6109 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 4 Volume 26 5 6 Including List of Participants 7 8 9 10 Hearing 11 12 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project 13 14 Presiding: 15 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair 16 Kathi Kinew 17 Harvey Nepinak 18 Robert Mayer 19 Terry Sargeant 20 21 Tuesday, May 25, 2004 22 Sheraton Hotel 23 161 Donald Street 24 Winnipeg, Manitoba 25 6110 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Clean Environment Commission: 4 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman 5 Terry Sargeant Member 6 Harvey Nepinak Member 7 Kathi Avery Kinew Member 8 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission 9 Rory Grewar Staff 10 CEC Advisors: 11 Mel Falk 12 Dave Farlinger 13 Jack Scriven 14 Jim Sandison 15 Jean McClellan 16 Brent McLean 17 Kyla Gibson 18 19 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: 20 Chief Jerry Primrose 21 Elvis Thomas 22 Campbell MacInnes 23 Valerie Matthews Lemieux 24 25 6111 1 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 3 4 Manitoba Conservation: 5 Larry Strachan 6 Trent Hreno 7 8 Manitoba Hydro/NCN: 9 Doug Bedford, Counsel 10 Bob Adkins, Counsel 11 Marvin Shaffer 12 Ed Wojczynski 13 Ken Adams 14 Carolyn Wray 15 Ron Mazur 16 Lloyd Kuczek 17 Cam Osler 18 Stuart Davies 19 David Hicks 20 George Rempel 21 David Cormie 22 Alex Fleming 23 Marvin Shaffer 24 Blair McMahon 25 6112 1 2 3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 4 5 CASIL 6 7 Merrell Ann Phare 8 Leslie Dysart 9 William Dysart 10 Lisa Hardess 11 Neil Duboff 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6113 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 Number Page 4 CASIL 1006: Presentation slides CEC Wuskwatim Hearing 5 May 2004 CASIL 6176 6 CASIL 1007: Presentation of William Dysart, President 7 South Indian Lake Commercial Fishermen's 8 Association 6177 9 CASIL 1008: Presentation Slides: Existing Water 10 Regime Operations 6207 11 CASIL 1009: Various data 12 documents presented by CASIL 6207 13 MH/NCN-1039: Letter from Michael W. Dumas to 14 Brian Wood, August 11, 2003 Re: 15 consultation meetings 6318 16 CASIL-1010: Report prepared 17 for CASIL by Duncan Associates Ltd., 18 dated May, 2004 6318 19 CASIL-1011: Agreement made between the 20 community of South Indian 21 Lake, Manitoba Hydro Electric Board 22 and the Province of Manitoba 6319 23 24 25 6114 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 3 MH/NCN 1040: Letter, May 19th, 2004 from MH/NCN 4 to David Chartrand, MMF, Re: 5 Metis Consultation 6371 6 DRSIL 1006: Excerpt from Hansard, 7 Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6384 8 MH/NCN 1041: Response to Manitoba Clean 9 Environment Commission's request 10 for comparison of 11 the agreement re new relationship, 12 2002, between Government of Quebec 13 and the Cree of Quebec, and 14 Wuskwatim project understandings, 15 2003, between Nisichawayasihk Cree 16 Nation and Manitoba Hydro, 17 May 14, 2004 6424 18 CNF 1024: Response to undertaking 61, 19 Manufacturing Commercial Scale 20 Wind Turbines in Canada, by 21 Canadian Wind Energy Association 6425 22 CNF 1025: Response to undertaking 60, 23 The Economics of Wind Energy 24 from American Wind 25 Energy Association 6425 6115 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 3 4 MMF 1001: Summary of Results from 5 Wuskwatim Workshops 6426 6 7 MMF 1002: Response to CEC 8 interrogatories, CEC/MMF/EIS 9 interrogatories number 1 to 7 6426 10 11 TREE/RCM 1009: Response to undertaking 12 84, Wuskwatim Advancement of 13 Adjustment Basic Forecast 6427 14 15 TREE/RCM 1010: Response to undertaking 85, 16 Wuskwatim Advancement with Adjusted 17 Basic Forecast with 400 Gigawatt 18 Hour Revision 6427 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6116 1 2 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 3 4 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 5 6 7 CASIL-86: Provide CASIL's position 8 re condition 1 of AFP varying condition 1 of CRD 6238 9 CASIL-87: Inquire whether John Duncan 10 considered Mr. Cormie's evidence 6287 11 CASIL-88: Inquire whether John Duncan had 12 reference to the responses of all the 13 interrogatories 6287 14 CASIL-89: Provide description and/or CVs 15 of Duncan Associates Ltd. members 6319 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6117 1 TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 9:10 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Elder Dysart 5 is here and we will ask him to come forward for the 6 opening prayer. 7 ELDER DYSART: Thank you. I see that 8 we're having a little rain here. When we left, we 9 had a good day from Thompson, it was sunny. And we 10 felt good getting here to be with you people again. 11 I hope we have a good day and everybody talks 12 peacefully. Hopefully that we'll do our job well. 13 Let's ask the Lord for a little help. Let us pray. 14 15 (PRAYER) 16 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Elder Dysart. 18 We welcome you again for this 26th day of hearings on 19 the Wuskwatim projects. Hopefully everybody found 20 their place and found their way here. Hopefully we 21 don't have too many waiting for this to start at the 22 Radisson Hotel. I will ask, to begin, Mr. Grewar to 23 tell us about a few changes in regards to the 24 schedule for today. 25 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6118 1 There's just been some slight changes to the 2 schedule. We will proceed as originally intended 3 with the Community Association of South Indian Lake 4 who will proceed now through the entire morning. And 5 then we will shift to hearing cross-examination of 6 the EIS by the Displaced Residents of South Indian 7 Lake. We thought that would be this morning but now 8 it seems that CASIL would prefer to complete their 9 presentation this morning. So then we'll move to 10 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake immediately 11 after the lunch break and then the afternoon will 12 conclude with MKO making a presentation. 13 What has changed is O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree 14 Nation are unavailable to make a presentation today. 15 We'll be in touch with them through the course of the 16 day to try and determine when we may be able to 17 reschedule them later in the week. So at this point, 18 it will be the Community Association of South Indian 19 Lake to come forward to make a presentation. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 21 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman. Just while 22 they are assembling, if I might mention, there are a 23 number of undertakings that Hydro is anxious to enter 24 into the record. We will do that perhaps just before 25 the lunch break. And there are also some exhibits, 6119 1 some undertakings that were filed by other 2 organizations, the MMF and also the Canadian Nature 3 Federation that we also should enter into the record 4 perhaps immediately before or after the lunch break. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Grewar. 6 Ladies, when you are ready, you may introduce 7 yourself and Mr. Grewar will proceed with the 8 swearing in. 9 MR. GREWAR: We're just missing one 10 presenter. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine. 12 MR. GREWAR: Is this your entire group 13 assembled now? 14 MR. L. DYSART: We're waiting for one 15 more. 16 MR. GREWAR: There is a presentation 17 document which I understand is just en route just 18 from an office nearby so we will distribute that as 19 soon as it is available. In the meantime, if I can 20 ask you each to state your names for the record. 21 MS. HARDESS: Lisa Hardess. 22 MR. W. DYSART: William Dysart. 23 MR. L. DYSART: Leslie Dysart. 24 MS. PHARE: Merrell-Ann Phare. 25 MR. DUBOFF: Neil Duboff. 6120 1 MR. GREWAR: Are you all aware that in 2 Manitoba, it is an offence to knowingly mislead this 3 Commission? 4 CASIL: Yes. 5 MR. GREWAR: Having answered in the 6 affirmative, do you all promise to tell only the 7 truth in proceedings before this Commission? 8 CASIL: Yes. 9 MR. GREWAR: Thank you very much. 10 11 (LISA HARDESS: SWORN) 12 (WILLIAM DYSART: SWORN) 13 (LESLIE DYSART: SWORN) 14 (MERRELL-ANN PHARE: SWORN) 15 (NEIL DUBOFF: SWORN) 16 17 MR. DYSART: Good morning. My name is 18 Leslie Dysart. First of all, I'd like to thank the 19 Clean Environment Commission for allowing me and the 20 Community Association of South Indian Lake to make a 21 presentation to you here today. 22 One aspect of our presentation that we 23 won't be delving into thoroughly as we probably can't 24 do the story of South Indian Lake justice. There is 25 one aspect of South Indian Lake, the Commission I 6121 1 think is aware of some aspects. We will be touching 2 on it, on certain areas of our presentation but not 3 focusing on it. I just wanted the Commission to be 4 aware of this. There is a whole other story of South 5 Indian Lake out there which I think you are aware of 6 some portions of. I'm just going to lead right into 7 my presentation. 8 I am here to present to you today because 9 of the Community of South Indian Lake has experienced 10 negative impacts of Manitoba Hydro's development for 11 the past three decades and we believe that the 12 Wuskwatim project may continue to degrade our 13 environment and quality of life. Manitoba Hydro 14 chose not to include Southern Indian Lake which 15 includes the environment of my community and the 16 environmental assessment of Wuskwatim Generation 17 Project. Our environment was not studied and our 18 people were not adequately or meaningfully consulted 19 or considered. 20 We will also argue that Hydro also has a 21 requirement morally, legally and scientifically to 22 talk to South Indian Lake through best practices for 23 cumulative effects assessment. 24 Hydro did involve Nisichawayasihk Cree 25 Nation in its environmental impact assessment and as 6122 1 a co-proponent which has led to the existing 2 Agreement in Principle for Wuskwatim. But they 3 missed out a large component of the actual nation in 4 the negotiations and consultations they had. For 5 example, not all residents of the area were included 6 in the vote that led to this agreement. Only NCN 7 members were eligible. A large portion of the NCN 8 members in South Indian Lake and in excess of 80 per 9 cent of these residents voted against the Agreement 10 in Principle. Other resource users such as the Metis 11 and other First Nations were excluded from the vote, 12 although they live in the community and may be 13 impacted by the proposed projects. 14 No attempts were made to fully gather the 15 traditional knowledge or input from South Indian Lake 16 community members or study the potential effects of 17 South Indian Lake resource users within the project 18 area. 19 Given our exclusion in the process, 20 therefore, participation in the Clean Environmental 21 Commission hearings as a funded intervenor was 22 considered the only available option to become 23 involved in the assessment of the Wuskwatim project. 24 Southern Indian Lake is the northern 25 reservoir for everything that happens in regards to 6123 1 Manitoba Hydro's northern operations in future 2 development on the Churchill, Burntwood and Nelson 3 River systems. This environment is a fragile one 4 that has experienced many changes that have altered 5 the ecosystem in our social and economic systems. 6 Our landscape is very susceptible to change. We are 7 worried that any further effect to our lake or the 8 operation of the CRD will affect these systems beyond 9 their capacity to survive and continue to adversely 10 affect the lives of my brothers and sisters and the 11 children of South Indian Lake. 12 The CRD and Augmented Flow Program, all 13 the control structures and the generating stations 14 are all part of one interconnected system. The CRD 15 did not happen 30 years ago, it started 30 years ago. 16 The effects are ongoing daily, weekly, monthly, 17 yearly, decade after decade. We understand that you 18 have ruled that this panel will not review past 19 projects. While we appreciate that you made this 20 decision, nevertheless, the CRD and the AFP were not 21 even included as an existing operation of a project 22 in the Wuskwatim Project Cumulative Effects 23 Assessment. There have been no comprehensive 24 environmental reviews of the CRD or Augmented Flow 25 Program at any time. 6124 1 Our people have been negatively affected 2 by the CRD. The CRD created and affects the 3 environment which our people are now living with. 4 This is why there are unique licences and conditions 5 that govern Manitoba Hydro operations, especially 6 regarding Southern Indian lake because everything 7 they do to our lake impacts the lives of my people. 8 For example, each of the Notigi Control 9 Structure, Missi Control Structure, Churchill River 10 Diversion, Augmented Flow Program and all other 11 generating stations on the Lower Nelson have defined 12 licence terms that determine their operations. These 13 terms are not guidelines, they are rules to govern 14 operations. 15 I will explain for our presentation today 16 there are certain things we did not review or 17 research. First, the CEC participant funding that we 18 received was directed at ascertaining South Indian 19 Lake community views only. So we will discuss our 20 findings later in this presentation. In particular, 21 we did not do a scientific review of the EIS as 22 resources were not provided for that purpose. We 23 chose to review cumulative effects on aquatic 24 environment only as these appear to be the closest 25 link to our community members. We have reviewed all 6125 1 relevant EIS chapters. 2 Manitoba Hydro has referenced a Duncan & 3 Associates study. This is an engineering review of 4 the Manitoba Hydro/Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation EIS 5 and we received the final report just days ago. As 6 we stated in the interrogatory process, this report 7 was not generated for the CEC process but we have 8 agreed to submit it to the CEC. Manitoba Hydro has 9 already received this report. If the CEC wants a 10 copy, we can undertake to provide it. 11 We will cover four areas of concern. One 12 is the credibility of Manitoba Hydro. We will 13 discuss the fact that in the history of Manitoba 14 Hydro operations, they have been wrong about impacts 15 before and could be wrong again. 16 Cumulative effects review of EIS. Our 17 conclusion is that the cumulative effects assessment 18 is inadequate. 19 Community impacts. Our conclusion after 20 interviewing residents of South Indian Lake, we and 21 South Indian Lake members believe that the Wuskwatim 22 will further exacerbate these effects and decrease 23 the quality of life of our community. 24 The water regime. Our conclusion is that 25 there is insufficient justification for Manitoba 6126 1 Hydro's assumption that there will be no changes to 2 the water regime and we think it is wrong that this 3 decision itself was not subject to public review. 4 This is South Indian Lake where we live. 5 As you can tell, this is a beautiful massive lake. 6 What this photo doesn't show you is the effect that 7 the CRD has on this lake and its people. What you 8 don't see is the floating debris and shorelines 9 falling into the water. South Indian Lake and Lake 10 Winnipeg are the reservoirs for the dams that provide 11 most of the power for Manitoba and even other parts 12 of North America. 13 South Indian Lake is intended to be the 14 reservoir that will feed the Wuskwatim Generation 15 Station. The Wuskwatim project EIS Cumulative 16 Effects Assessment did not include South Indian Lake 17 or its effect on the people who live along the shores 18 of the lake. 19 We will review the following six aspects 20 of cumulative effects assessment. We will review 21 best practices in cumulative effects assessment. We 22 will show how there has been an inappropriate choice 23 of baseline. We will review cumulative effects and 24 water quality, focusing on VECs and geographic extent 25 of the assessment. We will review total suspended 6127 1 solids in the construction and operation phases. We 2 will show you why we believe there has been a flawed 3 and uncertain determination of significance. 4 We will close this portion of the 5 presentation with some general comments about the EIS 6 and what we believe are flaws in the EIS approach and 7 the approach to the Manitoba Hydro First Nation 8 partnership. 9 Cumulative effects assessments are 10 generally done over a larger geographic area than a 11 standard assessment. This is acknowledged as 12 international best practices as to the use of VECs to 13 define this area. 14 The cumulative effects assessment generic 15 framework created for the Canadian Arctic Research 16 Council states that the geographic scope for 17 cumulative effects assessments are generally larger 18 than those for assessing direct project effects and 19 that one should choose spatial assessment scales 20 based on the maximum detectable zone of influence for 21 the project, the extent of the effects on the VECs. 22 The CEAA Practitioner's Guide also emphasis 23 the need for a larger spatial scale. Many EIAs have 24 focused on the local scale in which only the 25 footprint or areas covered by each action's 6128 1 components is considered. 2 The cumulative effects assessment further 3 enlarges the scale of the assessment to a regional 4 scale which, in our view, should include South Indian 5 Lake and the surrounding area. 6 We have focused much of our research on 7 cumulative effects. We believe that including the 8 effects of existing projects only as baseline 9 conditions in the Wuskwatim area is not consistent 10 with best practices and is also not adequate. This 11 first definition is taken from the Cumulative Effects 12 Assessment Practitioner's Guide. 13 Cumulative effects assessment is an 14 assessment of the incremental effects of an action on 15 the environment when the effects are combined with 16 those from other past, existing and future actions. 17 The project administration team EIS guidelines gave a 18 similar message. Cumulative environmental effects of 19 the Wuskwatim Generation Project that are likely to 20 result from the project in combination with other 21 projects and activities that have been or will be 22 carried out was supposed to have been studied. 23 Best practices and cumulative effects 24 assessment requires including ongoing projects in the 25 area that have the potential to impact some of the 6129 1 same components of the environment as the project 2 under review. 3 Volume 10 of the Wuskwatim Generation 4 Station EIS has a definition of cumulative effects 5 that we support. Why then was this not used to 6 determine what projects, ongoing and potential future 7 ones, would be included in the assessment? 8 The document outlines what future 9 projects were included and discusses the potential 10 future impacts of these. But where is the discussion 11 of the cumulative impacts of Wuskwatim on existing 12 facilities and projects? 13 Again, some characteristics of cumulative 14 effects assessment are outlined by the CEAA 15 Practitioners Guide. These are (1) assess effects 16 over larger regional areas. (2) Assess effects 17 during a longer period of time into the past and 18 future. (3) Consider effects on VECs due to 19 interaction with other actions, not just the effects 20 of a single action under review. Include other past, 21 existing and future actions and evaluate significance 22 in consideration of other than just local direct 23 effects. 24 The current baseline represents how the 25 environment has absorbed the effects of the CRD but 6130 1 does not allow for a cumulative effects assessment of 2 those effects. The Churchill River Diversion is an 3 existing ongoing project and its effects are not 4 included. 5 If you can think back to the definitions 6 prepared by the Canadian Environmental Assessment 7 Agency and Canadian Arctic Research Council that we 8 just reviewed, you will recall that the focus is 9 clearly on effects. 10 Another standard best practice of 11 cumulative effects assessment is the use of valued 12 ecosystem components to narrow the scope of the 13 assessment. This is stated in the Practitioner's 14 Guide and is used to guide the cumulative effects 15 assessment for the Wuskwatim Generation Station 16 Environmental Impact Assessment. 17 And Volume 5 of the Wuskwatim Generation 18 Project EIS on aquatic environment, water quality is 19 defined as a VEC. It is noted, and I quote, 20 "In scoping meetings held to develop a 21 work plan to conduct the environmental 22 studies for the project, NCN 23 identified water as a critical 24 component of the aquatic environment 25 on which all life depends." 6131 1 The linkages related to water quality are 2 discussed including a change in water levels that 3 result in increased erosion which can temporarily 4 degrade the water quality at a site by increased 5 suspended sediment levels. This can result in an 6 inferior habitat for algae and zoe-plankton resulting 7 in fewer or smaller forage fish which reduces the 8 food source for the bigger fish, which reduces the 9 food source for people and the economic resource for 10 fishers. 11 The identification of water quality is a 12 VEC for the assessment means that water quality is a 13 VEC in the cumulative effects assessment. The area 14 that is studied for the cumulative effects assessment 15 should be large enough to include the potential 16 effects of the VEC. The VEC is used to define the 17 geographic parameters. In many cases, this results 18 in cumulative effects assessment that is larger than 19 the standard assessment and can create a regional 20 study area. 21 Volume 10 of the cumulative effects 22 framework discusses this briefly in relation to 23 wildlife because it was recognized that wildlife 24 moves from place to place. Water also moves from 25 place to place. So the cumulative effects assessment 6132 1 should have looked at water quality as it relates to 2 the larger regional area as well. 3 Given that cumulative effects best 4 practices focused on the scope the assessment on 5 VECs, one of which is water quality in this case, 6 these standard best practices would require a 7 regional study area that included Southern Indian 8 Lake. Despite theoretical discussions in the EIS 9 documents that are consistent with this, the actual 10 cumulative effects assessment did not follow these 11 standards. 12 Again, I quote from the CEAA 13 Practitioner's Guide on how cumulative effects occur. 14 Cumulative effects can occur when too 15 much is happening within too small an area over too 16 brief a period of time. A threshold may be exceeded 17 and the environment may not be able to recover to 18 pre-disturbance conditions. 19 Cumulative effects can occur in a variety 20 of ways including physical transport such as 21 sediment. I would like to talk about sediment. 22 When we look at the water parameter total 23 suspended solids, it is clear that it continues to be 24 affected by the CRD. As Mr. Remple told us during 25 the hearings on April 13th, rivers transport sediment 6133 1 and increase in the rate of erosion on Southern 2 Indian Lake could result in some sediment transfer 3 downstream of the lake. Wuskwatim Lake currently 4 receives 315,000 tons per year of sediment from 5 upstream. Southern Indian Lake contributes some 6 portion of this and certainly more of it during the 7 early years of the CRD. If erosion rates on South 8 Indian Lake were to increase at all, presumably the 9 result in increase in sedimentation would transfer 10 downstream via the rivers to Wuskwatim Lake. Because 11 of the limit of the geographic scope of the EIS, this 12 potential consequence to Wuskwatim from South Indian 13 Lake was not considered. 14 Increased sediment in lakes and rivers is 15 therefore an ongoing effect of the CRD. It is also a 16 known future effect of the Wuskwatim project. 17 According to the EIS, activities of the 18 construction periods will cause the most 19 sedimentation in (inaudible) the Burntwood River will 20 experience the greatest increase in TSS levels. 21 However, the EIS states that TSS from numerous 22 sources will be managed by attempting to limit the 23 net increase to 25 milligrams per litre. This is the 24 Manitoba Water Quality Standards Objectives and 25 Guidelines allowable increase for a one-day averaging 6134 1 period. As someone who has experienced the inability 2 of Manitoba Hydro to fully implement its past 3 commitments and understand the effects of its 4 actions, intentions are not good enough. 5 Here is an example of a cumulative effect 6 that we believe has been missed. It is possible that 7 the water levels on Southern Indian Lake will be kept 8 at their highest allowable limit for a longer period 9 of time to ensure that the Wuskwatim Generation 10 Station construction conditions are as dry as 11 possible. 12 As our lake fluctuates and the water 13 level is generally higher, more erosion would occur. 14 This would result in increased erosion and higher 15 sediment levels in Southern Indian Lake than is 16 normal. This additional sediment could be 17 transported downstream, resulting in a cumulative 18 effect on TSS on the Burntwood River. This also begs 19 the need for an increased regional analysis because 20 of the potential economic effects of increased TSS on 21 the users of the fisheries of South Indian Lake. 22 This effect is not assessed or included 23 in mitigation planning. By excluding the operation 24 of the CRD and the cumulative effects assessment, 25 this impact of Wuskwatim was excluded. And 6135 1 therefore, the potential cumulative effects remain 2 unknown and therefore mitigation strategies have not 3 been developed. 4 We know the Wuskwatim Generation Station 5 will cause erosion and that sediment will enter 6 Wuskwatim Lake during the operation of this project. 7 The following quote is a judgment of significance for 8 TSS on reach one, Wuskwatim Lake, for the operation 9 of the project. 10 "Overall, effects to the nearshore 11 zone of Wuskwatim Lake main during the 12 open water season would on average 13 exceed Manitoba water quality 14 standards objective guidelines for TSS 15 for the protection of aquatic life in 16 the first five years, with smaller 17 effects thereafter. This 18 project-related increase in TSS will 19 affect all water usages, but it is 20 short-term." 21 Now all throughout the EIS, the Manitoba 22 Water Quality Standards Objectives and Guidelines are 23 used to represent the environmental threshold of 24 water parameters. These allow for both an acute and 25 chronic increase in TSS. According to the EIS, the 6136 1 increase in TSS in the nearshore zone of Wuskwatim 2 Lake where fish feed and spawn will exceed the 3 chronic allowable levels for five years. We do not 4 actually know if this five year impact is 5 insignificant or devastating to the fish and 6 therefore the fishery. And yet an assessment of 7 Manitoba Hydro has determined that this is not 8 significant. 9 The EIS states that overall increases in 10 TSS and related parameters are expected to have a 11 negative and not significant, meaning short-term, 12 moderate and site specific to local effect on the use 13 of water for drinking, suitability for aquatic life 14 and aesthetics. 15 This determination is not consistent with 16 the methods laid out for the assessment. Despite the 17 choice to use the Manitoba Water Quality Standards 18 Objections and Guidelines as the environmental 19 threshold, they are considered in some situations but 20 not others. This is an inconsistent application of 21 methods with no explanation and is not an acceptable 22 and scientific study. 23 Given the methods outlined in the EIS and 24 the predicted levels of TSS, the judgment of not 25 significant is hard to believe. This is poor science 6137 1 and a reflection of the arbitrary nature of judgments 2 of significance. 3 This example with TSS represents the 4 arbitrary nature of judgment in this EIS. Even on a 5 parameter that is critical to water quality, a VEC is 6 predicted to exceed the chosen environmental 7 threshold for five years, the resulting judgment is 8 not significant. 9 Were the people who have to live with the 10 results of the Wuskwatim project part of this 11 determination? The public involvement program does 12 not indicate South Indian Lake or any community 13 involvement at this point in the environmental 14 assessment process. To further emphasize the 15 questionable nature of the significant decisions we 16 note, what is short-term and moderate negative 17 effects to an aquatic habitat and the species it 18 supports which are already stressed by the CRD? What 19 does negative effects as site specific to local mean 20 when the local is Wuskwatim Lake and the lake is only 21 as healthy as its water? What is significant? Is 22 this an opinion, not a scientific assessment? And it 23 was determined without community input. 24 Looking specifically at TSS and the 25 operations of the Wuskwatim project, it is clear that 6138 1 the CRD could result in cumulative effects on the 2 water quality of Wuskwatim Lake. As I mentioned, 3 sediment is constantly being transported out of 4 Southern Indian Lake. It is possible that the 5 erosion rates on Southern Indian Lake could change as 6 a result of modified flows which have not been 7 studied. The consequence of debris on our lake is a 8 good example. The debris currently along the 9 shoreline may prevent some erosion but also causes 10 many problems for the community such as reaching the 11 shoreline from boats and preventing shoreline 12 vegetation growth that could be the habitat for 13 species. 14 As a mitigation measure of the CRD, 15 Manitoba Hydro may undertake a debris management 16 program. If this ever occurs, the removal of debris 17 could result in a period of increased erosion and 18 sedimentation in Wuskwatim Lake. 19 Given that the EIS predicts that TSS 20 levels will exceed the chronic allowable levels set 21 by the Manitoba Water Quality Guidelines during the 22 first five years of operation on Wuskwatim Lake, it 23 could potentially be catastrophic to push this water 24 parameter even further. Could increase sediment 25 imported from the removal of upstream debris have 6139 1 this result? We don't know the answer to this 2 question because this potential cumulative effect was 3 not studied. 4 I would like to remind you about the 5 concept of threshold. The environment that we are 6 talking about is not a healthy one to start out with. 7 The CART (ph) document notes that the current state 8 of the environment is particularly important when 9 predicting future impacts. Impacts on already 10 disturbed systems may be much more significant than 11 those on a system which has seen little disturbance. 12 How would Wuskwatim Lake respond to even 13 higher levels of total suspended solids, especially 14 when the water will already be experiencing levels 15 that exceed the Manitoba Water Quality Standards 16 Objectives and Guidelines. And this will happen for 17 the first five years of operation of the generation 18 station. This has not been studied. What will be 19 the effect of this exceedance on the environment? 20 This incomplete cumulative effects 21 assessment results in missed opportunities to avoid 22 or mitigate these effects. One simple planning 23 decision that could result from recognition of the 24 potential cumulative effect just discussed could be 25 ensure that periods of heavy sediment deposition 6140 1 occur at different times. Debris clearing activities 2 and Wuskwatim construction periods do not overlap. 3 Because this effect was not considered, you and the 4 rest of the public cannot consider, understand and 5 evaluate these options. 6 The fact is that potential cumulative 7 effects of increased sedimentation in Southern Indian 8 Lake as part of the CRD follow-up activities on the 9 water quality of Wuskwatim Lake, which is a VEC, is 10 unknown. Why? Because the CRD, as a project, that 11 includes Southern Indian Lake was excluded from the 12 Wuskwatim cumulative effects assessment. This is 13 just one example of missed cumulative effects which 14 requires an assessment and has been missed and raises 15 a doubt about the validity of the EIS. 16 What else has been missed? The decision 17 by the proponent to reinterpret known best practices 18 and exclude the effects of ongoing existing project 19 is clearly faulty. 20 The method that appears to have been used 21 to determine significance throughout the EIS does not 22 conform with best practices. The EIS does not 23 outline an assessment process that includes a 24 preliminary assessment of the impacts of the project 25 or the activities that could cause effects on water 6141 1 quality during construction. For example, there is 2 no discussion of what those effects might be. How 3 can the alternatives be looked at or mitigation 4 planned for the necessary activities without this 5 step? Best practices require this process. (1) 6 Determine environmental baseline. (2) Conduct impact 7 analysis. (3) Determine mitigation measures. (4) 8 Determine the risk, success, failure of mitigation 9 measures. (5) Determine the residual effects given 10 varying risks of the success or failure of mitigation 11 measures. (6) Determine significance of all the 12 ranges of residual effects. 13 We believe that the likelihood of 14 implementing mitigation and the known ability of the 15 mitigation measures must be a factor when determining 16 the final effect on the environment. Merely stating, 17 and I repeat a quote from the EIS, that measures as 18 well as standard practices will be taken with the 19 intent of limiting the increase of TSS does not 20 provide assurances that this mitigation measure is 21 guaranteed to protect the water quality. In fact, 22 we have no idea of whether or not these measures will 23 work. What is the risk associated with the proposed 24 mitigation measures and what is going to happen if 25 those measures don't work? 6142 1 The Environmental Impact Assessment 2 process has been developed by the Government of 3 Canada and Manitoba more than just to regulate, it is 4 also a planning tool. The overall goal of the impact 5 assessment is to ensure that the projects being 6 reviewed support sustainable development so that 7 future generations are assured of healthy, natural 8 and human resources. This means, for example, that 9 even in areas where humans do not currently have 10 permanent settlements, that project effects on the 11 viability of the water, the earth and the air in that 12 location matter. 13 There is a move internationally to ensure 14 that environmental impact assessments is linked more 15 closely to sustainability of the life that is 16 affected by the environment and the environment 17 itself. 18 We do not believe that the Environmental 19 Impact Statement or the Wuskwatim Project are being 20 proposed with a view to sustainability. In 21 particular, the interpretation and application of 22 significance that is used in the EIS is contrary to 23 the broader goals of Environmental Impact Assessment. 24 We will be showing you today that the way 25 that Manitoba Hydro has dealt with the CRD with 6143 1 respect to South Indian Lake has been significant 2 notwithstanding that they have said that the CRD is 3 not relevant. The credibility of Manitoba Hydro is 4 again being questioned with regard to how they have 5 dealt with the CRD in this hearing process and in 6 their EIS. 7 This quote from the generation station 8 EIS Aquatic Volume number 5 and is an example of why 9 we make this statement. The assessment of 10 significance was adjusted to reflect whether 11 potential effects would actually occur. For example, 12 effects to drinking water were not considered for the 13 reaches of the river where there is currently no 14 resource use. This is an arbitrary and subjective 15 decision. It does not take into account that 16 traditional practices of Aboriginal peoples and the 17 likelihood that when people are away from the 18 community hunting or trapping in the bush that they 19 may drink or cook with the water from anywhere in the 20 area. It does not consider the traditional knowledge 21 and the value of water is something on which all life 22 depends. And of course, it does not support 23 sustainability and the protection of this water for 24 the future. 25 The need for both regulatory permits and 6144 1 public permission to ensure successful projects as 2 best practice is becoming increasingly clear and was 3 a topic of discussion at the recent International 4 Association of Impact Assessment conference in 5 Vancouver. It appears that Manitoba Hydro worked 6 hard with NCN members who are also residents of 7 Nelson House to put together these reports. This 8 would be expected given that these two parties are 9 co-proponents of the Wuskwatim Project. 10 But NCN members do not only live in 11 Nelson House. 90 per cent of residents in the 12 Community of South Indian Lake are NCN members. 13 Although we are in the process of separating, we are 14 still currently NCN members. Leaving the public 15 participation and traditional knowledge gathering 16 activities to be implemented at the community level 17 is a good idea. But given the political nature of 18 the current situation, leaving this implementation 19 primarily in the hands of Nelson House residents was 20 not the right thing to do. Manitoba Hydro has risked 21 the overall success of this collaboration with First 22 Nations and cannot say that they have successfully 23 partnered with the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. 24 In addition to the regulatory licence and 25 permits that are required and that are linked to the 6145 1 Environmental Impact Assessment in Manitoba, 2 proponents need to work together with the public and 3 local communities in order to receive a social 4 licence to operate. 5 During our cross-examination of Manitoba 6 Hydro and NCN, we asked questions in other areas. I 7 don't want the Commission to think that we are not 8 still concerned about these issues but in the 9 interest of time, I will only state them as continued 10 concerns. 11 The significance of the effect of the 12 Wuskwatim project on the biodiversity in and of 13 itself is unknown. The effects of the project on the 14 aquatic habitat, for example, were not studied let 15 alone the effects on aquatic biodiversity. This is 16 also the case with TSS levels. What is the effect on 17 the biodiversity. 18 There is no judgment on what is 19 significant or not significant that relates to these 20 issues at all. The effects of climate change were 21 not studied because apparently there is not yet 22 enough information. But there is some information 23 and some models available for use and choosing to 24 ignore these sources and this issue is not 25 acceptable. Using existing models means applying the 6146 1 current state of science and this is what should have 2 been done even if there are limitations. Limitations 3 in models are not a reason to completely avoid using 4 a model such as the Global Climate Model. As a 5 result, there's no assessment and no judgment. 6 The nature of ceremony to mitigate the 7 social effects at Taskinigup Falls is unknown to 8 South Indian Lake and not reviewed by South Indian 9 Lake members. The effect of the loss of Taskinigup 10 Falls on the biophysical environment is also not 11 assessed. This is a loss of more than just a 12 cultural loss, it is a loss of the physical form in 13 the environment forever. 14 CASIL, with the assistance of the 15 Canadian Indigenous Environmental Resources, 16 conducted community research to ensure that our 17 presentation include both literature data and the 18 community knowledge. 19 I've just been informed that a copy of 20 the report on community research, we'll be providing 21 it for you. 22 Our community research focused on 23 community concerns regarding the aquatic environment. 24 To include traditional and community knowledge, we 25 selected a representative sample of resource users in 6147 1 the community for extended interviews and focus 2 groups that included open-ended questions. Questions 3 were translated into Cree when necessary. 4 Our questions focused on water and fish 5 and dealt with the environment after the CRD. We 6 also questioned about what they thought life would be 7 like after Wuskwatim dam. These questions focused on 8 water, fish, animals, land and plants and community 9 life. A copy of the questionnaire was provided with 10 our submission in February and have included the 11 results of the interviews of the report we will 12 provide today. 13 We selected a focus group based upon two 14 criteria; one, whether or not there were resource 15 users or people such as elders who had intimate 16 knowledge of Hydro projects before, during and after 17 previous projects. We selected people from a wide 18 age range between the ages of 25 to 76 years old. 19 Twenty people participated in the focus discussion 20 with between 10 to 60 years of fishing experience, 21 between 12 to 50 years of hunting experience and six 22 to 60 years of trapping experience. 23 The following slides summarized the 24 findings of our interviews. The responses to our 25 questions have been grouped into three categories, 6148 1 water, hunting, trapping and fishing, and health and 2 safety. For each area, I'll give you a summary of 3 what was said about the existing environment and then 4 a summary of the participants' concerns about the 5 Wuskwatim dam. 6 The concerns raised by community members 7 relating to existing environment as it relates to 8 water are water fluctuations with tragic impacts. 9 Increased debris in water and along shoreline, moose, 10 caribou hunting, the loss of beaches, increased 11 sedimentation or silt which affects the fish and the 12 drinking water, the loss of islands, physical islands 13 being eroded away or just floating away on any given 14 day which also affects travel and the fishing 15 environment. 16 Some concerns that people raised were, in 17 regards to water, will there be an increase in 18 surface water levels? Will there be an increase in 19 fluctuations? Will there be further loss of 20 shoreline? Will there be further decrease in water 21 quality? 22 This is the reality of South Indian Lake. 23 This is our existing environment created by the CRD. 24 This didn't happen 30 years ago, it started 30 years 25 and these pictures are current from last summer. 6149 1 Some interview findings in regards to 2 fishing, hunting and trapping. For the Community of 3 South Indian Lake, these traditional practices are 4 still very strong. One term I'd like to use in 5 describing South Indian Lake is that approximately 80 6 per cent of our members and households still practice 7 these traditional practices as compared to other 8 communities where it might be as low as 20 per cent. 9 Fishing, hunting and trapping are still main sources 10 of income for the residents of South Indian Lake. 11 Some concerns were that deterioration in 12 rivers and streams due to fluctuations, loss of 13 spawning grounds, debris, loss of fish eggs due to 14 the exposure during low spring water levels, loss of 15 fish species, decrease in population size of fish 16 species, decrease in flesh quality of fish, the 17 virtual disappearance of fur-bearing animals which 18 affects the trappers, flooding of low-lying areas 19 destroyed food sources for moose and animals have to 20 move elsewhere, nesting areas lost and waterfowl no 21 longer stopping on the lake. Their food source is 22 gone or will be gone. Mercury content of fish. This 23 is an area of great concern for the community 24 residents which ends up being loss of food source for 25 the people, their fears of getting sick. 6150 1 This next slide are concerns related to 2 Wuskwatim. The commercial fishing industry is the 3 main source of income for many of the residents for 4 South Indian Lake. They have concern about further 5 decrease in the quantity and quality of the fish, 6 further loss of spawning grounds, the further 7 deterioration of hunting and trapping, decreases in 8 quality and quantity of the furs, the difficulties 9 in -- well, the increases in travel to hunt and trap 10 due to degradation and the destruction of our 11 environment, increases in the danger due to poor ice 12 conditions for travel. 13 One example I can give you is the water 14 in front of our community is open 12 months of the 15 year irregardless of temperature. It was never like 16 that before. This is a direct effect of the 17 operations of Manitoba Hydro. 18 Earlier I talked about sediment and 19 suspended solids. I don't know if you can see it 20 clearly from the picture but this is a gill net used, 21 a standard gill net used for commercial fishing and 22 used for domestic -- fishing purposes for domestic 23 consumption. Usually this is almost virtually 24 invisible to the naked eye. The gill net is made of 25 very fine nylon. This net was left less than 24 6151 1 hours, just overnight, and you can see the amount of 2 sediment that's collected on the net itself. It's 3 almost like cord overnight. If you pulled the net 4 out of the water, it's just like mud coming -- well, 5 it's a combination. Part of this is also algae 6 collecting. 7 Some concerns that were brought forward 8 in regards to health and safety regarding our 9 existing environment. Our people have difficulties 10 landing on the shore due to instability of the 11 shoreline. Area of concern is like when storms are 12 approaching, you need to find areas where you can get 13 off, get off and get protection from the storm. 14 These areas are rare. I mean almost the whole 15 shoreline of South Indian Lake is just a mass of 16 falling, eroded clay and a tangle of debris. 17 An outbreak of Shigella a few years ago 18 was blamed on the poor water quality, drawing water 19 right out of South Indian Lake which has been 20 impacted by the CRD and Hydro operations. Another 21 area of concern is the children that swim in the lake 22 are developing sores. Increased travel risks due to 23 flooded portages. Extremely low water levels. And 24 there's always a debris problem. Animal death due to 25 water fluctuations. For example, beaver, who I think 6152 1 everybody knows constructs their houses for a certain 2 level of water. But when the draw-down is four feet, 3 they freeze out during the winter. Thin ice and open 4 water in winter due to high currents created by dam 5 operations due to ice shelves and high currents due 6 to change in the freeze-up. 7 There is no normal year in South Indian 8 as far as in relation to freeze-up and ice 9 conditions. There is no standard anymore. You just 10 never know what the condition of the ice you're 11 travelling on is going to be. There is also the loss 12 of medicines and food due to the loss of trees and 13 shrubs. 14 Some of the health and safety concerns 15 brought forward in regards to the Wuskwatim Dam were 16 I believe there will be increased safety risks due to 17 increase in debris, increased travel risk due to ice 18 shelving, thin ice, fluctuations in water levels, 19 the potential loss of areas used for berry picking 20 and loss of sacred sites. 21 The following are just some examples of 22 the questions that are asked during the interview. 23 The question, Do you think the project will affect 24 how you use your traditional lands for hunting, 25 trapping, fishing, berry picking, et cetera? 6153 1 Ninety-two per cent of the participants said yes. 2 Some comments were depends on what they do. Water 3 levels. "We won't be able to go hunting. I would 4 have to go further inland to inland lakes. Once 5 again, we will see the erosion destroy our 6 traditional lands." 7 Question. Do you think the project will 8 affect how you use places that are sacred to the 9 community? Seventy-seven per cent of the people 10 interviewed said yes. "It will affect our community. 11 One burial area is already gone. The lands will wash 12 away, a lot will be lost." 13 I just want to add a comment here. In my 14 discussions with archaeologists, there is over 500 15 archaeological sites identified in the community as 16 we know them today. But there's more. I mean nine 17 out of 10 areas you stop on South Indian Lake, you 18 will find artifacts. I know this myself because I 19 have an interest in that area and I did work one 20 summer in '91 I think with an archaeologist. 21 The area traditionally was such a 22 beautiful area and had an abundance of resources. 23 Our people are all over the lake and reside at 24 various areas. Like one person made, one burial 25 ground is already gone. We don't know how many of 6154 1 our burial grounds are gone. They are not documented 2 sites. It's safe to say every year, there's probably 3 the remains of our ancestors being eroded into South 4 Indian Lake. 5 In respect to community knowledge and 6 cumulative effects. Question. Do you think that 7 these changes will affect how wildlife can use 8 Southern Indian Lake? 100 per cent of the people 9 said yes. Their comments were, "There will be no 10 feeding grounds for birds, moose, muskrat, beaver. 11 All wildlife in South Indian Lake is next to none. 12 So Wuskwatim will wipe out what we scarcely have. 13 The animals will have a hard time finding feeding 14 grounds and have to go further up to inland lakes." 15 Another question is, Do you think the 16 project will affect how you use and enjoy outside 17 activities and cultural activities, for example, 18 swimming, walking in the bush, picking berries, 19 picking up medicines, et cetera? 92 per cent of the 20 participants said yes. Their comments were, "It 21 depends on water levels. There will be fewer berries 22 and medicines. Now we cannot even set up a tent or 23 build a dock to spend weekends without it being 24 washed away. This will likely change again. 25 Medicines are sensitive to water and level change." 6155 1 Another question asked was, Do you think 2 these changes will affect how the wildlife can use 3 Southern Indian Lake? If yes, how? One answer was, 4 "Fishing has been poor since the flood and still no 5 change. Lots of nets are being wrecked by floating 6 logs and debris." Another answer was, "Yes, the 7 ecosystem will be affected up the food chain, 8 plants, animals and South Indian Lake people." 9 The community and traditional knowledge 10 that was shared by the residents of South Indian Lake 11 for this research is missing from the entire 12 Wuskwatim EIS. Their concerns on the effects of the 13 aquatic environment of South Indian Lake are not 14 evident and were not addressed in the Cumulative 15 Effects Assessment. We believe that this is 16 unacceptable based on the standard best practices 17 required for EIS and cumulative effects assessment. 18 We live among the operations of an existing project 19 and we depend on the same water as habitat for our 20 fish, for our aquatic plants, provide food for our 21 wildlife and medicines for our people. This is the 22 same water that was identified as a VEC in the 23 environmental assessment. How can the Wuskwatim 24 project be allowed to continue without a true 25 cumulative assessment of its effects? 6156 1 These are the voices of our people, the 2 project -- the people who live with the effects of 3 the past project and are concerned about potential 4 cumulative effects of the Wuskwatim project. 5 I am not here to say whether they are 6 right or wrong but this is what they believe and this 7 is what they've told us. "All the wildlife in South 8 Indian Lake is next to none. It is very scarce. So 9 the Wuskwatim will totally wipe out what we scarcely 10 have. The moose will have to move further inland. 11 Feeding grounds will move inland. There will be more 12 habitat change. I went moose hunting and shot a 13 floating log. I thought it was a moose swimming 14 across. 15 I mean some people might find this 16 humorous but myself, like we've gone moose hunting. 17 And you think you see a moose swimming in the water 18 and you go after it and it ends up being a log. Or 19 when you're cruising along the shorelines looking for 20 moose, the uprooted root systems and land that come 21 up off the ground are similar to what the moose 22 shapes are. So it's a current situation. 23 Some more quotes are, "The lake has been 24 destroyed already. It is just going to get worse. 25 My biggest worry is that even if the lake is affected 6157 1 just a little bit, it will be just like after the 2 first flood and the fish will disappear. Will the 3 muskrats and beaver disappear and impact trapping 4 again? I have concerns about our children in the 5 future. Will they be able to survive without our 6 culture and livelihood? Our way of life will be 7 gone." 8 We have heard from various people in the 9 community and shared some of the information on the 10 current environment and their predictions about the 11 cumulative effects that will be caused by the 12 Wuskwatim dam. I have shared a summary of that 13 information with you. Manitoba Hydro and NCN have 14 told us in this hearing that there will be no effects 15 on Southern Indian Lake. They have also told us that 16 they have a successful public involvement program 17 with NCN. 18 Eighty-four per cent of the people who 19 participated in the interviews are NCN Band members. 20 Their obvious concerns about the cumulative effects 21 of the Wuskwatim project on our lake and the way of 22 life makes me question the success of the public 23 involvement program. If in fact the proponents is 24 correct and there will be no effects on Southern 25 Indian Lake, either the people did not get a chance 6158 1 to hear this message or they don't believe it. 2 Either way, this is not a successful public process 3 or a collaboration of the Nisichawayasihk Cree 4 Nation. 5 My wife's grandfather, Mr. Angus Bonner, 6 said that there was a community meeting held in 1968 7 by Manitoba Hydro within our community. And the fear 8 in our community is exactly the same except then our 9 grandparents were right and Manitoba Hydro was wrong. 10 That's a quote taken from 1977. 11 The people of South Indian Lake made the 12 sacrifice for the people of Manitoba then. Our 13 people were let down. Let's not let them down again. 14 The people of South Indian Lake believe 15 that the Wuskwatim Generation Project will result in 16 adverse cumulative effects. Manitoba Hydro and NCN 17 say that there has been an adequate public 18 consultation of the EIS. But 90 per cent of South 19 Indian Lake residents are NCN members. Eighty-four 20 per cent of our interview participants are NCN 21 members. And clearly, these South Indian Lake people 22 were not included in the Environmental Impact 23 Assessment process. 24 If in fact the Wuskwatim project will not 25 have an effect on South Indian Lake and these people 6159 1 were adequately consulted, then presumably they 2 wouldn't have expressed such concerns about 3 Wuskwatim. 4 It is clear that the people of South 5 Indian Lake have profound discomfort with and the 6 mistrust of this project. They don't understand it 7 and they fear it. Regardless of the science and 8 engineering that you have conducted and that the 9 Duncan & Associates has conducted, there are 10 Manitobans who believe that their environment will be 11 worse off because of this project. 12 Manitoba Hydro has a duty to ensure that 13 this discomfort and fear is mitigated and minimized 14 and they have breached this duty by not properly 15 explaining this project. Manitoba Hydro made a 16 mistake in believing NCN speaks for South Indian 17 Lake. 18 The Churchill River Diversion is more 19 than just the resulting baseline environment in the 20 Wuskwatim project area. It caused adverse 21 environmental effects that in turn resulted in 22 adverse social, cultural, spiritual and economic 23 adverse effects. These effects were excluded from 24 the cumulative effects assessment. 25 There is the potential for missing 6160 1 cumulative effects of the Wuskwatim project when the 2 CRD is excluded. The levels of total suspended 3 solids at given times during the first five years of 4 the project when the project itself pushes this 5 parameter beyond the limits set by the Manitoba Water 6 Quality Standards Objectives and Guidelines is a good 7 example of missed cumulative effect. This causes 8 missed opportunities for impact mitigation and 9 follow-up at planning. 10 This is particularly worrisome because 11 the environmental area is already disturbed and 12 vulnerable. Effects that are missed could 13 potentially be significantly adversed but we don't 14 know this because there is no assessment of this. 15 We have four recommendations related to 16 cumulative effects. One, Manitoba Hydro must conduct 17 a thorough cumulative effects assessment prior to the 18 construction of the Wuskwatim dam consistent with 19 best practices endorsed by CEAA including the effects 20 of the CRD and including the region affected by the 21 ongoing CRD Augmented Flow Program projects. Two, 22 communities in the geographic area of the cumulative 23 effects assessment must participate in the entire 24 cumulative effects assessment process in a meaningful 25 and fully funded way. There must be a clear 6161 1 community based identification of potential effects 2 of the project and the definition and evaluation of 3 significance. 4 Three, the operation of the Wuskwatim Dam 5 should be determined with input from the affected 6 communities and stakeholders through the creation of 7 a community advisory committee. 8 Four, all proponents must fulfil their 9 obligations by law to conduct meaningful public 10 participation. 11 Being told that people do not want to 12 meet or do not feel able to meet in good faith should 13 not be the end of the discussion. It is the duty of 14 the proponents to solicit input and to ask for better 15 ways to do this when their attempts fail. Not the 16 responsibility of the affected communities to 17 intervene in a public hearing to finally be heard. 18 This concludes the first portion of my 19 presentation. My father, William Dysart, which is 20 the president of South Indian Lake Fisherman's 21 Association, our resource group, will be making a 22 presentation of approximately half an hour. 23 At the discretion of the Commission, we 24 could break after his presentation and then I'll move 25 on to the conclusion of our presentation. 6162 1 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I missed that 2 sentence? 3 MR. L. DYSART: We're suggesting William 4 Dysart conclude his presentation and then we'll take 5 a break. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's correct, good. 7 MR. W. DYSART: Thank you. I'm going to 8 introduce myself as William Dysart, Southern Indian 9 Lake Fishermen's president and I have been, since 10 1972, off and on as a director and the president in 11 the past say 30 years, 32 years. 12 I have a little presentation to make, 13 maybe five, six pages more or less to the Commission 14 and the general public. Even though I think that 15 they have heard it many times in the past, but 16 nevertheless I was asked to come and do this by my 17 membership to more or less give a wake-up call to the 18 ones that are concerned. 19 I do respect all people that take this at 20 heart but I do wish that they take it further. 21 My name is William Dysart and I am a 22 resident of the Community of South Indian Lake and 23 have been all my life of 57 years. I am and have 24 been a commercial fisherman on Southern Indian Lake 25 all my life and I am also president of the Southern 6163 1 Indian Lake Commercial Fishermen's Association Inc. 2 which represents about 180 commercial fishers 3 operating within South Indian Lake Resource area. I 4 am further a commercial trapper and again have 5 trapped within South Indian Lake trapline zone all my 6 life. 7 As a life long resident and resource user 8 within South Indian Lake area, I have witnessed many 9 changes over the years. However, the most profound 10 change started in the early 1970s with the coming of 11 Manitoba Hydro and the implementation of the 12 Churchill River Diversion Project, CRD. Prior to the 13 implementation of the CRD, we were promised a number 14 of things by Manitoba Government and Manitoba Hydro. 15 First of all, we were advised that the entire 16 community would have to be moved from the west side 17 of a channel between South Indian Lake and South Bay 18 to the east side of the same channel. 19 This was not a move -- was a move that 20 the community was not in favour of for a number of 21 reasons. First of all, this was our traditional home 22 with access to the outside world year-round without 23 bridges or winter roads crossing waters. Secondly, 24 it was unclear to the community how water levels and 25 flows would change around the community once the CRD 6164 1 was implemented. 2 In the end, the community was forced to 3 move with a promise of new homes, new roads, new 4 community infrastructure, sewer and water and an 5 overall better way of life. 6 I'll just add on a little bit on that 7 last sentence. Sure it was done to a certain extent. 8 But yet today, you can walk to our community and you 9 think construction just started in terms of the 10 conditions of our roads. And it was started since 11 1973. 12 What we got is not exactly what was 13 promised. We got substandard houses, limited new 14 infrastructure, roads that can hardly be classified 15 as roads. Sewer and water that consists of holding 16 tanks and water tanks loosely serviced by trucks, and 17 most important, not a better way of life but rather a 18 much worse, lost and losing way of life particularly 19 in the area of resource use. 20 As I mentioned before, I had been a 21 resource user in the areas of commercial fishing, 22 commercial trapping and domestic fishing on Southern 23 Indian Lake as well as lands and water adjacent to 24 Southern Indian Lake all my life. With the coming of 25 the CRD in mid 1970, we had become well aware that 6165 1 the water levels on Southern Indian Lake will be 2 raised by approximately 10 feet, creating a huge 3 reservoir of water that will be diverted down to the 4 Rat River system through Nelson House into the 5 Burntwood River system and eventually into the Nelson 6 House system to feed power dams downstream of Split 7 Lake on Southern Indian Lake. We were very aware 8 that the CRD would bring massive shoreline erosions, 9 massive amounts of floating debris in our water shed, 10 massive amounts of sedimentation and water as a 11 result of shoreline erosion and increased and 12 reversed water flows which, when all combined, would 13 have a very negative effect on our traditional 14 trapping, commercial and domestic fisheries. 15 Little discussion between Manitoba or 16 Manitoba Hydro was ever had with the resource users 17 on these negative effects. However, our local 18 knowledge told us of what was to occur in the future. 19 I'm not exactly saying that things were 20 not studied but what I guess what I'm pointing out, 21 that they were studied and there was effects to occur 22 on those studies that were not moved forward for 23 people to take -- to make use of towards, whatever 24 you might call it, compensation or whatever. It 25 wasn't fully implemented into it. 6166 1 Immediately following the implementation 2 of the CRD, our local knowledge of the effects proved 3 to be true. As the water rose, debris was removed 4 from the previously stable shorelines, massive 5 erosion and high water sedimentation was occurring, 6 reversed water flows created open water situations 7 during the winter never before experienced, and 8 fishing grounds and fish quality were changing and 9 they are still constantly changing, whatever is left. 10 In the late 1970s, after the CRD have 11 been in the operation for a number of years, both 12 domestic and commercial fishers were learning to live 13 with the new environment of Southern Indian Lake, as 14 difficult as it was. We were becoming aware of how 15 Manitoba Hydro was managing water levels and flows of 16 Southern Indian Lake and adjusted our activities 17 accordingly. 18 We also became aware of the interim 19 licence that was issued by Manitoba to govern 20 Manitoba Hydro on Southern Indian Lake. This interim 21 licence, still in effect today, clearly spells out 22 the method of operation of Manitoba Hydro in the area 23 of water level fluctuations on Southern Indian Lake 24 and flows through both Missi Falls and Notigi. We 25 studied the terms of this interim licence and came to 6167 1 our own conclusions about the future of the fisheries 2 on Southern Indian Lake. 3 We believed that the conditions of the 4 interim licence would be the method of operation of 5 Manitoba Hydro for the future. And in discussions 6 with Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro in early 1980s were 7 never advised otherwise. And in view of what we 8 thought we knew, the commercial fishers of Southern 9 Indian Lake signed a settlement agreement with 10 Manitoba Hydro in 1982 relative to the adverse 11 effects of the CRD on the commercial fishery on 12 Southern Indian Lake. In the discussions to accept a 13 settlement agreement for adverse effects was the 14 understanding from the interim licence. 15 That water level fluctuations of Southern 16 Indian Lake would not vary by more than 24 inches 17 over a 12 month period. Again, applying local 18 knowledge was the belief that over time, Southern 19 Indian Lake would return to a new state of nature 20 providing the 24 inch maximum water level 21 fluctuations over 12 months operating period was 22 strictly adhered to by Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro. 23 Applying local knowledge once again, we commercial 24 fishers reasoned that a 24 inch water level variation 25 over 12 months can and has occurred in a state of 6168 1 nature on all lakes in cases of extreme weather 2 events, yet only has a very short-term impact on any 3 commercial fishery. 4 What happened on Southern Indian Lake 5 following the '92 Agreement -- excuse me, 1982 6 Settlement Agreement between Manitoba and Manitoba 7 Hydro in the Southern Indian Lake Commercial 8 Fishermen is that the rules got changed. Unknown to 9 commercial fishers, in the mid 1980s, an additional 10 licence in addition to the interim licence was issued 11 to Manitoba Hydro by Manitoba Government that was 12 thereby increasing the water level fluctuations on 13 Southern Indian Lake from 24 inches over a 12 month 14 period to as much as 60 inches over a 12 month 15 operating period. 16 The result of this change in rules, known 17 as the Augmented Flow Program, has been the steady 18 decline in the productivity of the commercial and 19 domestic fisheries to a point today where neither is 20 economically feasible. Our local knowledge has told 21 us that the change from the interim licence to the 22 additional augmented flow licence, I would call it, 23 has been mass fish habitat destruction, destruction 24 of fish spawning habitat through increased erosion 25 and resulting extreme water sedimentation, 6169 1 difficulty travelling to and from the fishing 2 grounds, increased operating costs, ever changing 3 fishing grounds. 4 As a commercial trapper, the change in 5 rules had a similar impact in terms of destruction to 6 traplines not only adjacent to Southern Indian Lake 7 but all the traplines which must be accessed from the 8 Southern Indian Lake as the constant and continual 9 erosion in shorelines of Southern Indian Lake makes 10 access from Southern Indian Lake to all traplines 11 almost impossible due to high shoreline banks created 12 through and as much result of the change. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: A little slower, please. 14 MR. W. DYSART: Yes, I'll rephrase that 15 paragraph. You see, a lot of these problems that 16 occur surround just the lake itself, but nobody has 17 taken any consideration. The adjacent areas and the 18 traplines, for instance -- I'll use, for example, 19 Missi Falls, below Missi Falls. There are a lot of 20 traplines in that area within our zone. And from the 21 Missi Falls structure dam, I travel through that area 22 almost every winter but this winter in particular, I 23 clocked the distance the effect of the Churchill 24 River had done. It didn't flood it, it took the 25 water away 30 miles into inland. 6170 1 I feel sorry for the trapper who has to 2 travel through there let alone the effects of the 3 wild animals and the fish that were either dried up 4 in the shoreline or got hung up in the willows 5 somewhere. 6 And I'll also comment again on that 7 particular area. When the water goes up and down, 8 when the reservoir has enough waters on the holding 9 tank, they had to release it somewhere. Generally, 10 they can probably release a lot of it downstream 11 towards Burntwood River. But if they have too much, 12 they have to make a massive release through to 13 Churchill. In the meantime, the birds and whatnot 14 was using the shoreline for either nesting, you know, 15 to try and survive. And all of a sudden, a massive 16 water comes down, they got no chance. And fishermen 17 have seen it happen. So in other words, rules and 18 regulations go down the drain at the same time. 19 My point in bringing my experiences 20 before this Commission is that we must be more 21 concerned about what we don't know or are not being 22 told rather than what we think we know. We thought 23 we knew the conditions of the interim licence 24 governing the operations of the Southern Indian Lake 25 forebay by Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro in the early 6171 1 1980s. What we did not know and were not told was 2 the fact that a licence, in addition to the interim 3 licence known as the Augmented Flow Licence, would be 4 issued with little or no consultation with the 5 Communities of South Indian Lake. And no 6 consultation with the commercial resource users in 7 the community. 8 Furthermore, to my knowledge, no 9 Environmental Impact Assessment was ever carried out 10 prior to the issuing of the Augmented Flow Licence 11 and has not been carried out to this day. In my 12 mind, the destruction of the environment of Southern 13 Indian Lake as a result of the Augmented Flow Licence 14 has been much more worse than the destruction of the 15 environment created through the initial CRD and the 16 governing interim licence. Under the interim 17 licence, there was the end of the environmental 18 damage. Under the Augmented Flow Licence, there was 19 no end to the environmental damage. 20 From my past experiences, I now wish to 21 address the subject of this Commission, and that 22 being the proposed Wuskwatim Project. Once again, we 23 at South Indian Lake are being told that the proposed 24 Wuskwatim Project will have no effect on Southern 25 Indian Lake and that the operations of the Southern 6172 1 Indian Lake as reservoir to feed Wuskwatim would not 2 change from the past. 3 Again, from my past experiences, what I 4 am being told does not worry me. It's what I am not 5 being told. 6 Once Wuskwatim is built and in operation, 7 will the rules change when someone within Manitoba 8 and Manitoba Hydro determines that capability of 9 power generation through Wuskwatim is most greater 10 than originally planned today? If so, where will the 11 water flow from to feed it? The answer is simple. 12 It must come from my environment, which is the 13 Southern Indian Lake reservoir. What impact will 14 this have on my environment and the environment of 15 the people I represent? 16 In conclusion, I must tell this 17 Commission I am not against progress. However, my 18 experiences tell me that progress can come at a very 19 high price to the environment as well as the peoples 20 living within the environment. Wuskwatim has already 21 come at a very high price to myself and the peoples 22 of this Community of Southern Indian Lake. 23 Flow tests by Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro 24 have determined that significant flows can be 25 diverted from Southern Indian Lake down the Rat River 6173 1 system to Wuskwatim to make the project feasible. 2 What this Commission must understand is 3 that in order for Wuskwatim to be feasible, my 4 environment and the environment of the people I 5 represent must continue to be -- continue to be 6 destroyed as long as the Augmented Flow Licence is 7 allowed to stand with no Environmental Impact 8 Assessment on the environment and the peoples of 9 Southern Indian Lake. 10 In my past studies in the last couple of 11 years as this hearing proceeds, I picked up a few 12 little points. I think it's either ignored or 13 mislead. In the pamphlet of the Summary of 14 Understanding, a lot of that mislead word is used 15 towards Southern Indian Lake being mislead it says. 16 But nevertheless, that may be so. I think it's 17 misleading the whole public awareness as a whole, 18 what impacts and what answers they give. 19 One little question that it says is 20 Southern Indian Lake going to be affected? It says 21 none right away. The answer is none. But affected 22 could mean a lot of different ways. Just by talking 23 about it affects a lot of people. It can social-wise 24 for instance. 25 Also I'd like to add on to cumulative 6174 1 effects should be based on the Wuskwatim area. 2 Wuskwatim area alone shouldn't be focused only on 3 Wuskwatim. Wuskwatim project, where do you think 4 that water is coming from? Again, I think it's been 5 mentioned in the past, from the whole area. So that 6 would be an effect. So that's an effect directly 7 itself. 8 More studies have got to be done more 9 seriously and take it into hand, taken to heart. 10 Habitat rehabilitation, that's right in the programs 11 yet I've got to see the start. 12 We got involved from the start in the 13 past with Manitoba Hydro. It didn't get nowhere. It 14 meant too big of a dollar sign. Not taken into 15 consideration what that area has lost in dollar 16 signs. 17 There's good points and bad points about 18 it. Good point is, they will probably throw in a lot 19 of money into educational purposes, educational 20 programs. But nevertheless, there's a purpose behind 21 that, the purpose of where that money came from. 22 There was no consideration in the direct impact 23 people. There's no -- there's a process towards 24 programs or jobs. They have to fill out an 25 application. A lot of these direct impact people, 6175 1 they don't have a chance to get into them programs. 2 They get shafted right down the drain, right from the 3 beginning. That's an effect. 4 Now a couple of weeks ago, me and my son 5 were travelling to either Thompson or Leaf Rapids and 6 there's some areas there has -- Leo Linklater's 7 trapline, there's causeways there. And I asked him 8 do you remember the time that particular area was 9 constantly open all winter? But these last couple of 10 years, it was not constantly open. That's on behalf 11 of the water levels the way they stand right now. 12 These two years, they are dry. 13 What I'm trying to say is there was 14 constant water level elevation. We can all live 15 together but if it's not talked about or compromised, 16 we're forever going to be fighting amongst ourselves. 17 That's what's happening today. 18 I consider myself a Nelson House Band 19 member. And I also take it at heart. On this kind 20 of tables, it's a battle ground because part of them 21 of the Nelson House members are proponents with 22 Manitoba Hydro. On the other part, they are 23 disregarded. And that's the main ones that are 24 living in reservoirs. 25 Our reservoir I always call it because a 6176 1 lot of people make a living out of it in the past, 2 but they're slowly losing that. I used to call it 3 the bank. And everybody took advantage of that. But 4 it's going down the river, not from -- not 5 consideration to the people that had to put up with 6 the consequences of the loss. 7 I'd like to thank this opportunity to 8 speak to you and I would like to have the opportunity 9 to come back and talk to you some more. Thank you 10 very much. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Grewar, do 12 you want to file? 13 MR. GREWAR: I just was going to file two 14 exhibits. I believe you're probably going to call 15 for a break so I was thinking I should have caught 16 this before, the presentation document and slides of 17 Leslie Dysart as DRSIL 1006. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: CASIL. 19 MR. GREWAR: Sorry. All right. It's 20 Tuesday morning, you're correct. CASIL 1006 and then 21 the presentation by William Dysart is CASIL 1007. 22 23 (EXHIBIT CASIL 1006: Presentation Slides 24 Wuskwatim Hearing, May 2004) 25 6177 1 (EXHIBIT CASIL 1007: Presentation of 2 William Dysart, President South Indian 3 Lake Fishermen's Associaton Inc.) 4 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will 6 reconvene in 15 minutes, which is at ten to I guess. 7 8 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 10:39 A.M. and 9 RECONVENED AT 11:00 A.M.) 10 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the 12 presentation is not completed yet and that there will 13 be more statements made? 14 MR. L. DYSART: We have a whole other 15 section we'll be presenting on. The hard copy is 16 coming shortly. At the discretion of the panel, I 17 can start my presentation and when it arrives, we'll 18 distribute it. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Proceed to do that. 20 MR. L. DYSART: Just a clarification 21 again. Are you requesting the community report? Is 22 that what you're asking about or our actual 23 presentation? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: No, just carry on with 25 your presentation. 6178 1 MR. GREWAR: I believe that has to do 2 with the document that was discussed this morning, 3 Mr. Chairman, and I think CASIL is requesting 4 clarification as to what the Commission's desire 5 would be in terms of the document being filed perhaps 6 as an undertaking. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: That's correct. 8 MR. GREWAR: Just before we move on, I 9 just wanted to indicate my apologies for the errors 10 in the assignment of the exhibit numbers. I've 11 rendered CASIL 1004 and CASIL 1005 as not to be used. 12 MR. L. DYSART: I'd just like to make one 13 statement prior to jumping into the other part of our 14 presentation. This is in regards to my father's 15 perspective as a resident of South Indian Lake and as 16 a resource user. 17 While you may think that his presentation 18 is beyond your scope of terms of reference, it is 19 not. It is a crystal clear example of Manitoba 20 Hydro's approach in making promises or predictions 21 and either not following through or being just plain 22 wrong. I hope you seriously consider the information 23 that my father, Mr. Dysart, has given you. It 24 represents the reality, not the predictions. It 25 shows that Manitoba Hydro's credibility is of issue 6179 1 here, both in the past and today. 2 Having said that, I'll continue with my 3 presentation. 4 The focus of this part of our 5 presentation is the operations of the CRD and 6 Augmented Flow Program especially at our community. 7 Why is this necessary you may ask? Manitoba Hydro 8 says the operations of the CRD and water regime will 9 not change. The EIS findings are based upon this 10 critical assumption. We want the CEC to understand 11 our perspective on this assumption. 12 I'd like to give you some of the context 13 of our presentation. As you have already heard, 14 South Indian Lake community was greatly impacted by 15 the CRD. The community was forced to move to the 16 east shore of Southern Indian Lake. We were also 17 impacted by the Augmented Flow Program which created 18 the increased maximum and decreased minimum water 19 levels from the CRD levels. The effects of both the 20 CRD and the Augmented Flow Program continue to cause 21 ecosystem damage and profound community anxiety. 22 CASIL settled with Manitoba Hydro in 23 1992. This occurred two decades after the onset of 24 the CRD impacts. Our local system was already 25 extremely damaged. CASIL never accepted these 6180 1 ongoing impacts. CASIL believes it was not 2 adequately compensated for these impacts. 3 Manitoba Hydro has not provided South 4 Indian Lake with a comprehensive assessment of the 5 CRD or Augmented Flow Program impacts on the local 6 social, economic, physical and biological systems. 7 There have only been general retrospective overviews 8 at best and they have not involved South Indian Lake 9 members. 10 As I had said, and it's been brought up 11 at these hearings by Manitoba Hydro, CASIL has a 12 settlement and I will review its key terms. CASIL 13 paid for the adverse -- CASIL was paid for the 14 adverse impacts from the CRD Augmented Flow Program 15 to elevation 848 feet above sea level. The terms of 16 the settlement reiterates their approved maximum and 17 minimum water levels of South Indian Lake in the 18 schedule to the agreement, same levels as in the 19 augmented flow ministerial conditional approval. 20 Manitoba Hydro promised to operate the Augmented Flow 21 Program so as to minimize the impact on South Indian 22 Lake community residents. 23 CASIL reserved the right to object to the 24 Augmented Flow Program and licensing hearings if 25 water levels are proposed above maximum defined water 6181 1 level of 847.5 feet above sea level or to participate 2 in any hearings related to Manitoba Hydro. Why did 3 we reserve that right? Because we strongly objected 4 to all aspects of the AFP and we did not and do not 5 ever want to see water levels increase over 847.5 6 feet above sea level. CASIL wants damaging high 7 water levels to decrease. 8 I won't go over all these sections but I 9 wanted to point out to you that the PAT EIS 10 guidelines made it very clear that the operations 11 associated with Wuskwatim were to be fully 12 considered. Manitoba Hydro and NCN did this to some 13 extent but mostly what they did was assume that the 14 operation of a CRD AFP was appropriate. And since 15 they are of the opinion that it isn't going to 16 change, then they determined that they didn't need to 17 review the actual detailed operations of the CRD and 18 Augmented Flow Program. 19 We are going to provide you with the 20 information on these matters because we think you 21 need it in order to fully understand the operations 22 of Wuskwatim, which is part of your terms of 23 reference. 24 The actual guidelines require a review of 25 the following: 2.3.2 Project Scope. Consideration 6182 1 of the environmental effects of all undertakings 2 associated with operations. 5.3.3 Operation and 3 Maintenance. EIS shall describe how the proposed 4 operation of the generation station would affect the 5 existing operation regime along the river and its a 6 relationship to existing regulatory licences and 7 approvals and agreements. 6.1 Physical Environment. 8 Existing range of flows and water levels in the 9 context of the CRD and the AFP and associated water 10 level flow constraints. 11 To review briefly, there are two main 12 omissions where Manitoba Hydro/NCN didn't follow the 13 requirements of the PAT guidelines. First, the 14 guidelines say that Manitoba Hydro/NCN was supposed 15 to look at flows and the levels along the river, and 16 they haven't. They only looked at a section of the 17 river. 18 Second, as already discussed, the impacts 19 of the CRD AFP have been incorporated which actually 20 means ignored as an impact in the baseline. So there 21 is no actual review of the CRD AFP ongoing impacts. 22 On both counts, I want to make it clear that we fully 23 understand what they are saying. We just think they 24 are wrong and we will explain why as we move through 25 this presentation. 6183 1 There are some key EIS omissions in 2 regards to the PAT guidelines. The EIS doesn't fully 3 satisfy PAT guideline 2.3.2 project scope. The EIS 4 ignores the environmental effects of CRD and AFP. 5 There are undertakings associated with operations 6 even if Manitoba Hydro/NCN intends no change from 7 baseline and they are still required to study it. 8 The impacts associated with CRD and AFP remain 9 unacceptable to the community notwithstanding 10 compensation. 11 The impacts associated with ongoing 12 projects require evaluation to fully meet PAT 13 guideline requirements for this project. Manitoba 14 Hydro has avoided this but that doesn't mean it's 15 correct. We strongly disagree with their approach on 16 this. 17 Why does CASIL care about CRD AFP 18 operations? CRD AFP makes life much worse for South 19 Indian Lake members. It greatly aggravates the 20 destruction caused by the CRD. But Manitoba 21 Hydro/NCN say nothing will change with Wuskwatim. 22 CASIL can't accept a new project that absolutely 23 depends upon these past damages continuing to occur. 24 The water levels are critically important because 25 they affect the environment and our people. 6184 1 Manitoba Hydro is allowed to deviate from 2 the CRD interim licence by maintaining Southern 3 Indian Lake water levels at a maximum water level at 4 847.5 feet above sea level up from the 847 feet above 5 sea level allowed by CRD interim licence section 9, 6 a minimum absolute water level of 844 feet above sea 7 level. This is down from the 843 feet above sea 8 level allowed by the CRD interim licence, section 10. 9 The AFP sets increased allowable flow 10 rates in winter and summer out of Notigi. This 11 approval increases maximum drawdown rates of Southern 12 Indian Lake From 2 feet to 4 and a half feet per 13 year. Every year, these approvals aggravate the 14 physical, environmental and social impacts of South 15 Indian Lake from the CRD. 16 On the second bullet, the numbers are 17 transposed. 18 We may have been paid under our agreement 19 with Manitoba Hydro but we are not satisfied with the 20 amount paid and we continue to suffer the impacts 21 that continue to occur. We are forced to live with 22 it and we never said we would support any development 23 that depends upon this destruction continuing. This 24 is exactly what Manitoba Hydro is doing and asking. 25 I would like to explain the conditions of 6185 1 the AFP. Manitoba Hydro is allowed the increased 2 water levels and flows provided they ensure there is 3 no violation of the Northern Flood Agreement. This 4 is condition one. Provide monthly written reports to 5 on all aspects of operation of AFP to the Director 6 Water Branch and the Director Environmental 7 Approvals. This is condition 3. Provide monthly 8 written reports to NFA communities and other affected 9 communities on the AFP. This is condition 4. It 10 doesn't say what should be in those reports and so 11 Manitoba Hydro has decided that they would send out 12 monthly reports on certain aspects that I'll talk 13 about later. I note from the distribution list that 14 these may not be the same monthly reports that are 15 sent to the Waters Branch and Environmental Approvals 16 because these two people are not on the distribution 17 list that goes to affected communities. 18 So either they get it separately or they 19 get a different report. 20 I want to read each of the next three 21 conditions exactly as they are very important. 22 Condition 2. Manitoba Hydro agrees to terminate its 23 program and decrease diversion flow to appropriate 24 levels if at any time it appears that above-noted 25 conditions may be violated or if conditions arise 6186 1 which would present a hazard to local residents. 2 I want to point out that there is no 3 direction given to Manitoba Hydro as how to determine 4 hazards. We have never even been asked about this 5 and we have never been informed of any risk 6 management criteria being used nor has there ever 7 been a report that we ever see that contained any 8 reference to even the contemplation of this criteria. 9 Earlier you have heard about the 10 hazardous ice conditions that arise as a result of 11 the AFP. At least that's what we think is the cause. 12 But we have never had any report or notice given to 13 us by Manitoba Hydro that explain any of these 14 conditions nor has the program ever been terminated. 15 Condition five. Manitoba Hydro will 16 fully mitigate any effects of the altered levels and 17 flows. CASIL is not aware of any articulation as to 18 what the effects of the altered flows are. We were 19 paid for increased water levels without ever 20 articulating or understanding fully what those 21 impacts were. There has been no release or 22 compensation regarding damages from exceedances of 23 minimum water levels. We have never entered into 24 negotiations with Manitoba Hydro to remediate any 25 effects of the AFP. There has only been minimal 6187 1 mitigation other than possibly financial mitigation 2 of these effects and minimal remediation. We believe 3 this is not good enough. 4 Condition 6. The maximum drawdown on 5 Southern Indian Lake of 4 and a half feet is staged 6 over a period of time and in such a manner as to 7 minimize adverse impacts on Southern Indian Lake 8 residents. This drawdown was changed in two ways 9 from the CRD interim licence. First, because the AFP 10 increased and decreased water levels, the range had 11 to be changed, 843 to 847.5 feet is 4 and a half 12 feet. 13 Second, the CRD stated that the drawdown 14 range was to be operated as 2 foot in 12 months. So 15 the additional underlying component was not in the 16 CRD licence originally but the AFP added as a new 17 requirement. Despite this, we have never had any 18 discussions with Manitoba Hydro where they have 19 indicated to us how they are meeting this clause. 20 The monthly reports make no reference to it at all. 21 We are aware of no criteria used to 22 determine if there are minimizing adverse impacts on 23 us. If they do exist, we definitely have not been 24 involved in developing them or determining what they 25 should be. 6188 1 It is important to remember the 2 significance of a conditional approval. This means 3 these conditions must be met in order to be able to 4 engage in the AFP. So we should be asking ourselves, 5 is Manitoba Hydro doing what the Minister requires? 6 Does the Minister know whether all prescribed 7 conditions are being fully met? If all ministerial 8 conditions are not fully met, are annual AFP 9 operations lawful? If not, should CASIL accept or 10 agree with the baseline? 11 Section 10 of CRD licence makes clear 12 that the minimum water levels in regards to South 13 Indian are absolute. I quote, 14 "The licensee shall regulate the water 15 level of South Indian Lake so as to 16 prevent the water level from receding 17 below elevation 844 feet." 18 Also section 9 of the CRD licence states that, 19 "The licensee shall, during the 20 periods when the water level of South 21 Indian Lake is above elevation 847 22 feet operate Missi Falls and Notigi 23 control structures in such a manner as 24 to effect the maximum possible 25 discharge possible under the 6189 1 circumstances then prevailing until 2 the water level of the said lake 3 returns to elevation 847 feet." 4 The annual AFP conditional approval 5 increases the maximum water level regarding South 6 Indian Lake to 847.5 feet above sea level and 7 decreases the minimum level to 843 feet above sea 8 level. 9 There is no averaging of water level data 10 set out in the approval. That means that 847.5 feet 11 is instantaneous maximum. Averaging of any water 12 measurements is only allowed for flow measurements. 13 What is the evidence that ministerial 14 conditions are being satisfied? Section 21 of the 15 CRD licence requires water level measurements be 16 taken at the Inland Waters Branch Benchmark, which is 17 now under water at South Indian Lake Settlement.