Welcome 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
25
Embed
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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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?
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
Effects not significant
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
Effects not significant
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
Effects not significant
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)
Effects not significant
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)
Effects not significant
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
Effects not significant
Community Wellbeing - Project construction activities could affect ambient noise levels along the right-of-way; potential for nuisance effects; potential for workforce disruptive behaviours
Effects not significant
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
Effects not significant
HumanHealth
Changes to water quality Air and dust emissions Noise from construction or operations
Effects not significant
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
Effects not significant
* 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
Potential effects of the project:
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
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
Avoid construction during sensitive times (e.g., nesting) where possible
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
Potential effects of the project:
Loss or alteration of habitat
Decreased water quality
Increased access for anglers
Direct mortality
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
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
Potential effects of the project:
▪ 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
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ 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
Potential effects of the project:
▪ Change in groundwater quality/quantity/flow
▪ Effects from blasting, accidental spills, clearing of vegetation or dewatering at transmission towers
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ 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
Potential effects of the project:
▪ Visual impacts from the cleared ROW and transmission towers
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ 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
Potential effects of the project:
▪ Emissions from vehicles and equipment
▪ Dust during construction
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ 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
Potential effects of the project:
▪ Short-term noise from vehicles and equipment during construction
▪ Noise from substations and the transmission line
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ Maintain vehicles and equipment
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
Potential effects of the project:
▪ Emissions from exhaust
▪ Vegetation clearing (removal of carbon sink)
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ Maintain vehicles and equipment
▪ 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
Potential effects of the project:
▪ Changes to water quality
▪ Air and dust emissions
▪ Noise from construction or operations
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ Maintain vehicles and equipment
▪ 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
Potential effects of the project:
▪ 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)
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ 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)
Potential effects of the project:
• 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
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
• Align the right of way with existing infrastructure
• 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
Potential effects of the project:
▪ Loss or damage to archaeological resources
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ 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).
Potential effects of the project:
Damage to or alteration of built heritage during construction.
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
▪ 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
Potential effects of the project:
Lack of ability to continue rights-based activities
Temporary loss of access during construction
Increase in access to land
To minimize effects of the project, we propose to:
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
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