|
|
environmental & social impacts lessons learned Q & A references links Power Point Presentation |
page1 page2 page4
Methodology
for Aboriginal Engagement
The Bruce Power site is located within the
traditional territories of the Saugeen Ojibway Nations on the shore of Lake
Huron which represents a commercial and traditional fishery for the Saugeen Ojibway
Nations. The site is also located within the traditional territory used by the
Geogian Bay regional rights-bearing Mtis community (area falls under
administrative region 7 of the Mtis Nation of Ontario).
In 2007,
47 people working at Bruce Power were Aboriginal, 1.28% of the workforce.
However, there are no aboriginals employed in upper management. Based on the Statistics Canada 2006
Census, approximately 1.9% of the population of the Regional Study Area is
identified as Aboriginal.
There are two potentially affected First Nation
groups:
1.
Chippewas
of Saugeen First Nation Reserve No. 29 is located on the shoreline of Lake
Huron approximately 25km from the Project site.
2.
Chippewas
of Nawash Unceded First Nation Reserve No. 27, located on the east shore of
Georgian Bay, approximately 70km from the Project Site.
Together these two communities are referred to
as Saugeen Ojibway Nations or SON and make up approximately 2% of the
population of the study area. Prior to formal commencement of the EA in January
2007, Bruce Power began engagement with the SON to communicate the
consideration of new reactors on the Bruce Power site and to discuss
participation. Engagement continued throughout the preparation and submission
of the EIS in August 2008 and will continue through the post-submission period.
A Protocol Agreement between Bruce Power and the
SON was developed and signed on May 23, 2008. Bruce Power considers this a
major milestone as it is the first time an agreement such as this was developed
for any EA of Ontario nuclear projects. The Protocol Agreement establishes:
-
Joint
Liaison Committee of SON and Bruce Power representatives;
-
SON
EA Co-coordinator;
-
Activities
to be carried out by SON, including communications, technical discussions,
development of traditional knowledge, co-operation in development of Bruce
Power reports, independent reviews of EA reports, development and presentation
of evidence for community hearings, development of evidence on economic and
technical issues, presentation and cross-examination of evidence, and legal
advice;
-
SON
core experts panel and
-
Funding
by Bruce Power to support meaningful participation by the SON in the EA.
The SON Steering Committee, comprised of reserve
chiefs and councilors, generally represented the SON leadership in meetings.
However, the Protocol Agreement resulted in the formation of a Joint Liaison
Committee, comprised of up to 6 members each from SON and Bruce Power, which
replaced the Steering Committee.
Two
community Mtis councils are located within 60km of the Project site. The
Saguingue Mtis Council, located in Port Elgin, represents all Mtis Nation of
Ontario (MNO) citizens living in Bruce County and Grey-Owen Sound Mtis Council
is located in Owen Sound. Much of the engagement of Mtis people throughout the
EA focused on this MNO Chartered Community Council.
The Mtis
people are fully integrated into the regional population and do not comprise a
settlement and are not tied to a reserve. According to 2006 Census information
from Statistics Canada, 360 Mtis persons reside in Bruce County and 825 Mtis
persons reside in Grey County.
In July
2008, members of the Saguingue Mtis Council provided Bruce Power with an
overview of guiding principles on consulting and accommodating Mtis people.
The timing was determined by the Mtis who were engaged at the time with the
MNO developing internal protocols. This briefing was developed to guide Bruce
PowerUs engagement with the Mtis.
The
identification of issues of importance to Aboriginal communities was done by:
-
Examination
of previous EAs;
-
Review
of literature, traditional knowledge and the publicly recorded opinions of Aboriginal people.
Traditional
knowledge was obtained through literature review specific to the SON and the
Mtis as well as a review of literature on Aboriginal communities with similar
cultural backgrounds. Interviews with traditionalists within the SON
communities was attempted but was unsuccessful within the timeframe of the EIS.
Following the release of the EIS and subsequent review by SON, traditional
knowledge may be incorporated into the review process. The areas of traditional
knowledge contribution will be determined through discussions with the SON
Joint Liaison Committee.
Traditional
Knowledge obtained through literature review and past involvement with SON
communities has been incorporated into the EIS regarding discussions of
traditional fishing, gathering and hunting in Section 8.12.1 for Mtis and
Section 8.12.2 for the SON. The Mtis Traditional Knowledge incorporated into
the EIS is based solely on literature review.
The
methods used throughout engagement with the SON included:
-
Meetings
and briefings with SON staff, including the EA coordinator, fisheries
biologists, and Band department managers;
-
Placing
EA materials at the Administration Office on both reserves;
-
Development
of to all off-reserve workshops and Open Houses allowing for participation and
opportunities for input. In addition there were many phone calls and emails
throughout the engagement period.
Bruce Power states in the EIS that they will
facilitate the review of the EIS by stakeholders and will fund peer reviews of
the EIS documentation by the Saugeen Ojibway Nations and the Saguingue Mtis
Council.
Following
completion of Technical Support Documents, Bruce Power will continue to engage
with the SON using the following methods:
-
Meetings
and presentations with the Liaison Committee;
-
Peer
review of the EIS and supporting documentation;
-
Community
information events (newsletters, Open Houses, community meetings);
-
Continuing
to place EA materials at the Administration Offices on both reserves;
-
Maintaining
the Aboriginal pages on the Project webpage;
-
Continued
opportunities for participation in off-reserve communications events;
-
Responding
to any further issues or concerns raised by the SON regarding their Aboriginal
interests and the Project.
The
methods used throughout engagement with the Mtis included:
-
Mailings;
-
Open
Houses and workshops and
-
Meetings
and presentations to Mtis community leaders
Methodology
for Engagement with NGOs
Sixty-two
NGOs were on the stakeholder mailing list for EA materials as of July 2008. An
NGO communications Plan was developed and implemented early in the EA process.
This plan sought to:
-
Provide
a profile of local, provincial/national and U.S.-based NGOs potentially
interested in the Project EA;
-
Outline
the methods by which information regarding the Project will be delivered to
NGOs;
-
Provide
information on how and when NGOs will be given the opportunity to comment
throughout the Project EA studies and consultation process.
The
methods for engagement included:
-
Preparation
of NGO communications Plan;
-
Phone
calls;
-
Mailings;
-
NGO-specific
workshop;
-
Invitations
to Open Houses and Workshops
A small
number of NGOs are also participating in the EA through participant funding
offered by CEAA.
Methodology
for Engagement with Government Ministries, Departments or Agencies
The
methods used throughout engagement with the Government institutions included:
-
Meetings;
-
Teleconferences;
-
Workshops
and
-
Site
Visits
Methodology
for Engagement with Bruce Power Employees
The
methods used throughout engagement with Bruce Power Employees included:
-
Company-wide
e-mails;
-
Articles
in the employee newsletter TThe PointU;
-
Newsletters
displayed on brochure racks throughout the Bruce Power site;
-
Information
displayed on the companyUs intranet;
On August
7, 2008 Bruce Power held a briefing session with members of the Bruce Power
Native Circle. Participants were provided an overview of the project and an
outline of Bruce PowerUs approach to addressing aboriginal issues in the EIS.
The issues discussed included:
-
A
traditional story about the lake levels in the region being low enough for
Aboriginal peoples to walk across to Manitoulin Island and the risk of rising
lake levels and the impact on a new facility;
-
The
history of mistrust between energy sector proponents and Aboriginal peoples
over several decades;
-
Lack
of available affordable housing in the area;
-
Long-term
management of used fuel and potential impacts on future generations;
-
Increase
in traffic from the site and possible safety issues for workers;
-
Consideration
and assessment of safety of workers during construction;
-
The
area Bruce Power site is identified as the traditional territory of SON;
-
Bruce
PowerUs approach to the archaeological assessment of the Bruce Power site;
-
The
impact on the health of First Nations throughout the entire nuclear fuel cycle,
including mining uranium, given how the effects of all people are considered by
the community and
-
The
need for greater focus on employment of Aboriginal peoples.
Results
from Public Consultation
In the EIS some community preferences regarding
Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) are incorporated as well as the recommendations
from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to substantially reduce the amount of
infilling of MacPherson Bay as part of the Project.
The
10 most frequently raised issues are identified and addressed in the EIS. A
full list of all questions asked throughout the EA and Bruce PowerUs responses
is provided in Appendix D of the EIS.
Question
and Location in EIS:
|
# |
Question |
Location
in EIS |
|
1 |
How
will Bruce Power evaluate the different technologies and how does the safety of
Gen III + reactors compare to other reactors? |
Section
4.7 |
|
2 |
How
much more radioactive waste will be created by the Project and how will it be
managed? |
Sections
4.7 and 5.3 |
|
3 |
Will
radioactivity be released into the environment and how will this affect
nearby residents? |
Sections
8.6, 8.11, 9.2.5 and 9.2.10 |
|
4 |
What
are the cooling options and how would the environmental effects differ
between the cooling options? |
Sections
4.7, 4.7.3, 5.3.3.6, 5.4, 9.2.4 and 10.1.4 |
|
5 |
What
does the EA process assess? |
Section
2.2 |
|
6 |
Will
the EA look at the effects of traffic and cost of infrastructure improvement
required because of the Project? |
Sections
8.9 and 9.2.8 |
|
7 |
Will
the EA consider effects due to population increase on social services and
infrastructure and who is responsible? |
Sections
8.8 and 9.2.7 |
|
8 |
How
will the EA assess nuclear accidents (especially high consequence and low
probability)? |
Chapter
6 |
|
9 |
How
will the power be transmitted away from the site? Why is transmission
capacity insufficient with eight reactors running if Bruce Power had eight
reactors running in the past? |
Outside
Scope of EA |
|
10 |
What
is the cost of the Project? Who will finance the Project: the government or
private investors? |
Section
1.1 |
There were
a number of public comments regarding this Project; both positive and negative.
Some citizens remarked that they were happy with the project as it would bring employment
to the area and praising the trust-worthiness of Bruce Power in the past;
however, most comments were criticisms of the project.
Only one publicly suggested VEC – wild
mushrooms - was included after public consultation. Round Whitefish was rejected
with the reason that Lake Whitefish is already included as a VEC as it
represents a guild of fish species that includes Round Whitefish. However,
Citizens for Renewable Energy sent an email (2009, Jan. 8) to the CEAA Program
Funding Officer, Suzanne Osborne, requesting that the Round Whitefish, a
suggested VECS from Workshop#3, be included in the EIS. In the email CFRE state
that Round Whitefish have distinct properties compared to Lake Whitefish and
have been declared an REndangered SpeciesS by the New York State conservation
Authority. As well, Round Whitefish is an exclusive bottom feeder and therefore
a good species to monitor the effect of radioactivity on the food chain,
showing the uptake of radioactive elements from lake sediment.
Some other public comments involved wanting to see the money spent on the Project invested instead in research and development of green energy or in wind energy technology. As well, citizens signed a petition in support of a Nuclear Cost Responsibility Act that makes it illegal for nuclear power companies to pass their capital cost overruns onto electricity consumers or taxpayers. However, there were some comments stating support of Bruce Power as they would provide jobs and had proven in the past to be trust-worthy.
Results
from Aboriginal Engagement
First
Nations
The main issue that is unique to the SON and is
not shared by the Mtis and the general public in the area is the Commercial
Fishery. Between 50 and 60 members of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation
are employed in fishing and related activities and an economic analysis
prepared for the First Nation found that the fishery accounted for about one
half of all private commercial earnings in Cape Croker between 1996 and 1997.
The Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation
have stated that the fish harvest, particularly Lake Whitefish is the single
largest component of the Nawash commercial fishery. Individuals are also
involved in recreational fisheries; however, the Saugeen First Nation Fisheries
Department does not have current up to date records of how many individuals
currently practice traditional fishing.
SON-specific Issues and Sections in the EIS
Where They Are Addressed:
|
SON
Issue |
Location
in EIS |
|
Health
of Members of the Community
including exposure to physical risks, radiation and capacity of existing
health services |
Sections
6.3.2.2, 8.12.2.2, 9.2.11, 9.3.11 |
|
Long-term
Use of Lands and Waters
including use of traditional territory, land claims and settlements |
Sections
6.3.1, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.2, 8.12.2.3, 9.2.11, 9.3.11 and 11.2.11 |
|
Community
Sustainability
including population, infrastructure and services |
Sections
8.12.2.4, 9.2.11 and 9.3.11 |
|
Economic
Viability including
community revenues from governments, employment, the commercial fishery and community businesses |
Sections
6.3.1, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.2, 8.12.2.5, 9.2.11 and 9.3.11 |
|
Maintenance
of Culture including
traditional activities, language, interests and land claims |
Sections
8.12.2.6, 9.2.11 and 9.3.11 |
Mtis
Mtis-specific Issues and Sections in the EIS
Where They Are Addressed:
|
Mtis
Issue |
Location
in EIS |
|
Long-Term
Use of Lands and Waters
in traditional territory |
Sections
6.3.2.2, 8.12.1.2, 9.2.11, 9.3.11 |
|
Maintenance
of Culture including
traditional hunting, gathering, fishing and claims and settlements |
Sections
6.3.2.2, 8.12.1.3, 9.2.11 and 9.3.11 |
For a summary of the Aboriginal issues see Table
1: Aboriginal Interest and Identified Issues.