Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project

Comment Search Mobile

Comment Search

Skip to filters

18 results

Attachment Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project

  • Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Sagkeeng First Nation
  • Reference Number: 117
  • Submitted: 2020-06-01
  • Project Phase: Environmental Assessment Report
  • Participation Notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement
  • Please find attached correspondence from Sagkeeng First Nation.
  • Attachment Included
  • May 28, 2020 Alex Nisbet and John Harvie Myers LLP Regarding: Review of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Harvie and Mr. Nisbet Attached please find an executive summary and my technical review of the Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project Environmental Impact Statement. The review is in support of the interests of your clients from Pinaymootang First Nation, Sagkeeng First Nation, and Sandy Bay First Nation. You will see from my summary and review that I found the Environmental Impact Statement to be deficient in many areas, including errors made at the scoping stage. I do not believe that remedial work by Manitoba Infrastructure and its consultants will be able to correct the deficiencies in the environmental assessment. My recommendation is that the assessment process should be started again from the beginning. I would be happy to discuss these documents and my ...
  • Attachment Included
  • June 1, 2020 Via Email Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 9700 Jasper Avenue, Suite 1145 Edmonton Alberta T5J 4C3 Attention: Matthew Dairon Dear Sir: RE: Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project Please be advised that we represent Sagkeeng First Nation (“SFN”) regarding the Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project (the “Project”). This correspondence is in response to your letter dated March 9, 2020 which contains an invitation to review and provide comments on the March 2020 Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) submitted by Manitoba Infrastructure (“MI”). On March 9, 2020 the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the “Agency”) accepted the EIS submitted by MI and commenced its technical review. As stated in your March 9, 2020 letter, the Agency is interested in receiving SFN’s views regarding, but not limited to, the ...
  • Attachment Included
  • Reference IR# Expert Dept. or Group EIS Guideline Reference EIS Reference Context and Rationale Comments and Information requests 1 PFN/SFN/SBO FN Part 2 – Content of the Environmental Impact Statement, 1.1. The proponent 1.2.2 - Corporate and Management Structures From EIS Guideline: "In the EIS, the proponent will: ... - describe corporate and management structures; - specify the mechanism used to ensure that corporate policies will be implemented and respected for the project; ...." • Section 1.2.2 of EIA "Corporate and Management Structures" does not appear to provide very much information regarding the organizational structure. It only focuses on Vision, mission, values and priorities. Please provide additional information on the corporate/management structures. • There is also limited information on the "mechanism used to ensure that corporate policies will be implemented". Please add additional information. 2 PFN/SFN/SBO FN Part 2 – Content of ...
  • Attachment Included
  • Reference IR# Expert Dept. or group May 2018 EIS Guideline Reference EIS Reference Context and Rationale The Proponent is Required to … Project Description 105 PFN/SFN/SB OFN Part 1, Section 2.4 3.3.1 The EIS Guidelines require that in documenting the analyses included in the EIS, the proponent will demonstrate that all aspects of the project have been examined and planned in a careful and precautionary manner in order to avoid significant adverse environmental effects and any impacts to Aboriginal or Treaty rights. The EIS (S. 2.4.2.8) indicates that the development of the Project was based on several years of analysis. Despite this, the EIS (S. 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3) indicates the following items are incomplete at the time of EIS submission: - Identification of need for cofferdams - Cofferdam design - Detailed bridge design - Permits and designs for power distribution lines - Sources of rock and borrow materials - LMOC channel inlet and ...

Report

Attachment LMLSMOC EIS response from Misipawistik Cree Nation

  • Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Misipawistik Cree Nation
  • Reference Number: 105
  • Submitted: 2020-05-22
  • Project Phase: Environmental Assessment Report
  • Participation Notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement
  • Please see attached revised version.
  • Attachment Included
  • LMLSM CEAA EIS Narrative Response – MCN May 2020 P a g e 1 | 13 Misipawistik Cree Nation Narrative Response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by Manitoba Infrastructure Regarding the Proposed Lake Manitoba/Lake St. Martin Outlet Channel Presented to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agenda May 2020 Environmental Impact Statement response overview This response by Misipawistik Cree Nation (MCN) to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by Manitoba Infrastructure (the proponent) regarding the Proposed Lake Manitoba/Lake St. Martin Outlet Channel (LMLSMOC) consists of two separate but complementary documents:  A narrative response which cites key themes and identifies the primary gaps within the EIS (this document). Each high-level concern has a unique alpha-numeric reference that begins with ‘MCN’.  An Excel document that lists all MCN’s comments with the EIS referencing both the EIS Guideline and the EIS ...
  • Attachment Included
  • Comment received online Comment is posted on the Registry (real-time) and generated in AMS and GCDOCs project folder Comment received offline Comment received by regular mail or fax Project manager insert comment in GCDOCs (to track folder) Comment received by email (Project or other mailboxes Project manager scans, insert comment in GCDOCs (to track folder) and creates letter or fax in AMS (links to GCDOCs URL) Registry staff redacts and post comment on the Registry If no violation, Project manager completes process bar in AMS Registry staff completes process bar in AMS Types of Violation (unless consent given)  Personal Information  Indigenous Knowledge  Third Party or Business Confidential Information  Federal and Provincial Affairs  Physical Security  Information Technology Security  Offensive Language  Other Registry staff gets automatically notified via generic ...

Report
Date modified: