Environmental Assessment for the Phase 2 Transmission ... · Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2004) Class EA for

TITLE PLACEHOLDERWelcome

Environmental Assessment for the Phase 2 Transmission Project

Connecting 17 Remote First Nation Communities

Today we are here to provide information and gather feedback on the environmental assessment findings documented in the Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR), including:

Baseline data collection

Effects assessment results

Recommended mitigation measures

Engagement efforts

We encourage you to review the information and maps, and speak to team members about any concerns or comments.

Information is also available on our website: http://www.wataypower.ca/

Examples of transmission lines

Wataynikaneyap Power Projects

WATAYNIKANEYAP PROJECTS

$1.6 billion estimated capital cost

Phase 1 – New Transmission Line to Pickle Lake

Approximately 300 km of 230 kV line

Undergoing an Individual EA

Phase 2 - Connecting 17 remote First Nation communities currently serviced by diesel generators

1,500 km of 115 kV and 44 kV transmission lines

Potential first community grid connections in 2021; build out to 2023

Pikangikum Distribution Line

44 kV and 25 kV distribution line: Red Lake to Pikangikum First Nation

Under construction – potential connection in 2018

Phase 2 - Conversion of distribution line to transmission line

First structure installation for Pikangikum Distribution Line – February 10, 2018. Left to Right: Jonah Strang, Elden Strang, Conrad Quill, Chief Dean Owen, Corey Purcell, Sawna Cheena, Adam Fox, Mat Barbeau, P. A. Garneau, Connor Newson, Terry Jean, Katherine Blake

Golder Associates Ltd. Designated Lead Environmental Assessment Consultant

Golder is a global employee-owned organization, founded in Canada, that provides independent consulting, design and construction services in specialist areas of earth,environment and energy, with offices across Ontario

TITLE PLACEHOLDERProject and Proponent Background

Purpose - To connect 17 remote First Nation communities in Northwestern Ontario to Ontario’s electrical grid

Proponent - Wataynikaneyap Power L.P.▪ 51% owned by 22 First Nations. 49% owned by Fortis Inc.

Fortis

FortisOntario is a subsidiary of Fortis, an electric and gas utilitybusiness with approximately $28 billion in assets, includingsignificant transmission and distribution facilities in Ontario

Project Details, Components and Construction

Approximately 1,500 km of overhead transmission line

The system includes:▪ Transmission line: towers, foundations and lines

▪ 21 substations (transformer stations and switching stations)

▪ Access roads, construction camps, watercourse crossings andlaydown areas (for equipmentduring construction)

40 metre (130 feet) wide clearing for the transmission line within a 2 kilometre(6,562 feet) wide study corridor - this is the focus of the study area for theEnvironmental Assessment

Example of a connection facility.

Example of construction of a transmission line.

Example of clearing for a transmission line.

Example of a laydown area.

Example of a construction camp.

Rolls of transmission line conductor at a laydown area.

Example of a transformerstation.

Environmental Assessment Status Update and Schedule

Baseline studies completed in 2016 and 2017

Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) will soon be available for review

▪ July to August 2018 is the planned public review period

▪ A copy of the Draft ESR will be available in each community Draft ESR will also be available on the website (www.wataypower.ca)

Comments will be considered and changes made to the document where needed

▪ Final ESR will be released for review (planned for September 2018)

At the end of the EA process a Statement of Completion will be issued

Planned field programs in support of permitting include:

▪ Archaeology and cultural heritage surveys

▪ Water crossing surveys

▪ Limited supplemental wildlife surveys in June or July

2016 2017 2018

Round 1 Engagement Meetings

(Feb – Sep 2016)

Round 2 Engagement Meetings (Oct 2016 – Feb 2018)

Round 3 Engagement Meetings (Mar – Jul 2018)

Baseline EA Studies Prepare ESR

40‐m‐wide right‐of‐way

(Jul 2017)

Preliminary 2‐km wide study corridor (Sep 2016)

Public and Government

Review

Public and Government

Review

Submit Draft ESR (July 2018)

We are here

Ongoing Aboriginal and Stakeholder Engagement

Submit Final ESR (Sep2018)

Anticipated Statement of Completion (Oct 2018)

Applicable Environmental Assessment(EA) Processes

• For applicable 115 kV sections and associated infrastructure

• For disposition of resources for applicable less than 115 kV sections within Provincial Parks

• Category C process followed

• For applicable less than 115 kV sections and associated infrastructure, and disposition of resources

• Category C process followed

• For sections of the transmission line on First Nation reserve lands

Section 67 Canadian EA Act (CEAA 2012)

Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2004)

Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development(Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2003)

Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities (Hydro One 1992)

One integrated Environmental Study Report

Regulatory announcements – Notice ofCommencement of EA

Project website – www.wataypower.ca Project team contacts Community meetings – including

presentations, panels, handouts, maps,comment and evaluation forms

Traditional Land and Resource Use studies

Newsletters

Community liaison sessions

How We Have Engaged on these EA Processes

Engagement with Wawakapewin First Nation

Who We Are Engaging With

Round Dates Objectives

1. Pre-EA Notification 2013-2014Jan – Sept 2016

- Review preliminary 5-km-wide corridors and identify preferred corridor

- Seek input to revise 5-km-wide corridors to 2-km-wide study corridors

2. Scoping Oct 2016 – Feb 2018 - Review 2-km-wide study corridors and alternatives, including preliminary locations of Project components (temporary and permanent access roads, temporary laydown areas, temporary camps)

- Collect traditional land and resource use information- Review draft EA Workplan and Engagement Plans

2a. Update Jun 2017 - Provide newsletter including map of proposed 40-m-wide right of way (ROW) and preliminary Project component locations

3. Review EA findings including Draft ESR and later final ESR

MNRF Review of Draft ESR: underwayCommunity Meetings:Mar - Jul 2018Draft ESR review:Jul –Aug 2018 (anticipated)

Review:- Baseline data- Effects assessment results - Recommended mitigation

Group 1 –As per Interim Delegation in 2013 and a Memorandum of Understandingbetween Ontario and Wataynikaneyap signed in 2016 in relation to the Duty to Consult

• Bearskin Lake First Nation• Cat Lake First Nation• Deer Lake First Nation • Eabametoong First Nation• Kasabonika First Nation• Keewaywin First Nation • Kingfisher Lake First Nation • Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug• Lac Seul First Nation• Marten Falls First Nation• McDowell Lake First Nation • Mishkeegogamang First Nation• Muskrat Dam First Nation• Neskantaga First Nation

• Nibinamik First Nation• North Caribou First Nation • North Spirit Lake First Nation • Pikangikum First Nation • Poplar Hill First Nation • Sachigo Lake First Nation • Sandy Lake First Nation • Slate Falls Nation• Wapekeka First Nation • Wawakapewin First Nation • Webequie First Nation• Wunnumin Lake First Nation• Wabauskang First Nation

Group 2 –Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups responsible for representing traditional lands and land use plans that may be affected by the Project

• Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN)• Grand Council of Treaty #3• Taashikaywin Land Use Planning Group• Cat Lake and Slate Falls Community Based Land Use Planning Implementation Team• Whitefeather Forest Community Resource Management Authority• Deer Lake First Nation Land Use Planning Group• McDowell Lake First Nation Land Use Planning Group• Wawakapewin First Nation Land Use Planning Group

Group 3 –Aboriginal communities and groups who were engaged in Phase 1 and/or are owners of Wataynikaneyap

• Ojibway Nation of Saugeen• Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishnabek• Eagle Lake First Nation• Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation• Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation• Métis Nation of Ontario Region 1 Consultation Committee

Others – People who have identified an interest in the Project

• Government (municipal, provincial, federal) • Non-Government Organizations• Crown land interest holders • Land owners

• General public

Engagement with Group 1 Communities

What We Have Heard

Key Topics Identified by Aboriginal Communities:

Key Topics Identified by Stakeholders:

200

71

5851 46

3021 16 16 14 12 11 10 8 6 6 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

FR

EQ

UE

NC

Y

TOPICS

13

9

7

6

4

2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

TOPICS

FR

EQ

UE

NC

Y

TOPICS

What is considered in an Environmental Assessment?

Environmental Assessment is an important planning tool and process used to:

Identify potential negative effects and benefits of the Projectto the environment

Reduce or remove potential negative effects and enhance benefits

Facilitate environmental decision-making

Provide opportunities to comment on how the Project may affect communities and community use of the land

Baseline

Net and Cumulative Effects

Mitigation

Natural Environment

Vegetation and Wetlands

Wildlife

Fish and Fish Habitat

Physical Environment

Surface Water

Ground Water

Visual Aesthetics

Air Quality and Climate Change

Noise

Human Environment

Socio-Economics

Non-Aboriginal Land and Resource Use

Human Health

Archaeology

Cultural Heritage

Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests

Potential Effects

What is the environment like now?

What positive and/or negative effects might the project have on the environment?

What can we do to reduce/avoid effects?

Are there effects that cannot be avoided?Are there effects that could combine with effects from other projects?

Determine Significance

Are the remaining/cumulative effects significant?

Effects Assessment SummaryDiscipline Potential Effects Assessment Results*

VegetationandWetlands

Loss of ecosystems from clearing Accidental spills and dust during construction Introduction of weeds and invasive species Requirement to manage/maintain vegetation during operation

Effects not significant

Wildlife

Loss of habitat Habitat degradation (e.g., changes in vegetation, air, noise, water) Habitat fragmentation (e.g., population connectivity, edge effects) Sensory disturbance during construction and operation Direct mortality

Effects not significant: Berens, Kinloch, Spirit, Swan, Ozhiski, and Mississa caribouranges, moose, wolverine, bald eagle,Canada warbler, common nighthawk, olive-sided flycatcher Significant effects: Sydney caribou rangeand little brown myotis (bat). However, they are both considered to be significantlyaffected at baseline (existing) conditions

Fish andFish Habitat

Loss of habitat Habitat degradation (e.g., accidental spills, sedimentation) Direct mortality


SurfaceWater

Short-term change in quality, primarily during construction Sedimentation Accidental spills Removal or diversion of water Change in water flow at water crossings during construction and operation


GroundWater

Short term, primarily during construction Change in groundwater quality/quantity/flow Effects from blasting, accidental spills, clearing of vegetation or

dewatering at transmission towers


Visual Vegetation clearing and the presence of towers and lines will

introduce visual disturbances to the existing landscapeEffects not significant

Air Quality and ClimateChange

Overall greenhouse gas emissions will decrease due to no longer burning diesel to generate electricity

Emissions from vehicles and equipment Dust during construction Vegetation clearing (removal of carbon sink)


Noise

Short term noise from vehicles and equipment during construction Noise from the transformer and switching stations Noise from the transmission line (crackling heard only near the line

and mostly during wet conditions)


Socio-economics

Potential effects of the project on labour market, economic development and government finances

Positive benefit

Housing and Temporary Accommodation - Temporary in-migration of Project construction workforce and suppliers could increase demand for temporary accommodation in local communities


Community Wellbeing - Project construction activities could affect ambient noise levels along the right-of-way; potential for nuisance effects; potential for workforce disruptive behaviours


Non-Aboriginal Land and Resource Use

Access to, use of, or to natural/cultural/recreational features of parks or protected area

Land access and quality for hunters, anglers, trappers Remoteness and remote tourism outfitters Mining and aggregates, forestry and waterpower


HumanHealth

Changes to water quality Air and dust emissions Noise from construction or operations


Archaeology Loss or damage to archaeological resources Effects not significant

CulturalHeritage

Damage to or alteration of built heritage during construction Effects not significant

Aboriginaland TreatyRights

Access to sites may be restricted during construction. Operation may result in increased access to land


* A determination of significance was conducted for criteria with identified net effects (and/or cumulative effects) after mitigation.

Benefits to air quality and climate change expected through reduction in emissions

from diesel generating stations

Benefits expected through ability to connect additional homes to power

Vegetation and WetlandsBaseline:

Existing data and data collected through field studies and engagement (including traditional land and resource use studies)

Assessment focused on: upland and riparian ecosystems and wetlands

Field data collected in 2016 using aerial and vegetation surveys (including rare plants)

▪ 173 vegetation survey plots (May-Sep. 2016) with 319 species of plants identified

▪ No Species at Risk (SAR) plants observed

▪ Seven rare plants identified (one fern, one herb, and five mosses)

▪ 23 upland ecosystem types, 20 wetland ecosystem types, and two disturbed ecosystem types identified

Potential effects of the project:

Loss of ecosystems from clearing

Accidental spills and dust during construction

Introduction of weeds and invasive species

Requirement to manage/maintain vegetation during operation

To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:

Design the project to avoid sensitive areas

Revegetate cleared areas where possible

Use measures to control the spread of invasive species

Mechanically clear during operation – no herbicides

Assessment results:

Vegetation types that will be cleared are common in the Project area and almost all of the following (99%) will remain unchanged: old forests, critical landform-vegetation associations (CLVA) and candidate areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI)

Criterion (Ecosystem Type)

Predicted Loss of Ecosystem Types

Red Lake Subsystem Pickle Lake Subsystem

Upland ecosystems 1,819 ha 2,746 ha

Riparian ecosystems 43 ha 70 ha

Wetlands 100 ha 46 ha

Fairy Parasol Moss (Critically imperiled in Ontario – S1).

Upland ecosystem observed during field

survey.

Wildlife Wildlife species to assess were chosen based on: presence in the area, Species

at Risk, and engagement results:

Baseline: Existing data and new data collected through field surveys in 2016 and 2017 including:

Remote cameras to record species across the Project area

Helicopter surveys along Project corridor targeting:

areas used by waterbirds

caribou in a focused area

potential bat habitat

breeding bird count surveys

raptor nests, where observed

Nightjar acoustic surveys


Loss of habitat

Reduced quality of habitat because of changes in vegetation, water, air, noise

Habitat fragmentation

Noise disturbance during construction and operation

Direct mortality


Avoid construction during sensitive times (e.g., nesting) where possible

Avoid sensitive habitats where possible

Conduct pre-construction surveysAssessment results:

Animals may avoid areas during construction

During operation, some animals may be attracted to certain areas (e.g. cleared right of way)

Some habitat removal – small compared to what is available

There are currently significant effects on: little brown bats through disease (white nose syndrome) and woodland caribou due to existing human disturbance (Sydney caribou range near Red Lake). The Project would contribute no to few further effects on these species.

▪ Woodland caribou ▪ Canada warbler ▪ Common nighthawk▪ Moose ▪ Bank swallow ▪ Olive-sided flycatcher▪ Wolverine ▪ Bald eagle ▪ Horned grebe▪ Little brown myotis (bat)

Photo of sand hill crane captured by remote camera.

Photo of nest captured during field surveys.

Wildlife Assessment Results

Photo of wolf captured on remote camera.

Criterion Red Lake Subsystem Pickle Lake Subsystem Conclusions

MooseLoss of 1,675 ha of habitat

Loss of 2,904 ha of habitat

Not significant

WolverineLoss of 20,229 ha of habitat

Loss of 24,814 ha of habitat

Not significant

Little brownmyotis

• Loss of 262 ha ofpotential maternity habitat

• 29 potentialhibernacula identified

• Loss of 520 ha of potential maternity habitat

• No potentialhibernacula identified

• Existing bat populations not likely to be self-sustaining due to White Nose Syndrome

• Project contribution to effects to little brown myotis are predicted to be minor

Bald eagle Loss of 428 ha habitat Loss of 688 ha habitat Not significant

Canada warbler Loss of 920 ha habitat Loss of 1,600 ha habitat Not significant

Bank swallow Loss of 140 ha habitat Loss of 485 ha habitat Not significant

Horned grebe Loss of 11 ha habitat Loss of 39 ha habitat Not significant

Commonnighthawk

Loss of 1,642 ha habitat Loss of 2,325 ha habitat Not significant

Olive-sidedflycatcher

Loss of 127 ha habitat Loss of 395 ha habitat Not significant

Photo of moose captured on remote camera.

Photo of Canada lynx captured on remote camera.

Photo of Canada goose captured by remote camera.

Wildlife - Woodland Caribou▪ The woodland caribou population in the Sydney range (near Red Lake) are

not expected to be self-sustaining at present even without the Project

▪ The Project is expected to result in a small contribution to cumulative effects over baseline conditions

▪ The Project crosses nursery areas, winter use areas, and travel corridors

Photos of woodland caribou captured on remote cameras.

Caribou Range Project Effects

Sydney Range

• No loss of nursery and winter use areas• 67.5 ha overlaps existing disturbance• Range disturbance will remain at 64.1% with development of the Project

• No potential travel corridors affected• Predicted significant effects

Berens Range

• Loss of 50 ha from two nursery areas• No loss of winter use areas• 800 ha overlaps existing disturbance• Range disturbance will increase from 31.4% (baseline) to 31.9% (including the Project)• 2 potential travel corridors affected• No significant effects predicted

Kinloch Range

• No loss of nursery and winter use areas• 281 ha overlaps existing disturbance• Range disturbance will increase from 17.3% (baseline) to 17.4% (including the Project)• 2 potential travel corridors affected• No significant effects predicted

Spirit Range

• Loss of 69 ha from three nursery areas• Loss of 10 ha from one winter use area• 2,200 ha overlaps existing disturbance• Range disturbance will increase from 29.6% (baseline) to 30.4% (including the Project)• 3 potential travel corridors affected• No significant effects predicted

Swan Range

• No loss of nursery or winter use areas• 372 ha overlaps existing disturbance• Range disturbance will remain at 24.0% with development of the Project• No potential travel corridors affected• No significant effects predicted

Ozhiski Range

• Loss of 43 ha from two nursery areas• No loss of winter use areas• 1,151 ha overlaps existing disturbance• Range disturbance will increase from 25.0% (baseline) to 25.2% (including the Project)• 3 potential travel corridors affected• No significant effects predicted

Mississa Range

• No loss of nursery or winter use areas• 161 ha overlaps existing disturbance• Range disturbance will remain at 10.0% with development of the Project• No potential travel corridors affected• No significant effects predicted

Fish and Fish Habitat

Baseline data was collected from existing literature and mapping, and followed up with helicopter surveys - focused on criteria species:

Brook Trout

Lake Trout

Walleye

Lake Sturgeon


Loss or alteration of habitat

Decreased water quality

Increased access for anglers

Direct mortality


Avoid work in/near water where possible

Avoid construction and maintenance during sensitive time periods (e.g. spawning)

Waterbody crossing structures will be constructed using best management practices and consistent with permit conditions

Maintain a 30m vegetation buffer on water bodies

Assessment results:

Effects will be minimized or avoided through mitigation.

Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush).

Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Fish habitat. Fish surveys.

Surface Water

Existing data shows low levels of contaminants in surface

water at baseline


▪ Change in surface water quality during construction

▪ Sedimentation

▪ Accidental spills

▪ Removal or diversion of water

▪ Change in water flow at water crossings during construction and operation

Surface Water and Groundwater


▪ Implement the Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan andWaste Management Plans

▪ Monitor sediment and erosion

▪ Monitor in-stream works during construction

Assessment results:

Effects will be temporary and within the range of conditions present before construction

Groundwater

Existing data sources were used to describe baseline conditions for groundwater quality and quantity


▪ Change in groundwater quality/quantity/flow

▪ Effects from blasting, accidental spills, clearing of vegetation or dewatering at transmission towers


▪ Implement the Waste Management, Blast Management, and Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan

▪ Monitor sediment and erosion

Assessment results:

Effects will be temporary and within the range of conditions present before construction

Visual Aesthetics and VisualizationsBaseline data collected through a review of existing literature and input from engagement to identify locations of importance for visual quality


▪ Visual impacts from the cleared ROW and transmission towers


▪ Use existing roads and disturbed areas wherever possible

▪ Use existing screening from topography and vegetation to reduce effects

▪ Reclaim temporary access roads and water crossings, laydown areas, staging areas, and construction camps

Assessment Results:

A small change to some viewing locations is expected

Visualizations

Pipestone River – Base Case

Pipestone River - Project Simulation

Air Quality, Noise and Climate ChangeAir Quality

Baseline data collected from existing air monitoring stations demonstrate low levels of air contaminants within the Project area


▪ Emissions from vehicles and equipment

▪ Dust during construction


▪ Maintain vehicles and equipment

▪ Use dust control measures

Assessment results:

Effects will be infrequent and during construction only

Noise

Baseline noise levels were described using existing standards for remote areas


▪ Short-term noise from vehicles and equipment during construction

▪ Noise from substations and the transmission line



Assessment results:

▪ Highest noise levels will be closest to area of construction

▪ Slight increase in noise at substation during operation

Climate Change

Baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) levels were described using existing data


▪ Emissions from exhaust

▪ Vegetation clearing (removal of carbon sink)



▪ Limit idling

▪ Carpool

Assessment Results:

Overall, GHG emissions will be reduced due to less use of diesel generation

Diesel generating station at Kasabonika Lake First Nation.

Pole delivery for the Pikangikum distribution line project.

Benefits to air quality and climate change expected through

reduction in emissions from diesel

generating stations

Human HealthLooked at the links between health and noise, air, soil and water quality


▪ Changes to water quality

▪ Air and dust emissions

▪ Noise from construction or operations



▪ Use dust control measures

▪ Notify communities and stakeholders of work

Assessment results:

Changes to water, air quality and noise are not expected to affect human health

Socio-economicsAssessment focused on: labour market, regional economy, government finances,housing and temporary accommodation, services and infrastructure and communitywell-being


▪ Short-term effects to housing, services and infrastructure, and community well-being during construction

▪ Positive effects related to training, employment and business

▪ Negative effects to community well-being (e.g. nuisance noise, public safety)


▪ Implement the Indigenous Participation Plan

▪ Implement the Skills Development and Training Plan

▪ Health and safety training

▪ Worker codes of conduct

Assessment results:

▪ Short term negative effects during construction

▪ Positive effects include:

▪ 450-500 full time equivalent jobs during construction

▪ Business and revenue opportunities during construction

Benefits expected through ability to

connect additional homes to power

Clearing of the right of way for the Pikangikum Distribution Line

Project.

Non-Aboriginal Land and Resource UseAssessment focused on:

• Parks and Protected Areas

• Outdoor Tourism and Recreational Land and Resource Use

• Commercial Industry Land and Resource Use (e.g., mining, forestryand aggregates)


• Change in access to, or use of natural/cultural/ recreational features of parks or protected areas

• Increased access to land for hunters, trappers and anglers

• Decreased remoteness

• Change in use of land available for mining and aggregates, forestry and waterpower operations


• Align the right of way with existing infrastructure

• Develop access management plans (including road maintenance and decommissioning strategies)

• Engage with land users, including notification of activities

Assessment results:

• Minimal effects to Parks and Protected Areas and commercial industry land and resource use

• Effects may be positive or negative depending on the land user

• Hunters, anglers and trappers may experience better access to areas

• Commercial outfitters who have benefited from limited access to certain areas in the past may be negatively affected

Archaeology and Heritage ResourcesArchaeological Resources

▪ Stage 1 assessments gathered existing data and information from engagement to identify known/potential archaeological sites

▪ Stage 2 assessments (field surveys) will be completed with the help ofFirst Nation field assistants


▪ Loss or damage to archaeological resources


▪ Avoid known archaeological resources where possible

▪ Complete additional assessments (Stage 2, 3 or 4)

▪ Implement Chance Find Procedure

▪ Continue to engage with Aboriginal communities

Assessment results:Effects avoided or minimized through mitigation and additional study.

Cultural Heritage Resources

Existing data and information was gathered to identify known built heritage and culturalheritage landscapes including: hunting and trapping sites, travel routes, river crossings, and old and abandoned infrastructure (e.g., mines, buildings, churches).


Damage to or alteration of built heritage during construction.


▪ Avoid and minimize vibration near known built heritage

▪ Complete pre-construction surveys

▪ Continue to engage with Aboriginal communities

Assessment results:

Effects avoided or minimized through mitigation and additional study.

Artifacts discovered at the Berens River.

Church at WawakapewinFirst Nation.

Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and InterestsGathered data through:

Engagement with communities

Communities sharing previously collected traditional land and resource use (TLRU) data

Collecting new Project-specific TLRU data with the help of community researchers

Measures that were used to represent Aboriginal and Treaty Rights include:

Availability of wildlife, fish and plant species harvested by Aboriginal people

Location of and access to areas used by Aboriginal communities for wildlife, fish and plant harvesting

Location of and access to spiritual, ceremonial and cultural use sites

Quality of land used for traditional purposes


Lack of ability to continue rights-based activities

Temporary loss of access during construction

Increase in access to land


Incorporate TLRU data and concerns/issues into Project design to avoid many of the identified TLRU values

Apply all Project mitigation measures recommended in the environmental assessment including those designed to protect air, water, plants, animals, fish and people

Continue engagement with communities to understand and address potential effects on rights and interests

Assessment results:

All effects to Aboriginal and Treaty rights are expected to be mitigated

Smoking Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis).

Walleye (Sander vitreus).

TITLE PLACEHOLDER

John ReidEA Engagement Coordinator

New Economy Development GroupP.O. Box 186

Metcalfe, Ontario K0A 2P0Phone: 613-355-9205

Email: [email protected]

Nancy O’NeillEnvironmental Assessment Lead

Wataynikaneyap Power L.P.300 Anemki Place, Suite B

Fort William First Nation, ON, P7J 1H9Phone: (807) 577-5955 ext. 112


How Can You Participate?

▪ Provide comments through the web site: http://www.wataypower.ca/

▪ Provide comments to your Chief and Council

▪ Provide comments to your First Nations Council

▪ Provide comments to your Community Liaison

▪ Provide information on the feedback forms

▪ Speak with the Project contacts

Principal contacts for EA and engagement:

The EA consultant contact on behalf ofWataynikaneyap for the purposes of the EA:

Brett Thompson Project Manager

Golder Associates Ltd.6925 Century Avenue, Suite 100

Mississauga, ON L5N 7K2Phone: 905-567-4444


Keewaytinook Okimakanak: Andrea Habinski

Windigo First Nations Council: Breann Morgan

Shibogama First Nations Council: Laura SayersDonna Brunton

Independent First Nations Alliance: Mary Bea Kenny

Sandy Lake First Nation: Harry Meekis

Tribal Council and Independent First Nation contacts:

Engagement in Wapekeka First Nation.

Environmental and Social Management Plans▪ Implemented for the whole Project (construction, operation and maintenance)

▪ Environmental management:

▪ Construction management plans focused on air, noise, soil, vegetation, wildlife, waste, blasting, concrete, and clean-up and reclamation

▪ Operation and maintenance plans focused on post-construction monitoring and ongoing vegetation management

▪ Social management:

▪ Aboriginal priority for procurement

▪ Aboriginal employment and participation

▪ Aboriginal and stakeholder engagement

▪ Health and safety

Consideration of Alternative Corridors▪ Corridor routing focused on community input - including traditional knowledge and

land use - to identify and compare alternatives

▪ Results of environmental studies and engineering input have also contributed

▪ Preferred locations have been identified for the following:

▪ Corridor routes (including consideration of several alternatives)

▪ Other Project components:

▪ Construction camps

▪ Laydown areas

▪ Access roads (temporary

and permanent)

▪ Substations

▪ Provincial Park and protectedarea crossings (consideration of alternative crossing locations)

Anticipated Project Permits

Regulator Examples of Permits

Provincial Ministries

Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)

• Permit to take water• Environmental Compliance Approval (air, noise, wastewater)

Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)

• Endangered Species Act permit• Far North Act authorization• Public Lands Act – land use permit (tenure), work permit (water crossings and other activities) • Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act ‐ Scientific collectors permit • Crown Forest Sustainability Act ‐ Forest Resource Licence• Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act permit (water crossings)• Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act – authorization to conduct research, work

permits• Aggregate Resources Act permit• Forest Fires Prevention Act burn permit

Transportation (MTO) • Land Use and Building, Entrance, Encroachment, and Sign permits

Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) • Ontario Heritage Act – compliance letter

Northern Development and Mines (MNDM)

• Mining Act ‐Withdrawal of lands from staking• Mining Act ‐ consent from mining claim holders

Provincial ‐ Other

Ontario Energy Board (OEB) • Leave to Construct

Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA)

• Fuel handling licence

Federal Ministries

Environment Canada (EC) • Species at Risk Act permit

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)

• Species at Risk Act permit• Other authorizations

Transport Canada (TC)• Navigation Protection Act approval• Canadian Aviation Regulation approval

Department of Indigenous Service Canada (DISC)

• Indian Act authorization

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) • Explosives Act permit

Other

First Nations• Land Sharing Protocols• Other community‐specific protocols

Hydro One Networks Inc. • Transmission System Code Agreement

Private land owners • Easement consent

Other utility companies • Consent to cross

Municipalities• Building Code Act permit• By‐law permits – tree removal, burning• Planning Act – permits, amendments

Documents

Environmental Assessment for the Phase 2 Transmission ... · Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2004) Class EA for