potential residual environmental effects workshop

Doc. No. 14153

CHURCHILL RIVERJMISHTA-SfflPU POWER PROJECT:POTENTIAL RESIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTSON INNU AND INNU COMMUNITIES

WORKSHOP

LIDC BoardroomHappy Valley-Goose Bay, LabradorOctober 25 and 26, 2001

REPORT

Prepared byLesley GriffithsGriffiths Muecke AssociatesNovember 23, 2001

Prepared forInnu Nation and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.........................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................

................................................................................

.................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

..............................................................................

....................................................................................

............................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

......................................

.......................................................................................................................

............................................

......................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................

1 Context 2

2 Approach 3

3 Key Themes from the Community Consultation Forum 4

4 The Churchill River Power Project and its Setting 7

4.1 The Churchill River Power Project 8

4.2 Innu History and Culture 9

5 Potential Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting 9

5.1 General Effects on Resource Harvesting 10

5.2 Effects on Fish Harvesting 12

5.3 Effects on Trapping 15

5.4 Effects on Hunting- Waterfowl, other birds, large and small game 16

5.5 Effects on Gathering 18

6 Effects on Innu Family and Community Life and Effects on Culture 18

6.1 Effects on Family and Community Life 18

6.2 Effects on Culture 21

7 Other Issues 23

Appendix A Participants

Appendix B Workshop Agenda

Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop

1 CONTEXT

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLI-i) is currently assessing the feasibility of developing a newhydroelectric project, known as the Churchill River Power Project (CRPP), on the lower part of theChurchill River/Mishta-shipu. The current proposal is to construct a dam and a power plant at Gull

Island with transmission lines to Churchill Falls and to the Quebec border near Montagnais.

The existing Churchill Falls Power Development, 225 km upstream from Gull Island, was completed

in 1974, and the original intent was to immediately proceed with a second phase of development at

Gull Island. However, financial and marketing issues put this project on hold. In the interveningtwenty seven years, there have been a number of initiatives to proceed with development of the

Lower Churchill hydroelectric potential together with expansion of the Churchill Falls project,including various associated environmental assessment activities. A recent round of negotiations withHydro-Quebec (to be both partner in project development and a purchaser of the power) was notsuccessful, and NLH has now scaled back its proposal to a single dam and power plant at Gull

Island, with capacity to generate between 1500-2300 megawatts (MW). NLH is currently assessingdevelopment options including the possibility of engaging with other partners. A joint feasibilityreview with one of these potential partners, Alcoa, is currently being carried out.

NLH continues to monitor energy policy developments in North America and has not yet

committed to proceed with the project. Over the past three years, NLH has also engaged in

discussions and negotiations with Irinu Nation regarding Innu Nations possible participation in thedevelopment of CR1??. Under the terms of a Process Agreement signed in 2000, Innu Nation hasbeen carrying out a community consultation process, participating in a joint technical working groupand negotiation the terms of an Agreement in Principle (AlP) with NLH that would lead to thedevelopment of an Impacts and Benefits Agreement ([BA). This lEA would ultimately be put before

the Innu people for ratification.

An important task for the AlP negotiators is to discuss compensation for the residual environmental

effects on Innu and Innu communities. The CRPP will be required to undergo full environmental

assessment under the terms of both federal and provincial legislation. It is expected that this process

will be guided through a memorandum of understanding involving Innu Nation as a signatory. Theenvironmental assessment will predict the residual environmental effects of the project - those

effects that remain after mitigation measures have been applied. However, it is the intention of InnuNation and NLH to complete the AlP before the environmental assessment process begins.

The AlP negotiators therefore recommended that a workshop be held, bringing together Aboriginal

and scientific experts from other parts of Canada, together with NLH and Innu Nation

representatives, to scope out the range of residual effects that might be expected.

The workshop objective was to:

Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop 2

Assist and inform the AlP negotiating teams (NLH and Innu Nation) by using

- expert opinion

- comparable experience, and- local knowledge; and

to identify potential residual environmental effects of the proposed Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Power Project on Innu and Innu communities.

The workshop product was to be a report to the NLH arid Innu Nation AlP negotiating teams

including

information on residual environmental effects of other hydro projects on First Nations

people and communities, and on relevant mitigation or management approaches applied; and

an annotated list of potential residual environmental effects, including indication of the

likelihood of occurrence and the degree of consensus.

2 APPROACH

The two-day workshop, held in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, was jointly planned by Innu Nation and

NLH, including development of the list of invited participants (Appendix A) and the agenda

(Appendix B). Participants included NLH and Innu Nation representatives including members of the

two AlP negotiating teams, Task Force representatives, Community Consultation Commissioners,

LHP environmental representatives and Aboriginal and scientific experts drawn from BritishColumbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. They brought with them a wide range ofknowledge and experience including:

• traditional ecological knowledge derived from many years of hunting, trapping andgathering, and close association with the land in northern Quebec, northern Alberta and

Labrador;• direct experience of the effects of hydroelectric development on Aboriginal people and

communities and the resources they use in the James Bay area of Quebec, the Athabaska

Delta in Alberta, the Columbia River Basin in British Columbia, and the Churchill

River/Mishta-shipu watershed in Labrador;

• experience in the development of hydroelectric projects, and the prediction, mitigation and

management of associated environmental effects in many parts of Western Canada,

particularly Manitoba; and• knowledge and experience regarding approaches to sustainable community development and

energy projects.

The workshop was enhanced by the participation of elders from Chisasibi First Nation and Innu

Nation. A number of observers from Innu Nation were also present at various times during the two

days. The event was chaired by Lesley Griffiths, a third-party facilitator, who also authored this

report.

Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Residusl Erivironmenisi Effects Workshop

In advance of the workshop, participants received background papers describing the current project

concept, its setting, history and status, and the relationship of the workshop to the AlP negotiations.

The workshop was preceded by an all-day public meeting held at the Labrador Interpretation Centre,North West River, organized and chaired by the Innu Nation Community ConsultationCommissioners. Transportation was provided from Sheshatshiu. The purpose of the meeting was togive Innu people and other interested members of the public an opportunity to learn from the

invited workshop guests about their experiences with large hydroelectric developments in otherareas. While this session was separate from the workshop itself, many of the workshop participantswere present and the six presentations provided an excellent introduction for subsequent workshop

discussions. A brief summary of some of the key themes from this session is therefore included in

this report.

It should be noted that the organizers of the workshop were not certain how much could beaccomplished in two days, and that the original objectives of the agenda were not entirely achieved.The intention was that participants would, for each general category of effects,

a share information on residual effects experienced with other projects, includingdiscussion of the types and effectiveness of mitigation measures on Aboriginal peoplesand communities;

o review a list of potential residual effects in the context of the CR21?, taking into account

similarities and differences in the environmental and social setting and the characteristicsof the proposed project;

o review potential mitigation measures;• develop a list of potential residual environmental effects on Innu and Innu communities

applicable to the CRPP; and• provide an opinion on the likelihood that these residual effects would occur.

In retrospect this list of tasks was too ambitious for the time available. The workshop product, asreported in this document, is instead a list of residual effects that have been associated with various

hydroelectric developments, without specific opinions on the extent to which they may or may notapply to the CR22, given differences in the ecological and sociocultural settings and characteristics of

the different hydro projects. The results of the workshop make an important contribution to the taskof scoping a range of effects that could be considered in relation to the proposed CR22. However,

the exercise must be considered preliminary in nature, and certainly subject to more comprehensiveassessment in the future.

KEY THEMES FROM THE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION FORUM

The following is a brief summary of some of the key themes that emerged from presentations made

by workshop participants at the community consultation session on October 23 at North West River.


William Ratt, Abraham R.upert, Sam Tapiatic

Chisasibi Cree First Nation, Chisasibi, Quebec

The land is for everyone and there is a need to find an appropriate balance for both people

and for animals that use the land. While some benefits have flowed to the Cree from the

James Bay hydro development, hunters and trappers and those following a traditional way oflife lost a great deal. Large areas of wildlife habitat and traplines were destroyed. Thecommunity of Chisasibi had to be relocated to the mainland, and they no longer drink waterfrom the river. It is also more difficult to cross the river in winter because it does not freezereliably. It should be noted that the first stage of the James Bay development was initiatedbefore formal environmental assessment guidelines were introduced.

First Nations must organize to respond to the challenges posed by hydro developments.

Nine Quebec Cree communities came together in the 1970's to form the Grand Council of

the Crees. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement gave the Cree and Inuit the

right to participate in the development, to help develop environmental regulations, and to beconsulted on future project decisions. The Crees have been funded to work on remedialmeasures, including creating waterfowl habitat and improved spawning areas; and improving

navigation by dredging channels, building weirs and canoe landings. Mercury levels in pikeand lake trout are elevated and a specific Mercury Agreement was signed that providedresources for research. The Cree now want more of this money to help Cree reach

unaffected fishing areas through a travel program. An income support program has beenintroduced to help hunters and trappers.

Stuart Davies

North/South Consultants, Winnpeg, Manitoba

Most of our experience with the residual effects of hydro projects derives from projectsdeveloped in the 60's, 70's and 80's, when there was less effective environmental regulation,fewer requirements for mitigation or consultation, traditional ecological knowledge was notincorporated, and many environmental effects were not recognized or were poorly

understood. Many of these projects had severe effects on Aboriginal communities, and

would not have been allowed to proceed without significant changes under currentlegislation. Residual effects are now better understood and it is known that they can include

changes to

• the physical environment (including increased erosion, more debris, unsafe ice,

changing water levels, and visual and aesthetic impacts),

• the water environment (including changes in water quality, temperature, nutrientlevels, and sedimentation),

• plants and small animals in the water (increased algae, changes in plant andanimal communities),

• fish populations (changes to fish habitat, the food they eat, their migrationroutes, and also turbine mortality),

• fish health, taste and contamination levels (including increased parasites,

changes in taste and texture and increased levels of mercury)

Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Residual Environment,I Effects Workshop

• terrestrial plants and animals (loss of habitat, loss of trees, effects of fluctuatingwater levels on muskrat and beaver,)

• resource harvesting (loss of productive berry and medicinal plant areas, effects

of debris on shoreline access, less fish, contamination of fish, increased

hunting/fishing pressures from outside, animals affected by construction noise)o socio-economic environment (effects on traditional lifestyles, commercial

fishing and trapping, and cultural sites, and visual degradation).

Positive effects have included training, employment, business and community developmentopportunities; and improved community facilities. The full participation of First Nations inthe environmental assessment is key to reducing adverse effects and enhancing positiveeffects.

Bill Green

Canadian Columbia River IntertribalFisherzes Commission, Cranbrook, BC

The Intertribal Fisheries Commission involves ten communities in the Ktunaxa andSecwepenc First Nations. The Commission provides technical support and coordination torestore and conserve aquatic ecosystems in the Columbia River. Most of the Columbia Riversystem is heavily dammed. There are 15 dams on the Canadian portion alone; only threestretches of river are still free flowing. The cumulative effects of all these hydro projectshave been devastating to the First Nations fisheries. Salmon, that used to travel 2000 km up

the main river and were of great spiritual and socio-economic importance, were the firsthuge loss. Other important species severely affected have been white sturgeon, kokanee, bulltrout and large rainbow trout. Fish have been affected by nutrient trapping and losses,

entrainment in turbines, loss of critical habitats, blocked access to habitats, loss of food

sources, increased water temperatures, loss of required flow conditions, increase levels of

gases in water (spill effects), fish stranding, low or zero flows, daily flow fluctuations.Various mitigation measures have been attempted with limited effectiveness.

The First Nations and scientists are still learning about the impacts of dams built 30 yearsago. It is difficult to predict all environmental effects accurately. For example, in the

Columbia system, people often did not find out where and how far fish travelled until afterthey built the dams.

Dennis Windsor

Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg,, Manitoba

Manitoba Hydro has a long history of hydro development in five major watersheds thatinclude parts of four other provinces and five US states. Some early projects had significant

adverse effects and would not be built today with current knowledge. Compensation to fiveFirst Nations bands for the effects of the Churchill Rivet diversion was provided throughthe Northern Flood Agreement (a sixth band at Cross Lake has opted to reopen

negotiations). Manitoba Hydro has improved the way they deal with reclamation of borrow

pits, garbage disposal, stream crossings, and transmission lines, and is working with First

Chutchill River/Mishta-shipu Residual Environmental Efcts Workshop

Nations to re-establish white sturgeon populations (dams often affect their spawning areas)

through hatcheries and new habitat development. They are also involved in tracking fish

through radio telemetry, and research on mercury contamination (including an experimentalreservoir in Ontario).

Lloyd Scinny Flett

Fort Chpe,yan, Alberta

First Nations and Metis hunters and trappers in the Athabaska Delta region are experiencingserious cumulative effects of hydroelectric projects (downstream from BC Hydro's BennettDam), the oil industry (tar sands development), and the pulp industry. The delta region, alarge area of highly productive wetlands, has been extensively de-watered. Prior to hydrodevelopment, it was typically flushed by floods every 4-5 years. The last flood occurred in

1974. Shorelines have moved out as much as haifa mile and are growing up with willowsand alders. Muskrats, fox, mink and beaver populations have declined drastically. A large

buffalo grazing area has decreased in size and moose no longer have deep water lakes forsummer habitat. There are fewer duck and geese and the taste of the animals has changed.

To an Aboriginal person, a trapline is a whole way of life and a security system. It isincreasingly difficult to teach young people by taking them out on the land. First Nationsshould organize and negotiate to ensure that they get what they need before a hydro projectis built. TEK studies are essential in this process.

Cohn Isaacs

Contemporary Information Anai'ysis Ltd, Fisherville, Ontario

It is important to study the ecosystem effects of hydro projects. It is not sufficient to lookonly at key species (salmon or caribou for example). Developments will have interactions

with climate and microclimate, biological and chemical ecosystems; the social, economic andcultural systems; and the visual appearance of the landscape. It is important to first mitigateeffects using the best state-of-knowledge approaches and techniques, and then to measure

residual effects through effects monitoring. Bureaucratic systems may ignore changes thathaven't been monitored. Environmental managers should be prepared to address residual

effects on a continuing basis. It is also important to maximize benefits for people affected by

projects, in line with their own sustainable development priorities. There needs to be

ongoing community consultation and willingness to respond to problems as they arise.

THE CHURCHILL RIVER POWER PROJECT AND ITS SETTING

During the first morning of the workshop, after opening remarks by Linda Jefferson, NLH AlPnegotiator, and Gerry Kerr, consultant to Innu Nation, presentations were given on the projectconcept, its bio-physical and regional socio-economic setting, and on Innu history and culture.


4.1 The Churchill River Power Project

Larry LeDrew, Manager, Environment with the Labrador Hydro Project, presented the overview ofthe project and its environmental and regional setting. This information is contained in the

background document circulated before the workshop and is therefore not repeated in this report.Four issues emerged during questions and discussion:

The proposed operating regime

The CR21? was described as a run-of-the-river" project, and there was some conflsion around the

exact meaning of this term. As employed by NLH in this instance, the term was intended to convey

that there will be no large storage reservoir; that once the reservoir was filled, there would be littledrawdown; that river flows would be sin-iilar above and below the dam; and that downstream habitatchanges should not be as extensive as below a large storage reservoir. It was suggested that use ofthis term be clarified and it be made clear, in a public context, that "run-of-the-river" does not leadpeople to understand that the river below Churchill Falls will be largely unchanged.

The efects of the Churchill Falic Power Project on C.RPP's operating regimeFlows in the Churchill River are already altered by the Churchill Falls Project, which is operated in

direct response to the load requirements of Hydro Quebec ("Hydro Quebec has its foot on the gas

pedal for the Churchill Falls plant"). While NLH indicated that a new agreement would have to be

reached that took the requirements of the Gull Island plant into account, there were questionsregarding the implications of this situation. An understanding of how the two facilities would operatetogether will be needed in order to predict some potential environmental effects.

The effects of the Churchill Falic project on the Churchill River

The effects of the existing hydro project at Churchill Falls have not been extensively measured. Forexample questions were asked about downstream erosion and ice scour impacts due to changes inthe hydrological regime. Some preliminary observations suggest there may have been some effects.

The availabil4y of Innu land use and harvesting information

This information has not been collected yet at an appropriate scale for this project. Previous work

was done for different purposes, at a regional scale, up to 1991. Supplemental research will berequired.

Other points raised addressed:

• the relative merits of clearcutting any of the proposed reservoir area;

• the local availability of construction materials;

• plans for sewage treatment at construction camps;• reasons for the decline of the Lac Joseph and Red Wine caribou herds;

• the relationship between the freshwater and marine environments and Innu marine fisheries;

and• the pressures of the decision making time frame and the consultation process

Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Residual Environinentai Effects Workshop

4.2 Imiu History and Culture

Peter Armitage, Consultant to Innu Nation, assisted by Elizabeth Penashue, presented an overviewof Innu history and culture. Innu have occupied the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula for at least 1,800years, and there is extensive evidence of historic Innu land use in the Churchill River valley. Therewere originallyrnany Innu bands that were highly mobile. River valleys were the main travel routesand, after the arrival of the Europeans, movements were largely based on kinship relations, fur trade

requirements and the location of missionaries. The independence of the Innu was gradually eroded

by competition for land and resources by Settlers, incursion of sport fishers and hunters, loss of

access to salmon resources on the Quebec North Shore, commercial fishing along the coast, disease,

decline in caribou populations, and industrial development including the Goose Bay military base,

low-level flying, iron ore mining, highway construction, and the Churchill Falls hydroelectric project.

Settlement (1957 to 1968) had enormous impact on Innu. The ensuing dependency on church andgovernment had devastating effects on Innu self esteem, leading to significant social problems. ManyInnu people do continue to hunt and fish. However, sixty percent of Innu are now aged 19 or under.Many of them are no longer interested in traditional resource harvesting, preferring wage

employment when available. Innu are currently negotiating with the government both oncomprehensive land claims and registration under the Indian Act.

It is very difficult for most Innu people to look at the CRPP proposals without thinking about theChurchill Falls project. There is already a large portion of central Labrador that is managed

exclusively for the purpose of hydroelectric production. Many people fear additional changes in theriver. Elizabeth Penashue stated that many Innu feel that in many respects they are becomingstrangers in their own land.

In relation to the potential socio-economic effects of the CRPP, Innu have two research priorities:• the need to establish good socio-economic baseline data to enable monitoring of future

changes; and• the need for an Innu visioning process to determine what Innu want for their future and

how projects such as CRPP could fit in to that future.

5 POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON RESOURCE HARVESTING

For the remainder of the first day and part of the second morning, participants discussed thepotential residual effects of hydro development on resource harvesting carried out by First Nations

people and communities. Of necessity, this task involved making lists and creating sub-categories.

However, some participants pointed out the risks of this approach. The overall effect of individual

fishing, trapping or hunting losses cannot be measured solely in terms of time and money. An

Aboriginal person is deeply connected with the land. He or she may also be losing tradition, culture,way-of-life, and identity. (" The land is the very core of who we are. That is what we have to ,give ". A. Rupert).Manitoba Hydro has paid compensation both for trapping and fishing losses, but also for loss oflifestyle. However, it may be impossible to compensate for certain losses with money. ("Compensation


is not much gaiifrnryppk Pople are killing theinsekes z incney" K Gregoire). Cultural concerns werediscussed as an integral part of the effects on resource harvesting and were then revisited on thesecond day.

5.1 General Effects on Resource Harvesting

The following effects were identified as being common to two or more resource harvesting activities.

RE #1 Change in diet.Bathers to harvesting or a decline in quantity/quality of country foods may result inpeople replacing these with storebought food. This may have both health andeconomic repercussions for First Nations families and communities.

Mitigation- Community hunting programs that provide country foods for people not able

to get out on the land.- Establishment of a country foods store in the community.

RE #2 Effects on one harvesting activity will affect other activities.If one activity, trapping for example, is curtailed for any reason, this reduces thetime spent on the land and then reduces opportunities for other harvesting activitiessuch as hunting or berry-picking.

RE #3 Competition from construction workersConstruction workers may hunt or fish in their spare time.

Mitigation- "No hunting/fishing" policies in construction camps (Nil-I already uses this

policy). However it can be difficult to control the activities of workers in theirspare time.

- One suggestion from Manitoba was to encourage construction workers to fishin lakes known to be unproductive.

RE #4 Decreased harvest due to competition from sport hunters, fishers, tourists.Hydro development may open up easier access to the land (new roads, transmissionlines), and may prove a tourist attraction in its own right.

• There may be additional problems with excessive kills. For example, if a hunteris licensed to kill one moose, the first carcass may be abandoned if a largeranimal is encountered and killed. Incidents such as this have been seen in bothQuebec and Labrador.


• hmu and Cree also reported that they often feel unsafe when there are largenumbers of non-native hunters in the area ("Our people go hone w1en the hwtesgoin - tislikeazwzoie."A.Rupert)

Mitigation- Limit licenses, make guiding by local Aboriginal people mandatory.- Guaranteed harvest levels, i.e. licenses are only given to others after Innu have

met their own requirements.

RE #5 Loss of faith in country foodsWhile methylmercuiy contamination in reservoir fish is a well-known effect, thehuman health implications of low levels of chronic methylmercury contaminationare not well understood. Partly as a result of such uncertainty, Innu harvesters donot trust the scientists, hence may be waiy of and lose confidence in the quality ofother animals and plants due to concerns about metals, fuel spills, pesticides andother potential contaminants.

Both James Bay Cree and Innu also reported a loss of confidence in the qualityof river water in their areas.

Mitigation- Establish comprehensive monitoring/education programs to address loss of

confidence in country foods.Involve First Nations in testing and analysis. Broadcast results. (N'fakivikCorporation has its own laboratory).More research on contamination in country foods - long range transport etc,with prompt feedback to Aboriginal peoples.

RE #6 Loss of access to harvesting areas, or increased travel timeBecause of changes in ice conditions along known travel routes or debris onshorelines, harvesters may be unable to get to certain areas or it may take muchlonger. The fear of unsafe conditions may also deter harvesters from using that areaat all.

Mitigation- Creation of monitored ice trails.- Provision of shelters or camping areas along new routes.- Travel programs to provide assistance induding fly-in programs.- Hunter income security programs (supplement provided per day in bush).

RE #7 Birds and animals avoid construction noiseThe effects of construction noise and activity may cause animals to leave their usualhabitats, making them harder to find or increasing travel time to new harvestingareas.

Churchill RiverlMishta-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop 11

RE #8 Loss of hunting gear and disruption of previously remote camp sitesHunters and trappers report that construction workers and other non-nativefishers/hunters sometimes steal hunting and trapping equipment or damage camps.Being able to cache equipment and supplies safely is important part of resourceharvesting.

RE #9 New roads open up land to other developmentsRoads associated with hydro development may ultimately lead to otherdevelopments such as commercial forestry, which would further impact harvesting.

5.2 Effects on Fish Harvesting

Bio-Physical Effects ci Fish and Fish HabitatDiscussion of this topic began with an overview of the potential bio-physical effects of the project onfish and fish habitat, building from Bill Green's presentation at the community consultation, buteliminating those effects that relate mainly to flow fluctuations, under the assumption that, the CRPPwill not induce significant flow changes. Potential bio-physical effects include the following.

Loss of habitat through flooding or • Intensive radio telemetry is vital to identify criticalblocked access habitat before development.

• Need to look beyond one year's worth of data.•. NLH has conducted telemetry studies for six species,

tracking movements in tributaries as well as in the mainstem.

______ ______________________

Nutrient depletion in reservoirs • In oligotrophic systems, the status may shift to super-

____ ____olig2phic, with a conqnt dedine in productivity.

Population fragmentation • Barriers such as dams prevent genetic interactionbetween populations. Smaller, isolated populations aremore vulnerable.

Turbine mortalities___________

• Some fish maymove upstream through fish ladders, findthat they do not do well in lake environment and

___________-

litCh in fi h

subsply move back down through the turbines.arasites• Increase inqua yanges s p

• Change in texture and taste

____________-_________contamination

Chg fish habitat___

• Spg, winter, nurseiy_______________

[iianges in competition between • For example, an increase in the pike population maypecies cause

_________________

Changes in food availability • Relative abundance of different foods may change.• Increased water depth will result in loss of aquatic

____________plants.

-

Churchill RiverAishta-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop 12

Changes in how fish feed • Trout and pike are visual feeders and may not do well inreservoir habitat (greater depth, greater turbidity, less

PotethalResia!ual Es on Fish Harcestmg

RE #10 Reduced harvest levels of some fish speciesHabitat alterations and other factors will favour some species and adversely affectothers, causing changes in population levels.

• In general terms NLEI expects that brook trout and ouananiche (land-lockedsalmon) could decline in the upstream reservoir, with possible increases in lakewhitefish and long nose suckers.

RE #11 Decreased fish qualityQuality may decline due to parasites, changes in taste or texture, mercury levels, orchange in species mix

• Cree no longer fish in the areas directly affected by hydro development becauseof the presence of mercury contamination. They travel to other lakes but areincreasingly concerned that contaminated fish may also be moving furtherthrough the system through tributaries to other lakes not directly affected byflooding.

• Similarly, Innu rarely fish in the Churchill River system because of fears aboutmercury contamination. The presence of large warning notices erected byCF(L)Co. at the direction of Health Canada has been a discouraging factor.("You alzvzys haz. to zwriy dvut eathigfish", E. Penashue).

• Will Aboriginal people be willing to return to eating fish once mercury levelshave dropped? No-one is certain. Confidence in the safety of eating fish hasbeen severely damaged both in Quebec and Labrador.

• In Manitoba there was a large commercial fishery affected by mercury in onereservoir. When the mercury levels went down, some fishing did resume.

• Aboriginal people frequently report changes in taste or texture (the flesh of thefish is softer) some years after hydro development construction. As yet, thecause for this has not been identified.

• In the Athabaska Delta region, they have observed sores on whitefish and alsodeterioration of liver quality in fish.

• The quality of the catch may decline from the perspective of the Aboriginalharvester because preferred species are less abundant, even though other speciesmay be more abundant.

Mitigation


Provide transportation to, and shelter at, other locations, outside the affected

system.

RE #12 Decreased harvest because fish are no longer present in previously knownlocations.If habitat is destroyed or altered, fish may move to new habitats, the locations of

which are either unknown to harvesters, further away, or inaccessible.

RE #13 Increased harvesting costsThese may result from increased travel time, boat or gear damage or increasedfishing time.

• Debris in the water and unfamiliar rocks in newly flooded areas can increase the

time it takes to travel to fishing locations, or damage boats or nets.

• Unsafe or unknown ice conditions may increase travel time.

• Nets may be damaged by ice when water levels fluctuate.

• Increased debris may increase the time it takes to fish.

• James Bay Cree have experienced problems setting nets in debris-filled areas.They have attempted to clear fishing areas in some areas

Mthgation- Safe ice trails can decrease travel time in winter.- Travel programs may provide air transportation to fishing locations.

Boat access sites can be cleared.- Clear some fishing areas before flooding.- Clearance of areas every 5-10 km along routes to allow camp to be set up.

- Provide transportation to and shelter at other locations, outside affected system.

RE #14 Decrease or loss of shoreline accessLoss of access to shorelines will make it more difficult to fish, and reduce otherharvesting opportunities at the same time.

• A shoreline choked with large woody debris is very difficult to navigate on footor by boat.

Mitzation

- Clearing selected shoreline areas for boat and foot access.

RE #15 Decrease in harvest because fishing has become less enjoyable or less safe.Some harvesters may choose not to fish as often because the experience has becomemore demanding (dealing with problems caused by debris and other factors), and

less enjoyable because of changes to the landscape (from river to reservoir, shoreline

Churchill River/Misht-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop 14

debris, transmission lines etc). Unsafe conditions such as variable water or iceconditions may also deter harvesters.

Mitigation- Development of safe ice trails.

- Halfway cabins built along travel routes to provide shelter in case people get

delayed by slush ice.

- Provision of safety radios.

RE#16 Reduced harvest due to competition from sports fishers in reservoirs withdebris.Reservoirs with debris provide good habitat for the large fish that sports fishersprefer.

RE #17 Foreclosure of future fisheries.The potential of the river system to support different fisheries than are currentlyexploited should be taken into consideration, based on traditional ecological

knowledge about historic species, their abundance and movement.

When the Churchill Falls project was developed there was an attempt to start acommercial whitefish fishery at Lobstick. This experience should be reviewed.The project is reported to have failed at the time because of transportation andmarketing difficulties. There was no road to Labrador West at that time.

5.3 Effects on Trapping

RE #18 Loss of animals due to fluctuating water levels and ice conditions.The homes of aquatic mammals such as beaver, muskrat, mink and otter may be

disturbed by extreme changes in ice and water conditions at the shoreline.

1mm report that beavers have declined significantly since the Churchill Fallsdevelopment. Ice scour may be a contributing factor.Declines in muskrat population cause declines in mink too.

Mitzgation

- Intensive trapping out program. Such a program was carried out before

development of LG2 in James Bay to avoid loss of existing animals to trappers.

RE #19 Direct loss of trapping area due to flooding.Wide scale flooding may permanently destroy habitat and traplines.


RE #20 Loss of gear, due to floodingTrappers may lose traps, boats, snowmobiles, cabins, and other improvements ontraplines in areas that are flOoded.

• Jnnu reported losing much equipment when the Smaliwood Reservoir wasflooded, because there was no consultation and virtually no notice given.

RE #21 Change of quality of habitats in trapping area due to fluctuating water levels

Mitigathn- Clearcut areas above the new high water level to provide early successional

growth food sources for animals such as beaver, muskrat, hares, moose, etc. InJames Bay this worked well for both beaver and moose. Areas were selectedadjacent to tributaries where there was suitable shoreline habitat for beaverlodges. This would not work well in reservoirs with a substantial drawdown.

RE #22 Concern about methylmercury in furbearersTrappers and families may be unwilling or unable to eat fish-eating animals, such asotters, because of concerns about the accumulation of methylmercury. Otherchanges in taste or quality may also be experienced.

RE #23 Increased access along transmission corridors.Transmission corridors may allow Innu trappers easier access (positive effect) butmay also encourage more non-Innu incursions into the country for trapping orother purposes (negative effect).

RE #24 Loss of culture because of impacts on trappingIt may no longer be possible for a trapper to take his or her family out to thetrapline on weekends - an important part of passing on traditional culture

Mitigathn

- Incentives can be provided to trappers per pelt to offset increased harvest costs

and encourage continuation of trapping.

5.4 Effects on Hunting - Wateifowl, other birds, large and small game

RE #25 Change in habitat affects abundance of some species of waterfowlThe harvest for some species will go down because of shoreline effects and changes

in distribution.

In Manitoba, flooded gravel pits provide new geese hunting habitat


RE #26 Migratory routes may be affectedChanges in migration routes may divert birds from traditional hunting areas

RE #27 Decrease in availability of shoreline birdsChildren have typically learnt to hunt by hunting smaller shoreline birds (e.g.sandpipers). Changes in shoreline habitats may decrease their abundance.

RE #28 Seepage from dykes may have an effect on animals living in ground.In the Yukon, seepage from dykes affected groundhogs

RE #29 Decreased harvest of big gamePopulation of big game animals such as caribou may decline beáause of habitatdisturbances.

RE #30 Shoreline debris increases hunting effortIt is often very difficult to move a large carcass over an area with large woodydebris. Similarly it is difficult or impossible to mn a hunting dog along the shoreline.

RE #31 Sudden changes in water levels affects animalsAnimals may be drowned or forced to change travel routes by sudden increases inwater levels.

• The operating regime of a new hydro electric facility can have significant effectsfor animals/people downstream unaccustomed to the new patterns of waterflow.

RE #32 Construction camps may have adverse effects on bear populationsBears may be attracted to camps by garbage or workers feeding them. Problembears may have to be shot if relocation unsuccessful.

Mitigathn- Improved waste management.- Well enforced camp mies against feeding animals.

RE #33 Decreases in wildlife populations due to affects on fishIf fish populations decline significantly, populations of bears, otters, minks, andother piscivores may suffer.

Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Residu2i Environmental Effects Workshop 17

5.5 Effects on Gathering

RE #34 Harvest of plants, berries affected by herbicidesHerbicide use on deared areas (transmission lines etc) may affect the quality orabundance of food plants such as berries, and may also affect perception of thesafety of plant food gathered in these areas.

RE #35 Direct loss of valued plant habitatFlooding or clearing may destroy beriy picking areas or the habitat of medicinalplants.

There may be concerns that the quality of medicinal plants may not be as strongin areas affected by development.Some Aboriginal people are also concerned that the strong medicine in theseplants may be distributed in the water once an area is flooded.

EFFECTS ON INNU FAMILY AND COMMUMTY LIFE AND EFFECTS ONCULTURE

6.1 Effects on Family and Community Lift

To begin the discussion on this issue, Rose Gregoire presented a list of potential residual effects,based on previous Innu experience with industrial developments and existing community problems.Jackie Ashini and Elizabeth Penashue worked with Rose to prepare this list. These topics were thensupplemented by input from other participants.

RE #36 More people in the area and in Innu communitiesNew development will change the demographics in the area, both temporarily andpermanently.

RE #37 More problems with alcohol and drugs.More people and more money will likely increase stress, alienation, and theavailability of drugs and alcohol, making existing problems worse.

RE #38 Increased abuse and exploitation of womenConstruction workers may take advantage of young Innu women who maybeparticularly vulnerable because of poverty, unemployment, or substance abuseproblems.

churchill River/Mishta-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop 18

Mitigazon- Provide education and awareness training for construction workers.- Prohibit workers from entering Innu communities. (First Nations communities

elsewhere have used this form of mitigation, but it was pointed out that it wouldprobably be logistically impossible in the case of Sheshatshiu).

RE #39 Increased family break-ups.Employment on the project may cause increased tensions within the family

• Innu communities experienced this with the early stages of the Voiseys Bayproject. Husbands did not share their wages with their wives.

RE #40 Increased abuse of eldersIncreased alcohol and drug abuse may cause elders to be abandoned by theirfamilies.

RE #41 Young people will be more "lost" and vulnerableYoung people will lose connections to the land and will not know what to do withtheir lives if they feel they cannot participate in the industrial economy.

RE #42 No jobs for young people because they lack trainingMany young Innu do not have adequate training to take advantage of newemployment opportunities. Many have dropped out of school and may be tooembarrassed to go back. Existing training programs and institutions may not workwell for Innu because of the serious challenges faced. -

• Many Innu young people are anxious to work, but don't have the skills, trainingor confidence.

• There was considerable discussion on this issue and a number of examples oftraining projects and initiatives provided.

• There can be additional negative effects if a young person obtains a short termjob and is then let -go.

• Innu should not focus exdusively on construction jobs that are short term, butshould train for a wider range of jobs and positions that their communitiesneed.

• The James Bay Cree pointed out that the more First Nations takeover controlof their lands and communities, the more young people are encouraged to stayin or go back to school to get their education. They have started constructioncompanies, do highway maintenance, have native teachers in the school system,and provide summer employment programs for students.

• There are risks in providing training for uncertain projects: for example, Innutrained as archaeology field workers for the Voiseys Bay project, are nowunemployed.

churchill River!Mishta-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop 19

Mitt; gation

- Hiring policies that give preference to local Aboriginal people Manitoba Hydra

example: agreements with unions).

- Establish an Innu College to provide upgrading and training (Example ofAboriginal school in Winnipeg run by First Nations. They teach EnvironmentalSciences through both TEK and western science. Also there is a First Nationscollege in Fort McMurray).

- Proponent provides on-the-job training.

- Give business contracts to Innu with a built-in training component (e.g.

catering).- Make agreements to guarantee jobs for Innu who successftilly complete

training.

RE #43 Cultural and spiritual effects on eldersWhile loss of land and traditional pursuits can affect everyone, elders are particularlyvulnerable. They will be hurt by the loss of country foods and by adverse effects onanimals. They may go hungry because they do not get the food they want and need.

RE #44 Reduced opportunities and ability to go into the countryBeing able to go out on the land is an important way for many families to recuperate

from the stresses of community life and to pass on traditional knowledge and

values. Changes in the landscape and greater non-native incursions, together witheffects on harvesting, will reduce opportunities.

• There are things that can only be taught on the land - there is a differentlanguage used in the country.

Mt'tzgation

- Provide more opportunities for young people to be in the country through

camps and programs (example of current initiative to establish a treatment

facility for youth in the Lobstick area).

RE #45 Effects on women: few job opportunities and increased domestic violenceWomen may have fewer opportunities to work on the project than men. Moremoney, more alcohol, more stress, may increase violence in the home. Jealousy mayalso be a factor (additional men in area).

• Examples were given of women training and working in non-traditional areas

on other projects. Sixty percent of the trainees in a Syncrude heavy equipment

program were women. This company provides an on-site daycare.• At Manitoba Hydra's Limestone project Aboriginal women took jobs in

housekeeping and catering. They enjoyed the work but their husbands would

not let them stay.

Churchill Rivcr/Mishta-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop 20

Ivfztzgation

- Provide training opportunities specifically for women.

- Facilitate child care options for employees.

RE #46 Adverse effects of short term jobs, eventual project abandonmentShort term construction jobs may leave people feeling hopeless. Similarly, when theconstruction stage of the project eventually ends, Innu may feel abandoned and

beaten again.

It can be difficult to switch from high-paying industrial jobs to low-paying

community jobs.Innu need to focus on their own vision for the friture and develop long-term

sustainable jobs in the community that fit with that vision.

Mitzgation- Focus on jobs for which there is a longer-term need: for example,

environmental research, monitoring and management. Monitoring may go onfor thirty years or more.

RE #47 Increased intermarriageWith more newcomers in the region, intermarriage may increase. This may be

beneficial for individual couples and families, but may also result in Innu moving

away, and children losing their language.

This was the experience with the Labrador Linerboard project and militaryflight training.

RE #48 Rifts in the community caused by some people getting aheadThe benefits of economic development will not be evenly distributed. In tight-knitcommunities there can be jealousies when some people get ahead and others do not.

6.2 Effects on Culture

Elizabeth Penashue presented a slide show with images of her most recent canoe excursion down theChurchill River to Gull Island. Rose Gregoire provided the translation.

The key themes of her presentation were:• The peace and happiness she feels when she is out in the country and her fears

that this will be lost to her and her family.• The importance of the country in bringing families together and passing on

knowledge and experience to young people


• How strong and healthy she feels in the country• The needs of Mother Earth and of the animals

• The beauty of the land and water and how deeply she feels connected with it

• How travelling along the river connects her to her past and the history of the

Innu

• How dramatic the changes have been in the Churchill Falls area

In the ensuing discussion (and in related discussions earlier in the workshop) the following residual

effects on culture were identified.

RE #49 Effects on the spiritual and aesthetic meaning and enjoyment of the landHydro projects change rivers to lakes, flood lands, install structures, clear land and

build transmission lines, all of which create big changes in the landscape. Innu have

a deep spiritual connection to the land, which will be altered.

o How can a value be assigned to the aesthetic experience of an area?.The spiritual significance of the land must be addressed in the Environmental

Assessment.

Mitigation

- There have been studies that have attempted to assign a monetary value to theintrinsic value of the landscape and aesthetics. There were many questionsabout such methodologies, which may be imperfect but a starting point for

consideration.

RE #50 Loss of traditional way of life on the landSome Innu who still hunt, trap and fish may find it increasingly difficult to continue,because of obstacles identified under resource harvesting effects. Loss of thistraditional way of life affects every aspect of a person's life and that of his or herfamily, and fundamentally alters their sense of identity.

• Being able to survive on the land provides a sense of strength and security ("A

trap/me ic a native person's bank, ,grocey store and pharmay" S. Flett).• In the James Bay area, Cree who lost their territory, "Izst everything".

• "The land is the very core of who we are" (A. Rupert).

• Innu have a bond with the land; breaking this bond will be a significant impact.

RE #51 Loss of traditional knowledgeTraditional knowledge must be passed on from elders to young people by living inthe country. There will be fewer opportunities and more distractions and diversionsfor young people as development increases.

Churchill Rivez/Mishta-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop 22

OTHER ISSUES

Towards the end of the workshop a number of other issues were raised as having implications for

the extent of residual effects.

Henage Sites

Heritage sites are important both because of their cultural and traditional significance, and becausethey provide opportunities to learn more about the ecosystem. Preserving or salvaging archaeologicalsites should be an important part of project planning and development. It is a very powerful thing to

hold in your hand a tool your ancestor used 4,000 years ago. NLH has conducted a HistoricResources Overview Assessment over a three year period (199 8-2000).

Cumulative ejjects assessment

This will be an essential part of the BA process. It is difficult to assess residual effects without takingcumulative effects into consideration. Throughout the workshop, Innu made reference to the effects

of other projects and activities that will intersect with effects of the CRPP (existing hydroelectricdevelopment, military flight training, new highway construction, forestry activities etc)

The role of Happy Va/ky-Goose Bay and North West River

Unlike the situation with some other hydro projects, Sheshatshiu is not an isolated community. The

presence of 7,500 people living in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River and Mud Bay is a

significant factor for environmental assessment of the project and mitigation of effects. Mitigationmeasures designed to improve access for Innu hunters and trappers, for example, would also

improve access for many non-native residents. There will also be political effects if hydro

development increases the non-Aboriginal population. Innu will lose political influence in the region.One example of this is the local opposition to Innu hunting rights through land claims. Cultural

influence may also decline. How much attention would the CBC, for example, pay to a shrinking(proportionally) minority?

The Cree in the James Bay area had a similar experience. A non-native town evolved out of the

construction camp at LG2 and residents have tried top take over tourism opportunities. However,the Cree have organized to increase their political power. For example, they have insisted upon

having their own referendum over the Quebec separation issue, to avoid their voice being lost in a

non-native majority (Quebec-wide).

The impact of changing demographics may also depend on the role Irinu take in the project. The

Innu's position is that they decide whether the project proceeds. If it does, they will play a major role.It will then be in the interest of businesses in Happy Valley-Goose Bay to cooperate with the Innu.

The relationshp of the CRPP to the Churchill Pal/c Project

Gerry Kerr, consultant to Innu Nation AlP negotiating team, asked if the residual effects of CRPPcould be predicted without first determining the effects of Churchill Falls. In this discussion the

following points were made.

churchill River/Mishta-shipu Residual Environmental Effects Workshop 23

• To assess CRPP it will be necessary to have a good understanding of the existing

environment and trends from the previous project.

• It will be impossible to predict future methylmercury effects without understanding existing

effects.

• Environmental information for the 60's and 70's is very limited.

• There is a lack of trust among Innu towards hydro developers as a result of the ChurchillFalls project. This must be addressed arid mutual understanding developed before you canmove forward to the next project.

• In the Columbia River Basin, First Nations have determined that the effects of existingprojects must be mitigated to the fullest extent possible and that new projects will only be

considered if they improve social, economic and environmental conditions for First Nations.

• Can the Gull Island project do anything to mitigate the effects of the Churchill Falls project?

We should look at restorative approaches.

• The James Bay Cree have been heavily involved in remedial actions such as removing debris

from areas of the reservoirs. The company has also been doing work but much of it is

considered to be mainly cosmetic - areas that can be seen from the road are revegetated.

• NLH has learned from the Churchill Falls mistakes. This was a project involving largereservoir drawdowns, with no clearing of vegetation, and no consultation with Innu. NLHdoes not intend to repeat these mistakes.

• NLH has baseline data collected over the past twenty years on fish, water quality, and small

mammals.

Uncertainy

The original intent of the workshop was to ask the participants to assess the likelihood that the

proposed project would cause certain residual effects. This proved impossible in the time frame

available, and with limited information. In a short, general discussion it was suggested that many of

the biophysical and some socio-economic residual effects could probably be predicted with a fairly

high degree of certainty, given the extent of existing baseline data, and the experience gained in other

areas. However, management and monitoring should prepare for unforeseen effects. The main

uncertainty in environmental assessment is likely to rest with determining the significance of the

residual effects.

However, based on earlier discussions during the workshop, there appeared to be agreement that itwill be very difficult to predict and then monitor certain social and cultural effects, because the social

environment is so dynamic and affected by so many influences. Deciding what contribution the

CRPP will make to changes in families or to social problems in combination with otherdevelopments in the region will probably be very difficult and perhaps impossible.

Expert judgement can play an important role in reducing uncertainty. TEK should play an integralrole in expert judgement but should also be subject to the same rigours as westem science.

Compensation agreements will also need to address uncertainty.

Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Resldu2i Environmental Effects Workshop 24

APPENDIX A

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Etienne Andrew Peter ArmitageInnu Nation/Hydra Task Force Consultant to Innu NationInnu Nation 61 Prince of Wales St.P. 0. Box 119 P. 0. Box 1441, Stn. "C"Sheshatshiu, Labrador AOP 1MO St. John's, NF A1C 5N8Phone: (709)497-8398 Phone/Fax: (709)753-1430Fax: (709)497-8396E-mail: [email protected] Ashini John BerniquezCommunity Consultation Commissioner Senior Policy AnalystInnu Nation Community and Aboriginal RelationsP. 0. Box 119 Labrador Hydro ProjectSheshatshiu, Labrador AOP 1MO 500 Columbus DrivePhone: (709)497-8398 P. 0. Box 12400Fax: (709)497-8396 St. John's, NF A1B 4K7

Phone: (709)737-1766Fax: (709)737-1985E-mail: jbemigueznlh.nf.ca

Stuart Davies Lloyd Sonny FlettNorthlSouth Consultants Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel83 Scurfield Blvd. 10010 104th StreetWinnipeg, MB R3Y 1G4 Edmonton, AB T5J OZ1Phone: (204)284-3366 Phone: (780)743-7011Fax: (204)477-4173 Fax: (780)743-7028E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Gogal Bill GreenLegal Counsel to LHP Canadian Columbia River Intertnbal FisheriesMclnnis Cooper Commission10 Fort William Place 7468 Mission RoadP. 0. Box 5939 Cranbrook, BC V1C 7E5St. John's, NF A1C 5X4 Phone: (250)417-3474Phone: (709)722-8735 Fax: (250)489-5760Fax: (709)722-1763 E-mail: [email protected]: sandra. gogalmcrlaw. cornRose Gregoire Lesley Griffiths, ChairCourt Worker Gri.ffiths Muecke AssociatesIrinu Nation 5539-B Young St.P. 0. Box 119 Halifax, NSB3K 1Z7Sheshatshiu, Labrador AOP 1MO Phone: (902)423-8629Phone: (709)497-8398 Fax: (902)421-1990Fax: (709)497-8396 E-mail: lesleygriffithsrnueke. cornLarry Innes Colin IsaacsInnu Nation Contemporary Information Analysis Ltd.P. 0. Box 119 119 Concession 6 RoadSheshatshiu, Labrador AOP 1MO Fisherville, ON NOA 1GOPhone: (709)497-8398 Phone: (416)410-0423Fax: (709)497-8396 Fax: (416)362-5231E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] _____ -- -

Linda Jefferson Geny KerrExecutive Director Chignecto Consulting Group Inc.Community and Aboriginal Relations 14 Weldon St.Labrador Hydro Project Sackville, NB E4L 4N3500 Columbus Drive Phone: (506)536-2378P. 0. Box 12400 Fax: (506)364-0194St. John's, NF A1B 4K? E-mail: nkay@bcplPhone: (709)737-1834Fax: (709)737-1985E-mail: 1jeffersn1linf ca ____________________________Larry LeDrew Annette L'uttermannManager, Environment Coordinator, Innu NationlHydro Task ForceLabrador Hydro Project 67 Newcastle Street500 Columbus Drive Dartmouth, NS B2Y 3M6P. 0. Box 12400 Phone/Fax: (902)461-8495St. John's, NF A1B 4K7 E-mail: alutterm(iis.da1.caPhone: (709)737-1409Fax: (709)737-1985E-mail: lledrew(ãnlh.nf.ca _______________________________Pien Nuna Elizabeth PenashueCommunity Consultation Commissioner Innu Women's GroupInnu Nation P. 0. Box 197P. 0. Box 119 Sheshatshiu, Labrador AOP lAOSheshatshiu, Labrador AOP 1MO Phone: (709)497-8741Phone: (709)497-8398Fax: (709)497-8396 ______________________________________________William Ratt Abraham RupertElder Deputy ChiefChisasibi Cree First Nation Chisasibi Cree First NationChisasibi, Quebec TOM lEO Chisasibi, Québec TOM lEOPhone: (819)855-2878 Phone: (819)855-2878Fax: (819)855-2875 Fax: (819)855-2875Sam Tapiatic Dennis WindsorManager for Remedial Works Senior Environmental Officer, Power SupplyJames Bay Eeyou Corporation and Counsellor Manitoba HydroChisasibi Cree First Nation P. 0. Box 815Chisasibi, Quebec TOM lEO Winnipeg, MB R3 C 2P4Phone: (819)855-2878 Phone: (204)474-3390Fax: (819)855-2875 Fax: (204)474-4974

E-mail: [email protected]________________________________________________Elizabeth YoungEnvironmental AnalystLabrador Hydro Project500 Columbus DriveP. 0. Box 12400St. John's, NE A1B 4K7Phone: (709)737-1992Fax: (709)737-1985E-mail: eyoungnlh.nf.ca _______________________________________

APPENDIX B

WORKSHOP AGENDA

CHURCHILL RIVERJMISHTA-SHIPU PROJECTPOTENTIAL RESIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WORKSHOP

AGENDA

Hosted by Innu Nation and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH)Location: Labrador Inuit Economic Development Center, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, LabradorOctober 25 and 26, 2001

Workshop Objectives

To assist and inform the Agreement-In-Principle (AlP) negoating teams (NLH and Innu Nation) by using• expert opinion,o comparable experience, and• local knowledge

to identify potential residual environmental effects of the proposed Churchill RiverlMishta-shipu PowerProject on Innu and lnnu Communities.

For the purposes of this workshop,

residual effects are those effects of a project, on either the natural or the socioeconomicenvironment, that remain after all mitigative measures have been applied; and

mitigation means the elimination, reduction or control of adverse effects, and includes restitution,through replacement, restoration or compensation, for any damage caused by the project.

Workshop Product

After the workshop, a report will be submitted to the NLH and lnnu Nation AlP negotiating teams that willinclude:

an annotated list of potential residual environmental effects, including indication of the likelihood ofoccurrence and the degree of consensus; andinformation on residual environmental effects of other hydro projects on First Nations people andcommunities, and on relevant mitigation or management approaches applied.

Residual Effect Workshop: Agenda I of 1

Agenda

Day 1 - Thursday, October 25

A. Introduction

0830 Welcome, opening remarks, and AlP contextBy AlP representatives from Innu Nation and NLH

0845 Purpose and objectives of workshopAgenda review

0900 Introductions

B. The Churchill RiverlMishta-shipu Project and its Setting

0915 Churchill RiverlMishta-shipu Project overview: design, construction, operation• Presentation by NLH• Questions and answers

0935 - 1035 The setting for the Churchill RiverlMishta-shipu Project• Blo-physical and regional socioeconomic setting• Innu socioeconomic and cultural setting, including the

relationship of the Innu and lnnu communities to the Riverand its watershed

• Questions and answers

1035 Break

C. Harvesting Activities

1100 Other hydro projects: effects on First Nations harvesting activities - related experiencesand knowledge.

• What harvesting activities take place elsewhere?• What project factors affect harvesting activities?• What mitigation/management approaches have been tried? How effective

were they?• How do these experiences compare to the Churchill River/Mishta-shipu

Project?

1230 Lunch (Catered)

1330 Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Project: potential residual effects on Innu harvesting activities• What elements of the Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Project could potentially

affect Innu harvesting• What mitigation/management approaches might be applicable?

Residual Effect Workshop: Agenda 2 of 2

• What might be the potential residual environmental effects of the project onInnu and nnu Communffies?

• What is the likelihood that these effects would occur?

1430 Break

D. Other Cultural Connections to the Land

1445 Other hydro projects: effects on First Nations cultural sites and other cultural connectionsto the land- related experiences and knowledge.

• What cultural sites and activffies are important elsewhere?• What project factors affect cultural sites and activies?• What mitigation/management approaches have been tried? How effecbve


Project?

1600 Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Project: potential residual effects on Innu cultural sites andactivities

• What elements of the Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Project could potenballyaffect Innu cultural sites and activities

• What mitigation/management approaches might be applicable?• What might be the potential residual environmental effects of the project on

Innu and lnnu Communities?• What is the likelihood that these effects would occur?

1700 End of Dayl

Day 2 - Friday, October 26

0830 Review working list of potential residual effects developed during Day 1Any reflections, issues, or changes?

E. Family and Community Life

0900 Other hydro projects: effects on First Nations family and community life - relatedexperiences and knowledge.

• What project factors affect First Nations family and community life?• What mitigaon/management approaches have been tried? How effecbve


Project?

1030 Break


1100 Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Project: potential residual effects on Innu family andcommunity life

• What elements of the Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Project could potentiallyaffect lnnu family and community life?


lnnu and Innu Communities?• What is the likelihood that these effects would occur?

1230 Lunch (Catered)

F. Business Opportunities

1330 Other hydro projects: effects on First Nations Business OpportunitIes - relatedexperiences and knowledge.

What project factors affect First Nations business opportunities?• What mitigation/management approaches have been tried? How effective


Project?

1445 Break

1500 Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Project: potential residual effects on lirnu BusinessOpportunities

• What elements of the Churchill River/Mishta-shipu Project could potentiallyaffect lnnu business opportunities?


lnnu and lnnu Communities?• What is the likelihood that these effects would occur?

G. Review

1600 Review of complete working list• Is this list reasonably complete?• What are the "problem' issues (potential residual effects on Innu and lnnu

Communities that are highly uncertain or have low degree of consensus)?• What approaches can be suggested to resolve these issues? (Studies,

effects monitoring, management etc)

1645 Wrap-up• Thanks to participants


potential residual environmental effects workshop

Documents