario and joint action program for the eradication of mass poverty and mass unemployment and the improvement of the physical, social and economic conditions and transportation ”.

123 124 Chapter Nine Public Policy Issues

9.1 Overview satisfied that the licence holder has met the terms and conditions of the interim licence, a TThe unique nature of this public review final licence is granted . A final licence is not of Manitoba Hydro’s application for a final permanent, but can be granted for a period licence for Lake Winnipeg Regulation raised of up to 50 years . When that period comes to a large number of public policy questions . an end, the licensee may apply for a renewal Because LWR is the first Manitoba Hydro license, also for a maximum of 50 years project to face hearings for a final licence, this process raised questions relevant to the The act and its regulations contain entire Manitoba Hydro system . The length of provisions to allow for the management and time that has passed between the issuance of oversight of water power projects, including the interim LWR licence and these hearings planning and charging water rental fees . – and the new developments in public It also contains provisions allowing the policy regarding environmental matters government to investigate water power in the intervening years – prompted many operations . The licence holder is required to participating groups to look at the legislative prepare records to which the minister’s staff and public policy background to hydroelectric can have free access to verify the amount of project licensing . This chapter will describe water stored, diverted, used or capable of the legislation under which LWR is currently being used; the amount of power generated licensed, as well as a number of other pieces or capable of being generated; the condition of legislation relevant to environmental of the works; and that the licence conditions protection and water management . have been followed . The act does not contain a requirement for an environmental assessment or public consultation . 9.2 The Water Power Act In Manitoba, all projects that use water to produce power – including LWR – are 9.3 Other Legislation licensed under The Water Power Act . The Relevant to Water and act initially authorizes a new development Environment under an interim licence, which allows the proponent to build the project and, after 9.3.1 The Manitoba Hydro Act suitable period of operation, confirm that the interim licence conditions are suitable The Manitoba Hydro Act sets out and apply for a final licence . If the minister is Manitoba Hydro as a Crown corporation

125 and establishes the board and its powers 9.3.3 The Water Resources and operations . The purpose of the act is to Administration Act provide for a supply of power adequate to the needs of the province and to promote The purpose of The Water Resources economy and efficiency in the development, Administration Act is to allow for the generation, transmission, distribution, supply management of the construction and operation and use of power . Notable powers granted of water control works, particularly those under to Manitoba Hydro, under the act, include The Water Power Act, The Water Rights Act, The the power to enter on any property, without Dyking Act, The Groundwater and Water Well permission, for Hydro purposes and the Act, and The Water Supply Commissions Act . power to expropriate . Manitoba Hydro must The Water Resources Administration Act lists a pay compensation for damages occurred number of matters the minister must consider through access to property . Under the act, the in approving operating guidelines for water Lieutenant Governor in Council (Cabinet) control works, including: can prescribe how power is to be generated, transmitted or distributed and can control any • the purpose of the water control lake, river, or other water body in Manitoba . works; Under the act, Manitoba Hydro is allowed to enter into agreements with Canada, any • the effect operation has on other water province or the United States and may supply control works; power to other provinces or states . • competing needs of people affected by the water control works; 9.3.2 The Water Rights Act • an approved watershed management The Water Rights Act addresses plan, as defined by The Water withdrawals and diversions of water, Protection Act; primarily for purposes other than generation of electricity . It allows for permits to be • flood control; issued for preliminary work, followed by a final application . The focus of the act is • water storage and supply needs; on licensing the use of water for domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial and • drainage; irrigation purposes . The act requires the minister to consider scientific and • means of minimizing artificial other information relating to the levels of flooding; groundwater and surface water bodies and the • protection and maintenance of fish in-stream flows that are necessary to protect and wildlife habitat and aquatic and maintain aquatic ecosystems . It allows ecosystems; for the minister to suspend or restrict the right to withdraw or divert water if it affects • recreation uses; aquatic ecosystem health . As with many other pieces of environmental legislation, the act • effects of different climatological explicitly requires a public announcement and and hydrological conditions in the the opportunity for the public to comment on watershed; and licence applications . • uncertainty in forecasting .

126 The minister may establish advisory importance of planning on a watershed basis committees for water control works and, and empowers the minister to designate except in cases of emergency, there must be watershed planning authorities that must hold an opportunity for public consultation . The public meetings in preparing watershed plans . act contains provisions for claims regarding The act also describes issues that must be artificial flooding and for prohibitions on considered in preparation of a watershed plan . building in reservoir areas and designated The act institutes water quality standards as flood areas . law and requires that activities licensed under The Environment Act adhere to them . Various 9.3.4 The Environment Act other water matters are included in the act, including setting out conditions of Winnipeg’s Manitoba’s Environment Act, enacted in North End Pollution Control Centre upgrade, 1988, sets out three classes of developments prohibiting phosphorus in cleaning products, and requirements for public consultation allowing for regulations on invasive species and assessment of environmental impacts . and facilitating Water Quality Management Under The Environment Act, a proponent Zones . may be required to submit an environmental assessment for a Class 1, 2 or 3 development, The act also establishes the Water Council, but the current practice is to require an to advise the minister on matters relating to environmental assessment report for a water, monitor watershed plans, review water Class 3 development . The act requires quality regulations, co-ordinate advisory that there be an opportunity for public boards and similar bodies, and assist in comment on licence applications . The reporting sustainability indicators related to Environment Act also established the Clean water . It also establishes a Stewardship Fund Environment Commission to provide advice to support research and activities in support and recommendations to the minister and of water and watershed management . develop and maintain public participation in environmental matters . What We Heard: Public Policy

9.3.5 The Water Protection Act The commission heard several critiques of the public policy and legislative environment The purpose of The Water Protection surrounding LWR . Several participating Act, a more recent piece of legislation, is to groups expressed concern that the project provide for the protection and stewardship was being relicensed under The Water Power of Manitoba’s water resources and aquatic Act and that no environmental assessment ecosystems . This act recognizes that social was required in the relicensing . The lack and economic well-being is dependent on a of provision within the act for public sufficient supply of high-quality water; the consultation, the lack of emphasis on the importance of comprehensive watershed environment, and lack of a broad, watershed- planning; the interdependence of water, land scale vision were frequently expressed and ecosystems; the need to protect water concerns . Participant groups proposed new and ecosystems; the importance of scientific approaches for licensing and described information in decision making; the need legislation from other jurisdictions that to protect riparian areas and wetlands; and they believe better addresses environmental the benefit of providing financial incentives . concerns and diverse social interests . Several The Water Protection Act acknowledges the groups proposed ideas for greater oversight of

127 LWR and of projects affecting Lake Winnipeg • developing a holistic and inclusive and other waters, including proposals for approach to regulation; multi-party task forces or governance boards . • enabling early, meaningful Consumers’ Association of Canada participation by communities with an interest; The Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) argued that the concerns raised during • carefully considering how value is the hearings illustrate the need for a new measured (ex: consideration of more approach for licensing and monitoring of than just economic value); LWR . The CAC cited numerous perceptions revealed by presenters in hearings to argue • addressing gaps in knowledge; that opportunities to rehabilitate and protect • presenting a variety of alternatives in the environment have been missed, that the water resource management; current system is biased or opaque, that the current legislation is inadequate to address all • taking an open, adaptive approach to the environmental issues of Lake Winnipeg risks; and and the Nelson and Churchill Rivers, and that Manitoba Hydro’s tools for analyzing water • promoting diligence . resources are unproven . The CAC presented information on a variety of regulatory and Examples of legislation and public policy management approaches being undertaken in cited by the CAC included British Columbia’s other jurisdictions that, it was argued, provide Water Sustainability Act, the Lake Ontario- for greater incorporation of environmental St . Lawrence River Plan 2014 developed by values, broader public input, and more open the International Joint Commission and the decision-making processes regarding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in management of water resources . the United States . The CAC detailed aspects of these and other pieces of legislation that The CAC presented an argument for a require consideration of environmental complete review of The Water Power Act to needs in water management decisions, ensure that reviews of projects such as LWR incorporation of stakeholder and community are more in tune with modern values and views, and regular, science-based and even scientific understanding . Excluding older peer-reviewed monitoring . projects, such as LWR, from review under The Environment Act creates a “grandfather clause” The CAC recommended that LWR that deprives people affected by these projects be regulated under The Environment Act, from the full protection of current laws and with Manitoba Hydro required to file an regulations . Environmental Impact Statement within three to five years . Other recommendations The CAC’s presentation cited concerns included in the submission were: determining raised in the hearings, as well as legislative within one year whether or not Manitoba and regulatory developments elsewhere, to Hydro has complied with the terms of its support eight key themes: interim licence for LWR; setting expectations for the future licensing process; clarifying • acknowledging that alterations to flow roles and responsibilities for water and reductions in the range of lake management in Manitoba; instructing levels are environmental risk factors;

128 Manitoba Hydro to develop a transparent assessment has been carried out on and accessible model for water flows that it Lake Winnipeg since 1970 . can share with experts and communities; and clarifying the role of Aboriginal consultation • Traditional knowledge has not been regarding LWR . included in making decisions about regulation, governance, management, As part of its proposal for reform of water monitoring and protection of Lake governance, the CAC recommended that the Winnipeg . minister establish a multi-party task force on water governance . • Process and results of Aboriginal consultations regarding LWR aren’t yet Manitoba Wildlands known .

Manitoba Wildlands argued that the • Government staff, consultants and Manitoba government and Manitoba Hydro scientists may not have sufficient need to move to a “whole-system, whole- information to support public policy basin, whole-lake” approach to monitoring, regarding Lake Winnipeg . protecting, managing and regulating Lake Winnipeg . Manitoba Wildlands briefly • Existing boards, committees and described the development of public policy reports do not assist in developing regarding Lake Winnipeg, dating back to “whole-lake” or “whole-system” policy . the publication of a study on water power in • There are many existing laws and the prairie provinces in 1916 and continuing regulations affecting Lake Winnipeg through the development of LWR and CRD . and LWR . Public policy, programs, studies and reports on Lake Winnipeg were described as “a hodge • Lake communities obtain information podge of single-issue, single-location, single- and participate in lake governance species, or single-environmental-element through the Manitoba government statements ”. website .

The organization concluded that Lake • It’s unclear how various levels of Winnipeg requires a comprehensive system government work together with for governance, regulation, management, respect to Lake Winnipeg . monitoring and protection . As part of this system, Manitoba Wildlands advocated that • Reporting channels, access to ATK needs to be included . information and funding regarding Lake Winnipeg are unclear . Specific concerns about policy and governance listed in Manitoba Wildlands’ • Many kinds of licences are involved in submission were: LWR .

• Manitobans know little about Lake • Manitoba Hydro does not seem to Winnipeg’s use as a reservoir for understand what it takes to maintain a hydroelectric generation . “social licence” to continue to operate LWR . • Not enough scientific monitoring and

129 Pimicikamak Okimawin cited the objectives of the act, noting that one objective is “To ensure that the potential for Representatives of Pimicikamak negative impacts of water power development Okimawin raised a number of concerns projects are minimized ”. Given that the about the process of the licence review for full extent of damage caused by LWR was LWR . Interpretations of The Water Power not known when the interim licence was Act, considerations of the scope of the project issued, it was argued that damage caused and the review, the project’s history and the by LWR should now be addressed in full in lack of an assessment of some project effects the final licence . Pimicikamak also argued were among the process issues raised . The that wording in the interim licence allows First Nation’s representatives stressed that the for additional conditions to be imposed . A project was developed without First Nations representative quoted a passage from The input and against their wishes . They noted Water Power Act Regulations, reproduced in that they cannot change the fact that the Clause 6 of the interim licence, as follows: project was developed without their input, but stressed that the licence for the project could “Every licence shall be deemed to have be changed to provide for their input . been executed on the express condition that the licensee shall: From Pimicikamak’s perspective, the current licensing process is inadequate “(a) divert, use, or store the water because it fails to consider the interconnected authorized to be diverted, used or stored by nature of the entire Manitoba Hydro system . him in such a manner as not to interfere, In the 1992 report of the Federal Ecological in the opinion of the minister, with the Monitoring Program, LWR and CRD were maximum advantageous development referred to as a single unit . While the interim of the power and other resources of the licence for CRD is undergoing a review, river or stream upon which the works Pimicikamak’s representatives argued that are located; [emphasis in Pimicikamak both CRD and the Kelsey Generating Station submission] should be the subject of a public hearing process . “(b) conform to and comply with any orders in respect of the control or regulation Pimicikamak’s representatives raised of the flow of the waters of such river or concerns about a lack of monitoring and stream as may be made from time to time research on the effects of LWR and the lack by the minister or any person authorized of research-based rationales for the original by the minister in that behalf.” [emphasis in licensing conditions . The licence, it was Pimicikamak submission] argued, is “very bare-bones” in that it sets operating rules regarding minimum flow, The submission argued that “and other maximum fluctuations and the point at resources” can refer to fish and wildlife, which which Jenpeg must be operated at maximum means that the ecological considerations are outflow . It does not, however, state objectives a factor in licences issued under The Water in terms of ecosystem health . Power Act . If the interim licence operating parameters harm these other resources, Pimicikamak, like the CAC, argued that the minister then has the authority, as the the minister has the authority under The underlined portion of (b) above shows, Water Power Act to impose additional licence to consider additional conditions in an conditions . Pimicikamak’s representatives attempt to balance water power uses with

130 environmental, social and cultural needs . Province of Manitoba . Cautioning that any “simple legislative fixes” might address specific Pimicikamak recommended that concerns over LWR but not be suitable for Manitoba Hydro’s licence for LWR require other water-related matters, Manitoba Hydro establishment of a water governance board argued that adequate authority exists within for the Lake Winnipeg basin, which would existing federal and provincial legislation both look at how to improve conditions, to address the concerns raised in the LWR such as excess nutrient run-off, and focus on hearings . operations of LWR . Regarding large-basin planning, Hydro Manitoba Hydro stated that it shares the belief in the need to think of the “big picture,” but much of this Manitoba Hydro, in its closing argument lies outside the mandate of the corporation during the hearings, noted that there was and the expertise of its staff . The corporation no precedent, under The Water Power urged the province to consider, in applying Act, for hearings such as those held for legislation to large-basin planning, that: LWR . The licence for LWR was the first licence review ever held under the act . The • Water management planning in corporation stated that it believes Manitobans’ Manitoba must include all major water expectations have changed and that, in order management projects in the province, for Manitoba Hydro to have a social licence not just Manitoba Hydro’s projects . for its project, it is willing to participate in development of a modern process for the • Hydro electricity is the foundation of review of LWR prior to the application for its Manitoba’s clean energy strategy . renewal licence . Such a new process may have greater room for public consultation and a • Affected interests must be involved greater attempt to balance different needs and early and throughout the process . values . The corporation stated that it believes • Ecosystem health is one of many such a process should also be developed for components to be considered . licence renewals for CRD, the Kelsey, Kettle, Long Spruce and Limestone generating • Proper scoping and cost stations on the Nelson River, Grand Rapids considerations are essential in generating station on the Saskatchewan directing what kinds of studies are River, and the six Winnipeg River generating needed . stations . The corporation stated that it would prefer a long lead time for any new process in • Other agreements between Manitoba order to prepare the appropriate information, Hydro and various First Nations are as it would hope to apply for a renewal five based on the existing operating rules years before the end of a licence period . for LWR .

Regarding governance issues, Manitoba Addressing proposals made at the Hydro noted that The Water Power Act hearings to create a multi-party decision- regulations were updated as recently as making board to oversee the Lake Winnipeg 2010 and The Environment Act is currently basin and LWR, Hydro argued that: undergoing two reviews: one by the Law Reform Commission and another by the • Removing operational control from

131 Manitoba Hydro could jeopardize announcement and the opportunity for the the security of Manitoba’s electricity public to comment . The Water Protection supply and have an economic impact Act acknowledges the importance of on electricity customers . planning on a watershed basis and contains a requirement for public meetings, as watershed • Placing decision-making authority in planning is inherently a public process . The the hands of a board would also make Environment Act contains a requirement to the board liable for compensation, provide an opportunity for public comment mitigation and remediation . and a provision so that the minister may call for public hearings . The Environment Commission Comment: Public Policy Act regulations call for an environmental assessment for major projects (Class 3 A comparison of the provisions of The developments) . In Towards Sustainable Water Power Act with other, more recent, Drainage, A Proposed Regulatory Approach, legislation affecting water resources confirms one of the strategies under “Manitoba’s that The Water Power Act contains little Green Plan” it was noted that, when projects consideration of environmental protection . require duplicate authorizations under Rather, the act is focused on ensuring that The Water Rights Act and The Environment hydroelectric resources are technically Act, consideration has been given for the efficient and reliable . Aside from a provision harmonization of authorization under The for regulations regarding construction of fish Environment Act . Similar consideration passages, the act is silent on the environment . should be given in licensing and relicensing It does not require any form of public hydroelectric generation projects . Most consultation in the development of a project Environment Act licences are also reviewed or its operation . when an alteration is requested, when a problem arises, and on an ongoing basis and Contrasting this older legislation with as new technologies and information become more modern legislation, we see significant available . There is no set time for renewal differences . Interim licences are not issued and new licensing conditions evolve with the under more recent legislation, such as The situation . Environment Act, and there are no specific time constraints on the length of time a Most of Manitoba Hydro’s developments licence is valid . Public consultation is a in northern Manitoba predate The requirement in the planning and, often, in Environment Act and most of these other, the operational stages . Under The Water more recent, pieces of legislation . They Resources Administration Act, for example, were planned and built at a time when the minister is required to consider fish the law did not require the same degree of and wildlife and aquatic habitat when public consultation and consideration of approving operating guidelines for a water environmental matters as is required today . control structure . The act also includes a The first Manitoba Hydro developments provision for public consultation on operating to have environmental impact assessments rules . The Water Rights Act requires the (EIA) were the Wuskwatim Generation and minister to consider the health of aquatic Transmission Projects, the subject of hearings ecosystems and allows for suspending or by the Clean Environment Commission in restricting water licences in order to protect 2004, followed by the Bipole III Transmission the environment . It also requires a public Project in 2013 and Keeyask Generation

132 Project in 2014 . These projects all were made Recommendations better as a result of the extensive process of research and consultation that went into The Commission recommends that: preparing an EIA and submitting it to public 9.1 The Government of Manitoba evaluate scrutiny . the current licensing regime for hydro projects and ensure that legislation Although The Water Power Act does and regulation is consistent with not require an EIA in a relicensing process, modern legislative, consultation and prior to the hearings for the final licence environmental standards. for LWR, Manitoba Hydro prepared a binder of information about the project . 9.2 The Government of Manitoba require This information was made available to relicensing of hydro projects to be done participants and others interested in the LWR under The Environment Act, in addition to and its potential effects . The Manitoba Hydro or in lieu of any other water management document contained a short summary of legislation. LWR, detailed hydrological records for water 9.3 The Government of Manitoba undertake levels on Lake Winnipeg and downstream, a review of any licence issued for hydro summaries of research and monitoring that projects, on specified anniversary dates, has occurred before and after LWR and a to assess the level of compliance and variety of other information . However, it adjust licensing conditions as required. was not an EIA report . It lacked the baseline information that an EIA on a new project 9.4 The Government of Manitoba ensure that would have . It was not created through incident reporting, compliance reporting a lengthy and comprehensive period of and annual reporting schedules are consultation . Most significantly, it did not incorporated into any licence and that contain new research . Manitoba Hydro such reports be made available in a timely assembled information from the many manner. monitoring and research programs over the last four decades, but did not conduct new studies to fill in gaps . As we saw in discussions of the Cross Lake Weir, the results of which were never comprehensively studied, some of these gaps were significant . One of the challenges in assessing the information in this document is that many of these research and monitoring programs have been driven by specific claims under the Northern Flood Agreement . A complaint-driven research and monitoring program is unlikely to be thorough and comprehensive . In the next chapter of this report, the commission will offer advice for improving the process for future relicensing decisions of Manitoba Hydro projects .

133 134 Chapter Ten Going Forward

10.1 Overview are minimal . There are few rules to direct Manitoba Hydro on when to release or hold Lake Winnipeg Regulation was the first back water, and these rules are, to a large Manitoba Hydro project to come up for a final extent, not supported by a strong scientific licence under The Water Power Act that was rationale . The Jenpeg maximum daily rate- subject to public review . The ideas and issues of-change licence condition appears to have raised in these hearings provide insights been arbitrarily selected, given the lack of that can guide future actions . Participating documentation to support it . The minimum- groups and organizations – and Manitoba flow condition appears to have been based Hydro – learned lessons from this process on a limited historical record but without that can be applied in the relatively near supporting evidence . Neither condition future when LWR comes up for a licence appears to relate to environmental studies renewal . These lessons will also be of use in conducted by the Study Board, as they were preparing for the relicensing applications of adopted before the studies were completed . other Manitoba Hydro facilities . Given that LWR, and other Manitoba Hydro facilities, Throughout the hearings, the commission are long-term fixtures in the environment, heard comments and recommendations it is important to consider their effects and from various participants that Manitoba operation in light of forecast changes to the should examine water management planning environment resulting from global climate practices from other jurisdictions to assess change . It is also important, given changes in their utility for addressing, in a participatory the social and legal environment and public planning environment, a broader array of expectations since LWR was built, to revisit modern-day operating rules and management how this project and others are operated, how objectives than has been addressed to date . communities are involved in these projects Many of these other jurisdictions have a and how communication is carried out greater number and diversity of operating regarding these major developments . rules in place than currently exist for LWR . In many of these jurisdictions, operating rules and management objectives are 10.2 Operating Rules and collaboratively developed through public Models planning processes that are transparent and provided with adequate resources to ensure As was discussed in Section 3 .4, effective involvement of multiple stakeholders Operation of LWR, the operating conditions and scientific peer review . attached to Manitoba Hydro’s licence for LWR

135 Operating rules for waterway systems addition to minimum flows and other low- or individual control structures and/or flow protocols, environmental flow regimes generating stations may stipulate minimum, may also prescribe pulsed, triggered or maximum and/or ecological flows at the periodic high-flow releases for a variety of facility or at locations downstream . Rules may purposes, including fish spawning, fisheries also specify releases conditioned on the need protection, periodic draining or flooding to control downstream flooding, re-distribute of wetlands . The commission notes that it storage within the system, fill downstream is not possible for LWR to be operated in a reservoirs or contribute to meeting system way that completely resembles natural flows, power demands . Minimum flows are simply a given that Manitoba’s electric system is almost recommended minimum volume of water that completely based on hydroelectricity and is required to flow through or past a facility requires winter-time flow to generate power . continuously and/or at certain times . The However, operational models of flow regimes intention of the minimum flow is normally can assess ways of meeting both power to protect a particular ecological function generation and environmental flow needs to or functions in the downstream aquatic the greatest extent possible . environment, such as a fish spawning habitat and/or the maintenance of riverine wetland The difference between minimum and habitat for aquatic life . Not having a sufficient maximum levels is often described as the minimum flow can render critical habitat operating range and can be intended to functions useless . For example, it is highly provide an acceptable range to water body possible that the whitefish decline in Cross users and stakeholders . In some cases, Lake was caused by the lack of sufficient water operating ranges or limits can be described in flow from Jenpeg during the spawning period . “normal” or “out of normal” conditions, where Minimum flows normally vary by season or flood or drought events are treated as “out of month and, to a large extent, are designed to normal ”. This allows for a degree of regulatory resemble the flows on a natural (ex: unaltered) flexibility to deal with more extreme events . river system . Maximum flows are often More importantly, operational models stipulated because of the capacity constraints permit investigation of adaptive operational at a specific facility . responses to progressively worsening flood or drought conditions . A wide assortment of approaches, models and techniques are available to assist in Rates of flow change are often set out the design of ecological minimum flows . in licence terms and conditions . Two major The expert retained by the commission drivers to put limits on the rates of change testified that operating rules can be tested in are public safety and fisheries . With respect simulation models to identify flow regimes to safety, a gradual transition to higher or designed to enhance quantity, timing and lower flows gives people on the water or at quality of flows affecting aquatic systems . In the shoreline the opportunity to move or these types of models, rules can be formulated adjust their activities to stay safe . Rates of flow that prescribe releases from system storage change have also been established to protect in proportion to system inflows and available fisheries and more specifically habitat use, water in storage, thereby mimicking natural where a sudden shift in water flows may result wet and dry periods . This can be offered as in undesirable outcomes, such as stranding an alternative to fixed minimum flows that fish . may not be suitable under all conditions . In

136 The commission believes LWR requires water levels on Lake Winnipeg are normally new, formalized operating rules . At this accompanied by maximum and long running point, the commission is not in a position releases from Jenpeg . Restrictions on lake to recommend any specific new licensing level and rate of drawdown or filling can conditions or operating rules . It would be significantly affect availability of water and preferable, as part of a future environmental storage throughout the system . Changes to assessment, for key stakeholders to assess the existing licence conditions, imposition the existing environment and look for of new LWR operating rules or addition of opportunities for mitigation or operational new projects to the Manitoba Hydro system improvements by examining alternative will likely result in changes to flow regimes management strategies using the above- throughout the system, the determination of described rule-based system operational model . which will require application of a rule-based operational model . Carrying out a full environmental assessment of LWR in advance of relicensing The commission is of the opinion would provide an opportunity to gather that, in the future, more prescriptive and the information needed to assess operating complex operating rules will be needed to rules for the project . An environmental address a growing variety of modern-day assessment for LWR is an ideal planning tool social preferences, demands on water and to address flows, levels and rates of change, storage, and environmental requirements . because it will provide the mechanism to Implementation of these rules in day-to-day identify the current state of the environment system operation will also be more complex under existing licence conditions . The than historical operations have been . They environmental assessment can identify areas may also require real-time water control of study that would need to be addressed and decision support tools developed from the then identify desired objectives or targets operational planning models used to derive to meet environmental and socio-economic them . objectives . All proposed operating terms would need to be scrutinized with respect The commission’s expert put forth a to their environmental, economic and social compelling case that a new generation of impacts . Some suggested operating rules may decision-support tools, including rule-based be beneficial for a particular environmental operational models, would be needed to better component, but may result in negative socio- understand and assess the implications and economic impacts (such as reducing the trade-offs of (1) new fixed and conditional amount of electricity that can be produced) operating rules, such as environmental flow or may result in negative impacts on other regimes or drought operation protocols; components . In essence, different alternatives (2) effects of seasonally or conditionally should be developed and then examined with varying operating levels; and (3) anticipatory/ respect to their benefits, impacts and trade- adaptive flood management and drought offs . Integrated river basin planning processes response strategies . The tools should be typically involve stakeholders in collaborative capable of examining hypothetical historical development of performance measures for and climate-adjusted hydrologic conditions, comparison of operational alternatives . in addition to the partial historical analysis presented in evidence at the hearings . The During protracted wet periods of the spreadsheet models developed and applied by kind recently experienced in Manitoba, high Manitoba Hydro, while minimally supportive

137 of its licence application, are not capable of Recommendation multipurpose operational analysis of the kind needed to address problems and issues The Commission recommends that: likely to arise in future integrated river basin 10.1 Manitoba Hydro develop and make planning, relicensing or environmental available for public review operational impact assessment efforts . model(s) for alternative approaches to system management. The models should While Manitoba Hydro was of the opinion allow for evaluation of the effects of these that the commission’s expert, Dr . McMahon, strategies on objectives, including, but was not fully aware of all the models and tools not limited to, ecological health, social it utilizes, the corporation did acknowledge impacts and economic impacts on both Dr . McMahon’s assertion that the HERMES Manitoba Hydro and local communities. and SPLASH models (currently used by Manitoba Hydro) were not appropriate for consideration of operational alternatives, even 10.3 Climate Change limited to the relatively simple comparison of impacts of increasing or decreasing the Lake Manitoba Hydro’s Information: Winnipeg operating range by a foot . Climate Change

The commission believes that models Manitoba Hydro calculated estimates and data employed in the future should be for future climate change within the Lake accessible to the public and non-proprietary, Winnipeg watershed by averaging 147 global although the commission acknowledges that climate model simulations . The average of there will be information about prices and all the predictions is for an increase in mean contracts that Manitoba Hydro needs to keep annual temperature in the watershed of 2 .5 confidential . Stakeholders are more likely to C by the 2050s and 3 .6 C by the 2080s . The understand, appreciate and build consensus average of these models also predicts an on management strategies formulated increase in runoff for all the basins within using transparent processes, models and the Lake Winnipeg watershed, with the data . A collaborative environment, in largest increase occurring in the Winnipeg which stakeholders are able to understand River basin, and only modest increases in the Manitoba Hydro’s operational needs as well Saskatchewan and Assiniboine basins . as the environmental implications of LWR operations, may be most effective in ensuring What We Heard: Climate Change that environmental, social and economic needs are addressed . Software adopted for An expert witness for Manitoba Wildlands river basin planning and analysis of future presented information to indicate that the LWR operating regimes should allow for global climate is reaching a point of abrupt assessment of Manitoba-wide implications of climate change that will make extremes of alternative operational strategies on social, heat, cold, precipitation and drought more economic and environmental objectives . pronounced . This is particularly the case It should be applicable under constant and closer to the Arctic, where enough sea ice climate-adjusted hydrologic conditions and and snow cover has melted to significantly should be capable of being used in a planning decrease the albedo effect (albedo is a environment that is accessible to stakeholders . measurement of the reflectivity of the earth’s surface; snow and ice have a high albedo effect because they are able to reflect the

138 sun’s rays, preventing warming) . With the commission is also not re-assured that the decreased albedo effect, warming accelerates . full suite of possibilities for climate change Warming in the Arctic releases methane within the Nelson River-Lake Winnipeg from permafrost, which, as a greenhouse gas, watershed has been thoroughly explored . The further accelerates climate change . Warming global models need to be brought down to of the polar regions in turn has decreased the regional level to consider such things as the difference in temperatures between the a wetter Red River valley, with more extreme equator and the polar regions, which affects events, and the effect of warmer and shorter global atmospheric and ocean currents . One winters on ice cover, especially along the result of this is an Arctic jet stream that may Nelson River . This may affect how LWR is extend much farther south than normal in operated in the future . Erratic weather and some places or retreat much farther north . warmer temperatures will likely increase Another result may be extreme weather winter travel woes for residents and resource events, such as the torrential downpour that users along the river . caused a major flood in southern Alberta in June 2013, and droughts, such as the extreme A model of the full Manitoba Hydro drought currently affecting California . That system may help to explore possible scenarios “wavy” jet stream may account for unusual and needed adjustments within the system as phenomena, such as unusually warm weather different weather patterns affect different parts in Canada’s northern territories, while of the contributing watersheds . As well, such a locations in the U .S . are struck with unusually model of the hydroelectric system and climate cold temperatures . change effects may help in communicating the far-reaching effects of local decisions As a result of climate change, models for in the Lake Winnipeg watershed . Planning Lake Winnipeg’s future climate and hydrology for climate change needs to consider the are less reliable . Planning based on a one-in- possibility that increased precipitation, a-hundred or one-in-a-thousand year events combined with the effect of isostatic rebound, becomes less certain, as such events may may mean that, in the future, it may become happen much more frequently under a more necessary to operate LWR at maximum extreme climate . With a warmer climate, discharge nearly continuously to remain at evaporation in Lake Winnipeg will increase or below the current 715 .0 feet asl maximum during hot, dry years . As well, with higher operating level . Therefore, long-term planning water temperatures, there will be greater risk on Lake Winnipeg may need to consider how of blue-green algae blooms . The melting of climate change will affect lake levels and the glaciers in the Alberta Rockies may lead to operating range in the future . decreasing flows in the Saskatchewan River system . The recent period of heavy precipitation affects all waterways, not just Lake Winnipeg . Commission Comment: Climate The potential for even greater precipitation Change as a result of climate change means that all Manitobans must prepare for the possibility The commission was not reassured, from of higher water levels and greater flooding . Manitoba Hydro’s responses, that there is All governments, including the provincial a comprehensive drought plan that takes government, municipalities and First Nations, into account the current climate change need to conduct assessments of future flood predictions and environmental effects . The and drought risks and make contingency,

139 adaptation and mitigation plans to deal with next licensing period . Planning an these risks . EIA, getting guidance from external bodies, consulting with communities and stakeholders, and conducting Recommendations research over multiple seasons takes The Commission recommends that: considerable amounts of time, so work needs to begin soon . 10.2 The Government of Manitoba develop a climate change risk and adaptation 2) The Study Board explicitly eliminated planning framework for individuals some water bodies from its study, such and communities in the Lake Winnipeg as Sipiwesk Lake, on the grounds that watershed it had already been affected by the Kelsey Generating Station . As a result, 10.3 Manitoba Hydro develop a climate change Sipiwesk Lake has never been fully risk and adaptation planning framework assessed for environmental effects . It for its system would be important to ensure that the scoping for a new LWR EIA does not 10.4 Planning for a Future “scope out” impacts of the project . Environmental Assessment 3) The Study Board report appears for LWR not to have had any bearing on the operation of the Jenpeg Control All parties at the LWR hearing Structure . Most modern-day EIAs of acknowledge the need for a more hydroelectric projects will examine comprehensive examination of LWR as part alternative operating regimes in of Manitoba Hydro’s application for a renewal order to accommodate needs beyond licence . To consider what should guide hydroelectric generation . Such development of an Environmental Impact work will examine the minimum Assessment for the renewal licence, it would flows needed at certain times of be useful to look at some of the shortcomings year to protect ecological functions, of the existing information on the impact of such as fish spawning, or socio- LWR and how an EIA for the renewal could economic needs, such as safe boating address these . or ice travel . The two operating conditions for Jenpeg that are related 1) Participants acknowledged that to downstream conditions (the LWR was originally implemented minimum flow requirement of 25,000 without the benefit of a modern-day cfs and the maximum rate-of-change environmental assessment . Authors limit of 15,000 cfs in 24 hours) were of the 1975 Study Board report even established prior to the work of the noted, at the time, that they did Study Board or without reference to not have the ability to assess and any Study Board research . understand the full impact of the project and were facing time and 4) The Study Board’s original assessment budget constraints to complete their of LWR was not carried out co- entire study in four years . Manitoba operatively with Aboriginal peoples . Hydro has a number of years in The idea that project proponents which to prepare an EIA prior to the should listen and be responsive to

140 ATK was essentially unheard of at Study Area the time of the Study Board . There The commission suggests that the study is now wide agreement that ATK area for an LWR EIA extend from Warren provides a valuable understanding of Landing and Two-Mile Channel in the south project impacts and helps to reveal to the Kelsey Generating Station and Split opportunities to reduce or mitigate Lake Inlet in the north . It would then take impacts . into consideration all of the areas where channels, channel improvements, dikes In light of this opportunity to make up and control structures have been built and for some of the shortcomings in the original the water bodies most affected by these assessment of the project, the commission developments . Water bodies to be studied would like to offer some suggestions for would include Playgreen, Little Playgreen, development of the EIA for Manitoba Hydro’s Cross, Kiskitto, Kiskittogisu, Walker, renewal licence . Drunken, Pipestone, Black Duck, Duck and Sipiwesk Lakes, as well as the Nelson Purpose and Objectives River and both its east and west channels . Key participants must be involved in Water bodies that flow into the Nelson defining the purpose and objectives of this River between Sipiwesk Lake and Kelsey EIA . Given that LWR is already 40 years old may also need to be included . Regarding the and that it is an essential part of Manitoba’s area downstream from Kelsey Generating hydroelectric system, it would be most effective Station, the commission recommends that if participants commit to looking forward the impact of LWR on this area be subject toward improving conditions, rather than to environmental review, either as a part focusing on a past environment that cannot of the LWR EIA, in a combined review of be recovered . The commission suggests that LWR and CRD, or in a separate review of the the purpose of this EIA could be to improve CRD . The commission does not believe that upon the existing natural, social and economic there is sufficient evidence of an impact on conditions that have been affected by LWR . Lake Winnipeg caused by LWR, to warrant Acknowledging Manitoba Hydro’s mission including the lake in the EIA for LWR . to generate a secure supply of electricity for Manitoba is also an important consideration . Steering Committee Objectives of the EIA could be to: The commission suggests establishment of a steering committee or advisory body • develop a better understanding of the that would have overall responsibility for environment before and after LWR; the environmental assessment, including the assessment of the operating regime for • evaluate the operating regime for LWR . This steering committee should have LWR; an independent chair . It is important that • identify possible mitigation measures, such a committee be able to represent the including engineering works and interests of the participants experiencing operations; the greatest impact in the core study area (Warren Landing to Kelsey GS) . The central • identify long-term monitoring participants would be Manitoba Hydro, measures; and the Manitoba government, Pimicikamak Okimawin and Norway House Cree Nation . • commit to long-term adaptive This steering committee should determine management . what studies are required as part of the EIA .

141 Direction should be sought from the Power support certain ecological functions, such Licensing Section and the Environmental as spawning and maximum rates of flow Approvals Branch of Conservation and change . An operating regime may also specify Water Stewardship in scoping the EIA . Other minimum and maximum water levels at organizations and communities should be certain locations . As there may be cases where, consulted when draft guidelines for the EIA as a result of weather extremes or unforeseen are developed and again when the draft EIA circumstances, it would not be possible to is available . This would include the Norway adhere to these conditions, it would also be House, Cross Lake, Wabowden and Thicket important to anticipate this in the operating Portage communities, the Manitoba Métis regime and develop rules regarding operating Federation and perhaps local resource user outside of the compliance conditions . groups representing fishers and trappers in this area . If suggestions are being made for Monitoring and Mitigation operating regime changes at either Jenpeg The EIA should also seek to identify or Kelsey – which could have an impact possible mitigation measures and develop a downstream of Kelsey – Tataskweyak Cree monitoring program to test the effectiveness Nation, War Lake First Nation and York of mitigation measures . A commitment Factory First Nation, Ilford and Pikwitonei to adaptive management would allow for communities and local resource user groups mitigation measures to be altered and must also be consulted . improved based on the results of monitoring . To ensure that there is committed long- Studies and Topics term monitoring in a consistent manner, the While the steering committee will make Coordinated Aquatic Monitoring Program its recommendations on study topics, the (CAMP) should be formalized and made a commission believes that the LWR hearings permanent program . have highlighted some existing gaps that need to be filled with research . These include Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge impacts on waterfowl, aquatic furbearers, Development of the EIA must include wetlands and riparian areas, critical fish gathering and applying ATK at the beginning habitat and erosion in the artificial channels of the process to identify studies that may and the river channel . A priority should be be required, better understand the impacts to study environmental indicators that are of LWR, and identify the flow conditions influenced by changes in water management or water levels required to support healthy operations . It will also be possible for ecological functions, habitats and cultural the LWR EIA to build on the Regional pursuits in the study area . Cumulative Effects Assessment (RCEA) of Manitoba Hydro’s Nelson and Churchill River Gap Analysis projects, which is currently being prepared . In its final argument in the hearings, Manitoba Hydro noted that the current Operating Regime RCEA being undertaken of its projects in the Since LWR already exists, the main Churchill and Nelson River sub-watersheds focus of the EIA for the licence renewal will may help to identify information gaps that can be assessment of the operating regime for be addressed in the assessment of the renewal the Jenpeg Control Structure . An operating licence for LWR . regime should identify minimum flows required at various seasons or dates to Communication The steering committee must also

142 establish and implement a communication Amending Licence . Six generating stations plan that will ensure that community are operating under Short-Term Extension members from all communities downstream Licences, five of which expire on September of LWR and the general public are aware of 30, 2015, and one on January 1, 2017 . The their activities and outcomes . remaining four are operating under Final Licences, with the following expiry dates: Slave Falls, January 1, 2022; Kettle, November Recommendations 1, 2022; Long Spruce, April 28, 2028; and The Commission recommends that: Great Falls, January 1, 2032 . In addition, Lake Winnipeg Regulation, including the 10.4 The Government of Manitoba require Jenpeg, and Churchill River Diversion, both an environmental assessment of Lake of which are currently seeking a final licence, Winnipeg Regulation prior to relicensing will be due for relicensing in the next decade . The 15th generating station is Wuskwatim, 10.5 The Government of Manitoba facilitate licensed in the past decade . This will result in the establishment of a Steering an incredible amount of work for Manitoba Committee, with an independent chair, to Hydro officials and provincial regulators . undertake an environmental assessment To that end, the commission was asked to of Lake Winnipeg Regulation effects consider a proposal to conduct these renewal downstream as described in Section 10.4, Planning for a Future Environmental application reviews in geographical groupings . Assessment for LWR, of this report The groupings suggested are as follows: 10.6 Manitoba Hydro make the Coordinated Aquatic Monitoring Program permanent, 1 . The six Winnipeg River generating with appropriate funding stations 2 . Lake Winnipeg Regulation, Churchill 10.5 Legacy Project Licensing River Diversion and Kelsey In the previous section, the commission 3 . Kettle, Long Spruce and Limestone discussed a process for planning the environmental assessment of LWR as part of Grand Rapids, as the only generating the relicensing of that project . In this section, station on the Saskatchewan River and the we will address some matters relating to the two small stations on the Laurie River would relicensing of most of Manitoba Hydro’s be considered on their own . generation facilities, as well as LWR and CRD . Grouping of the projects in this way Manitoba Hydro operates 15 hydroelectric will result in all the projects in a given generation stations throughout the province, group being considered for relicensing at almost all of which will be subject to licensing the same time, regardless of when their processes, under The Water Power Act, licences expire . As well, this would reset the over the next few years . Manitoba Hydro clock for the licences, giving each facility has applied for final licenses for Limestone within a group a common licensing date . In Generating Station and Jenpeg . It has applied addition to allowing for licensing efficiency, for a renewal of a final licence for Grand this process would assist in assessment of Rapids, which expired in January 2015 . Kelsey effects, especially the cumulative effects of is currently operating under a Short-Term hydro development in a particular area . This

143 proposal originated with Manitoba Hydro, Recommendations whose representatives acknowledged the value in such an approach . During the hearings, the The Commission recommends that: commission heard no strong objections from 10.7 The Government of Manitoba require any of the other parties . We are of the view that the relicensing of all existing hydro that this proposal makes very good sense and projects be done under The Environment recommend that the Manitoba government Act, with the further requirement for a adopt this suggestion . full environmental assessment, which incorporates ATK. While the commission is prepared to support a more manageable licensing 10.8 The Government of Manitoba require process, we continue to stress the need for that the relicensing of all existing hydro environmental assessment and an open and projects be subject to a public review. transparent review process . The commission is of the view that Manitoba Hydro’s existing 10.9 The Government of Manitoba, in the relicensing of the existing hydro projects, projects, licensed under The Water Power do so in the geographical groupings Act, must be subject to a public review when noted in Section 10.5, Legacy Project they are relicensed . This review must include Licensing. development of an EIA, overseen by a steering committee similar to the one recommended for the relicensing of LWR . 10.6 Supporting Watershed The commission is fully aware that Thinking environment assessment of long-existing In Chapter Two of this report, the projects cannot meet the standard required commission addressed the issue of the Lake for a proposed project . This is due, in large Winnipeg-Nelson River watershed . We part, to the lack of baseline information . noted that the watershed is a very large and But, we are also aware that the science of complex system, further complicated by the environmental assessment has advanced to fact it crosses many national and international the point where it is possible to conduct a very borders . We called upon the Government good evaluation of past, current and future of Manitoba to develop management goals impacts . It is also possible to identify needs that would inform development within the and methods for mitigation, enhancement watershed . In this section, the commission and evaluation incorporating adaptive will offer further advice regarding management . This is especially true when the development of public policy that will support assessment is done in concert with ATK and this objective . local knowledge . Historically, there has been a tendency The commission is further of the view for legislative functions and regulations to that these projects should be relicensed under operate in “silos” – that is, disconnected The Environment Act, in tandem with, or in from one another – which can make lieu of, other water management acts . The effective problem solving difficult . Several Environment Act, in its current form, did not participating groups, in these hearings, exist at the time of construction of any of spoke of the need to avoid this practice these projects . If it had, or if these projects and, instead, to adopt whole-ecosystem, or were to be built today, licensing under this act whole-watershed thinking . As we have seen, would be required .

144 actions may often be taken to solve a local reviews of goals, objectives and outcomes issue, without realization of the effect this of the various water-related environmental action may have on other communities or on policies and strategies . In our view, this may the environment . This report has outlined be best accomplished by an independent some examples of this phenomenon, such as agency with an objective outlook . Included limited development planning and lack of in this review could be the assessment environmental consideration in past hydro and identification of how other levels development . of government and non-governmental organizations are, or could be, involved to Other examples include flood help achieve these goals . management and surface drainage . It was as recently as 2005 that the Red River Floodway expansion became the first flood management Recommendation project subject to an environmental The Commission recommends that: assessment . Other major flood control works and activities, too often, operate in a realm 10.10 The Government of Manitoba charge an separate from ecological considerations independent body to review policies, and only for selected socio-economic ones . statutes, goals, objectives and outcomes Surface drainage was done, for too long, of the various water-related environmental largely without consideration of what happens policies and strategies to ensure there is downstream . Also, until very recently, consistency between them and that they development of hydro generation operated meet the desired result of watershed- in a stand-alone manner to the exclusion of and/or ecosystem-wide approaches. ecological and social considerations .

In Manitoba, in 2015, there are very few 10.7 Communication and water bodies – lakes, rivers, streams – that are Cooperation not subject to some controls or regulations . This makes it impossible to operate any water Many times during the hearings, management project in isolation . the commission was struck by the communication barriers that exist between The commission acknowledges that much Manitoba Hydro and Manitobans . The of the current public policy development commission heard presenters who appeared in this regard is taking “watershed” and to believe that provincial control structures, “ecosystem” approaches . However, there is a such as the Fairford Control Structure, are need to ensure that “the big picture” is clear Manitoba Hydro operations . We heard to all government agencies and the public, from many people who misunderstood that efforts are co-ordinated, and that co- the meaning of the 715 .0 feet asl operating operation is maximized . This will require range maximum, believing that Manitoba strong oversight to ensure that these various Hydro is responsible to ensure that the initiatives are not in conflict or duplicating level of Lake Winnipeg never exceeds this efforts, that they are meeting their stated goals elevation, or who believe that Lake Winnipeg and that these goals are compatible with the is intentionally kept at this level . The basic desired result . function of LWR – to ensure a supply of water for the large downstream generating stations The commission encourages the on the Nelson River – appeared not to be fully government to consider regular and targeted understood by some .

145 For individuals who wish to learn more information is available through different about LWR, and other hydro projects, finding government websites, but navigating these information can be a challenge . The Manitoba websites can also be a challenge . As well, the Hydro website is very confusing and not reports and information may be too long and particularly user-friendly . It is difficult for the technical for many readers . It should be noted casual user to pinpoint information about a that access to high-speed internet is limited, particular project . Manitoba Hydro needs to making it more difficult to access information work to improve communication, especially online . Face-to-face meetings must be an in communities around Lake Winnipeg and important part of any communication along the Nelson River . In communicating strategy . As we discussed above, in response with stakeholders and communities, Manitoba to climate change concerns, the need to Hydro needs to present information clearly, communicate water-management issues with minimal technical/engineering jargon, and decisions is likely to increase if climate while making detailed data available for those change results in greater extremes and more who want it . Manitoba Hydro should seek out precipitation . opportunities for face-to-face meetings with Manitobans where individuals can have their questions answered or raise their concerns . Recommendations Communication is a two-way street . Good The Commission recommends that: communication on the part of Manitoba Hydro requires a concerted effort to listen to 10.11 Manitoba Hydro provide more and plain concerns and work with communities . language information on their planning processes and how it is incorporated into Communication regarding provincial their decision making, such as drought water management actions also appears planning and climate change adaptation to be a challenge . The commission heard from presenters that management decisions 10.12 The Government of Manitoba improve about the operation of the Fairford public information on water management Control Structure have only recently been by providing more plain language communicated to residents downstream . documentation, identify and facilitate the link between departments responsible for We also heard expressions of uncertainty water management, explain the planning and anxiety around the emergency drain processes and how they are incorporated from Lake St . Martin and the proposed into decision making, such as flood and permanent drain . Lack of communication drought planning and adaptation to about provincial water management may climate change be one of the reasons some people associate these activities and facilities with Manitoba Hydro . Since the Crown corporation is a 10.8 Conclusion visible presence, it becomes associated in some minds with anything involving water . The Lake Winnipeg-Nelson River Some of this may be the result of water watershed has not been a naturally management responsibilities being recently functioning system for many years . This is not divided between Manitoba Infrastructure and just a result of Manitoba Hydro’s regulation Transportation (ex: flood-related activities) of Lake Winnipeg for power production and and Manitoba Conservation and Water flood reduction, but of the myriad control Stewardship (ex: power generation and water structures, generating stations, diversions and management) . Provincial water management drainage channels throughout the million-

146 square-kilometre watershed . All of these willing partner in developing a new way of activities combine to make maintaining a doing business that keeps the “big picture” of healthy, functioning ecosystem a challenge . a healthy watershed in mind . This challenge is likely to be made even greater by a changing climate . In the terms of reference for these hearings, the commission was asked to It is clear that Manitoba cannot go comment on the public policy goals of LWR . backward and restore Lake Winnipeg and LWR was originally licensed to reduce Lake the Nelson River to their natural state . In Winnipeg flooding, provide a reliable source a province that relies on water to generate of water to generate power and prevent more than 90 per cent of its electricity, the need for a high-level Churchill River the ability to regulate flows on the Nelson Diversion . It has met those goals . The next River to generate power at the time of peak challenge is to determine if operation of demand is essential . But if we cannot return LWR – and other Manitoba Hydro facilities to a system that follows a fully natural – can support other environmental and water regime, we must, to the best of our social needs . This report has provided a ability, protect and enhance what remains, road map for relicensing – requested by whether that means finding ways to protect Manitoba Hydro during the hearings . It is the spawning conditions for fish or to restore commission’s hope that Manitoba Hydro and the many ecologically rich wetlands . And stakeholders can, together, use this roadmap we must find ways to protect communities to reach a destination that is environmentally, and people who live near or enjoy the socially and economically healthy for all . use of these waterways . In responding to these challenges, Manitoba must apply the principles of sustainable development, which call for a balancing of economic, social and environmental priorities . Recent actions by the Manitoba government are encouraging in that they take a holistic approach to water and environmental management . Actions elsewhere in the Lake Winnipeg watershed – beyond Manitoba’s borders – also indicate that a positive, watershed-focused approach is being used .

In the past 40 years, LWR and the other hydroelectric developments on the Nelson River have made a great contribution to Manitoba’s economy . This contribution, however, has resulted in sacrifices by those who live downstream of Lake Winnipeg . This application for a final licence of these works marks the start of a new era in which there must be a better balance of interests . Manitoba Hydro has recognized this, in its statements during these hearings, and is a

147 148 Chapter Eleven Recommendations

The Commission 7.3 The Government of Manitoba re- examine the 722 feet asl limit on the Lake recommends that: Winnipeg hydro reserve to determine if 2.1 The Government of Manitoba, in co- it is still effective in protecting property operation with other jurisdictions in the and activities on Crown land around watershed, set specific management Lake Winnipeg or if and where a new line goals and policy objectives for Lake should be implemented. Winnipeg, against which projects within the watershed can be assessed. 7.4 Manitoba Hydro undertake a study to determine where erosion is occurring 2.2 The Government of Manitoba undertake along the upper Nelson River and at an environmental assessment of key what rate since implementation of Lake operations within the Manitoba portion Winnipeg Regulation. Through the use of the Lake Winnipeg watershed, such as of aerial photographs and in-stream the Shellmouth Dam and the Assiniboine measurements of the shoreline made River Diversion at Portage La Prairie, to before and after construction, Manitoba better understand their impact on the Hydro prepare a map identifying eroded watershed and ensure that ecological as sections and vulnerable areas. well as social and economic impacts are fully considered. 7.5 Manitoba Hydro closely examine erosion in the constructed channels 7.1 Manitoba Hydro extend its modelling and determine the overall change that of Lake Winnipeg levels back to 1914 to is occurring. If this erosion is found to indicate how Lake Winnipeg Regulation be causing negative effects, Manitoba would have influenced lake levels Hydro should undertake erosion-control throughout the entire period of record. measures.

7.2 The Government of Manitoba, in co- 7.6 Manitoba Hydro determine if the current operation with Manitoba Hydro, as a methods of erosion control are effective basis for development and planning and acceptable to local residents and decisions, undertake erosion studies in resource users in the long term and if highly vulnerable and developed areas these methods are working, delaying in the south basin to determine the rate shoreline losses or deflecting them to of erosion, the cause of erosion, and another area of shoreline. mitigation measures. 7.7 Manitoba Hydro research and implement more ecologically friendly methods of erosion control wherever feasible. 149 7.8 Manitoba Hydro examine all former 7. 15 Manitoba Hydro seek out possible areas construction areas, locate any former for wetland enhancement, rehabilitation dump sites, determine their contents and re-establishment to support and take appropriate action to prevent ecosystem services and populations contamination of water and soil and visual of aquatic furbearers, waterfowl and impact on the landscape. waterbirds.

7.9 Manitoba Hydro, in co-operation with 7.16 Manitoba Hydro include wetland and resource users, seek out and collect wetland species monitoring in the CAMP ATK, local knowledge and documented program. information on pre-Lake Winnipeg Regulation distribution of fish species, 9.1 The Government of Manitoba evaluate their spawning areas and movement the current licensing regime for hydro patterns in Cross Lake, the Outlet projects and ensure that legislation Lakes, Sipiwesk Lake and in the adjacent and regulation is consistent with connected lakes. modern legislative, consultation and environmental standards. 7.10 Manitoba Hydro, in co-operation with resource users, evaluate the current status 9.2 The Government of Manitoba require of the identified sites, determine their relicensing of hydro projects to be done capabilities to support fish populations under The Environment Act, in addition to and identify and implement alternative or in lieu of any other water management methods to rehabilitate or replace these legislation. sites. 9.3 The Government of Manitoba undertake 7.11 The Government of Manitoba, in co- a review of any licence issued for hydro operation with other parties, conduct a projects, on specified anniversary dates, comprehensive wetland inventory around to assess the level of compliance and Lake Winnipeg. adjust licensing conditions as required.

7.12 The Government of Manitoba take steps 9.4 The Government of Manitoba ensure that to permanently protect marshes and incident reporting, compliance reporting wetlands around Lake Winnipeg. and annual reporting schedules are incorporated into any licence and that 7.13 Manitoba Hydro, in co-operation with such reports be made available in a timely resource users, evaluate the success manner. and/or failure of the Cross Lake Weir in improving water levels and re- 10.1 Manitoba Hydro develop and make establishment of ecological components, available for public review operational particularly whitefish and aquatic model(s) for alternative approaches to furbearers, and reducing impacts on system management. The models should travel. allow for evaluation of the effects of these strategies on objectives, including, but 7.14 Manitoba Hydro, working with resource not limited to, ecological health, social users, determine the pre-Lake Winnipeg impacts and economic impacts on both Regulation distribution of wetlands, using Manitoba Hydro and local communities. aerial photos, satellite images and other methods to reconstruct their distribution and compare this to the current distribution.

150 10.2 The Government of Manitoba develop 10.10 The Government of Manitoba charge an a climate change risk and adaptation independent body to review policies, planning framework for individuals statutes, goals, objectives and outcomes and communities in the Lake Winnipeg of the various water-related environmental watershed. policies and strategies to ensure there is consistency between them and that they 10.3 Manitoba Hydro develop a climate change meet the desired result of watershed- risk and adaptation planning framework and/or ecosystem-wide approaches. for its system. 10.11 Manitoba Hydro provide more and plain 10.4 The Government of Manitoba require language information on their planning an environmental assessment of Lake processes and how it is incorporated into Winnipeg Regulation prior to relicensing. their decision making, such as drought planning and climate change adaptation. 10.5 The Government of Manitoba facilitate the establishment of a Steering 10.12 The Government of Manitoba improve Committee, with an independent chair, to public information on water management undertake an environmental assessment by providing more plain language of Lake Winnipeg Regulation effects documentation, identify and facilitate the downstream as described in Section link between departments responsible for 10.4, Planning for a Future Environmental water management, explain the planning Assessment for LWR, of this report. processes and how they are incorporated into decision making, such as flood and 10.6 Manitoba Hydro fund and make the drought planning and adaptation to Coordinated Aquatic Monitoring Program climate change. permanent.

10.7 The Government of Manitoba require that the relicensing of all existing hydro projects be done under The Environment Act, with the further requirement for a full environmental assessment, which incorporates ATK.

10.8 The Government of Manitoba require that the relicensing of all existing hydro projects be subject to a public review.

10.9 The Government of Manitoba, in the relicensing of the existing hydro projects, do so in the geographical groupings noted in Section 10.5, Legacy Project Licensing.

151 152 Works Cited

Canada . 1977 . Northern Flood Agreement . International Red River Board . nd . http://ijc . https://www .hydro .mb .ca/community/ org/en_/irrb accessed July 7, 2015 . agreements/nfa/t_of_c .htm International Souris River Board . nd . http:// Environment Canada and Manitoba Water ijc org/en_/isrb/home. accessed July 7, Stewardship . 2011 . State of Lake 2015 . Winnipeg, 1999 to 2007 . http://www . manitoba .ca/waterstewardship/water_ Know History . 2015 . The Nelson River quality/state_lk_winnipeg_report/pdf/ Hydroelectric Project . A History of state_of_lake_winnipeg_rpt_technical_ Lake Winnipeg Regulation . http:// low_resolution .pdf www .cecmanitoba ca/resource/. hearings/33/The%20Nelson%20River%20 Franzin, W . G ., K . W . Stewart, G . F . Hanke, Hydroelectric%20Project pdf. and L . Heuring . 2003 . The fish and fisheries of Lake Winnipeg; the first 100 Lake of the Woods Control Board . years . Can . Tech . Rep . Fish . Aquat . Sci . 2002 . Managing the Water Resources 2398 . of the Winnipeg River Drainage Basin . http://www lwcb. .ca/permpdf/ Hanuta, I . 2006 . Land cover and climate LWCBBrochure2002Nov .pdf, accessed for part of southern Manitoba: A July 8, 2015 . reconstruction from Dominion Land Survey Maps and historical records of the Lake Manitoba Regulation Review Advisory 1870s . A thesis submitted to the Faculty Committee . 2003 . Regulation of water of Graduate Studies, The University of levels on Lake Manitoba, and along the Manitoba . Department of Environment Fairford River, Pineimuta Lake, Lake St . and Geography, University of Manitoba, Martin and Dauphin River and related Winnipeg . issues . A report to the Minister of Conservation . http://www .gov .mb .ca/ International Rainy-Lake of the Woods waterstewardship/reports/lake_manitoba/ Control Board . nd . http://ijc .org/en_/ water_levels_summary2003-07 pdf. RLWWB/International_Rainy-Lake_of_ accessed July 9, 2015 . the_Woods_Watershed_Board accessed on July 8, 2015 .

153 Lake Winnipeg Shoreline Erosion Advisory Manitoba Clean Environment Commission . Group . 2000 . Review of Lake Winnipeg 2013 . Report on Public Hearing, Bipole water level reporting procedures . http:// III Transmission Project, June 2013 . www gov. .mb .ca/waterstewardship/ http://www .cecmanitoba .ca/resource/ licensing/pdf/review_lake_wpg_ hearings/36/FINAL%20WEB%20 reporting_procedures .pdf accessed July Bipole%20III%20Transmission%20 10, 2015 . Project_WEB3 .pdf

Manitoba . nd . Manitoba’s Surface Water Manitoba Clean Environment Commission . Management Strategy . 2014 . Report on Public Hearing, http://gov .mb .ca/conservation/ Keeyask Generation Project, April 2014 . waterstewardship/questionnaires/surface_ http://www .cecmanitoba .ca/resource/ water_management/pdf/surface_water_ hearings/39/Keeyask%20WEB pdf. strategy_final .pdf , accessed July 7, 2015 . Manitoba Conservation . 2001 . Lake Manitoba . 2014a . Province to Winnipeg Shoreline Management provide funding for Assiniboine Handbook .https://vbspa files. .wordpress . River Basin Commission, August com/2011/05/lake-winnipeg-shoreline- 6, 2014 . News Release . http:// management-handbook .pdf news .gov .mb .ca/news/index . html?item=32105&posted=2014-08-06 Manitoba Hydro . 2013 . Water Power Act accessed July 8, 2015 . Licences, 2013 Annual Water Levels and Flows Report . Hydraulic Operations Manitoba . 2014b . Towards Sustainable Department, Power Sales & Operations Drainage, A proposed regulatory Division, Power Supply . http://www . approach .http://www .gov .mb .ca/ gov .mb .ca/waterstewardship/licensing/ conservation/waterstewardship/licensing/ pdf/2013_annual_water_levels_and_ drainage/pdf/towards_sustainable_ flows .pdf drainage_june_2014 .pdf accessed July 7, 2015 . McCullough, G .K ., Page, S .J ., Hesslein, R H. ., Stainton, M .P ., Kling, H .J ., Salki, A .G ., Manitoba Clean Environment Commission . and Barber, D .G . 2012 . Hydrologic 2004 . Report on Public Hearing, forcing of a recent trophic upsurge in Lake Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Winnipeg . Jour . Great Lakes Research Projects, September 2004 . http://www . 38:95-105 . cecmanitoba .ca/resource/reports/ Commissioned-Reports-2004-2005- Prairie Provinces Water Board . 1969 . Prairie Wuskwatim_Generation_Transmission_ Provinces Water Board Master Agreement Projects_Full_Report .pdf on Apportionment . http://www .ppwb .ca/ information/79/index .html accessed July Manitoba Clean Environment Commission . 7, 2015 . 2009 . A investigation into nutrient reduction and ammonia treatment at the Red River Basin Commission . http://www . City of Winnipeg’s wastewater treatment redriverbasincommission .org/index html. facilities . http://www .cecmanitoba . accessed July 7, 2015 . ca/resource/hearings/21/nXp%20 supplement%20final3 .pdf

154 Appendix I Terms of Reference

155 156 157 158 Appendix II Lake Winnipeg Regulation Licences

159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 Appendix III Hearing Participants

Presenter Affiliation

Abraham, Frank Chief, Black River First Nation Abraham, Joseph Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Abraham, Myrtle Black River First Nation Adamson, Tim Private Adkins, Bob Manitoba Hydro Anders, Reanna Private, Berens River First Nation Anderson, Alfred Minister, Manitoba Métis Federation Anderson, Roxann Private Apetagon, Eileen Elder, Norway House Cree Nation Apetagon, Leslie Norway House Fisherman’s Cooperative/Elder, Norway House Cree Nation Arnason, Cameron Private Arnason, Joan Private Arnason, Judy Private Bailey,Ross Private Ballard, Myrle Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg Baptiste, Kash Private, Berens River First Nation Batenchuk, Karen Private, Berens River First Nation Bayer, Loretta Councillor, Norway House Cree Nation Bear, Jim Chief, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Beardy, George York Factory First Nation Beardy, Georgina Private, York Factory First Nation Beardy, Jim Private, York Factory First Nation Beardy, Philip Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Becker, Walter Private Beckwith, Paul Manitoba Wildlands Bedford, Doug Manitoba Hydro Benson, Chris Private Bird, David Private, Black River First Nation Bird, Paula Private, Black River First Nation Bird, Warren Private, Black River First Nation

177 Bland, Ted Chief, York Factory First Nation Bluesky, Gord Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Boulange, Avery Private, Berens River First Nation Braun, Will Interchurch Council on Hydropower Inc . Bristow, Clayton Private Brown, Eva Private Brownlie, Robin Jarvis Keewatin Public Interest Research Group Brunen, Valeri Private, Norway House Bruyere, Nancy Private, Anglican Church Bunn, Ruben Sagkeeng First Nation Burch, Val Private Campbell, Norman Private, Manitoba Métis Federation Campbell, Norman Sr . Private Captain, Brian Jr . Private, Norway House Cree Nation Cariou, Warren Keewatin Public Interest Research Group Chartrand, David President, Manitoba Métis Federation Chief, Paul Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Chief-Abigosis, Delores Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Chornoby, Jim Private, Manitoba Métis Federation Cizek, Petr Peguis First Nation Clark, Chris Private, Norway House Cree Nation Clarke, Shandy Black River First Nation Cochrane, Carl Private, Fisher River First Nation Cochrane, Jess Private, Peguis First Nation Constant, Leroy York Factory First Nation Cook, Alfie Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg Cook, Alice Private, Misipawistik Cree Nation Cook, Dwayne Private, Misipawistik Cree Nation Cook, Heidi Misipawistik Cree Nation Cook, Jason Private Cook, Ted Private, Misipawistik Cree Nation Cormie, David Manitoba Hydro Courchene, Allen Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Courchene, Genaile Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Courchene, Karen Private, Peguis First Nation Courchene, Mark Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Crate, Doroty Private, Fisher River First Nation Daniels, Joe Sagkeeng First Nation Daniels, Joseph Sagkeeng First Nation Denecheze, Ovide Private, Berens River First Nation Desautels, Maurice Winnipeg River Property Owners Group Desrosiers, Jean Minister, Manitoba Métis Federation Disbrowe, Gerald Private Disbrowe, Valerie Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg/Berens River First Nation Dixon, James Private, Norway House Cree Nation

178 Dorie, Kaylene Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Duffney, Sherry Black River First Nation Duplassie, Ryan Private/Black River First Nation Einarsson, Dale President, Dauphin River Commercial Fishers Association Einarsson, Helgi Mayor, Dauphin River Ellis, Brian Winnipeg Condo Corporation No . 323 Enright, Angela Winnipeg River Property Owners Group Ettawacappo, Charles Private, Norway House Cree Nation Evans, Ron Chief, Norway House Cree Nation Everett, Jackie Chief, Berens River First Nation Everett, Mika Private, Berens River First Nation Everett, Nicholas Private, Berens River First Nation Farrell, Tom Private Ferland, William Private, Misipawistik Cree Nation Flett, Isaiah Private, Berens River First Nation Flett, Olga Private, Berens River First Nation Flett,Lloyd Private, Manitoba Métis Federation Fleury, Annette Private, Misipawistik Cree Nation Folster, Samantha Councillor, Norway House Cree Nation Fredette, Gilbert Deputy Chief, Norway House Cree Nation Fyke, Garry Private, Manitoba Métis Federation Garrett, Mervin Pimicikamak Okimawin Gawne, Kevin Manitoba Hydro Gerrard, Jon MLA River Heights Gerrard, Nelson Private Goldsborough, Gordon Clean Environment Commission Goodon, Will Minister, Manitoba Métis Federation Gorchynski, Julian Board of Directors, Grand Beach and Area Development Corporation; Private Gould, Derrick Interlake Reserves Tribal Council/Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg Grant, David Private Greenwood, Ron Private Grieve, Linda Grand Beach and Area Development Corporation; Private Halcrow, Daniel Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Halcrow, Dion Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Halcrow, Nick Elder, Pimicikamak Okimawin Halcrow, Rosalie Cross Lake Community Council Hall, Marilyn Private, Misipawistik Cree Nation Hamilton, George Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Hamilton, Helga Pimicikamak Okimawin

179 Hapel, Joanne Private Henderson, Derek Chief, Sagkeeng First Nation Hocakuk, Allen Private, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Hodgson, Brian RM of Victoria Beach Hood, Jasmine Private, Berens River First Nation Hope, Devorie Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Hudson, Glenn Chief, Peguis First Nation Hunt, Laurie R .M . of St . Andrews Hutchison, Dale Manitoba Hydro Jacobson, Patsy Private, Misipawistik Cree Nation Jones Scott, Roy Pimicikamak Okimawin Keating, Sean Tataskweyak Cree Nation Keeper, Brian Tataskweyak Cree Nation Kennedy Courcelles,Cheryl Private Kent, April Black River First Nation Kent, Ralph Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Kent, Sage Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Kristinansson, Karen Private Kulchyski, Peter Black River First Nation Lagimodiere, Julyda Vice President, Manitoba Métis Federation Langhan, Jasmine Manitoba Métis Federation Lee, Alfred Private Legitt, Linda Berens River Fishing Association Lenton, Keith Norway House Fisherman’s Cooperative Levin, Harvey Private Lowry, Gordon Private Luttermann, Annette Pimicikamak Okimawin MacFadgen, Roseann Cross Lake Community Council Mannigway, Anna Private, Peguis First Nation Mason, Mike Victoria Beach Cottage Owners Association Mason, Ray Private, Peguis First Nation Matechuk, Brent Private Mattern, David Private Mayor, Janet Manitoba Hydro McCullough, Gregory Clean Environment Commission McKay, Dalton Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin McKay, Dion Councillor, Fisher River First Nation McKay, Don Pimicikamak Okimawin McKay, George Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin McKay, Leslie Private, Fisher River First Nation McKay, Malcolm Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin McKay, Morris Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin McKay, Norman Councillor, Berens River First Nation McKay, Steve Private, Fisher River First Nation McKay, Tyrone Private, Berens River First Nation McLeod, Cameron Cross Lake Community Council

180 McLeod, Charlie Private McMahon, George Clean Environment Commission McMillan, Linda R .M . Of Victoria Beach McMorris, Penny Private McPherson, Ernest Black River First Nation Meade, Reg Mayor, Wabowden/President, Northern Association of Community Councils Meagher, Jerry Private Meikle, Gertrude Norway House Community Council Merrick, Cathy Chief, Pimicikamak Okimawin Mitchell, Patricia Black River First Nation Monias, Tommy Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Monkman, Bob Private Monkman, David Private Monkman, Gordon Private Monkman, Michael Private Monkman, William Private Moore, George Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Morriseau, Brenda Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Morriseau, Lyle Councillor, Sagkeeng First Nation Morrison, Bruce Private Morrison, Winona Private, Peguis First Nation Mowatt, Danny Private, Norway House Mowatt, Kenny Private Mowatt, Laura Private, Norway House Mowatt, Loretta Norway House Cree Nation Muswaggon, David Councillor, Pimicikamak Okimawin Muswaggon, Mike Private, Norway House Cree Nation Muswagon, Allan Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Muswagon, Kerry Mikisew School, Cross Lake Muswagon, William Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Nasecapow, Barbara Private, Misipawistik Cree Nation Nelson, Baldur Private Nicole Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Olson, Eric Private O’Neil, Maureen Private Osborne, Jackson Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Osborne, William Elder, Pimicikamak Okimawin Ouskin, Roddy Private, York Factory First Nation Pakneciniw, Kukitew Private, Peguis First Nation Palson, Thora Councillor, R .M . Of Gimli Parenteau, Mark Minister, Manitoba Métis Federation Parisian, Cheyenne Private, Peguis First Nation Parisian, Mekhi Private, Peguis First Nation Parisian, Peter Private, Peguis First Nation Park, Jack Minister, Manitoba Métis Federation

181 Pastora Sala, Jöelle Consumers’ Association of Canada Paul, Sasha Manitoba Hydro Paupanakis, Darwin Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Porteous, Ken Private Raining Bird, Jeremiah Pimicikamak Okimawin Rait, Eugene Private, Peguis First Nation Redhead, Nellie Private, York Factory First Nation Redhead, Wayne Private, York Factory First Nation Riel, Marci Manitoba Métis Federation Robinson, Bernalda Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Robinson, Margaret Pimicikamak Okimawin Ross, Albert Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg Ross, Daniel Pimicikamak Okimawin Ross, Flora Cross Lake Women’s Council Ross, Happy Jack Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Ross, Roger Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Saunders, Donna Private, York Factory First Nation Saunders, Doreen Private, York Factory First Nation Saunders, Langford President, Norway House Fisherman’s Cooperative Selkirk, Bernard Private Settee, Connie Cross Lake Community Council Settee, Darell Pimicikamak Okimawin Settee, Keith Cross Lake Community Council Shefman, Corey Interlake Reserves Tribal Council Shepard, Neil Private Sinclair, Nigaan Peguis First Nation Sinclair, Walter Jr . Private, Fisher River First Nation Sinclair, Walter Sr . Private, Fisher River First Nation Smith, Bev Private, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Smith, Carl Private, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Smith, Happy Private, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Smith, Marlene Private, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Speiss, Cristo Mayor, Norway House Community Council Spence, Albertine Private Spence, Gary Private, Peguis First Nation Spence, Gary Private, Peguis First Nation Spence, John Private, Pimicikamak Okimawin Spence, Martha Elder, Tataskweyak Cree Nation Spence, Victor Tataskweyak Cree Nation Spence, Virginia Private, Sagkeeng First Nation Starr, Mabel Black River First Nation Starr, Sweetpea Private, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Stevenson, Earl Private, Peguis First Nation Stevenson, Lloyd Peguis First Nation Stewart, Cam Private, Manitoba Métis Federation

182 Stewart, Christine Private Stinson, Jim Private Sutherland, Kiefer Private, Peguis First Nation Sutherland, Maurice Private, Peguis First Nation Sutherland, Mike Councillor, Peguis First Nation Swampy, Sara Elder, Sagkeeng First Nation Swanson, Danny Norway House Community Council Swanson, Gary Manitoba Hydro Sweeney, Mark Manitoba Hydro Thaddeus, Darrell Private, Fisher River First Nation Thomas, Glen Private Thompson, Cheryl Peguis First Nation Thompson, Roy Private, Peguis First Nation Thompson, Ryan Private Thorleifson, Harvey Clean Environment Commission Traverse, Henry Interlake Reserves Tribal Council/Keewatinook Fishers of Lake Winnipeg Valentine, David Private, Misipawistik Cree Nation Vandal, Valerie Private, Black River First Nation Venema,Henry International Institute for Sustainable Development Walker, Dennis Private Walker, Gertrude Private, Peguis First Nation Walker, Maureen Private Warms, Jamon Private, Berens River First Nation Weremy, Andy Private Whelan Enns, Gaile Manitoba Wildlands Whelan, Jared Sagkeeng First Nation Whiteway, Roland Councillor, Berens River First Nation Williams, Byron Consumers’ Association of Canada Williams, Nancy Private, York Factory First Nation Young, Donald Private Young, Margaret Private Zuzek, Peter Clean Environment Commission

183 Written Submissions

Willow Island Property Owners Association Gerald Fotty Alison Burnett Benningen Charlie McPherson Scott St . George R . Collette M . Hornbeck K . Senecko International Institute for Sustainable Development Frederik Veldink, Silver Harbour Property Owners Association Jennifer Enghrecht Ray Bodnaruk Treaty 2 Territorial Alliance Winnipeg River Property Owners Hollow Water First Nation

184 Appendix IV Acronyms

asl above sea level ATK Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge CAC Consumers’ Association of Canada (Manitoba Inc .) CAMP Coordinated Ecological Monitoring Program cfs cubic feet per second CRD Churchill River Diversion CPUE catch per unit effort EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development IJC International Joint Commission IRTC Interlake Reserves Tribal Council JKDA Joint Keeyask Development Agreement km kilometers LWR Lake Winnipeg Regulation MW Megawatt NFA Northern Flood Agreement NFC Northern Flood Committee RCEA Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment RRBC Red River Basin Commission TSS Total Suspended Solids WSA Water Security Agency (Saskatchewan)

185 186 Appendix V Sources of Information Regarding the Lake Winnipeg Watershed

Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources . http://www .yourcier .org/first-nations- gathering-for-lake-winnipeg .html

Lake Friendly . http://www .lakefriendly .ca/

Lake Winnipeg Action Plan . https://www .gov .mb .ca/waterstewardship/water_quality/lake_ winnipeg/action_plan .html

Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative . https://www .ec .gc .ca/eau-water/default . asp?lang=En&n=4E8DF48A-1

Lake Winnipeg Foundation . http://www .lakewinnipegfoundation .org/

Lake Winnipeg Indigenous Collective . http://www .yourcier .org/first-nations-gathering-for-lake- winnipeg .html

Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium . http://www .lakewinnipegresearch .org/

Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board . https://www .gov .mb .ca/waterstewardship/water_quality/ lake_winnipeg/interim_rpt .html

Manitoba Conservation Districts Association . http://www .mcda .ca/

Saskatchewan Water Security Agency . https://www .wsask ca/.

Water Innovation Centre (International Institute for Sustainable Development) . http://www iisd. . org/wic/

187