Sexqéltkemc The Lakes Division

Of the Secwepemc Nation c/o Splatsin PO Box 460 Enderby, BC

V0E 1V0 To: Ms. Erica Hamilton November 19, 2009 Commission Secretary VIA EMAIL BC Utilities Commission Re: Project No 3698567

Mica Gas Insulated Switchgear Project Written Submission,

Weytk, Please accept the following on behalf of the Sexqéltkemc (Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation as its written submission. For further information please contact Sunny LeBourdais at 250-320-3576. Kukwstsétseme

Sunny LeBourdais Technical Coordinator (Energy) Sexqéltkemc (Lakes Division) Of the Secwepemc Nation

Weytk, Thank-you for your letter dated August 28, 2009. The purpose of this letter is to make the Commission aware that it is our position that consultation with the Lakes Division in relation to the Mica 5 & 6 project and the Switch Gear application continues to be far from adequate and we do not support BC Hydro’s application for the MICA GAS INSULATED SWITCHGEAR PROJECT No. 3698567. This letter is also to formally request the support of the BCUC process in the development and negotiation of a W7mec (Energy) Agreement between the Sexqéltkemc and the Province of British Columbia to govern energy generation, transmission, use and export of energy within the Lakes Division traditional territory. Historical Wrongs We suffered historical wrongs when the dams were installed and the Salmon was taken away from our people, the adverse impact to our way of life was immeasurable. So great was the impact, that the effects are still being felt by us today and include loss of sustenance, loss of cultural practices, loss of the history of the lands in that area, loss of our language and the on-going alienation of our people from our territorial lands. Until this historic wrong is addressed, we will not be content and will continue to bring these issues forward. We strongly suggest that these issues are brought forward into the discussions around the Mica Expansion Project review process and that Government comes to the table to discuss these issues with true and meaningful offers of reconciliation for these wrongs that have been done to the Secwepemc people. You can no longer ignore them and we, as Secwepemc people can no longer allow these processes to continue on without having these losses addressed and our people accommodated. At all times we have remained steadfast in insisting that any expansion of the existing dam through the proposed Mica units 5 and 6 or expanding and replacing switchgear must address the historical wrongs affected upon us. We wish to make it clear that as a people we have suffered and continue to suffer loss as a result of the damage to our surrounding ecosystem caused by the Mica Dam and that these impacts cannot be conveniently described as “cumulative affects”. Flawed Consultation Process There is no consultation process in this proceeding that recognizes our aboriginal title and rights area and consults with us from that starting point. We are not aware of any assessment performed or communicated to us by the BCUC of the adequacy of Crown consultation with the Lakes Division. We understand that on February 18, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal decisions in Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia (Utilities Commission), (“Carrier”) 2009 BCCA 67 and Kwikwetlem First Nation v. British Columbia (Utilities Commission), 2009 BCCA 68 confirmed that the Commission has the obligation to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation with First Nations within the scheme of its regulation. More fundamentally, the evidence presented to the Commission by BC Hydro regarding First Nations consultation to date is indicative of the formulaic approach BC Hydro has towards communicating with our People. There is no actual substance to the consultation. When consultation becomes checkmarks on a log sheet to form a record, but does not in fact consult on a substantive level; one must ask themselves what is the purpose of consultation? We once again ask for your support in rectifying this

situation and submit that you rule that BC Hydro’s consultation regarding the Mica Expansion project does not meet our needs or interests or satisfy the government’s duty to consult. Even with respect to the BCUC’s own draft filing guidelines, BCUC’s First Nations Information Filing Guidelines (Draft), you should know that we were not made aware of any request for our comments and input prior to the deadline for submissions. Even if we had been made aware, we would not likely have had the funds or necessary resources to complete a review. You have my contact information in this letter; please direct all further requests for comments or information to me directly. Capacity Funding and Meaningful Participation We have not been provided with adequate funding to meaningfully participate in the BCUC process, including funding to perform a thorough technical review of the BC Hydro’s switchgear application to the extent that we feel necessary in these circumstances. This letter represents our best attempt given such limited and strained resources. We expressly object to the process continuing in this way, to our distinct disadvantage, and without funding worked out in advance of the BCUC process so as to allow us to meaningfully participate in that process.

Expansion Project and Project Splitting BC Hydro has applied to the BCUC for approval in respect of its proposed switchgear to be used in the Mica Expansion Project. We understand that this switchgear will be used for all of the existing Mica Dam turbines and include the new proposed Mica 5 & 6 turbines. We understand that BC Hydro anticipates greater efficiencies and reliability/stability from its existing turbines as a result of the new gas insulated switchgear. As a result, the entire capacity for the dam as a whole will be increased. We object to the Mica Expansion Project being split in this way. This BCUC process should review the adverse affect of the proposed switchgear in view of the fact that it will ultimately increase the capacity of the entire dam. The fact that this is the case is also further support for the conclusion that this is an expansion of the entire dam and not merely two additional turbines. It appears to us that the current switchgear restricts the output to 1500 MW and the new switchgear will not only increase the capacity of Mica 1 – 4, but also service Mica 5 & 6. This also requires an expansion of the switchgear building. We object to the Mica Expansion Project being split in this way where the Gas Insulated SwitchGear has been removed from the Mica 5 & 6 project scope as defined by the EAO. No objections from the Lakes Division were voiced following the letters received from BC Hydro on February 19, 2009 because it was hoped that there would be significant movement towards a government to government W7mec Agreement by the winter 2009. We have also attached for your reference, our submission to the EAO regarding the Mica Expansion project which further outlines and describes the shortcomings we have experienced. CPCN under S. 45 We also would like to have an answer as to why this expansion project is not being heard further to s. 45 of the Utilities Commission Act. In our view, the switchgear and Mica 5 & 6 are part of an expansion of the Mica Dam project. The W7mec Agreement would address how the Sexqéltkemc would coordinate with the BCUC regarding the applications it reviews affecting Sexqéltkemc traditional territory. This would include all

applications and projects regarding the Mica Expansion projects and the Long Term Inquiry into BC’s Transmission system. We would like to invite you to attend the next W7mec meeting between our Political Leadership, Minister Barry Penner, Minister Blair Lekstrom, Minister Pat Bell and Minister George Abbott. Please contact our Political Coordinator Dr. Ron Ignace (kukpi7.ignace@gmail.com) to arrange attendance at our next meeting.

SEXQÉLTKEMC The Lakes Division of the Secwepemc Nation

“A Drop of Rain and Coyote”

Mica 5-6

Environmental Assessment

Lakes Division Submission

October 24, 2009

Prepared by:

Sunny LeBourdais

W7mec Technical Coordinator

Sexqéltkemc (Lakes Division) Of the Secwepemc Nation

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Mica 5-6 Environmental Assessment Process ................................................................................ 3

Process Summary & Timelines .................................................................................................... 3

Consequences of No Change ...................................................................................................... 5

Information Request for BC Hydro (October 24, 2009) .............................................................. 5

PAST- (Mica Generating Station Construction) ............................................................................ 14

Infringement & Losses .............................................................................................................. 14

Reconciliation ............................................................................................................................ 15

PRESENT (Mica Dam Construction & Mica 5-6 Expansion) .......................................................... 16

From Infringement & Losses to Mitigation & Accommodation ............................................... 16

Environmental (Water, Land and Resource Use) ................................................................. 17

Economic ............................................................................................................................... 29

Health, Social, Emotional ...................................................................................................... 30

Heritage Effects ..................................................................................................................... 31

FUTURE (Mica Dam) ...................................................................................................................... 33

Co-Management Framework .................................................................................................... 33

References .................................................................................................................................... 34

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 3

MICA 5-6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Process Summary & Timelines

In January 2008 BC Hydro initiated an Environmental Assessment under British Columbia’s

Environmental Assessment Act for the construction and installation of two additional turbines (5&6) at

the Mica dam, and a capacitor station north of Shuswap Lake. The BC EAO must ensure that aboriginal

interests are identified and that concerns and issues are properly addressed in order to fulfill the

Province’s legal obligation towards First Nations. As a result of recent court cases the Environmental

Assessment Office (EAO) also recognizes that the proponent have a duty to consult “in good faith” with

First Nations and seek accommodations regarding First Nations interests (EAO, March 2003). However,

under the Mica 5-6 application the EAO has never engaged with First Nations, instead leaving the

responsibility of consultation to BC Hydro’s Aboriginal Relations department.

BC Hydro’s first contact with First Nations was on January 4, 2008 with a letter of invitation

titled: Invitation to Participate on Core Committee to Discuss Proposed Mica Generating Units 5 and 6

Project with BC Hydro (Committee, 2009). BC Hydro declares having offered two options for consultation

1) participate in the Core Committee engagement process; and/or 2) engage in discussions to mutually

develop a consultation process based on their respective expectation and preferences. However, all First

Nations that requested the development of a separate consultation process were continually badgered

with information and capacity funding, feeding into the Core Committee process and activities.

Furthermore the development of this consultation process was only proposed after the environmental

assessment process had began and after the development and approval of the Terms of Reference. It is

the position of the Lakes Division that the EAO should have been the entity to create an acceptable

consultation format with affected First Nations regarding the Mica 5-6 project during the EAO’s Step 2:

Determining the Review Path. This would have allowed for First Nations consultation into Step 3:

Determining How the Assessment will be conducted where the EAO staff is to consider “input and

advice from government agencies, First Nations, the public and the proponent” (EAO, March 2003).

At this point in the Environmental Assessment the Lakes Division could have worked together

with the EAO to create a consultative process which would have addressed the aboriginal interests of

the Lakes Division, to date this has not happened. This process would have allowed the Lakes Division to

articulate and provide input and advice for inclusion to the Procedural Order. If this had been done the

EAO would have had the opportunity to approve a Procedural Order which supported the inclusion of

aboriginal interests in partial fulfillment of their legal responsibility to consult with First Nations. In this

best case scenario the Lakes Division would have insisted that the scope of the environmental

assessment include the footprint impacts of the Mica Generating Station construction as an effect to be

assessed. Instead a Procedural Order was granted by Brain Murphy (Project Assessment Director) on

October 28, 2008 which stipulates that “the proponent held discussions or attempted to hold

discussions with First Nations ... with respect to their interests” (Murphy, October 28, 2008).

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 4

The result of the EAO’s (and Province’s) lack of consultation with First Nations has resulted in a

process which breaches BC’s Provincial Consultation with First Nations Policy (BC, October 2002). This is

also in direct conflict with The New Relationship and its principle to achieve “integrated

intergovernmental structures and policies and to promote co-operation including practical and workable

arrangements for land and resource decision-making and sustainable development”. Consequently the

entire EAO process, including the approved Terms of Reference (December 19, 2008), for the Mica 5-6

project is illegal and in direct dereliction of aboriginal interests of the Lakes Division.

It is our understanding that the BC Hydro Environmental application will be assessed only

according to the developed Terms of Reference (Murphy, May 27, 2009). The Lakes Division insists that

the following steps take place:

NEXT STEPS:

1) Province of British Columbia (MEMPR & MOE) and BC Hydro recognize that the Sexqéltkemc

(Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation have Aboriginal Title and Rights.

2) MEMPR (Minister), MOE (Minister), BCUC (Commission), BCTC (CEO), BC Hydro (CEO) meet

with Lakes Division Political Leadership to plan the creation and adequate funding for an

Energy Agreement.

3) A W7mec (Energy) Agreement is developed which respects the Sexqéltkemc as

Yecwemínmen Secwepemcúlecw and acts in accordance with Secwepemc/Sexqéltkemc

Tkwenm7ipleten, stk’wenme7íple7 (law), policies and guiding principles.

4) Within the W7mec (Energy) Agreement, a section developed to outline how the Lakes

Division will participate in the decision-making regarding the Mica 5-6 addition.

5) Within the W7mec (Energy) Agreement, a section will be developed to address the historical

infringements on our Aboriginal Title and Rights and the negative impacts it has had and

continues to have on our people.

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 5

Consequences of No Change

If the BC Hydro Environmental Applications for Mica 5, Mica 6 and the capacitor station are not

addressed in the manner described it will result in direct action from the Lakes Division. This action may

include:

• a judicial review;

• litigation;

• public education and media coverage regarding the nature of the Lakes Division’s lack of

support for Mica 5-6;

• blocking any additional water licenses required by Mica 5-6;

• blocking the BCUC application for Mica 5-6;

• and any other means necessary to attain their goals.

Information Request for BC Hydro (October 24, 2009)

BC Hydro submitted its applications for Mica 5 & 6 and the Capacitor Station to the

Environmental Assessment Office for review on July 24, 2009. These applications were deemed

complete by the EAO and subsequently the 180 day public review was started on September 2, 2009.

The Sexqéltkemc (Lakes Division) has a number of concerns and issues with this application and have

presented our information requests in the table below (Table 1.). Each information request is related to

the section of the BC Hydro Mica 5&6 Application and referenced in the Drop of Rain and Coyote report.

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 6

Table 1. Issues, Concerns and Questions of the Lakes Division

Section Sexqéltkemc

Issues, Concerns & Questions

Drop of Rain

page

1.1.1 1. Was the Lakes Division (and Secwepemc Nation) ever consulted, or accommodated regarding the initial

creation of BC Hydro and their subsequent large developments (including Mica Dam) and ability to harvest

w7mec (Energy) from Secwepemcúlecw?

n/a

1.1.2 2. Was the use of Wayne Choquette (consultant) for Archaeology ever reviewed and accepted by the Lakes

Division?

31 & 32

1.3.1 3. Was the Lakes Division consulted regarding the 2008 Long-Term Acquisition Plan which identified Mica 5 & 6

as a means of increasing capacity?

n/a

1.3.1 4. Was the Lakes Division consulted regarding the Revelstoke-Mica sequencing (Sequence Identification process

2007)?

n/a

1.3.1 5. Is there a defined end point or lifespan for the Mica Dam and its turbines? n/a

1.3.7.4 6. How will BC Hydro ensure First Nations employment opportunities despite the current Union Agreement

which governs that the Mica Dam?

7. How many contracts have already gone out to RFP and/or been awarded related to the Mica 5 & 6 and

capacitor station?

8. How many man work years are left to be contracted (total minus Union contract conflicts, minus already

awarded contracts) and can therefore still be filled by First Nations individuals, and companies?

30

1.3.7.5

1.3.7.6

1.3.7.7

9. How will the Lakes Division (and Secwepemc Nation) benefit from the increased revenues that will be

generated from the Energy Resources on its territory?

a. Direct & Indirect employment & business opportunities

b. BC Hydro grant-in-lieu increase of $280,000/year

30

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 7

c. Water Rentals (Mica 5: $2.6 million; Mica 6 $2.2 million)

2.1.1 10. Why did BC Hydro conduct the Pre-Application consultation with First Nations instead of the Environmental

Assessment Office?

3

3.1.1 11. Was the Lakes Division and / or the Secwepemc Nation consulted regarding the 2008 LTAP? n/a

4.1.2 12. Why is the responsibility to assess, consult and accommodate Aboriginal Title and Rights not included as a

Social Responsibility?

n/a

4.2.2.1 13. What are the Mica 5 & 6 footprint areas?

14. How can these be disconnected from the entire Mica Generating Station (i.e. Dam) footprint impacts?

14-16

4.3.1 15. Why was the Mica Gas Insulated Switchgear Project No 3698567 removed from the EAO Application in the

project description and scope?

16. How can BC Hydro justify the separation and splitting of the Mica Gas Insulated Switchgear Project from the

rest of the Expansion Project?

17. What are the benefits to Lakes Division of having the Mica GIS Project split from the BCEAO Application and

process?

16

4.4.1.6 18. How can the site construction (Spring 2010) be commenced without BC EAO regulatory (March 2010) or BCUC

approval (Fall 2010)?

n/a

4.4.2.1 19. When does BC Hydro plan on applying for the additional water license (3000 cfs) for Mica 6?

20. Why is this process being split from the rest of the expansion project?

n/a

4.4.3 21. Why isn’t BC Hydro developing a decommissioning and reclamation plan for the Mica Generation Station

(including the expansion projects)?

5

6

22. Why has BC Hydro decided to attempt to alienate the effects of the expansion project from the original Mica

Generating Station?

16

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 8

7

12 23. How can the Canadian Cumulative Effects Assessment be conducted without baseline data?

24. What data was used in the Assessment?

25. How long of a time period does this data cover?

17

26. Would BC Hydro support the Cumulative Effects Modelling project proposed by the Lakes Division? 17

27. How will the shorter period of baseline data (3 years @ 2010 from WUP projects) affect the confidence of

decisions made regarding the implementation of the expansion projects?

28. How many years of study under the WUP projects are necessary to obtain the statistical confidence to

adequately describe the current ecosystem both upstream and downstream of the Mica Generation Station?

17

29. What are the statistical uncertainties and difficulties associated with the HEC-RAS model in extrapolating

output beyond its calibration data (1156m3/s)?

30. Why wasn’t calibration data obtained from multiple years to statistically assess differences between years?

31. How much could this calibration data change from year to year if:

a. the channel is staying the same?

b. the channel is changing as a result of impoundment?

32. Will any of the modelling, data and studies be technically reviewed in peer-edited journals or publications to

refute their validity?

18

33. Why was the General Optimization Model used to assess potential impacts to Revelstoke Reach as a result of

the Mica expansion projects?

34. Will the model results from Korman & Buszowski (2008) be tested and validated with field data collected both

before and after the installation and implementation of the expansion projects?

35. Will the model be refined through the collection and insertion of new data as it is available?

18

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 9

36. How many years of data would be necessary to refine the model to create a statistically significant prediction

tool?

37. Will any of the modelling, data and studies be technically reviewed in peer-edited journals or publications to

refute their validity?

38. Why hasn’t a suitability curve been developed for the Upper Columbia River White Sturgeon Population?

39. Will a suitability curve be developed for the Upper Columbia River White Sturgeon Population?

40. How might alterations in the suitability curve alter the results from the HEC-RAS model?

19

41. When will data be available regarding aquatic invertebrate populations and development in the Revelstoke

Reservoir?

42. Will this data be used to test the assumption that 21 days of inundation provide for an increase in aquatic

insect populations, resulting in increased fish abundance and species diversity?

20

43. Why weren’t other wildlife groups (amphibians, reptiles, furbearers, and ungulates) considered in the HEC-

RAS modelling exercise?

44. Will data for these groups be included in the future?

20

45. If the data from the WUP projects are to be used in the future modelling exercises, what assessment of these

projects will ensure that their data is scientifically sound?

21

46. How will the Mica Expansion Projects mitigate for the drastic changes (lower temperatures) in the

temperature regime of the Revelstoke Reservoir which directly affects the White Sturgeon spawning habitat

suitability below the Revelstoke Dam?

47. Have epilimnion water intake systems been explored as a means of increasing water temperatures below the

Mica Generation Station?

22

48. Are fish killed in the Mica Generation Station turbines or by the Dam in any way?

49. Are fish entrained due to the Mica Generation Station?

23

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 10

50. Will a solid baseline of entrainment data be ready to include in the assessment for early 2010?

51. If not, when will the baseline entrainment data be collected and why isn’t this data important to

understanding the effects of the Mica expansion projects?

52. Has fish passage at the Mica Generation Station been examined? If not why not?

53. Why weren’t samples obtained from the entire tailrace (5km)?

54. Why was the boat electroshocking method used in deep water contradicting recommendations set-out in

RISC standards?

55. What other methods could have been used in substitute or in combination with boat electroshocking to

ensure a complete assessment of the fish populations in the tailrace?

56. Why wasn’t data available from the Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program analysed and included in the

assessment of these fish populations?

23

57. Why wasn’t the provincially blue-listed Bull Trout and any additional assessments, considerations and

recommendations included in the assessment for fish population effects?

23

58. What portion of the Mottled Sculpin Columbia River population was sampled during (and destroyed) during

the fish surveys?

24

59. Have any studies been conducted to examine the habitat requirements of the Columbia River Mottled Sculpin

population?

60. How do the habitat requirements of the Columbia River Mottled Sculpin fair with the implementation of the

expansion projects?

24

61. Have any studies been conducted on the population genetics of the Columbia River Bull Trout populations?

62. How has the segmentation of the River affected the genetic flow in this population, and will these

populations be able to remain genetically viable into the future?

24

63. Why doesn’t the Harmful Alteration, Destruction or Disruption of fish habitat identified at four low gradient 24-25

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 11

riparian areas trigger the CEAA?

64. Why doesn’t the Harmful Alteration, Destruction or Disruption of fish due to the turbines and entrainment

trigger the CEAA?

65. Why doesn’t the presence and unknown status of federally (Mottled Sculpin & White Sturgeon) and

provincially (Bull Trout) listed species trigger CEAA?

66. Why weren’t bird surveys conducted at RISC standards?

67. When are the baseline data going to be reported regarding bird populations?

68. Why weren’t samples taken in winter when the effects of the expansion projects may be readily altering

reservoir levels and flow characteristics of the Revelstoke and Kinbasket reservoirs?

69. Why weren’t more successive samples taken in spring to describe the migratory patterns in the area?

70. How does the use of incompetent bird song samplers compromise the data collected during the study?

26

71. Why weren’t RISC standards applied to the data collection for amphibians and reptiles?

72. How does this create bias and affect the data collected?

26

73. Why weren’t transect lengths described in the methods sections for the collection of mammal and bird data?

74. Why wasn’t stratification identified in these transects?

26

75. Why weren’t sampling objectives, habitat stratification, and sampling methods described for vegetation

sampling?

76. Why weren’t RISC standards used for collecting data on these samples?

26

77. How were ground inspections conducted for the TailRace Erosion Assessment?

78. How were erodible substrates and potential for erosion in the Mica tailrace ground-truthed?

79. How much biomass will be lost when the current vegetated shorelines are inundated and subjected to the

increased water levels and water velocity?

27

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 12

80. What are the 95% confidence intervals surrounding the erosion data (average channel velocities, length of

tailrace with average channel velocities greater than 1.5m/s)?

81. How can sandy banks experiencing at least a 100% increase in water velocity (0.75m/s to 1.5 m/s) endure

insignificant erosion potential when erosion and bank stability is already evident?

82. Why wasn’t any data included on the confidence intervals and variability present within the model and its

results?

83. Why didn’t vegetation transects include the shore and drawdown zone?

84. What bias does this introduce into the data and analysis?

85. What portion or percentage of the tailrace shoreline and banks are: rip-rapped, vegetated (slumping & non-

slumping), bedrock, and naturally self armoured?

86. Was the bank erosion evident in photos 4 & 5 documented and examined?

87. Will an erosion project be undertaken to further establish a baseline of erosion present downstream of the

Mica Generation Station?

88. How many years of data would be necessary to confidently understand the state of erosion in this area under

the current water level and flow regime?

89. How could these areas be monitored?

29

90. How much has BC Hydro paid in water rental fees for turbines 1-4 from the implementation of the Mica

Generation Station?

91. How much has BC Hydro been granted in-lieu of taxes for turbines 1-4 from the implementation of the Mica

Generation Station?

92. How much does the Province of BC receive for the benefits of the Mica Generation Station from the Columbia

River Treaty?

93. How much of the taxes, water rentals and other economic benefits collected by the Province of BC has been

30

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 13

given back to take care of the Columbia River area (Kinbasket Reservoir, Revelstoke Reservoir and surround

valleys) affected by the Mica Generation Station?

94. How many spiritual, ceremonial, archaeological and artefacts were drowned by the implementation of the

Mica Generation Station?

95. Have these sites been documented?

96. How is the current reservoir operation impacting these sites?

97. How will the expansion projects impact these sites?

31 & 32

98. How does the historical focus on archaeological studies in valley bottoms bias the AOA’s potential to identify

buried deposits?

99. Why didn’t the AOA include information on the geography, ethnography and historical aspects of the study

areas?

100. Will an AIA be conducted at the capacitor station site prior to ground disturbance?

101. Will BC Hydro be compliant with the Lakes Division Heritage Management Framework and Permitting

system for this development?

32

102. How will BC Hydro support the creation of a Government to Government W7mec (Energy)

Agreement?

103. Will the BC Hydro CEO meet and work together with the Sexqéltkemc, MOE, MEMPR and BCTC

towards the creation of this agreement?

104. Will BC Hydro wait until this W7mec Agreement is in place before proceeding with the Mica

expansion projects?

33

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 14

PAST- (MICA GENERATING STATION CONSTRUCTION)

Infringement & Losses

In 1945, the provincial government created the BC Power Commission. To enable the

development of Peace and Columbia River projects, the provincial government stepped in and bought

BC Electric in 1961. A year later the government amalgamated BC Electric with the Power Commission to

create a new Crown corporation: the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, known more

familiarly as BC Hydro. The '60s and '70s saw BC Hydro take on some of the largest hydroelectric

construction projects in the world.

The Mica dam was constructed in 1973 as a result of the Columbia River Treaty, ratified in 1964

by President Lyndon Johnson and Premier WAC Bennett. The social, economic, and environmental

losses created by the Columbia River Treaty are currently compensated through benefits provided by

the Columbia Basin Trust Act. The Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) recognizes that “during the creation of the

Columbia River Treaty, there was a lack of consultation with the residents of the Canadian Columbia

Basin, even though they were most impacted”. The CBT further reports that 2,300 (many of which were

First Nations) people along the Arrow Lakes, Koocanusa, Duncan and Kinbasket reservoirs were

displaced. Over sixty thousand hectares of high value, valley bottom land was flooded, and numerous

First Nations archaeological and burial sites were lost (CBT, 1995). However, the Lakes Division does not

participate in the Columbia Basin Trust and has no seats on its Board of Directors, who decide the fate of

the $295 million dollars it receives in compensation annually.

Before the dams, the Columbia River provided nourishment, shelter and transportation. An

entire society, culture and way of life were built around this river and its life-giving waters. The River and

the People act as mirrors to one another, each reflecting the effects of western civilization like a battle

worn soldier. The Columbia, much like its First Peoples has been beaten and ‘moulded’ into a format fit

for a Queen.

The Lakes Division includes many of the individuals and descendents of the people who were

displaced from the Columbia Basin due to the construction of the dams. The losses to these people and

communities are titanic and extensive. The first major dam loss was felt due the construction of the

Grand Coulee dam which began in 1933 and finished in 1942. This stopped the salmon in their

migrations up the Columbia River to their spawning grounds near Invermere. This constitutes a major

infringement on the right of the Lakes Division and contributed to the displacement of the Lakes

Division.

When the valley bottoms were flooded and lost owing to the construction of the dams

(Keenleyside [1969], Mica [1973], Revelstoke [1983]) further losses were experienced. Social, emotional,

spiritual/ceremonial, economic, health, environmental (water, land and resource use), language and

traditional skills & knowledge losses were and are experienced by the Lakes People.

Many of the losses experienced as a result of this ongoing infringement are still felt today. The

displacement of the Lakes People ensured that the unacquainted Indian Agents did not create Indian

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 15

Reserves in the Columbia Basin in many of the historical villages and communities. This has led to the

alienation of the Lakes People from a substantial area of their traditional territory. As a result many of

the decisions made regarding this territory have been in direct dereliction to the traditional governance,

principles and ways of the Lakes People.

Reconciliation

All Secwepemc were given the duty to protect their area of responsibility within

Secwepemcúlecw by Tqaltkúkwpi7 (Creator). The Province of British Columbia and its Ministries, and

Crown Corporations have stolen this responsibility and allowed Secwepemcúlecw to be regulated by

western capitalist system built on flawed, unbalanced principles. There must be a reconciliation of BC’s

present governance and regulation system with the Secwepemc/Sexqéltkemc Tkwenm7ipleten

(Secwepemc/Lakes Division Governance & Laws).

The Sexqéltkemc are ready to reinstate themselves as Yecwemínmen Secwepemcúlecw

(Caretakers/Stewards of their area of responsibility) for the good of the Secwepemc Nation. The

development of a Sexqéltkemc w7mec (Energy) policy and plans informed by the traditional governance

structure, laws and guiding principles of the Secwepemc Nation is of foremost importance. A w7mec

(Energy) agreement between the Sexqéltkemc and Province of BC will define how their traditional

governance structure, laws and guiding principles and w7mec policy and plans will cooperate with the

current regulatory system.

A portion of the W7mec Agreement will be devoted to the examination and documentation of

the severity and magnitude of the social, emotional, spiritual/ceremonial, economic, health,

environmental (water, land and resource use), language, and traditional skills & knowledge losses

experienced by the Lakes Division in the past, present and future.

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 16

PRESENT (MICA DAM CONSTRUCTION & MICA 5-6 EXPANSION)

From Infringement & Losses to Mitigation & Accommodation

To try and disseminate the Mica 5 and 6 turbines from the Mica Generation Station would be

like Coyote trying to pick a raindrop out of the lake. To only look at the effects of the additional two

turbines does not make sense, especially when we do not know the effects of the first four turbines and

the dam that houses them. The Terms of Reference claim that the Environmental Assessment must

include consideration of “potential adverse environmental, social, economic, health and heritage effects

and practical means to present or reduce to an acceptable level any such potential adverse effects; and

potential adverse effects on First Nations’ Aboriginal Interests, and, to accommodate such potential

adverse effects”.

On August 5, 2009 BC Hydro applied to the BC Utilities Commission to accept a capital

expenditure of $180.6 million for the Mica Gas Insulated SwitchGear Project No. 3698567 (Order G-95-

09). The scope of the Project is to replace, with modern GIS technology, the existing 500 kV GIS at Mica

and install GIS in lead shaft 3. The purpose of the Project is to mitigate this risk of forced outages as a

result of the original, antiquated GIS which poses an outage risk to BC Hydro. This project will enable BC

Hydro to increase the reliability of the electricity distribution from the existing turbines (1-4) and allow

for the distribution of electricity from the expansion projects (5 & 6) to the grid. This project results in a

greater impact of the project, and greater capacity for the dam as a whole. BC Hydro should not be

permitted to effectively project split having the Mica Expansion (5&6) Application referred separate and

apart from its BCUC application (Order G-95-09) to increase the efficiency and capacity of all of its

turbines at the Mica Generation Station.

A major deficiency of the Environmental Review of the Mica Expansion Projects is the narrow

scope of the review as defined in the section 11 Terms of Reference. This process and principle (to

divide and restrict a projects impact down to a “Zone of Influence”) is in direct conflict with the

Secwepemc traditional laws and guiding principles. A river is more than the sum of its water, fish, plants,

and animals.

Tknémentem Secwepemcúlecw, this means “respect the earth and do not waste our resources”

it does not mean respect the receiving environment for which effects for which a reasonable causal link

could be demonstrated between project components and activities defined in Section 4 (of the

Application). The traditional laws and these guiding principles tell us that the effects of the Mica

expansion project will be felt by the entire surrounding valley. We recommend the development of a

new government agreement/structure to correspond with the Secwepemc traditional governance

structure, laws, policies and guiding principles. This would ensure that valleys, rivers and areas are not

continually being fragmented into bite sized pieces/effects.

Around the world, landscapes are undergoing rapid transformation in response to multiple

overlapping land and water uses, including the energy sector. Collectively these land uses create a

“footprint” that impacts ecosystem health and sustainability. Using computer simulation models, we

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 17

could undertake cumulative effects assessments to assist with evaluating the potential consequences of

different land and water uses strategies in a virtual environment. This could help us to understand the

level of risk that different management strategies would impose on the sustainability of natural systems

and also help identify strategies that will minimize the overall adverse affects.

The Cumulative Effects Assessment conducted for the expansion project (section 12 of the

Application) is grossly inadequate and does not meet the needs of the Lakes Division. The Canadian

Cumulative Effects Assessment methodology clearly states that both a socioeconomic and

environmental baseline must be developed through studies of past and present human activities. There

has not been adequate data gathered regarding the effects of the installation of the Mica Generation

Station to create a baseline. We do not know how the river is cycling and surviving in its current

reservoir state to permit the addition of more human born impacts. The narrow scope of this

assessment (First Nations interests = archaeology and traditional uses) is not supported by the

Sexqéltkemc Yecwemínmen Secwepemcúlecw (Lakes Division Caretakers/Stewards of their area of

responsibility).

We recommend that the Lakes Division is adequately funded to undertake an extensive

Cumulative Effects Modelling Project for the Columbia Basin. The coordination and management of the

Cumulative Effects Model would ensure that it is in keeping with Secwepemc traditional laws, policies

and guiding principles. This model would therefore include the many other industrial impacts (forestry,

mining, original dam construction, etc...) along with impacts based on Secwepemc values in order to

assess the magnitude of the effect of the Mica 5-6 installation and operation. We would in essence be

able to make an informed decision on whether or not the qwnuxw setétkwe (sickly river) in its unhealthy

state can handle another impact.

Environmental (Water, Land and Resource Use)

The environmental effects of the Mica dam and its generating stations felt at present are no

more or less than a continuation of the effects which started in 1973. For us to purport that we can

distinguish the effects of the Mica 5 & 6 installations and operations we must first know what the

baseline data is regarding the operation of the current Mica generating station.

The Columbia Water Use Plan (WUP) explored issues and interests affected by the operation of

BC Hydro’s Mica, Revelstoke and Hugh Keenleyside projects. However it had encountered an obstacle

with the realization that not enough baseline information was available to recommend operational

changes. “In lieu of operational changes for Kinbasket Reservoir was the lack of quantitative data for fish

and wildlife populations and supporting ecosystem processes” ((WUPCC), 2005). These projects began in

from 2007 with many projects collecting inadequate data in their first years, as consultants grappled

with the logistics of working in the Kinbasket Reservoir. Thus at the proposed Mica 5 & 6 installation

date (2010) projects may have a maximum of three years data for analysis which will not provide

sufficient statistical power to detect any changes as a result of Mica 5 & 6. It is recommended that at

least 5 years of baseline data are gathered and analyzed before adding any additional effects to the

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 18

Kinbasket Reservoir (taking the Mica 5 & 6 installation to at least 2012). Provide 5 years of baseline data

gathered and analysed for the effects of the Kinbasket reservoir of Mica 5 &6 and explanation of why

The hydraulic modeling study conducted was used as the basis to determine the geographic

area of influence of the project and the scope of the bio-physical study areas (BCHydro, March 2009).

This study used HEC-RAS, a numerical backwatering model to simulate flows conditions in the tailrace

and predict responses to increased discharge. While we are glad that new calibration data was used to

run the model in the second report by Rodman and Lamash (October 8, 2008), there is a concern

regarding the narrow scope of this calibration data. This data was used to set Manning’s ‘n’ value which

represents the roughness or energy loss through the cross-sections. Because the calibration data was

collected at a discharge of 1156m3/s with four turbines in operation, it minimizes its ability to

extrapolate the model to the discharges which will be experienced when two additional turbines are

running (up to 1956m3/s).

The problem with this model is also the narrow time frame of the calibration data. Because the

original river channel was the result of a very different sediment and hydrologic regime, we do not know

how the hydraulic conditions in the tailrace are responding over time. The hydrologic changes due to the

original dam construction and generating operations may supersede, enhance or diminish the effects of

the additional turbines. Therefore we suggest a more detailed hydraulic modelling and an annotative

study take place to look into temporal changes (1973 to present) due to Mica dam construction.

The General Optimization Model (GOM) was originally developed to predict operations below

Columbia River and Peace River facilities in response to flow constraints such as minimum flows or

target reservoir elevations. In other words, the minimum flow imposed at Revelstoke Dam under the

Columbia (Mica) Water Use Plan (WUP) will affect the operations of other hydroelectric facilities located

on the Peace River and Columbia River mainstems. The GOM used to run the analyses was the same as

that used by the Columbia Water Use Plan Consultative Committee. For the purposes of developing the

Columbia River Water Use Plan ((WUPCC), 2005), the model was appropriate because it provided a

quantitative means to assess the potential impacts on various groups of fish and wildlife, which lead (in

part) to the Columbia Monitoring and Physical Works programs listed in the Columbia WUP. However,

using the same model, with slight modifications, to address the potential impacts to the aquatic and

terrestrial ecology of Revelstoke Reach as a result of adding a 5th and 6th turbine at Mica is spurious.

The utility of a model to predict the environmental impacts on fish, vegetation, and birds is only as good

as the data that were used to run the model. To adequately address the question as to whether or not

the addition of a 5th or 6th unit at Mica affects the ecology of Revelstoke Reach requires the input of

data, which needs to be collected before and after the installation of the 5th and 6th turbines at Mica

and the 5th unit at RCD. The results of the model run by Korman and Buszowski (2008) presents one

possible set of outcomes that need to validated or refuted.

Several steps are required when using models to predict the effects of an event on fish and

wildlife (and to a lesser extent, vegetation). First, the model is run using available data (provided they

are reliable data). The purpose of developing and running a model is to derive a suite of predicted

outcomes. Second, some level of field verification of the model is required such that the parameters of

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 19

the model can be refined. This is done by collecting relevant data on the fish, wildlife, and vegetation

populations or communities be modelled. Finally, the model is re-run using data obtained in the second

step. The refinement of the model, based on real data, leads to the development of a system-specific

model that can be used to predict the impacts of an event of the ecology of an area. However, the

output of any model will always present a possible outcome and the model will not be 100% accurate.

Given that we are discussing the effects of an event (the addition of a 5th and 6th turbine at Mica) on

fish, wildlife, and vegetation, the output of any model will almost always, and predictably, be violated.

This is because fish and wildlife populations have high inherent variability. As such, it is very difficult to

model their response to a particular event without obtaining long-term data. Until long-term data are

available, the results of the modelling exercise should not be misconstrued as evidence that the addition

of a 5th and 6th turbine at Mica will have a negligible effect on the aquatic and terrestrial performance

measures of Revelstoke Reach.

Long-term data will be available through the various Columbia Monitoring Programs (e.g.,

CLBMON-12, CLBMON-36, CLBMON-37, etc) that have been established to understand the relationship

between the operational regime of Arrow Lakes Reservoir and the vegetation communities that exist in

the drawdown zone, waterbird use of the drawdown zone, and amphibian and reptile use of the

drawdown zone (as examples). Although these monitoring programs were not established to assess the

environmental impacts of a 5th and 6th unit at Mica, they will provide important data that may be able

to validate (or refute) the output of the model.

Korman and Buszowski (2008) applied the HEC–RAS model to compute physical habitat changes

(magnitude of velocity change and wetted area) from base case (M4R5) under M5R5 and M6R6

scenarios. The HEC–RAS model computes physical changes in river water level, wetted area and water

velocity along 245 river cross sections for the middle Columbia River from Revelstoke Dam to the

Akolkolex River (approximately 65% of the Revelstoke Reach). Also incorporated into the HEC–RAS

model is the effect of Arrow Lakes Reservoir backwatering which determines wetted area, water

elevation and river velocity during periods of reservoir inundation. Changes in wetted area and river

velocity influence productivity by affecting food availability for fish (amount of aquatic insects and prey

fish species for a given area), the amount of energy expenditure required to hold position or territory

and the amount of available cover used for protection from high water velocities and predators. It is

important to note that HEC–RAS comparisons are based on the average velocity for a given transect or

cross section and is therefore a crude tool for quantifying fish habitat for a given species or life history

stage.

The HEC–RAS model was also used to compute white sturgeon spawning habitat suitability and

weighted usable spawning habitat area (WUA) for each of the three scenarios. White sturgeon spawning

habitat suitability is based on the habitat suitability curves developed by Parsley and Kappenman (2000)

and Parsley and Beckman (1994) from spawning location and egg collection data collected in the Snake

and Lower Columbia (USA) Rivers. Parsley and Beckman (1994) acknowledged that the suitability curves

are based on areas where the deployment of sampling gear such as egg mats and plankton nets were

feasible because of relatively few snags. The use of these suitability curves for identifying or quantifying

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 20

habitat in the Revelstoke study area should therefore be treated with caution. Furthermore, sturgeon

spawning habitat has been shown to differ between populations.

It is not clear whether Korman and Buszowski (2008) modeled habitat suitability as a function of

mean river velocities specifically or whether the model incorporated both mean river velocities in

addition to depths at cross sections located near the Revelstoke Golf Course. The 6km section river

between the Revelstoke Dam and the Revelstoke Golf Course is the only known white sturgeon

spawning area in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir and mean river velocities and depths at 5 cross sections

located in this known spawning area were used to model the amount of suitable sturgeon spawning

habitat during the Columbia WUP process.

The Columbia WUP defined the amount of productive aquatic habitat as the area of riverbed

substrate that has been submerged for more than 21 days as computed by the HEC–RAS model. The 21

day criterion is based on data collected in regulated systems by Chris Perrin (Limnotek Research) who

found that 21 days of continuous inundation was required for algae and an invertebrate community

(aquatic insects, snails, worms, etc) to become established (see Perrin 2002). The invertebrate

community was, however, largely comprised of very small (< 1mm long) invertebrates (Perrin &

Stockner, 2002), termed meioinvertebrates, which may not serve as a significant food source for fish and

other wildlife species. It should therefore not be assumed that productive area values generated by the

HEC-RAS model will result in increased fish abundance or species diversity.

The addition of units 5 and 6 at Mica will likely have a greater effect on Kinbasket and

Revelstoke Reservoir elevations whereby a greater volume of water can be passed through the Mica and

Revelstoke facilities per unit time. With greater hydraulic capacity to move water through Mica Dam and

as of 2010 at Revelstoke Dam, the rate and extent of annual Kinbasket Reservoir drawdown could

increase. Furthermore, increased hydraulic capacity at both Mica and Revelstoke Dams may result in

greater and more frequent changes in Revelstoke Reservoir elevations in addition to greater ramping

rates downstream of Revelstoke Dam due to more extreme peaking operations. The Mica 5 and 6 EA

process should explore the impacts associated with potential changes in reservoir drawdown and

fluctuation in addition to potential impacts associated with potentially higher ramping rates

downstream of Revelstoke Dam.

In general, the assessment was biased towards birds, fish (sturgeon) and vegetation, although

the most extensive treatment was on birds, sturgeon were cursorily addressed, and vegetation impacts

were assumed based on reservoir elevation and total flooded area. Other wildlife groups (e.g.,

amphibians and reptiles, furbearers, ungulates) were not considered in the modeling exercise. There are

no studies planned to determine the impacts of reservoir operations on furbearers (e.g., mink, otter,

beaver) nor did the Columbia WUP Consultative Committee consider this group when finalizing the WUP

in 2007. Furbearer specific studies should be considered.

Another potential source of inherent bias associated with the GOM model was the use of flow

based on current market conditions and instream flows recorded between 1964 and 1973. The

assumption that BC Hydro will continue to operate Revelstoke Dam and the Arrow Lakes Reservoir as

has generally been done in the past under future market and hydrological conditions (i.e., reduced snow

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 21

pack and loss of glacial runoff associated with global warming) and the assumption that the 142 m3/s

minimum flow will be maintained may also result in bias towards negligible ecological effect or impact.

The effectiveness of the 142 m3/s minimum flow will be evaluated at the end of the WUP review period

and will likely be evaluated primarily on the observed response in fish population abundance and fish

species diversity. If the minimum flow is found to be ineffective in increasing fish abundance and

diversity, or no increases in fish abundance and diversity is detected by the ongoing monitoring studies,

the minimum flow could potentially get revoked. Alternatively, a greater minimum flow may be

proposed in which case the results of Korman and Buszowski (2008) would likely hold true.

The controversial use of theoretical models used to predict the biological response of fish and

other aquatic organisms to flow and water level changes was noted during both the Columbia WUP and

the Revelstoke Unit 5 Environmental Assessment process. However, the reliance of theoretical models

to estimate the ecological responses to operational changes (i.e., the 142 m3/s minimum flow from

Revelstoke Dam) was necessary due to the absence or lack of relevant biological data for the Revelstoke

Reach (e.g., changes in fish species composition and relative abundance in response to variations in

Revelstoke Dam operations and Arrow Lakes Reservoir elevations) and in the literature. To address

uncertainty regarding the benefits of minimum flows, a number of monitoring studies were required

under the Columbia WUP to determine biological responses to flow and water level changes. These

monitoring studies are currently underway and it is recommended that a modelling project be

undertaken which includes the recently gathered WUP information.

Long-term monitoring programs started in 2008 due to the WUP process. The results of these

programs will not be known until 2018 or 2019. No other alternative studies are recommended at this

time as ongoing monitoring studies are collecting the necessary biological data needed to assess base

case conditions and model aquatic ecosystem response to flow changes. Whether the monitoring

programs will achieve the statistical power necessary for identifying biological change in response to

flow and water level changes has yet to be determined, although preliminary power analyses for certain

studies (e.g., CLBMON-37 and CLBMON-11B) suggest that samples of sufficient size to achieve statistical

power necessary to identify biological change relative to the operational regime of Arrow Lakes

Reservoir are attainable.

The current monitoring projects collecting relevant data on aquatic productivity and fish

population will be reviewed after five years into the 13 year WUP review period. The same is true for

birds and vegetation (and amphibians and reptiles). It is recommended that the effectiveness of these

monitoring studies and the data collected be reviewed to assess the validity of the HEC-RAS results and

to identify any unforeseen issues or data requirements. A list of relevant monitoring studies that will be

conducted downstream of Revelstoke Dam are provided on pages 28 and 29 of the Columbia River

Water Use Plan (January 2007). The Mid Columbia physical habitat and ecological productivity

monitoring program should be used to validate the HEC-RAS model results for physical habitat aquatic

productivity change in response to Revelstoke Dam discharge. Other key aquatic monitoring programs

that could be used to quantify the effects of Mica 5 and 6 on Sturgeon include the following: (1) Mid

Columbia fish population indexing; (2) Mid Columbia juvenile fish habitat use assessment; (3) Mid

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 22

Columbia sturgeon Incubation and rearing study; (4) Mid Columbia white sturgeon spawning habitat

assessment.

As depth is a likely factor in determining sturgeon spawning habitat suitability in the Columbia

River (Parsley and Beckman, 1994) Korman and Buszowski (2008) could incorporate depth into the

suitability model as was done for the Columbia WUP. However, depth downstream of Revelstoke Dam is

largely a function of Revelstoke Dam discharge and Arrow Lakes Reservoir elevation and not the number

of units at Mica Dam.

Construction and operation of dams on the Columbia River for hydroelectricity, navigation, and

irrigation have adversely affected white sturgeon populations. The Arrow Lakes Reservoir white

sturgeon population is believed to have experienced recruitment failure since approximately the mid

1960’s to the mid 1970’s, coinciding with the construction of two dams on the Columbia River

mainstem: Mica Dam which impounds the Columbia River at approximately 140 kilometres (km)

upstream of the town of Revelstoke, forming the Kinbasket Reservoir, and Keenleyside Dam which

impounds the Columbia River at approximately 226km downstream of Revelstoke, forming the Arrow

Lakes Reservoir. White sturgeon spawning was monitored in the Columbia River below Revelstoke Dam

in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2003. Revelstoke Dam is a load following facility with hypolimnetic withdrawals

from its upstream reservoir. As a result, daily flow fluctuations can vary between full discharge capacity

of 1700 m3/s to 0 m3/s and maximum summer temperatures rarely exceed 12°C (Golder, 2006).

Available preliminary comparison of post-regulation and pre-regulation historical temperatures

collected downstream from Revelstoke Dam suggested that post-regulation water temperatures at the

spawning area are colder from June through August compared to pre-dam conditions. A reduction in

water temperature during the spring and summer period may affect: (i) the timing of Arrow Lakes

Reservoir white sturgeon spawning; (ii) egg fertilization rate; (iii) embryo development and survival; and

(iv) the viability of white sturgeon embryos and larvae. Revelstoke Dam peaking operations may also

affect downstream temperature as well as white sturgeon spawning behaviour (CCRIFC, August 2006).

It has been estimated that a decrease in spring and summer water temperatures may delay the

start of the Arrow Lakes white sturgeon spawning period by approximately two to four weeks if the pre-

dam spawning period began when Columbia River minimum daily temperatures generally exceeded 9°C.

Results have also suggested that peak summer water temperature historically occurred between late

July and early August compared to the end of August or early September, 2003. Continued disruption of

spawning may occur during the spawning period in August as a result of temperature downstream of

Revelstoke Dam periodically dropping to approximately 9°C during that month (CCRIFC, August 2006).

We therefore strongly recommend that an exploratory project be completed examining the

possibility of re-structuring the water intakes of Mica 5 and 6 to draw from the limnotic zone. This would

allow for an increase in water temperature in the Revelstoke Reservoir and possibly mitigate the effects

of low temperatures on sturgeon spawning behaviour below the Revelstoke Dam.

BC Hydro’s Fish Entrainment strategy Action Plan finalized in July 2009 and a monitoring

program recently distributed a dubious questionnaire relating to First Nations preferences and interests

regarding the abundance, distribution and size of fish species residing in the Kinbasket and Revelstoke

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 23

Reservoirs. The Detailed Assessment Phase of this plan commits BC Hydro to implement three years of

study to determine the rates of entrainment of key fish species at both facilities and evaluate mitigation

and compensation alternatives to these effects. If this program was implemented in 2010 it would not

be complete until late 2013 to early 2014. We therefore recommend that these studies are completed

before further decisions (i.e. Mica 5&6) to impact fish through entrainment are put into operation.

We further recommend that BC Hydro fund (as part of the Fish Entrainment Strategy Detailed

Assessment Plan) a project to examine the feasibility of constructing a fish passage structure for the

Mica dam. This structure would allow fish to move between the Revelstoke and Kinbasket reservoirs.

This project could be initiated and coordinated by the Fish Entrainment Strategy Working Group in

collaboration with engineers to assess the construction of such a structure. This could allow passage for

many fish species including white sturgeon, which may enhance population health. This would also

serve to support the restoration of anadromous salmon to the Upper Columbia which is a major

initiative of the Lakes Division.

The Preliminary Assessment of the effects of Mica units 5 & 6 on fish and fish habitats in the

Mica tailrace (Golder, 2008) project also has many short-comings. The rationale and scientific reasoning

behind some of the chosen methods such as site selections and coverage of the tailrace was not

provided or explained. The tailrace is defined as the 5 km section of the Columbia River downstream of

the Mica Dam that retains some riverine habitat characteristics and where the greatest physical changes

from project operations will occur (Golder 2008). The assessment sampled distances between 0.9 and

3.5 km from the Mica dam therefore sampling did not cover the entire 5 km of the tailrace. Rationale

and/or an explanation for the exclusion of sampling in the remaining 1.5 km downstream such as, lack of

suitable habitat characteristics for fisheries species was not mentioned. In addition, the method of boat

electroshocking is normally used in shallow wide streams and is not recommended for deep water

sampling as it not a very effective method for sampling these areas (Province of BC 1997).

The data collected is empirical and due to low sampling sizes of fish species at the time of the

report(s) statistical analysis such as length-frequency could not be conducted (Golder 2008). Low

numbers of fish species observed during session 2 which was thought to be due to not enough time to

allow for re-population of fish species between sessions 1 and 2 was supported by results, observations

and a change in sampling methods during sessions 3 and 4. Golder could have reviewed Columbia Basin

Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) reports and/or fisheries data available through BC Hydro

to further supplement information. Some of this information may have provided information on the

ecosystem and fisheries resources throughout the lake system. Therefore, providing a more inclusive

idea of how the tailrace and downstream areas from the Mica Dam may be affected by the additional

proposed Units 5 and 6.

Although the report included the federal listing of the Columbia Mottled Sculpin it did not

mention the provincial listing, blue, for Bull Trout. Federal and provincial listed species may have

additional assessment considerations and recommendations as they and their associated habitats are

often more vulnerable to effects and impacts. Additional considerations are outlined in the

Environmental Best Practice Guide for Wildlife at Risk in Canada document (Lynch-Stewart, 2004). The

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 24

Mottled Sculpin distribution is limited in extent in Canada (SARA, 2009). The species’ distribution within

BC is restricted to a few systems including the Columbia River system (SARA 2009). In the Columbia

River, populations are low and are very threatened because of hydroelectric dams and reservoirs (SARA

2009). Seven hundred and twenty-five sculpins were caught and/or observed during the winter and

spring fish surveys (Golder 2008). However, as sculpins are a hard to identify species only 7 and 4 Prickly

and Mottled Sculpins, respectively, were identified to the species level (Golder 2008).

Given the federal listing and vulnerability of the Mottled Sculpin, it may therefore, be important

to more accurately estimate the percentage or proportion of Mottled Sculpin sampled during the

assessment and/or the species habitat use and availability in the Mica tailrace area. The preliminary

assessment findings indicate that 1) all of the species encountered in the Mica tailwater area are native

to the mainstem Columbia River and with the possible exception of Kokanee, are adapted to riverine

conditions and would be expected to be able to tolerate post-project increases in flows 2) the changes in

the tailrace due to the addition of Mica Units 5 and 6 are not expected to have any effects on resident

sculpin species, which are well adapted to high velocity environments and 3) that the potential to alter

habitat quality and use in the areas most affected, the post-project flows in the Mica tailwater are well

within the flow ranges encountered in the main stem Columbia River below the Revelstoke Dam (Golder

2008).

Review of the listed species accounts, Mottled Sculpin and Bull Trout, indicated that these

species may be negatively affected by additional Units 5 and 6 and a more in-depth review of the

available data and ecology of the species found may provide new information. Other sculpin species are

more effective competitors in slower or faster waters than the Mottled Sculpin and controlled water

flow has created conditions more suitable to these other sculpin species (SARA 2009). Competition with

other sculpin species limits the Mottled Sculpin to certain portions of rivers and sculpin populations

have been impacted by unnatural fluctuations in water levels, temperature and flow as a result of

release of water from hydroelectric and storage reservoirs (SARA 2009). Indicating that the Mottled

Sculpin and other sculpin species may be more susceptible to effects and changes such as average

channel velocity by the addition of Mica Units 5 and 6. Construction of dams and reservoirs in the

Columbia River watershed has eliminated significant amounts of Bull Trout stream habitat through

inundation and also created barriers that, in some cases, have altered historical migration patterns

(Hammond, 2004). The resultant isolation and restriction of populations related to these access barriers

may reduce the gene flow within and between populations and negatively affect the long-term success

of distinct Bull Trout populations throughout the province (Hammond 2004).

Four low gradient riparian areas (Mica 5-6 Habitat Figure) (Golder 2008b) were identified during

the assessment as having potential for fish stranding and/or Harmful Alteration, Destruction or

Disruption (HADD) of fish habitat in 104.3m2 as a result of Mica 5 and 6 units operation (Golder 2008).

The assessment did included some potential mitigation measures to combat these potential negative

effects and indicated that a Fisheries Act Authorization (FAA) from Fisheries and Oceans Canada would

be required prior to work commencing at the Mica Dam. Negative effects to fish species would likely

increase without mitigation measures to prevent fish stranding and/or a HADD. The results and data

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 25

from other fish surveys and sampling periods may provide more additional information supporting the

low to little negative effects and changes claimed by Golder (2008) due to the addition of Mica Units 5

and 6.

In addition, the Mica Fish Entrainment Strategy Technical Report is scheduled for release in

2009. The report may propose recommendations such as, more detailed fisheries studies and mitigation

options. These recommendations and mitigation measures recommended by the Fish Entrainment

Strategy Technical Committee and report may provide additional information and data that will further

address any concerns, potential effects and changes to Mica tailrace fish and fish habitat by the addition

of Mica Units 5 and 6. However it is noted that BC Hydro does not at this time know the extent of fish

entrainment and destruction due to the Mica Generation Station; or have permission to destroy fish at

that facility under section 32 of the Fisheries Act.

We therefore call to have the current Environmental Assessment amended to include the

federal environmental assessment process which is applied whenever a federal authority has a specified

decision-making responsibility in relation to a project, also known as a “trigger” for an environmental

assessment. The “triggers” currently listed on the Annotated Law List (CEAA, August 2008) include the

Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act deals with the proper management and control of the fisheries, the

conservation and protection of fish and the protection of fish habitat, and prevention of pollution. It

provides for the following authorizations, determinations and orders:

22(3) Requirement, as determined by the Minister, for the owner or occupier of any obstruction

to provide sufficient water below the obstruction to ensure the safety of the fish and the water level

necessary for the safety of ova in spawning grounds.

32 Authorization by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council for the

destruction of fish by any means other than by fishing.

35(2) Authorization by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council to

cause the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat in the course of carrying out a

work or undertaking.

37(2) Ministerial order, subject to regulations or with the approval of the Governor in Council,

requiring modifications, additions or restrictions to, or the closing of (the latter always with the approval

of the Governor in Council), a work that does or could result in the harmful alteration, disruption or

destruction of fish habitat, or the deposit of a deleterious substance.

We also point out the effects on the federally listed Columbia Mottled Sculpin and White

Sturgeon, which are both listed under the federal Species At Risk Act 2002, Chapter 29. Parts 1 through

four. This should also act as a trigger to involve the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency as it is

federal legislation.

There are also many deficiencies regarding the wildlife surveys conducted for the Mica 5-6

environmental assessment. Bird inventory method descriptions suggest the point count method was

applied to bird inventories. However, descriptions and maps of plots and transects do not identify

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 26

standard plot size or indicate transect length or inter-plot distances, which do not appear to be constant

within or between transects. Sampling schedules, particularly summer, do not meet RISC standards (BC,

1999a). Furthermore habitat stratification for transect placement is not provided and as such, it is

unclear what the project objectives were: 1) species presence/absence, 2) relative abundance of

species, or 3) absolute abundance. No statistical analyses were reported; instead a list of bird species

and their individual numbers observed were provided as results for each seasonal sample, indicating a

baseline report is pending, but has not been provided to date. Seasonal sampling schedules do not

follow RISC standards and it is unclear why sampling occurred in summer and fall. RISC standards

indicate that fall sampling is a difficult period for clear observation due to migratory characteristics of

most species (i.e. plumage change, no territoriality, variable migration schedules between species) (BC,

1999a). The inventory objective of both the fall and summer surveys are unclear since summer in

particular is not a limiting season, and detection is difficult in both seasons due to lack of territorial

behaviour. Other than spring, winter would have been a preferred season of sample if identification of

resident species was a project objective. If a detailed species presence is intended, successive sampling

periods are required in spring, since a single sample period of 4 days in mid-May only reveals a portion

of migratory species that are active at that particular time.

RISC standards further emphasize the need for competent song bird samplers with auditory

identification skills of songbird calls. The report does not indicate a standard sampling duration per plot

but does indicate time taken because of difficulties in auditory identification. Results are compromised

when samplers cannot readily identify bird calls (RISC 1999). Also, separate RISC standards are available

for waterfowl and shorebird sampling (BC, 1998, 1999b); these methods may have been identified in the

referenced scope of work, but there is no description of methods to suggest they were applied.

Regarding the herpetofauna inventory, no specific RISC method was cited as a reference applied

to sampling amphibians or reptiles, although method descriptions in the report suggest that RISC

standard road surveys may have been applied to sample Western Toads in spring. RISC standards were

clearly not applied when amphibians were observed in summer, since only breeding or fall periods are

standard. Reptile sampling appeared to be a reconnaissance. Again, project objectives in terms of

species presence or abundance were not clear for reptiles or amphibians.

Regarding mammal sampling, incidental animal sign was detected along what appear to be the

same transects used for bird sampling; again, stratification was not delineated, and transect distances

were not provided. It is onerous to interpret transect lengths from the map since the scale is in meters

and the contours are in feet. Therefore, quantitative linear values cannot be readily derived and were

not provided in the report. Finally, mountain caribou are a herding ungulate, and should not be referred

to as a pack, as is stated in the spring report.

With regards to vegetation, sampling objectives, habitat stratification, and sampling methods,

other than 3 levels of plot data detail collected, were not described and therefore cannot be assessed.

RISC sampling standards do not appear to have been applied since the same plot size (10x10m) was

applied to all ecosystem/habitat types. Detailed ground plots (i.e. emergent and riparian zones) where

all species are to be sampled typically are in greater numbers of considerably smaller sized plots to

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 27

ensure complete species inventory and accuracy of quantitative coverage estimates; alternatively fewer

forest plots are sampled at a coarser level using a larger plot to capture stand characteristics.

Many deficiencies were also found in the Mica Unit 5 and Mica Unit 6 Projects: Tailrace Erosion

Assessment (KCBL, Novermber 7, 2008). The Mica Tailrace HEC-RAS Modeling was used to evaluate the

increase in water levels and water velocity attributed to increased flows associated with the additional

units. We again refer to the above discussions on the shortcomings of the data calibration

measurements used with the HEC-RAS model.

The report concludes by stating “the erosion potential in the Mica tailrace reach, from Mica

Dam to the Mica townsite, is insignificant” (KCBL, Novermber 7, 2008). However, reliability of the results

is based on the validity of the model and professional opinions from an engineering perspective.

Opinions presented were based on observation of shoreline characteristics with no apparent sampling

involved. The report does not state whether ground inspections were undertaken or if all of the

observations were from a boat (as represented in the photos of site characteristics). No field data are

presented and no attempt was made to map or quantify the abundance and distribution of various

types of shoreline. No effort appears to have been made to examine grain size of the erodible

substrates.

The total discharge from the dam is predicted to increase from 40,800 cfs with Mica 4, to

53,700cfs for Mica 5 and 68,000 cfs for M6 (KCBL, Novermber 7, 2008). This represents a 32% increase

with Mica 5 and a 67% increase with Mica 6 over Mica 4 discharge. The resulting water level changes are

expected to increase a maximum of 0.22 m from M4 to M5 and a maximum of 0.50 m from M4 to M6.

In areas where vegetation extends to the waterline at present, shoreline effects can be anticipated, with

even minor elevation and velocity changes. Vegetated shorelines will most likely retreat to match the

higher average water levels. Increases in water velocities are anticipated to contribute to this effect by

adding stresses to the vegetated sections. Average channel velocities greater than 1.5 m/s, and up to

2.5 m/s, are predicted to be limited to the area from Mica Dam to 6.5 (5.5 by our interpretation of the

graph) kilometres upstream of Mica townsite. However, the graph of velocities shows that average

Mica 6 velocities are approximately double that of Mica 4 over the entire length or the study section

(KCBL Figure I-3). No indication of variability from the average condition is provided, nor are different

water levels projected or discussed. The erosion assessment concluded “In the area of the identified

sandy banks, predicted velocities are less than 1.5 m/s. Due to the small increase in both water level and

channel velocity in the area of these banks, the erosion potential is insignificant” (KCBL, Novermber 7,

2008). We refute this claim as at present, the velocities in the area of the identified sandy banks are less

than 0.75 m/s and bank instability is evident in the photos (KCBL Photos #4 and #5).

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 28

Biases are those of a single-focus (engineering) perspective presented in the overview.

Modelling results are presented in a manner minimizing effects (e.g. the graph of Water Surface

Elevation uses 5 m intervals to display data having a 0.5m spread). The language of the report attempts

to minimize potential concerns by presenting small numeric values (e.g. the report uses absolute values

when values such as % change, relative to present conditions provide a more comprehensible

assessment). The results are based exclusively on assumptions derived from the model and opinions.

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 29

There is no discussion of variability or alternate scenarios. Several photos used to support the

observer’s opinion can be used just as effectively to support alternate opinions.

We request any other work related to the issue that might address shoreline concerns from a

vegetation perspective. KCBL further reported on their “Summary of our Summer Inventory Pass and

Vegetation Sampling at the Mica Tailrace” (KCBL, September 8, 2008) where vegetation information was

collected to identify vegetation species and communities in the study area, particularly in the drawdown

zone of the Revelstoke reservoir and in potential expansion areas near Mica Creek Village and the

warehouse, and to detect rare species or communities listed by regulatory agencies (BC CDC and SARA)

as well as noxious or invasive plant species.

This report consists exclusively of a listing of vegetation and wildlife species observed on

established transects with maps showing the locations of sampling sites. However physical factors,

affecting vegetation distribution, are not addressed, neither are the potential impacts of the projected

changes in the water elevations and velocities. Transects sampled were within a 500m shoreline buffer

but were mostly distant from the actual shore and drawdown zone. KCBL’s inspection concluded that

“the majority of the banks were riprap lined, bedrock or naturally self armoured” (Photo 1, Photo 2, and

Photo 3) (KCBL, September 8, 2008).

Evaluating the photos in the KCBL report we note that Photo 1 shows a steep, unstable bank

that has obviously experienced some slumping of vegetation. There is no indication in the report

regarding how common an occurrence this photo represents. Higher water velocities and surface water

elevations are likely to exacerbate this situation. The report further states “Two sandy banks,

approximately 10m (left bank) and 100m (right bank) long, were identified near cross section #9.…

approximately 5.6 kilometres upstream from Mica townsite (Photo 4 and Photo 5). There was a small

beach at the toe of the bank shown in Photo 4, along with some armouring at the downstream end of

the beach. The sandy bank in Photo 5 has some cobbles and vegetation” (KCBL, September 8, 2008).

Both photos show evidence of bank erosion and slumping.

In order to complete a thorough assessment of this problem an erosion project must be

conducted to address the numerous deficiencies found. This project should address: What is the extent

(length of shoreline) of erodible substrates in the study area? What are the characteristics of these

substrates? What is the percentage of silts and clays in the erodible material that can contribute to

water turbidity thereby creating concerns for fish habitat? What alternatives are there to ensure that

slumping is reduced along these shorelines (mitigation measures)? Recommendations need to be made

for monitoring of areas of concern to determine what the actual post-construction scenario is (rather

than just relying on modeling without confirming assumptions and predictions).

Economic

The drowning of the Columbia River constituted a drastic “economic” loss to the Lakes Division.

A vast economic system functioned amongst the Lakes Division, the other Secwepemc communities, and

other Nations. This was a system of trade, where items of value were exchanged from one group or

individual to another. Valued trade items include: salmon, berries, hides, dried meat, bone, roots, tools,

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 30

and many other items. These were in essence the dollars of our ancestors, where one salmon might be

worth the same weight in dried elk meat.

When the river was drowned we lost the salmon and all the plants, animals and other living

things that lived beside the river. We lost many of their “bucks/dollars”. The Mica dam and many others

on the Columbia and in the traditional territory of the Lakes Division have supplied ‘cheap’ electricity to

British Columbians at the cost of their communities. Many of the Lakes people live in poverty, unable to

support themselves and their families.

Economic benefits must be paid to the Lakes Division. This needs to be the subject of discussion

at a table with the Province of BC, BC Hydro, and BCTC. BC Hydro harvests the séwllkwe w7mec (water’s

energy) and the Province of BC collects water rental fees for that use, BCTC collects fees for transporting

that energy to the Lower Mainland on transmission lines cut through Secwepemcúlecw; BC Hydro

collects money for the energy and pays taxes granted in lieu to the BC Government. The Lakes Divison

w7mec is being stolen, not a single dollar goes to the Lakes Division so that we can reinstate ourselves

as Yecwemínmen Secwepemcúlecw, the River is sick and we cannot take care of it until the benefits

carved off its back are given to the caretakers of this area.

We also recommend a campaign made on how even “green-energy” is detrimental to our lands

and waters. The idea that Run-of-River, or large hydroelectric dams are a “green” and safe alternative to

carbon based electrical generation is a myth. We must educate the public and government on the costs

felt by our rivers, lands, fish, birds, insects, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and plants. This is a cost that

will be paid by our future generations and people must know that there is a cost and an effect when we

increase the use of hydro-electricity as a means of reducing carbon emissions.

Health, Social, Emotional

Old One was the one who reminded us to be respectful to all living things. This notion of respect

is at the core of our beliefs about our interaction with the land and all things in it: Xyemstém/me7

xyemstec (“be respectful”) entails the management and careful harvesting of all plant and animal

resources, lest they disappear on us in disgust, and we become pitiful (qwenqwént).

Coyote built and underground house on the Upper North Thompson River, at a

place now called Coyote’s House. It was afterwards turned into rock, and may

be seen there at the present day. He spent several winters at this place. One

fall, salmon came up the river in great numbers, and he made up his mind to

catch a large supply, saying, ‘I will dry very many, and then will invite all the

people to a great feast.’ By the time the salmon ceased running, he had filled

many sticks, and was delighted when he viewed the large amount of fish he

had on hand. One day as he was passing underneath the sticks where salmon

was hanging, his hair caught in one of them, and this made him angry. Four

times this happened, and each time he became angrier. The last time he

became very angry, saying, ‘Why can’t I pass underneath these fish without

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 31

their catching in my hair?’ He tore down the offending salmon and threw it

into the river. At once it came to life and swam away. Then all the salmon

came down from the sticks and plunged into the river. In vain Coyote tried to

stop them by catching them and clubbing them. In a short time they had all

disappeared, and he was left without supplies for the winter, and had to give

up the project of giving a feast. Now he gathered up all the slabs of wood

which he had used for splitting salmon on, and all the poles on which they had

been hanging. He took them up to his house, and said, ‘I will boil them in the

winter-time and have fish soup.” (Teit 1909; story told by George Sisyulecw

from Simpcw).

We have spent many years now in direct disrespect to our surroundings and the living things

upon which give us life. We are all suffering the consequences of that disrespect as sickness, addictions,

greed and sadness plague our people. We suffer sicknesses from the drowning of our rivers; blocking of

the salmon; overall mismanagement of our territory and all the effects it has had on ourselves, our

relatives and our communities. Only when we (Tknémentem Secwepemcúlecw), respect the earth and

do not waste natural resources in our traditional territory will our sicknesses recede and allow us to

heal. Only when we re-claim our rightful place as (Yecwemínmen Secwepemcúlecw) caretakers and

stewards of the Secwepemc traditional territory through a newly developed management model will

health and harmony return to our people and our lands.

Heritage Effects

(Spiritual/Ceremonial, Archaeological, Language, Traditional Skills & Knowledge)

Many spiritual, ceremonial, and archaeological sites were decimated and destroyed during the

drowning of the Columbia River. These losses must be assessed and addressed.

The WUP process supported a management plan aimed at reducing operational impacts on

archaeological site in the Kinbasket however this recommendation was not entirely supported by the

Water Comptroller due to a lack of jurisdiction. The Lakes Division sees the first step in this process as

the development of a Memorandum of Understanding between BC Hydro and the Lakes Division

regarding the Lakes Division’s Heritage Management Framework. This would be immediately followed

by an extensive inventory and qualitative analysis of all sites both under water and in the draw-down

zone. The operational effects on archaeological sites in the draw down zone have been the focus to date

with concerns regarding wind, wave and other disturbance processes. However, the underwater

currents, their erosion effects and the magnitude of these effects in relation to the operation of the

Mica dam have not been but must be addressed.

The archaeological overview assessment conducted regarding the proposed capacitor station

site assessed the potential for archaeological remains based on factors such as topography, proximity to

water, soil type, elevation, level of disturbance, drainage, previously recorded sites and potential

traditional land use (Choquette, June 27, 2008). The recommendations of this assessment are to

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 32

subsurface test for archaeological remains in the areas identified as having potential for buried deposits.

However, this overview assessment attributes the lack of previously recorded sites and site information

to the concentration of archaeological investigations on the valley bottoms which implies the need for

further archaeological study at higher elevations in order to gain a more comprehensive knowledge of

the archaeological record in the Sexqéltkemc traditional territory.

The AOA utilized standard archaeological fieldwork practice however the final report would

benefit from additional background information such as geographic, archaeological, ethnographic and

historical data in order to provide a broad scope of information from which to evaluate the impact of

the proposed developments. Also archaeological recommendations are lacking for sites 77, 90 and 114,

which will require clarity previous to further study or development.

Based on the content of the AOA there is potential for subsurface deposits and we recommend

that an archaeological impact assessment be conducted prior to any ground disturbance. We also

recommend that all archaeological sites should be avoided by boundary revision to exclude all

archaeological resources and/or a 10m protective buffer is to be placed around all archaeological sites

to adequately safeguard them from any disturbance. Boundaries should be revised to exclude heritage

trails and all trails are to be recorded and mapped using GPS technology. If archaeological sites cannot

be avoided then the appropriate methodology for investigation and mitigation should be utilized. We

therefore recommend that BC Hydro work together with the Lakes Division to sign an MOU regarding

our Heritage Management Framework so that they will be in compliance with the standards, protocols

and permits required to further investigate a site for the proposed capacitor station.

The drowning of the Columbia River has also destroyed many historically utilized places (e.g.

berry picking patches, fishing rocks, settlements, spiritual sites) and as a result has destroyed both the

traditional skills and knowledge regarding these areas, and the language which surrounded them. Many

sites reside on the bottoms and sides of reservoirs, slowing being eroded and lost. We recommend that

the Lakes Division is fully resourced to conduct an extensive underwater archaeology project/program.

This program would identify archaeological and cultural deposit sites and monitor their destruction and

erosion caused by the reservoir.

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 33

FUTURE (MICA DAM)

Co-Management Framework

We call on the MEMPR and BC Hydro to uphold BC’s New Relationship and its principle to

achieve “integrated intergovernmental structures and policies and to promote co-operation including

practical and workable arrangements for land and resource decision-making and sustainable

development” (2005). We also call for the creation of a “new institution or structure(s) to negotiate

Government-to-Government Agreement(s) for shared decision-making regarding land use planning,

management, tenuring and resource and benefit sharing” (2005)

NEXT STEPS:

1) Province of British Columbia (MEMPR & MOE) and BC Hydro recognize that the Sexqéltkemc

(Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation have Aboriginal Title and Rights.

2) MEMPR (Minister), MOE (Minister), BCUC (Commission), BCTC (CEO), BC Hydro (CEO) meet

with Lakes Division Political Leadership to plan the creation and adequate funding for an

Energy Agreement.

3) A W7mec (Energy) Agreement is developed which respects the Sexqéltkemc as

Yecwemínmen Secwepemcúlecw and acts in accordance with Secwepemc/Sexqéltkemc

Tkwenm7ipleten, stk’wenme7íple7 (law), policies and guiding principles.

4) Within the W7mec (Energy) Agreement, a section developed to outline how the Lakes

Division will participate in the decision-making regarding the Mica 5-6 addition.

5) Within the W7mec (Energy) Agreement, a section will be developed to address the historical

infringements on our Aboriginal Title and Rights and the negative impacts it has had and

continues to have on our people.

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 34

REFERENCES

(WUPCC), C. W. U. P. C. C. (2005). Consultative Committee Report: Columbia Water Use Plan.

BC, P. o. (1998). Inventory Methods for Marsh Birds: Bitterns and Rails Version 2.0.

BC, P. o. (1999a). Inventory Methods for Forest and Grassland Songbirds Version 2.0.

BC, P. o. (1999b). Inventory Methods for Waterfowl and Allied Species Version 2.0.

BC, P. o. (October 2002). Provincial Policy for Consultation with First Nations.

BCHydro. (March 2009). Mica Units 5 and 6: Environmental Assessments and Studies.

CBT, C. B. T. (1995). Columbia River Treaty Informational Brochure.

CCRIFC. (August 2006). Arrow Lakes Reservoir white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) spawning

periodicity and embryo and larval development downstream of Revelstoke Dam and estimated

effects of river impoundment on the timing of spawning.

CEAA, C. E. A. A. (August 2008). Annotated Law List.

Choquette, W. (June 27, 2008). Archaeological Overview Assessment of Proposed Capacitor Station Site

on 5L71 near Shuswap Lake, BC: Report prepared for BC Hydro.

Committee, C. (2009). Core Committee Report: Mica 5-6 Project Engagement Process.

EAO. (December 19, 2008). Mica Generating Station Unit 5 Project: Terms of Reference.

EAO. (March 2003). Guide to the British Columbia environmental assessment process.

Golder, G. A. L. (2006). A synthesis of white sturgeon investigations in Arrow Lakes Reservoir, BC.

Castlegar, BC: Report prepared for BC Hydro.

Golder, G. A. L. (2008). Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of Mica Units 5 & 6 on Fish and Fish

Habitats in the Mica Tailrace: Report prepared for BC Hydro.

Hammond, J. (2004). Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified

Wildlife.

KCBL, K. C. B. L. (Novermber 7, 2008). Mica Unit 5 and Mica Unit 6 Projects: Tailrace Erosion Assessment:

Report prepared for BC Hydro.

KCBL, K. C. B. L. (September 8, 2008). Summary of our Summer Inventory Pass and Vegetation Sampling

at the Mica Tailrace.

Lynch-Stewart, P. (2004). Environmental Best Practice Guide for Wildlife at Risk in Canada: Report

prepared for Canadian Wildlife Service.

Murphy, B. (May 27, 2009). Lakes Division Political Leadership Meeting. Chase, BC.

Murphy, B. (October 28, 2008). Order under Section 11.

Parsley, M. J., & Beckman, L. G. (1994). White sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat in the lower

Columbia river. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 14, 812-827.

Parsley, M. J., & Kappendman, K. M. (2000). White sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat in the Lower

Snake River. Northwest Science, 74(3), 192-201.

Lakes Division

EAO Submission

Mica 5-6 Page 35

Perrin, C. J., & Stockner, J. G. (2002). Bioflim, invertebrate and fish communities associated with

vegetation strata in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir: Report prepared by Limotek

Research and Development Inc. for BC Hydro.

Relationship, T. N. (2005). The New Relationship.

Rodman, R., & Lamash, D. (October 8, 2008). Mica 5-6 Tailrace Hydraulic Modelling.

SARA, S. a. R. A. R. (2009). Columbia Mottled Sculpin Species Account.