1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TRAPLINE 18 8 9 10 11 12 13 Response to the Wuskwatim Generation Project 14 15 16 Conducted under the Canadian 17 Environmental Assessment Act 18 19 20 Prepared by: Greg McIvor 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 MR. MCIVOR: This is Trapline 18, 3 Response to the Wuskwatim Generation Project 4 Comprehensive Report conducted under the Canadian 5 Environmental Assessment Act. 6 I just want to explain that the video 7 clips that you are about to see are the result of 8 a couple of air reconnaissance trips from Thompson 9 to Wuskwatim Lake. The white line is the airplane 10 ride, it went from Wuskwatim to the Burntwood 11 River, and then turns southeast to Trapline 18, 12 and then back up to Wuskwatim. 13 The red line, as you can see on the 14 screen, is a helicopter ride that was taken on 15 July 26th, 2005, and that goes directly from 16 Wuskwatim to Trapline 18 and back up to Wuskwatim. 17 Just a little bit of background 18 information. You can see that we have taken some 19 time and put together some information that we 20 feel is relevant in the upcoming discussion and 21 decisions by the Federal Government. In the first 22 set of our video you can see Taskinigup Falls, 23 which is at the east side of Wuskwatim Lake. And 24 it forms part of the July 25th, 26th air 25 3 1 reconnaissance trip by helicopter. And my brother 2 Norman is operating the camera and my brother 3 Donald is in the back of the helicopter. 4 So we are proceeding from Wuskwatim 5 through to Trapline 18. We will be crossing what 6 Manitoba Hydro has referred to in the Ferguson 7 Creek Report as the Wuskwatim brook or the 8 Wuskwatim watershed. This area is approximately 9 12 kilometres southwest of Wuskwatim. And as you 10 can see in the video, there is a source of water 11 that is flowing directly south to Trapline 18, and 12 the helicopter is taking a ride and following that 13 creek, that water source. 14 Off to the right you can see a series 15 of water flows. And we have maintained our 16 position that the Ferguson Creek is fed by water 17 out of the Churchill River Diversion, which is 18 evidenced in this video. 19 And as we proceed south, you can see a 20 series of outcrops, but more importantly you can 21 see flooded plains where water has forced its way 22 from the north, south to the Ferguson Creek area 23 and Trapline 18. 24 Now, we had brought a lot of these 25 issues up during the Clean Environment Commission 4 1 Hearings here in Manitoba, and we were advised 2 initially that the Commissioners wanted to hear 3 our knowledge, traditional knowledge of this area 4 and why it was that we felt that Wuskwatim would 5 impact Trapline 18. 6 We have maintained our position for 7 the last 27 years, that it was as a result of the 8 Augmented Flow Program that it is currently 9 operated in the summer and winter by Manitoba 10 Hydro on an interim licence that this water does 11 flow from the north to the south. And with the 12 Ferguson Creek Report that was provided by Glenn 13 Cook to Bernie Osiowy of Manitoba Hydro that 14 formed part of the Wuskwatim Environmental Impact 15 Statement, you can see for long distances how much 16 water flow there is into our trapline. This 17 clearly indicates that the basic laws of physics 18 and laws of gravity do not apply in this instance. 19 And the terrain that you are looking at consists 20 of flood plains and a series of unknown water 21 flows that were never there, that continue to 22 affect the Trapline 18 area. 23 However, it was our experience that 24 you had to be a lawyer or a scientist to 25 participate in the Manitoba Clean Environment 5 1 Commission Hearings. I believe this was a 2 prerequisite to participating in this process. 3 Trapline 18's experience was one of 4 frustration, and we do not believe we have been 5 able to participate in any meaningful way for a 6 number of reasons. The legal expertise that was 7 required, and the structured process of the 8 hearings, we had stated during our presentation we 9 do not have the geographic, hydrological and legal 10 expertise to put forward our position. Trapline 11 18 had originally requested $60,000 to hire the 12 appropriate personnel and experts to undertake a 13 proper evaluation and assessment, but were denied. 14 We understood that this type of 15 expertise was not actually required to 16 participate, but gauging by the response to our 17 presentation, it was apparent that traditional 18 knowledge was not what was expected of us, but 19 rather Western scientific evidence that would 20 contradict Manitoba Hydro's assertion that 21 Trapline 18 was unaffected by the Churchill River 22 Diversion and would therefore not be impacted in 23 any way by the construction of Wuskwatim or 24 further northern Hydro development. We felt that 25 this was unfair and unrealistic. 6 1 On May 26th, 2004, Trapline 18 2 presented its oral submissions to the CEC. On 3 that day we raised major issues with respect to 4 cumulative effects, and the lack of fairness and 5 equity with participation in the review of 6 Wuskwatim. We then identified that many, if not 7 most impacts from the Churchill River Diversion, 8 those being the system impacts that were felt 9 across Trapline 18 and Northern Manitoba will not 10 be confined to the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation 11 territory. That many, if not most impacts from 12 the Augmented Flow Program that is currently 13 operated within the Churchill River Diversion 14 during the summer and winter periods are those 15 that create system impacts and will be felt across 16 Trapline 18, and again not confined to the 17 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation territory. 18 The CEC did not receive accurate 19 hydrological information, land elevations and land 20 descriptions that form, that help or create 21 impacts in this area, and were not provided a full 22 accounting of all the CRD/Hydro system impacts. 23 And therefore the Clean Environment Commission can 24 not know all the ways and degrees the addition of 25 Wuskwatim to Churchill River Diversion and the 7 1 Augmented Flow Program will affect the water 2 quality, environment, wildlife and greenhouse gas 3 emissions as a result of these hydro projects and 4 developments. 5 We have spoken with elders and others 6 who have worked, hunted, fished, trapped and 7 gathered in and around Trapline 18. They also 8 believe that the extreme water fluctuations are 9 not an act of God. 10 My family has lost a lot of equipment 11 and invested a lot of money over the years trying 12 to access the trapline and maintain the licence 13 for Trapline 18, but with the constantly changing 14 water levels, fluctuations, slush ice, hanging 15 ice, and eroded shorelines have created a 16 consistent problem over the last 27 years. 17 Our point is that in the 1970s when 18 Manitoba Hydro first began the construction of the 19 Churchill River Diversion and the Lake Winnipeg 20 Regulation, nobody predicted the devastating 21 impact it would have. It seemed impossible that 22 these projects would have a significant 23 deleterious impact on Northern Manitoba. 24 I just want to quote from the 1979 25 Tritschler Report that was sanctioned by the 8 1 Government following the construction of the CRD. 2 And I quote, 3 "Studies of the social and 4 environmental effects of the CRD were 5 inadequate. Hydro did not realize 6 until long after the final commitment 7 of CRD in December 1972 that the 8 project could not be completed without 9 significant remedial measures 10 downstream of Missi Falls and Notigi. 11 The delayed recognition of the major 12 engineering problems at South Bay 13 Channel and Missi Falls and along the 14 Burntwood River, combined with the 15 failure of Hydro and Government to 16 resolve the mitigation issues in a 17 timely manner, were the principal 18 causes for the two-year delay in 19 completion." 20 Furthermore the report stated, and I 21 quote, 22 "Had the Government and Hydro 23 initiated negotiation with affected 24 communities prior to the commitment of 25 the CRD project in 1972, the course of 9 1 events would have been drastically 2 different. As it was, Hydro's lack of 3 readiness, combined with 4 procrastination and the confrontation 5 tactics of the advisory committee 6 contributed to the expense and length 7 of time it took to reach a settlement 8 with the Northern Flood Committee, or 9 NFC." 10 While we understand that this 11 environmental review has helped tremendously, it is 12 our position that the opinions expressed 25 years 13 ago in Justice Tritschler's report are still very 14 applicable today. 15 Hydro has been wrong in the past so it 16 is not inconceivable that they are wrong about 17 Trapline 18 and the impacts of the CRD today. 18 Wuskwatim Lake is situated directly 19 north from Ferguson Creek and it is tied to the 20 Churchill River Diversion system through the 21 Burntwood River. Geographically, the distance 22 between the Wuskwatim Brook and the Ferguson Creek 23 is small, and the area in between the two systems 24 is swampy, wet, and marshy. 25 We have also heard testimony 10 1 throughout this process that nine NCN traplines 2 south of the CRD, including Trapline 18, have 3 experienced low production over the past 20 years, 4 and evidence from NCN consultants indicate NCN 5 trappers have abandoned their traplines in the 6 south end, specifically NCN traplines number 1, 4, 7 41, 42, 45, 47, 62, 63, 64 and 65, all situated in 8 the Manitoba Resource Management area between 9 Burntwood River on the west, Threepoint Lake on 10 the north, and the Wuskwatim Lake on the east. We 11 would suggest that this is related to water 12 fluctuations and water regime and unstable 13 environment conditions. 14 With the continuance of Hydro 15 controlled, unnatural and thus damaging water 16 level changes, we will continue to witness the 17 degradation of shorelines and anthropogenic 18 disturbance of riparian zones in the northern 19 region, further destruction of wildlife, including 20 fish habitat, bird habitat, caribou, fox, beaver 21 and martin habitat, the elimination of traditional 22 pathways to pursue our treaty, inherent and 23 Aboriginal right to hunt, trap, fish and gather 24 off our land. 25 Trapline 18 depends on a stable and 11 1 sustainable environment to retain a way of life, 2 culture and livelihood. We have witnessed 3 devastation. The land is being sucked away. 4 Water is clogged with pollutants and life 5 threatening hazards from submerged and floating 6 debris and trees that have fallen victim to 7 shoreline erosion. 8 The failure of Hydro in this process 9 to deal head on with this devastating effects and 10 system impacts, and the end results of current and 11 cumulative impacts of 27 years will further be 12 compounded with the effects from Wuskwatim. 13 We would like to point out that we 14 were repeatedly told to address some of our 15 concerns in the EIS cross-examination in which we 16 received $20,000 from the participant assistance 17 program. The Clean Environment Commission never 18 provided an opportunity for Trapline 18 to do so. 19 The parties to this CEC process, 20 including Manitoba Hydro, the Province of Manitoba 21 and the Federal Government, have failed to adhere 22 to the existing Northern Flood Agreement and are 23 in violation of their fiduciary responsibilities 24 and obligations. I refer to the following 25 provisions under the Northern Flood Agreement 12 1 article 23.2, and I quote. 2 "The onus shall be on Hydro to 3 establish that the projects do not 4 cause nor contribute to an adverse 5 effect where any claim rises by virtue 6 of an actual or purported effect of 7 the project." 8 Maybe just a little break from some of 9 the information we presented to the CEC, we would 10 just like to maybe focus on some of the video 11 clips that we have provided for the submission. 12 This portion is the September 30th, 13 2005 plane ride, and what we are looking at is two 14 little lakes situated on Trapline 18, on the east 15 side of Ferguson Creek and one of its tributaries. 16 What you will notice and what you should have 17 noticed throughout this video is that Ferguson 18 Creek watershed extends right up to the Burntwood 19 River on the west, Threepoint Lake on the north, 20 and Wuskwatim Lake on the east side. And the 21 watershed shows water coming from various areas 22 and angles, and from different parts of the 23 Churchill River Diversion. And you can see that 24 the landscape, there is a lot of flood damaged 25 areas, a lot of flood plains, a lot of areas where 13 1 water is still sitting, and trees are standing up, 2 and they are pretty well deteriorated and no 3 longer able to sustain any growth. 4 The lake off in the distance is 5 Rosenberry Lake, which is on Trapline 17, adjacent 6 to Trapline 18 and the Wabowden Resource 7 Management area. And they too are impacted by the 8 Churchill River Diversion. From the land, 9 landscape I guess, panoramic view that you have, 10 you can see that water has been moving all over, 11 there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to 12 where it is moving. The water just flows when 13 there is excess water released out of Notigi, to 14 Footprint and then Threepoint Lake and Wuskwatim 15 in the north, down to the Burntwood. 16 As the plane turns to head back to 17 Wuskwatim, what you are going to see in the 18 picture is a lake that is called Pistol Lake 19 because of the shape of the lake itself. And we 20 used that as the reference point for this video. 21 It also shows in relation to where we are and 22 where you can see water damaged areas flowing from 23 north to south. 24 And this lake that you are looking at 25 right now was never there back in 1970, prior to 14 1 the CRD. This was just something that we have 2 found over the last while. We passed Pistol Lake, 3 and the plane is now heading north to the 4 Wuskwatim Lake area. And this is just an area 5 that you can see has been damaged by a lot of 6 excessive water all the way up to the northeast, 7 and directly north where water flows from 8 Wuskwatim Lake and also from the north side of the 9 Burntwood River. And water flows out over 10 Taskinigup Falls, this is excess water flowing in 11 this towards Trapline 18 as well, you can see 12 that, I guess the scar all the way to the north, 13 north end. 14 And we had some pictures that were 15 taken, stills that were taken on June 19th, 2005 16 when the water was high. You could see that the 17 water was right from shore to shore along the 18 Ferguson Creek. We even found a sucker that was 19 about 11 to 12 inches long, it was floating dead. 20 We don't normally have any fish above Goose Falls 21 or in Ferguson Creek, not that size anyway. So we 22 are suggesting that there is fish coming over from 23 the Burntwood and Threepoint Lake areas when the 24 CRD is in operation, when they release the waters 25 it forces all kinds of habitat, fish, fish habitat 15 1 over to the Trapline 18 area. 2 You can see where the winding creek 3 is, that is almost a natural flow, but when we get 4 the excess water it just widens quite considerably 5 on either side. You can see other areas where the 6 water does flow into these little, like Ferguson 7 Creek natural water flow, they join various 8 locations. You can see the debris that is strewn 9 all over along the shorelines. 10 With these images, you know, it is 11 hard to realize that this water is, you know, 12 where could it be coming from? When you look at 13 the Ferguson Creek Report that Manitoba Hydro 14 submitted to the Clean Environment Commission, and 15 included in the Wuskwatim EIS, you just wonder 16 what, whether or not -- well, we know Manitoba 17 Hydro hasn't done the proper evaluation assessment 18 and they haven't completed a thorough analysis or 19 evaluation of this whole area. And you think 20 that -- well, not that we think, we know that they 21 should be made to complete a proper evaluation, a 22 proper assessment and, you know, that when they do 23 this that Trapline 18 be included in that so that 24 we can show them the areas that we do have concern 25 about. 16 1 When we looked at the Ferguson Creek 2 Report that was provided by Hydro, we were quite 3 disappointed with they way they utilized their 4 resources to show on their map that there was 30 5 metres difference from this side to this 6 watershed, 40 metres from this lake to Wuskwatim 7 brook waters, headwaters, or that there is a level 8 of, a high level of, or high land area that 9 separates the Wuskwatim watershed from the 10 Ferguson Creek watershed, when in this video you 11 can clearly see that water is flowing from 12 Wuskwatim, on the Wuskwatim side of the watershed, 13 flowing to the Ferguson Creek watershed from 14 various angles, from not only the Burntwood on the 15 west, but from Threepoint in the north and 16 Wuskwatim on the east, that there is a massive 17 amounts of water that are flowing through these 18 areas. And you can see this landscape almost 19 resembles a series of golf courses with teeing off 20 greens and fairways, you know, that just weren't 21 there. I mean, these are not traditional water 22 sources, they are not water ways. All these areas 23 that you can see have been created by additional 24 water. 25 And we are positive, we are quite 17 1 confident that once the Federal Government does a 2 proper assessment, and forces Manitoba Hydro and 3 the Province of Manitoba to go back and re-examine 4 this area, they too will conclude that the CRD 5 does impact this area. And if they don't, if the 6 Federal Government don't do that, what is going to 7 happen to this area, it is going to become a 8 reservoir similar to South Indian Lake, and it is 9 going to have devastating impact, effects not only 10 on Trapline 18, but the Grass River system, 11 Setting Lake, and Setting Lake cottage owners, 12 Paint Lake cottage owners, Pikwitonei, Thicket 13 Portage and Pimicikamak Cree Nation. 14 So it is something that has to be 15 taken seriously. Like when you look at this 16 section of the video, what you can see is that the 17 September 30th plane ride, on the video camera 18 from the right side of the plane, or left side of 19 the plane, I'm sorry, you can see this creek, this 20 water source that heads north beyond the Wuskwatim 21 headwaters or watershed. 22 As you can see from the video, there 23 are a lot of issues that need to be addressed with 24 regard to Wuskwatim and the previous project known 25 as Churchill River Diversion. We therefore want 18 1 to recommend that the Federal Environmental 2 Assessment examine the current licencing structure 3 of the Churchill River Diversion as it is 4 currently today. There has been evidence that has 5 been presented by a number of Clean Environment 6 Commission participants that Manitoba Hydro has 7 been operating the CRD under an interim licence 8 since May 1973. 9 Under cross-examination, Manitoba 10 Hydro representatives and Mr. Steve Topping from 11 Water Stewardship division on April 13th indicated 12 that they are still working out the severance line 13 pursuant to section 19 of the Water Power Act 14 regulations 25/88R. This has been ongoing for a 15 31 year period under which Manitoba Hydro has not 16 finalized its licence as is a requirement under 17 section 19J. It is unacceptable, the amount of 18 time Hydro requires to figure out the effects and 19 nuances of the Churchill River Diversion and its 20 relation to Trapline 18. It should not have taken 21 31 years to fully realize the water line and 22 environmental changes caused by the CRD. It could 23 not be possible for a system to have no effect on 24 Trapline 18. Hydro cannot make this statement 25 without a full hydrological analysis and 19 1 environmental assessment of this region. 2 Through evidence presented by 3 concerned public participants, it was established 4 that the version of the Water Power Act under 5 which the interim licence was originally drawn on 6 stipulates under section 7.3A that no power 7 generated in Manitoba from any provincial water 8 power shall be exploited across the international 9 boundary. 10 The Federal Government has got to take 11 the warnings and recognize the recommendations 12 that were made in the 1979 Tritschler Report, and 13 ensure that the construction of Wuskwatim will not 14 have any additional effects on traplines or the 15 environment or any other communities in Northern 16 Manitoba. 17 Hydro has not cleaned up or 18 sufficiently dealt with the mistakes that were 19 made with past projects, and yet here they are 20 launching into another development without 21 acknowledging the past. 22 The Federal Government should ensure 23 that the mitigation policies and plans that Hydro 24 recently submitted to the Department of Fisheries 25 and Oceans, and ensure that they are adequate, 20 1 which means consultations with people such as 2 Trapline 18. We have not discussed any of these 3 issues with any Federal representatives. 4 We understand from the report, the 5 comprehensive report, that the Federal Government 6 has just taken what was submitted to the Clean 7 Environment Commission from the various 8 participants. 9 And I just want to reiterate that we 10 did not have the adequate resources or expertise, 11 or at least, at the very least support from the 12 Commissioners, the Clean Environment 13 Commissioners, to ensure that what they were 14 making a recommendation on was done thoroughly and 15 professionally. 16 We want to ensure that the bar is 17 raised on any future Hydro projects because, you 18 know, when you look at this video you can just see 19 the devastation and the major impacts that this 20 has on the environment, greenhouse gas, global 21 warming. I mean, these are all results of these 22 Hydro projects, and in specific reference to the 23 Churchill River Diversion. I think the Federal 24 Government should ensure that Manitoba Hydro and 25 NCN, should they proceed, make sure that they 21 1 establish a joint resource management process that 2 includes water quality monitoring, wildlife 3 monitoring, hydrology monitoring, environmental 4 monitoring, and some process to assist with 5 measuring global warming and greenhouse gas 6 emissions from this area, because the Trapline 18 7 area will be affected and so will the south side 8 of the Churchill River Diversion. 9 And Manitoba Hydro should be made to 10 provide compensation for the adverse effects from 11 the CRD, and that developments -- continuing 12 compensation for new effects that arise from 13 Wuskwatim. And that any future development that 14 will impact Trapline 18 will respect and recognize 15 our rights as First Nations people, and that we 16 are firm in the fact that we want to be a 17 participant, a partner in planning for development 18 in the resource area that is currently Trapline 19 18. 20 What we have seen and heard during the 21 hearings, we are concerned about this project. We 22 feel that we have been left out of the process, 23 that our participation was meaningless, that we 24 were there just to satisfy somebody's, some part 25 of the process as a consultant of Trapline 18. 22 1 The fact that this Wuskwatim dam is a 2 smaller size dam, low head design, may be a 3 positive aspect of the design, yet those facts 4 don't change the reality that the Wuskwatim dam is 5 going to be operated under the same system that 6 has existed since 1976. This is the same system 7 that has caused significant damage to our 8 trapline. It is the same system that will 9 continue to do so under its current operation and 10 practice. 11 It has been stated several times that 12 the CRD and Lake Winnipeg Regulation are extremely 13 complicated systems that require great feats of 14 engineering. As such, does it not make sense to 15 err on the side of caution when dealing with an 16 addition to an already complicated system? 17 We have to look at who feels the 18 effects most directly. It is not the Hydro 19 executives, it is not people in Winnipeg, not 20 people in Eastern Canada, it is not people in the 21 U.S. It is the Aboriginal people in Northern 22 Manitoba. It is Don McIvor and Trapline 18 who 23 will be left to carry the added burden, to suffer 24 the cumulative effects and costs. 25 We invite the FEA to find there is a 23 1 need for this project only after they have 2 received all of the accurate and relevant 3 information. We invite the FEA to find that the 4 cost of this project is not justified, because 5 while it is clear there will be environmental, 6 social, economic and human costs, there would be 7 no accounting of these. 8 For your information we have included 9 with this video additional materials such as the 10 July 4th Ferguson Creek report prepared by Glenn 11 Cook and Bernie Osiowy on behalf of Manitoba 12 Hydro, and subsequently submitted to the Clean 13 Environment Commission, and is referred to in the 14 Wuskwatim EIS statement. And we have included the 15 footage that came with that report from Manitoba 16 Hydro, the video footage. We have included the 17 July 26th, 2005 video which was done by 18 helicopter. We have also included the September 19 30th video that was done by plane, one camera was 20 on the right side of the plane and another camera 21 on the left side. You know, this was done 22 September 30th, 2005. 23 Also for reference you can include 24 materials such as the cross-examination on March 25 10th and 15th, the subsequent presentation on May 24 1 26th, 2004, and the concluding comments on June 9, 2 2004, along with the original submission made to 3 the Manitoba Government, the Clean Environment 4 Commission, for participant assistance funding 5 requesting $60,000. 6 With that, I want to thank you, and 7 just remind you that this video material is 8 intended for the representatives of the Federal 9 Environmental Assessment Agency, it is for your 10 viewing purpose only. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16