Ministry review of the new transmission line to Pickle Lake project environmental assessment

Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)

This review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The environmental assessment was submitted on November 3, 2017. The ministry review was delayed pending receipt of the amended environmental assessment, which was received on August 3, 2018. This paragraph and the giving of the notice of completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The review documents the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ evaluation of the amended environmental assessment and takes the comments of government agencies, the public and Indigenous communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

Wataynikaneyap Power L.P. (Wataynikaneyap)

What

Wataynikaneyap is proposing the construction, operation and maintenance, and retirement of an overhead electricity transmission line from Dinorwic (east of Dryden) to Pickle Lake in northwestern Ontario. The major project components include:

• a 300 kilometre long 230 kilovolt transmission line
• a 40 metre wide cleared right-of-way for the transmission line’s utility poles and wires
• a 2 kilometre wide corridor for the cleared right-of-way and temporary structures needed for construction including camps, access roads and trails, laydown areas, watercourse crossings and waste management (some access roads, trails and other structures will be permanent)
• a connection facility in the Dinorwic area
• a transformer station in the Township of Pickle Lake

When

EA submitted: November 3, 2017
EA comment period (7 weeks): November 3–December 22, 2017
Amended EA submitted: August 3, 2018

Deadline for ministry review extended due to time required to resolve outstanding issues and submission of the amended EA.

Where

The preferred undertaking originates in Dinorwic and terminates in Pickle Lake, in northwestern Ontario.

Why

The purpose of the proposed undertaking is to provide transmission expansion and reliability to Pickle Lake and to meet one of the priority projects identified in Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan.

The proposed undertaking, which is referred to as Phase 1, will also enable construction of Wataynikaneyap’s proposed Phase 2 project to connect remote First Nation communities currently serviced by diesel generators.

Conclusions

The ministry review concludes that the amended EA was prepared in accordance with the approved amended terms of reference.

Wataynikaneyap has assessed the proposed undertaking according to the Environmental Assessment Act. The amended EA includes additional commitments and provides additional information to supplement the assessment. Conditions of approval are recommended including additional consultation during project implementation and additional assessment work to support permitting.

Ongoing discussions to resolve technical matters together with proposed conditions of approval and proponent commitments should ensure that the environment remains protected if the undertaking is approved.

1. Environmental assessment process

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) provides a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the EAA sets out the general requirements for the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA), as well as the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (MECP) evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects and consider the various advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the undertaking. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and potentially affected Indigenous communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. If the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and guidelines of the EAA approval.

Proponent

The proponent for the proposed undertaking is Wataynikaneyap, which is a partnership between the 22 First Nations listed below and Fortis Ontario, a Canadian utility. Wataynikaneyap originated in 2008 when a number of remote northwestern First Nations gathered to solve the issue of reliance on expensive, dirty and unreliable diesel energy.

1. Bearskin Lake
2. Cat Lake
3. Deer Lake
4. Kasabonika Lake
5. Kewaaywin
6. Kingfisher Lake
7. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug
8. Lac des Mille Lacs
9. Lac Seul
10. McDowell Lake
11. Muskrat Dam
12. North Caribou Lake
13. North Spirit Lake
14. Pikangikum
15. Poplar Hill
16. Sachigo Lake
17. Sandy Lake
18. Slate Falls
19. Wabigoon Lake
20. Wapekeka
21. Wawakapewin
22. Wunnumin Lake

Most of the 22 First Nation communities are remote communities with no permanent road or transmission infrastructure connections.

1.1 Terms of reference

Completing the EA process involves two separate steps—the terms of reference (ToR) and the EA. The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a ToR to MECP for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

The ToR provided for a focused EA pursuant to sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA.

On February 20, 2015, the former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved Wataynikaneyap’s amended ToR. The ToR established the framework for the preparation of the EA, including how Wataynikaneyap would assess alternative corridors for the transmission line, evaluate potential environmental effects (both positive and negative) and consult with the public and Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA. The ToR provided an initial project description, rationale for the proposed undertaking and alternatives, and description of the environment, which were further elaborated in the EA. The ToR also established Wataynikaneyap’s intention to develop a monitoring framework.

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to MECP for review and a decision.

Wataynikaneyap’s proposed undertaking is designated as an undertaking to which the EAA applies based on the voltage and length of the proposed transmission line: greater than 115 kilovolt (kV) and less than 500 kV and greater than or equal to 50 kilometres (km). O. Reg. 116/01 (Electricity Projects) under the EAA designates such a project as an undertaking and requires that an application (terms of reference and environmental assessment) be submitted pursuant to section 5 of the EAA.

On November 3, 2017, Wataynikaneyap submitted its environmental assessment report for the Phase 1 New Transmission Line to Pickle Lake Project to MECP for a decision for the proposed new transmission line and associated infrastructure.

The EA was also sent to the Government Review Team (GRT), the public and Indigenous communities for comment during a seven-week review period. The EA comment period ended on December 22, 2017. MECP granted additional time for some communities and organizations to submit their comments, as described in the Consultation section in 3.1.3 of this review. The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to verify if the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Indigenous communities had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to MECP. All comments received by MECP are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the undertaking.

In August 2018, Wataynikaneyap submitted an amended EA to incorporate additional information and commitments that were made in response to comments during the EA review process. In summary, the amended EA makes the following changes to the EA report that was submitted in November 2017:

• a minor change to the location of the transformer station in Pickle Lake by moving the facility 50 metres (m) to the southeast to avoid land that was contaminated by former mine tailings
• a minor change to the northern 7.5 km section of the transmission line right-of-way (ROW) to align the ROW with Highway 599, in connection with the changed location of the transformer station
• additional technical information providing further clarification or explanation of the effects assessments, with no changes to the conclusions of the assessments
• additional commitments in the Commitments Table made in response to comments received
• an updated Indigenous and stakeholder Record of Engagement documenting additional consultation since the 2017 EA submission up to May 2018

The minor revisions to the transformer station and ROW realignment line were made available through technical memo to the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities in April 2018. The memo is included as Appendix 3.0A of the amended EA.

The amended EA is available on Wataynikaneyap’s website.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires MECP to prepare a review of the amended EA, known simply as the ministry review (review). The review is MECP’s evaluation of the amended EA. The purpose of the review is to determine if the amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA, and whether the evaluation in the amended EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The review outlines whether the information contained in the amended EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the preferred undertaking. MECP staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, agency and Indigenous community comments on the amended EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister considers the conclusion of the review when making a decision; the review itself is not the decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision on the undertaking described in the amended EA will be made following the end of the five-week review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities to see how their concerns with the amended EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the proposed undertaking and the review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the amended EA, or any matter relating to the amended EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the amended EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A notice of completion of the review was published on the Ontario.ca website. This notifies the public that the review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period. Copies of the review have been placed in the same public record locations where the 2017 EA submission was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected Indigenous communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the 2017 EA comment period have also received copies of the review. Wataynikaneyap also notified stakeholders and posted a link on its website to the Ontario.ca website.

2. The proposed undertaking

Background and purpose

Transmission service on the provincial electricity grid in northwestern Ontario terminates at the Township of Pickle Lake. The current transmission system to Pickle Lake is a 70‑year‑old 115 kV line (Hydro One’s E1C line), which is susceptible to frequent and prolonged outages, making it the province’s worst performing line.

A new transmission line to Pickle Lake was identified by the Ministry of Energy (as it then was) as a priority transmission project in Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan (November 2010) and the updated plans in December 2013 and October 2017.

The remote First Nation communities north of Pickle Lake are currently powered by local diesel generation and have no permanent road or transmission infrastructure connections. These 25 communities currently rely on increasingly expensive diesel generators, which are subsidized by the federal government and Ontario ratepayers. The Long Term Energy Plan identifies connecting these communities to the provincial grid as another priority project.

The purpose of the proposed undertaking is to provide transmission expansion and reliability to Pickle Lake and meet one of the priority projects in the Long Term Energy Plan. It is also to enable construction of Wataynikaneyap’s proposed Phase 2 project, which is to connect remote First Nation communities and reduce reliance on diesel generators. The Phase 2 project is subject to a separate EA process.

Current environmental context

The preferred undertaking would be constructed in a rural setting within the boreal forest region of northwestern Ontario. The majority of the landscape, about 75%, is composed of coniferous, hardwood and mixed-wood forests, and smaller amounts of scattered bedrock. Wetland and riparian ecosystems are present in the landscape and waterbodies such as lakes, rivers and streams are abundant. The preferred undertaking is proposed to cross portions of various provincial parks and conservation reserves. The preferred undertaking traverses two woodland caribou ranges, as defined by Ontario’s Integrated Range Assessments for Woodland Caribou and their Habitat, 2014: the Churchill and Kinloch ranges.

The preferred undertaking traverses both undisturbed and disturbed areas. Existing anthropogenic uses include roads, forestry access roads, a railway, utility lines, mining activity, aggregate extraction, limited agriculture, tourism outfitters and urban settlements. Hunting, fishing, trapping and recreation also occur throughout the area. Approximately 10% of the length of the preferred undertaking route length aligns with existing linear corridors such as roads and a transmission line.

Wildlife present in the local study area of the preferred undertaking include species at risk:

• woodland caribou
• wolverine
• eastern whip-poor-will
• Canada warbler
• bald eagle
• common nighthawk
• olive-sided flycatcher
• barn swallow
• horned grebe
• little brown myotis

Other wildlife include:

• moose
• deer
• wolves
• small furbearers
• other birds and waterfowl

Fish are present in waterbodies throughout the area, including Lake Sturgeon (a species at risk), Walleye, Brook and Lake Trout, Bass and Northern Pike.

The preferred undertaking is located within the District of Kenora. Municipal communities along or adjacent to the corridor include the Municipality of Sioux Lookout and Township of Pickle Lake, as well as the unincorporated settlement of Dinorwic.

Several Indigenous communities live in the broader area, while no reserves are crossed by the preferred undertaking. Indigenous traditional use is known to occur in the area. Some communities have road access while others are remote, using winter roads and float planes in the summer. A number of communities are connected to the provincial electricity network while many other communities in the broader area are not, instead relying on diesel generators that often run at capacity.

Description of proposed undertaking

Wataynikaneyap is proposing the construction, operation & maintenance, and retirement of an overhead 300 km, 230 kV electricity transmission line. The major project components include:

• a 300 km long 230 kV transmission line
• a 40 m wide cleared ROW for the transmission line’s utility poles and wires
• a 2 km wide corridor for the cleared ROW and temporary structures needed for construction including camps, access roads and trails, laydown areas, watercourse crossings and waste management (some access roads, trails and other structures will be permanent)
• a connection facility in the Dinorwic area
• a transformer station in the Township of Pickle Lake

The preferred undertaking is proposed to start in the Dinorwic area, east of the City of Dryden, and continue north to end at Pickle Lake (see Figure 1). The connection facility for the proposed corridor will be constructed at Dinorwic. From there, the preferred undertaking will travel north approximately 300 km to a transformer station in Pickle Lake (in the former townsite of Central Patricia). The majority of the preferred undertaking traverses Ontario’s Crown forest.

A 40 m wide transmission line ROW is proposed to be cleared within a 2 km wide corridor. This width was determined primarily through consideration of the design of the structures, the span between structures, the sag of the conductor, and assisting with protection against forest fires. Wataynikaneyap proposed that additional ROW easements may be required at major water crossings and heavy corners. The 2 km wide corridor is where the majority of temporary construction-related areas (e.g. camps, laydown areas, turnaround areas, access roads) will be located. These facilities will be decommissioned and revegetated once they are no longer needed for construction.

The amended EA provides the preliminary alignment for the transmission line and preliminary locations of other project components. The amended EA proposes a 200 m limits of work on either side of the 40 m wide ROW in order to allow for refinements to the final ROW alignment during the detailed design phase, which would follow the completion of the EA phase. There may also be revisions to the final locations of the access roads and other project components.

Wataynikaneyap proposes to use existing access roads to the extent possible as well as to develop a number of new access roads. Approximately 30% of the access roads will remain as permanent access to the transmission line for maintenance purposes, while the rest will be decommissioned and revegetated.

Proposed timelines for the undertaking

The following timelines are proposed:

• construction: approximately 18-24 months
• operation and maintenance: operation on continuous basis, with maintenance on semi-annual or annual basis and as needed
• decommissioning: upon completion of construction for decommissioning of construction camps, laydown areas, other construction-related activity and most access roads

Project costs

The total capital cost estimate for the proposed undertaking is $150,000,000–$200,000,000, ± 30%. During operation, annual costs are estimated to be $2,000,000.

If EAA approval is granted, the preferred undertaking will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the amended EA and any conditions of approval, and will include the project components outlined above. In addition, Wataynikaneyap must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require.

Figure 1: Preferred undertaking—preliminary preferred corridor

This map displays the preferred undertaking for the Wataynikaneyap new transmission line to Pickle Lake project environmental assessment. The preferred undertaking includes the 300 kilometres transmission line from Dinorwic in the south to Pickle Lake in the north, the connection facility in Dinorwic, the transformer station in Pickle Lake, and associated access roads, construction camps and laydown areas.

The map shows the location of existing electrical transmission lines, major roads, highways, railways, winter roads and waterbodies in relation to the project area.

View a larger version of this map (JPEG)

3. Results of the ministry review

The review provides the analysis of the amended EA. The review is not intended to summarize the amended EA, nor present the information found in the amended EA. For information on the decision making process, refer to the amended EA itself. The amended EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how Wataynikaneyap has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

MECP coordinated an analysis of the 2017 EA submission with the GRT which, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the approved ToR have been met as well as how the requirements of the EAA were considered. MECP has concluded that in general the amended EA followed the framework outlined in the ToR and through proposed conditions of approval and amendments, including additional commitments, satisfied the EAA requirements. Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR and EAA requirements were considered in the amended EA. Conditions of approval are proposed to address outstanding concerns, as described in Section 3.2 of this review.

3.1.2 EA process

The following section describes the process Wataynikaneyap followed to assess the alternatives and identify the preferred undertaking. Key issues related to the EA process are discussed in Section 3.2 of this review.

Purpose of and rationale for the undertaking and alternatives

Section 3.1 of the ToR lists the elements that the amended EA is required to include. The first such element is the purpose and rationale of the undertaking. The purpose is explained in Section 2 of this review and Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 of the amended EA.

Study areas

The ToR indicates in Section 7.1.3 that discipline-specific study areas will be discussed in the EA report. Consistent with this, Sections 5.1 8.0 of the amended EA define study areas for each environmental discipline that was assessed.

The amended EA defines three study areas that generally apply to each discipline: the project footprint, local study area and regional study area. Maps of the study areas for each environmental criterion are provided in the specific sections for those criteria and in the technical appendices of the amended EA.

Description of the environment

The ToR requires that the amended EA contain a description of the environment that might be affected by the proposed undertaking, including a number of natural and human environment disciplines, as indicated in Section 3.1. Section 7.1 of the ToR indicates that a mix of baseline data collection methods are to be used depending on the environmental discipline. These methods include available data and information, field programs for some environmental disciplines, mapping data analysis, modelling and input from stakeholders, subject to any further refinement during the EA process. The ToR also allows for the approach to describe the preferred undertaking to be more field program-based and that for the alternatives to be more desktop analysis-based.

The amended EA follows the ToR requirements by providing a description of the existing environment within the study areas for each environmental discipline in Sections 5.1 8.0. Each section contains a list of information sources and specifies whether a desktop analysis of available data, field programs, modelling, traditional ecological knowledge, engagement, etc. or a combination thereof are used to describe the existing environment. In some cases, additional field data was collected for the preferred undertaking. Such variations in methodology, rationale and management of uncertainty related to baseline field data limitations are documented in the discipline-specific sections of the amended EA.

Evaluation of environmental effects

Section 3.1 of the ToR requires that the amended EA include a description of the potential positive and negative effects that may be caused to the environment and the mitigation measures to minimize negative effects. Sections 7.2 and 8 of the ToR indicate that criteria and indicators will be developed during the EA process, a description of the final effects assessment method will be included, cumulative effects will be assessed and input from consultation will be considered.

Prior to submission of the draft EA, Wataynikaneyap consulted with the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities on the natural, socio-economic, cultural and traditional resource use criteria and indicators that would be used in the effects assessment. Section 4.1 of the amended EA describes how criteria and indicators were ultimately selected, such as through engagement, those present in the area of the proposed undertaking and those of importance to Indigenous communities.

Within the amended EA, Section 4 describes the effects assessment method and Sections 5.1–8.0 provide the results of the effects assessment for each environmental discipline. In accordance with the ToR, effects of the proposed undertaking are described, including positive and negative as well as direct and indirect effects. For each criteria and indicator, Wataynikaneyap uses the baseline environment descriptions (found in each discipline section) and the project description (described in Section 3) to identify project-environment interactions and resulting potential effects. Mitigation measures are identified for each effect to determine if the effect remains after mitigation is applied and therefore results in a net effect.

Net effects of the proposed undertaking are further considered in terms of their significance, which is determined through characterizing the net effects in terms of direction (positive or negative effect), magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency and likelihood of occurrence, as applicable to each criterion. These methods are explained in the amended EA. The significance factors used to describe a predicted net effect are defined in Table 4.5-1 of the amended EA. Cumulative effects assessments are also conducted for net effects of each applicable environmental discipline.

The amended EA concludes that, after the application of mitigation measures, the preferred undertaking will not result in significant negative effects to the environmental criteria except for woodland caribou in the Churchill and Brightsand ranges and little brown myotis bat.

Alternatives assessment

The "do nothing alternative" is assessed against proceeding with the undertaking in Section 3.10.1 of the amended EA, as required by Section 3.1 of the ToR. Table 3.10-1 in the amended EA presents the comparative advantages and disadvantages.

In terms of alternative methods, Sections 1, 3.1 and 6.2.1 of the ToR require that the amended EA include a description of three transmission line corridor alignments and evaluation of their associated advantages and disadvantages. The three alternative methods are described in Sections 1.6.1.1 and 3.10 of the amended EA and are:

• the Preliminary Preferred Corridor following a route from Dinorwic to Pickle Lake (the preferred undertaking)
• the Corridor Alternative Around Mishkeegogamang following a route from Ignace to Pickle Lake and bypassing the Mishkeegogamang community, generally following Highway 599
• the Corridor Alternative Through Mishkeegogamang following a route from Ignace to Pickle Lake and traversing through the Mishkeegogamang community, generally following Highway 599

Figure 2 of this review displays these three alternatives.

Section 13 of the amended EA presents a comparison and final analysis of the three alternative corridor alignments. As per the ToR, the criteria used to compare the alternative methods are bundled into three categories:

1. environmental criteria (the same natural, socio-economic, cultural and traditional resource use criteria that were used in the effects assessment)
2. cost and constructability criteria
3. technical criteria

This results in 51 criteria that were used to compare the alternative methods.

The selection process involved assigning a numerical score of 1, 2 or 3 to each of the 51 criteria for each alternative. These scores represent the relative weighting or importance of each criterion; for example, caribou is weighted 3 because of its "Threatened" status under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Table 13.1-6 of the amended EA provides the rationale for the assigned weightings.

The alternative with least potential effect receives the highest score. This is based on the magnitude of net environmental effect or appreciable differences in cost, technical challenges, etc. If there is no difference among the alternatives, then the alternatives receive the same score. Tables 13.1-3 and 13.1-5 in the amended EA summarize the magnitude (for environmental criteria) and appreciable differences (for cost & constructability and technical criteria) among the three alternatives.

Table 13.1-7 presents the final scoring. The total category scores are weighted to give greater weight to the environmental category, consistent with the ToR. The weights are:

• 50% environmental
• 30% cost and constructability
• 20% technical 20%

Through calculating the weighted total scores for each alternative, the preferred alternative (undertaking) is selected. Following the numerical scoring, Section 13 provides a narrative summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives and the preferred undertaking.

Identification of the preferred undertaking

Based on this analysis, the preferred undertaking is the Preliminary Preferred Corridor from Dinorwic to Pickle Lake, shown in Figure 1.

Figure 2: Location of proposed undertaking and alternatives

This map displays the alternative corridors for the 300 kilometre transmission line that were considered in the environmental assessment. These include the preferred undertaking from Dinorwic in the south to Pickle Lake in the north, the alternative from Ignace in the south to Pickle Lake in the north that generally follows Highway 599 and goes around the Mishkeegogamang community, and the alternative from Ignace to Pickle Lake that generally follows Highway 599 and goes through the Mishkeegogamang community.

View a larger version of this map (PNG)

3.1.3 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be completed prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. Once the EA is submitted to MECP, additional MECP-driven consultation occurs during the EA submission comment period. The GRT, the public and Indigenous communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to MECP on whether the requirements of the ToR have been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. Wataynikaneyap may also continue consulting with stakeholders after submission of the EA in order to respond to any additional questions or issues.

A summary of the consultation that was conducted during the EA process is provided in the remainder of this section below.

All comments received by MECP during the EA comment period and up to completion of this review were forwarded to Wataynikaneyap for a response. All comments received from the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities, along with Wataynikaneyap’s responses and, where applicable, supplemental information are included in Appendix B. A summary of key issues raised is in Section 3.2 of this review.

Government Review Team

Wataynikaneyap consulted the GRT throughout the EA process. Wataynikaneyap identified key stakeholders within the government, which they contacted directly.

The draft EA document was made available for GRT review from June 30, 2017 to August 4, 2017. Wataynikaneyap used several engagement methods to consult including letters, phone calls, meetings and workshops.

Following formal submission of the EA to MECP, GRT members from various agencies were provided copies of the EA for their review during the seven-week comment period, which began November 3, 2017 and ended December 22, 2017. A summary of consultation with the GRT can be found in Section 2 and Appendices 2.4A and 2.4C (Stakeholder Engagement Summaries) of the amended EA.

Public consultation

Wataynikaneyap conducted public consultation during the preparation of the EA using workshops, meetings, newsletters, open houses, phone calls, emails and their website. Non-governmental organizations and stakeholders were invited to these events, which were open to the general public. During the 7-week EA comment period, comments were received from three public stakeholders. A summary of consultation with the public can be found in Section 2 and Appendices 2.4A and 2.4C (Stakeholder Engagement Summaries) of the amended EA. During project implementation, Wataynikaneyap will continue to engage with relevant stakeholders as required and committed to in Section 12 of the amended EA.

Indigenous community consultation

In the ToR, Wataynikaneyap committed to consulting Indigenous communities within the area surrounding the proposed undertaking during the pre-submission period. First Nation and Métis communities may Aboriginal and/or treaty rights in Ontario that need to be considered in the decision-making process.

In November 2016, the former Ministry of Energy (now Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines) delegated the procedural aspects of consultation to Wataynikaneyap through a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU clarified which rights-based consultation activities were to be carried out respectively by the Crown and by Wataynikaneyap, in fulfillment of the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal communities.

The MOU identified the communities to be consulted. These communities are:

• Eagle Lake First Nation
• Lac Seul First Nation
• Mishkeegogamang First Nation
• Ojibway Nation of Saugeen
• Slate Falls Nation
• Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation
• Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) Region 1 Consultation Committee

Wataynikaneyap elected to expand this list and engage with additional communities that may be interested in the proposed undertaking. The full list of communities Wataynikaneyap has engaged in the EA process is found in Section 2, Table 2.3-1, of the amended EA.

In accordance with the requirements of the MOU, EAA and ToR, Wataynikaneyap consulted throughout the EA process. Wataynikaneyap organized its consultation in two parts. Part 1 focused on the development of the criteria and indicators to be used for the effects assessment and input into project design. It also included conducting Traditional Land and Resource Use (TLRU) studies with communities, for which Wataynikaneyap provided financial and in-kind technical resources. These studies involved hiring a Community Researcher from each community and gathering TLRU information for each community that wished to participate in the study. Nine communities took part. Wataynikaneyap also requested confirmation from communities about their proposed approach to seeking input on potential effects to communitied, and in some cases worked with communities to establish a community-specific engagement method.

Part 2 involved the provision of the draft EA and engagement sessions with communities to seek feedback on the document, including the baseline studies, effects assessment, recommended mitigation measures, proposed corridor selection and results of engagement efforts. Collection of TLRU continued during this phase of engagement to ensure additional input from the identified communities was considered.

When requested, Wataynikaneyap provided additional time for communities to provide comments on the draft EA, in an effort to ensure feedback could be provided.

During preparation of the EA, Wataynikaneyap used several engagement methods in order to provide opportunities to participate throughout the EA process. As detailed in Section 8 and Appendix 2.3A of the amended EA, these methods included:

• TLRU studies
• consultation and workshops on the draft criteria and indicators
• notifications via paper copy and radio, where available
• letters
• phone calls
• e-mails
• newsletters
• meetings and open houses
• workshops and information sessions, with comment and evaluation forms
• project website with contact info, an online comment form and frequently asked questions

Following formal submission of the EA on November 3, 2017, Wataynikaneyap notified communities of the EA submission, provided compact disc and hardcopy versions of the EA, and followed up via phone and email to confirm communities’ receipt of the material and whether the communities intended to provide comments. The EA contained Wataynikaneyap’s responses to any comments submitted by the communities on the draft EA. Wataynikaneyap also continued to meet with communities, particularly with those whose feedback had not yet been received.

During the seven-week comment period for the EA, Mishkeegogamang First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen and the Cat-Slate Resource Management Team submitted a request to MECP to provide comments after the December 22, 2017 deadline. MECP granted these requests, which resulted in up to an additional seven weeks for these communities to provide comments. MNO and Eabametoong First Nation provided comments to MECP in July 2018. As the Review had not yet been published, their comments are also considered in this review.

Wataynikaneyap considered the input and concerns raised by communities and provided responses to the comments, including making additional commitments where necessary. MECP understands that discussions about the identification of potential effects to land and resource use are ongoing between Wataynikaneyap and the Métis Nation of Ontario, Mishkeegogamang First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen and Eabametoong First Nation. Because this information is being collected after submission of the Amended EA, any additional findings were not included in the Amended EA report. Wataynikaneyap has committed to address and assess any potential new effects identified in any additional traditional use information that is provided by communities, as appropriate.

Comments were received from two Indigenous groups: Grand Council Treaty 3 and the Cat-Slate Resource Management Team, which is a land use planning team consisting of members of Cat Lake and Slate Falls First Nations, Bamaji Air Inc. (a charter flight company) and staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Both Grand Council Treaty 3 and the Cat-Slate Resource Management Team have indicated they are satisfied with Wataynikaneyap’s responses.

The following First Nation communities indicated they had no concerns with the EA: Lac des Mille Lacs, Sachigo Lake, Wapekeka and Wawakapewin.

A summary of the Indigenous consultation process as well as a detailed record of engagement can be found in Sections 2 and 8 and Appendices 2.3A and 2.3C (Aboriginal Engagement Summaries) of the amended EA.

3.1.4 Conclusion

MECP is satisfied that the consultation carried out with the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities meets the requirements of Section 5.1 of the EAA.

MECP is also satisfied that the amended EA fulfills the consultation requirements established by the approved ToR. The amended EA documents the consultation methods that were undertaken by Wataynikaneyap to engage the GRT, members of the public and Indigenous communities. The amended EA discusses the concerns raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed if the undertaking is approved.

The engagement efforts carried out by Wataynikaneyap during the preparation of the amended EA are consistent with the Aboriginal Engagement Plan outlined in the approved ToR. The plan set out a number of principles including engaging and seeking input from First Nation and Métis communities on how they would like to be engaged and on potential effects of the proposed undertaking on any established or asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights, and responding to concerns raised. The plan outlined the engagement to be completed during EA preparation, as well as the intent to carry out TLRU studies.

Wataynikaneyap has committed to continued consultation with interested members of the public, government agencies and Indigenous groups.

3.2 Key issues

Issues and concerns regarding the proposed undertaking were received by MECP during the review and comment period that followed the submission of the EA in 2017. The GRT, Indigenous communities and members of the public were provided with an opportunity to review the EA documentation, and to submit comments to MECP on the EA and the proposed undertaking. All comments received by MECP were forwarded to Wataynikaneyap for a response.

Government agencies that provided comments on the EA submission include: MECP, MNRF, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).

Indigenous communities or groups that provided comments on the EA submission include:

• Mishkeegogamang First Nation
• Ojibway Nation of Saugeen
• Métis Nation of Ontario
• Eabametoong First Nation
• Grand Council Treaty 3
• the Cat-Slate Resource Management Team

Additional communities indicated they have no concerns, as noted in Section 3.1.3 of this Review.

Members of the public that provided comments on the EA submission include: Sagatay Transmission L.P., Wildlands League and Wildlife Conservation Society.

Comments were received on the following topics:

• site specific mitigation and EA methodology
• corridor selection methodology
• groundwater
• surface water
• wastewater
• cultural heritage resources
• tourism and remoteness
• noise
• wildlife including caribou and eastern whip-poor-will
• fish and fish habitat
• climate change
• cumulative effects
• vegetation
• airport impacts
• Indigenous consultation
• employment and training
• changes to the undertaking

In response to the submissions received, Wataynikaneyap provided additional information and clarification to explain how the issues and concerns identified had been considered and addressed as part of the EA process. Where an issue or concern would be considered as part of a subsequent approval or permitting process, Wataynikaneyap identified how the issue would be addressed and considered as part of the legislative or regulatory application process. Any additional commitments made during this time have been incorporated into the Amended EA. Section 12 of the Amended EA includes a table that lists all of the commitments made. If a decision is made to approve the Amended EA, Wataynikaneyap will be required to design, construct, operate and decommission the preferred undertaking in accordance with the commitments that have been made.

All comments received, along with the responses provided by Wataynikaneyap, are included in Appendix B of this Review. This section summarizes the key issues that were raised during the EA process and for which MECP proposes conditions of approval. These issues include site specific mitigation, caribou, eastern whip-poor-will, Indigenous consultation and changes to the undertaking.3.2.1 Site specific mitigation / EA methodology

3.2.1 Site specific mitigation / EA process

Government Review Team comments

MECP and MNRF noted several concerns relating to the assessment methodology used to determine potential effects and suitable corresponding mitigation. In particular, there were concerns with the lack of information provided and the resulting assessment of impacts and mitigation for the operation and maintenance phases, as well as decommissioning of temporary infrastructure (e.g. access roads, laydown yards, waterbody crossings and construction camps). Generally, the amended EA would have benefitted from additional site-specific details to describe the existing environment, more detail on the potential environmental effects and site specific mitigation measures.

Wataynikaneyap responded that they conducted an appropriate level of assessment in describing the environment and potential effects for a conceptual planning EA phase. They noted that the amended EA was completed in accordance with the ToR requirements and that the effects assessment is conservative, for example in assuming that species are present if their habitat is present. Wataynikaneyap has committed to provide further site-specific details and apply the appropriate mitigation measures at the local scale once the detailed design and permitting phases get underway.

Indigenous comments

Mishkeegogamang First Nation and Eabametoong First Nation commented that the EA report was based primarily on desktop studies and fly-over observation as opposed to ground field work. This potentially resulted in traditional use areas that were not identified. Further engagement was requested to determine potential impacts to land and resource uses.

Wataynikaneyap responded that, throughout the EA process, it made offers to all potentially affected communities to conduct TLRU studies to understand how community values may be affected. Wataynikaneyap has committed to continued engagement with all Indigenous communities through construction and operation.

Potential condition of approval

MECP is proposing a condition that would require Wataynikaneyap to provide a detailed work plan that may include details such as final locations of project components, permit scheduling and site-specific mitigation measures.

3.2.2 Caribou and caribou habitat

Government Review Team comments

MNRF identified several items requiring clarification as well as multiple information gaps in the 2017 EA submission as it relates to the assumptions and adequacy of the caribou and caribou habitat assessment. These items include a full understanding of the project details, scheduling to avoid sensitive timing windows for the species, effects on habitat connectivity, sensory disturbance, mitigation of predator efficiency, use of best management practices, and others.

Wataynikaneyap provided additional qualitative and quantitative information about impacts to caribou and caribou habitat to try to address MNRF’s comments. Wataynikaneyap also reiterated its planned mitigation measures and made additional commitments to reduce the impact on caribou. These commitments include avoiding sensory disturbance during sensitive timing periods for the species; using selective clearing in nursery and winter use areas to minimize effects to caribou survival and reproduction; aligning access trails with the transmission line ROW where possible; replanting certain conifers to promote restoration of caribou habitat; engaging with Indigenous communities, MNRF, MNO and local foresters; and participating in a joint industry study on best caribou impact management practices for transmission lines in the boreal forest.

MNRF reviewed the additional information, noting that, in order to fully understand potential impacts to caribou and caribou habitat, further specifics will be necessary to support the review of the anticipated application under the Endangered Species Act. MNRF requested a condition of approval to require Wataynikaneyap to provide this information to support the Endangered Species Act permit application.

Indigenous comments

Mishkeegogamang First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen and Grand Council Treaty #3 raised concerns regarding impacts to caribou, in particular that the preferred corridor for the transmission line would be more impactful to caribou and caribou habitat than the other two alternatives, which generally follow Highway 599 from Dryden to Pickle Lake. Concerns also related to the construction of new access roads through caribou habitat and the cumulative environmental impacts to the ranges. The communities noted the significance of caribou in providing a balance in nature and spiritual importance to their people.

Wataynikaneyap responded to these concerns by acknowledging the spiritual significance of caribou to First Nations people. Wataynikaneyap summarized its findings of the caribou assessment for the caribou ranges that the preferred undertaking and two alternatives traverse and the data used to arrive at the conclusions. The response noted that the selection of the preferred undertaking was based on a variety of factors, including caribou and other criteria. The response also noted that the government enforces land use planning on public lands to manage caribou habitat long-term.

Wataynikaneyap has made commitments in the amended EA to use existing roads and trails where possible, design the roads in accordance with MNRF environmental guidelines, and rehabilitation of approximately 70% of the access roads needed for construction.

Public comments

A non-governmental organization, Wildlands League, raised detailed concerns with the effects assessment for caribou, particularly given the current condition of some caribou ranges being at non self‑sustaining levels. The commenter provided its perspective on the scoring of the environmental criteria for the preferred undertaking and two alternatives, and indicated a preference for the two other alternatives proposed along Highway 599. Another non-governmental organization, Wildlife Conservation Society, noted that the caribou assessment was appropriate and requested a reformatting of the information in terms of the MNRF best management principles for caribou.

Wataynikaneyap provided detailed responses to the concerns raised, providing additional explanation of its approach to the caribou effects assessment and scoring, the data and metrics used, the conclusions reached and supporting rationale. Wataynikaneyap also provided a presentation of the caribou assessment information into the requested format according to MNRF best management principles.

Potential condition of approval

In order to address the issues raised, MECP is proposing a condition of approval for additional information required by MNRF to support the review of the required application(s) under the Endangered Species Act. Wataynikaneyap would be required to identify how and when the mitigation measures, best management practices and timing restrictions that were identified in the Amended EA will be applied at a site specific level. Wataynikaneyap would also be required to provide additional contextual descriptions and assessments, such as for habitat use and connectivity, overlap with existing disturbances, mitigation of predator efficiency and population trends.

3.2.3 Eastern whip-poor-will

Government Review Team comments

MNRF raised comments and concerns regarding potential impacts to eastern whip‑poor‑will. One comment related to adding details on known species locations along the preferred undertaking and two other alternatives, using updated MNRF data. Another comment related to the claim in the EA report that a transmission line may provide benefits to the species by creating more forest edge and open habitat. MNRF requested an additional mitigation measure to conduct nesting surveys prior to vegetation removal using MNRF protocols in areas where habitat may be present.

Wataynikaneyap responded that it obtained updated MNRF data after the 2017 EA submission and incorporated it into the amended EA, and will include it with the Endangered Species Act applications. The response provided additional literature references about potential benefits to species habitat at transmission line infrastructure. Wataynikaneyap added a commitment to conduct pre-clearing nest surveys and also committed apply a construction activity buffer around nests during the sensitive timing period for the species.

Potential condition of approval

MECP proposes a condition of approval that would require Wataynikaneyap to provide information on potential effects and mitigation to eastern whip‑poor‑will and its habitat at the site-specific level. This information would be submitted to support the application(s) under the Endangered Species Act.

3.2.4 Indigenous consultation and land & resource use

Indigenous comments

Mishkeegogamang First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Eabametoong First Nation, and MNO raised concerns with the level of engagement and extent of data collection related to land and resource use. There were concerns that community‑led sessions with land users and elders had not yet occurred and that the scope of data collection for the 2017 EA submission may have missed important features in the footprint of the preferred undertaking or more broadly in the regional area. Other concerns noted that additional assessment and discussions about potential impacts were necessary before fully understanding if the communities’ land and resource uses and values may be impacted. Particular land and resource uses that have been raised relate to hunting, fishing, harvesting and cultural sites.

Wataynikaneyap responded that, throughout the EA process, it made resources available (funding and technical support) to all potentially affected communities to conduct TLRU studies to understand how community values may be affected. Wataynikaneyap attended community-specific meetings and incorporated results of TLRU studies into the EA when such opportunities were taken up, including both before and after submission of the 2017 EA.

Wataynikaneyap has made a number of commitments in the amended EA regarding ongoing engagement with Indigenous communities throughout the detailed design, construction and operation & maintenance stages of the implementation of the undertaking. The commitments include considering any new traditional land use information in project design and providing ongoing information about a range of project activities. These activities include:

• construction scheduling
• environmental management planning
• merchantable timber
• access roads and water crossings
• access restrictions
• trail and canoe operations
• wildlife features such as den locations
• reclamation planning (including replanting of harvested species such as berries and wild rice)
• emergency response planning
• employee training to protect harvest activities from excessive noise
• cultural heritage and archaeological sites
• employment, apprenticeship and training opportunities

The goal of ongoing engagement, Wataynikaneyap noted, is to avoid or minimize impacts to Indigenous communities and their land and resource uses, and to enhance project benefits to communities such as employment opportunities.

Potential condition of approval

MECP is proposing a condition that requires Wataynikaneyap to prepare an Indigenous consultation plan. This is aimed at reinforcing Wataynikaneyap’s commitments noted above. It is also to ensure the opportunity for continuing participation by communities to ensure that any additional information provided on traditional land and resource use is accounted for during the project development phases and to be kept apprised of activities during the construction and operation of the undertaking.

3.2.5 Changes to the undertaking

Government Review Team comments

As noted in Section 2 of this review, Wataynikaneyap has proposed a 40 m cleared ROW for the transmission line and a 2 km wide corridor for temporary construction‑related components and permanent access roads. The amended EA presents preliminary locations of the preferred undertaking. It also proposes a 200 m limits of work on either side of the 40 m wide ROW for refinements to the final ROW alignment during the detailed design phase along with further potential revisions to the final locations of the access roads and other components.

MECP and MNRF note that these are preliminary locations and that the final footprint for the undertaking has not been established. MECP recognizes that it may not be possible to determine the final locations of all preferred undertaking components along the 300 km corridor, including numerous access roads and water crossings, at the EA stage. During the 2017 EA review, MECP requested that the EA include an amendment procedure to provide a process for assessing changes to the approved undertaking.

Wataynikaneyap responded by including an Amendment Procedure in Section 13.4 of the amended EA, detailing the steps to take when changes to the undertaking outside of the limits of work or inconsistent with the results of the amended EA are proposed after the EA stage. MECP reviewed the new text for inclusion in the EA.

Potential condition of approval

MECP proposes a condition of approval to refer to this Amendment Procedure and to provide consideration for changes to the undertaking that are minor in nature and that do not result in greater negative effects than those predicted in the amended EA, or changes that are more significant. The condition would allow for some flexibility in determining the appropriate approach according to how significant the change is or is not for making the change throughout the design and construction of the undertaking.

3.2.6 Conclusion

Wataynikaneyap has provided responses to all comments received, including those not detailed above. All comments and Wataynikaneyap’s responses are located in Appendix B of this review.

MECP staff are satisfied that Wataynikaneyap has generally met the requirements of the ToR and EAA.

As a result of the comments received, Wataynikaneyap has made a number of commitments, including committing to respond to ministry concerns, any future comments that may arise, or through future approval applications to address any outstanding concerns with the proposed undertaking. Wataynikaneyap’s Commitments Table can be found in Section 12 of the amended EA.

Wataynikaneyap would be required to ensure the undertaking is designed, constructed and operated to comply with MECP’s standards and that the environmental effects of the undertaking are managed through the commitments made in the amended EA, through conditions of approval, or through additional work that must be carried out by Wataynikaneyap in support of future approval and permit applications, if the undertaking is approved.

In addition to standard EA conditions, below is a preliminary list of potential conditions that may be recommended to further support the commitments made in the amended EA.

Project-specific conditions:

1. Post clean copy of amended EA to Wataynikaneyap’s website for the life of the undertaking.
2. Meet all commitments contained in the amended EA and Commitments Table.
3. Develop a detailed work plan that may include details such as final locations of project components, permit scheduling and site-specific mitigation measures.
4. Develop an Indigenous consultation plan for ongoing notification and communication throughout all project phases.
5. Complete additional caribou and caribou habitat assessment work in support of future applications under the Endangered Species Act.
6. Complete additional eastern whip-poor-will assessment work in support of future Endangered Species Act applications.
7. Follow appropriate procedures for any changes to the undertaking, including minor or major changes, if the undertaking is approved.

During the final review period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this amended EA, additional conditions specific to the undertaking may be proposed to ensure the environment remains protected.

4. Summary of the ministry review

The review has explained MECP’s analysis of Wataynikaneyap’s amended EA.

This review concludes that the amended EA complies with the requirements of the approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. Wataynikaneyap has provided adequate information in the amended EA, together with additional supporting documentation, that assesses potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking. Ongoing discussions to resolve technical matters during permitting, together with proposed conditions of approval and proponent commitments, should ensure that the environment remains protected.

The review concludes that the amended EA has assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternative methods and the preferred undertaking, and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the preferred undertaking.

MECP is satisfied that Wataynikaneyap provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities to comment during the development of the amended EA. Concerns raised by the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities have been addressed by Wataynikaneyap, or a commitment has been made to continue to address concerns through commitments and future permitting and approval processes.

To ensure the environment remains protected, during the final review period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this amended EA, MECP may consider conditions of approval specific to compliance monitoring, consultation, commitments during project design, or other technical matters to address outstanding issues. A preliminary list can be found in Section 3.2.6 of this review.

5. What happens now

The review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities can submit comments to MECP about the proposed undertaking, the amended EA and/or the ministry review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the Minister refer either all or part of the amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if their environmental concerns have not been considered.

At the end of the review comment period, MECP staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the approved ToR, the amended EA, the review, the comments submitted during the EA and review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

• give approval to proceed with the undertaking
• give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
• refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire amended EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, Wataynikaneyap will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 1 of the amended EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• leave to Construct for the construction of a transmission line (under the Ontario Energy Board Act)
• permits to Take Water for water taking greater than 50,000 litres per day (under the Ontario Water Resources Act)
• Environmental Compliance Approvals for treatment facilities and any releases to the environment (e.g. wastewater, air, noise) (under the Environmental Protection Act)
• Endangered Species Permit for management of activities related to species at risk (under the Endangered Species Act)
• Far North Act authorization for portions of the undertaking that overlap with areas without an approved land use plan in place (under the Far North Act)
• various work permits for construction on Crown land and installation of water crossings (under the Public Lands Act / Lakes & Rivers Improvement Act)
• Forest Resource Licence / Cutting Permit for clearing of Crown merchantable timber (under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act)
• aggregate permits (under the Aggregate Resource Act)
• work permits for crossing provincial parks and conservation reserves (under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act)
• entrance and encroachment permits to cross provincial highways (under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act)
• Clearance Letter to confirm appropriate archaeological studies and mitigation, if required, have been completed for the project (under the Heritage Act)
• federal and municipal permits may also be required

These approvals cannot be issued until the decision has been made on the undertaking.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

If EAA approval is granted and Wataynikaneyap needs to address changes to the undertaking, it should be noted that any major changes are themselves deemed to be undertakings for which EAA approval will be required.

The amended EA contains an amendment procedure in Section 13.4 which lists the steps to follow if Wataynikaneyap proposes any changes that are outside of its limits of work or that are inconsistent with the results of the amended EA. These steps include notifying MECP, receiving confirmation of whether the procedure can be followed according to the scale of change proposed, assessing any new environmental effects, engaging with MECP and other relevant stakeholders and Indigenous communities for comment on the change, submitting documentation about the changes and how any comments were considered, and receiving approval to implement the change.

As noted above, a condition of approval is being considered to provide for the appropriate approach to be applied depending on the nature of any proposed change, including use of the Amendment Procedure described in the amended EA.

6. Public record locations

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario  M4V 1P5
/page/new-transmission-line-pickle-lake

• Tel: 416-314-8001
• Toll-free: 1-800-461-6290
• Fax: 416-314-8452

The review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Thunder Bay District Office
435 James Street South, 3^rd Floor Suite 331B
Thunder Bay, Ontario  P7E 6S7
Tel: 807-475-1205

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Kenora Area Office
808 Robertson Street, P.O. Box 5150
Kenora, Ontario  P9N 1X9

• Tel: 807-468-2718
• Toll-free: 1-888-367-7622

Opiikapawiin Services L.P.
300 Anemki Place, Suite C
Fort William First Nation, Ontario
http://www.wataypower.ca/
Tel: 807-474-3300

Dryden Municipal Office
30 Van Horne Avenue
Dryden, Ontario

• Tel: 807-223-1147
• Tel: 807-223-1475

Pickle Lake Municipal Office
2 Anne Street
Pickle Lake, Ontario
Tel: 807-928-2034

7. Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending October 5, 2018 will follow publication of this review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Director
Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario  M4V 1P5
Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Wataynikaneyap’s New Transmission Line to Pickle Lake Project Environmental Assessment
Attention: Sasha McLeod, Special Project Officer

All personal information included in a submission—such as name, address, telephone number and property location of requester– is collected, maintained and disclosed by the ministry for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in s. 37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Personal information that is submitted will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless a request is made that personal information remain confidential. For more information, the ministry’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator can be contacted at 416-327-1434.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements of the environmental assessment

Analysis of the amended EA

Executive summary is included.

A concordance table indicating where the EAA requirements have been met is in Table 1.7-2.

Analysis of the amended EA

The Table of Contents provides a listing of technical assessments completed for the amended EA.

Analysis of the amended EA

Each main section contains a References list at the end for non-proponent studies and resources. Each section for the environmental disciplines also contains an Information Sources section at the beginning to identify the sources of information for the technical assessment.

Analysis of the amended EA

In the Project Description Main Section there is a well-marked map, Figure 1.0-1, of the Preliminary Preferred Corridor (PPC) and two alternatives.

Maps of the study areas for each environmental criterion are provided in the specific sections for those criteria in Sections 5-8 and in the technical appendices.

Analysis of the amended EA

Section 1.5.1 provides the rationale and purpose for the undertaking. Section 1.5.2 of the further explains the purpose of the undertaking.

The purpose of the undertaking is to provide transmission expansion and reliability to Pickle Lake and to meet one of the priority projects in Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan. The existing E1C transmission line is over 70 years old, operating at capacity and susceptible to frequent and prolonged power outages, resulting in poor power service to the region and limiting economic development.

Phase 1 will reinforce the existing E1C 115 kilovolt line that is operated by Hydro One and serves Pickle Lake, Goldcorp’s Musselwhite Mine and the First Nations of Slate Falls, Cat Lake and Mishkeegogamang.

Phase 1 will also provide sufficient energy at the Pickle Lake substation to enable the Phase 2 project to connect remote First Nation communities and reduce reliance on diesel generators.

The ToR indicated that the EA would be completed under the “focussing” provisions of the EAA, Sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3).

Analysis of the amended EA

The alternative methods were the PPC from Dinorwic to Pickle Lake, the corridor alternative Through Mishkeegogamang, and the corridor alternative Around Mishkeegogamang. No other alternative methods other than corridor alternatives were considered, per Section 3.10.2 of the amended EA.

The rationale for these corridor alternatives is provided in Section 1.6.1.1 of the amended EA, essentially stating that during the ToR process the three alternatives were to be assessed in the EA.

The decision making process explains how Wataynikaneyap evaluated the alternative methods to determine the preferred undertaking.

Section 13, Final Corridor Routing Analysis, analyzes and compares advantages and disadvantages of the PPC and two alternatives, summarized in Table 13.1-9. To compare alternatives, a weighted scoring system was used to rank environmental, cost/constructability and technical criteria in order to determine the highest-scoring corridor for each category and determine the preferred corridor (undertaking).

The ‘do nothing alternative’ is assessed in the amended EA in Section 3.10.1, as required by the ToR Section 3.1. Table 3.10-1 in the amended EA provides a listing of advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the undertaking versus the do nothing alternative.

Analysis of the amended EA

The existing environment (environmental baseline) is described in Sections 5.1-8.0 of the amended EA. The existing environment covers the following environmental criteria, which addresses the broad definition of the environment (natural, social, economic). These sections also provide the effects assessment for each environmental criterion.

• 5.1 Surface Water
• 5.2 Groundwater
• 5.3 Air Quality
• 5.4 Climate Change
• 5.5 Noise
• 6.1 Vegetation
• 6.2 Fish
• 6.3 Wildlife
• 7.1 Archaeology
• 7.2 Heritage Resources
• 7.3 Socio-economics
• 7.4 Non-Aboriginal Land and Resource Use
• 7.5 Visual Aesthetics
• 7.6 Human Health
• 8.0 Aboriginal Rights

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks notes that Wataynikaneyap funded and provided in-kind technical assistance for traditional land and resource use studies that interested communities completed in respect of the proposed undertaking. Wataynikaneyap continues to work with and receive information from some communities on their studies. Once received, Wataynikaneyap is committed to considering this information during project design, including any additional effects and mitigation measures that may be required.

There are three types of study areas defined in the amended EA for the proposed undertaking. The Project Footprint includes the 40 m transmission line right-of-way (ROW), connection facility, transformer station, turnaround areas, laydown areas, construction camps and access roads where direct impacts are potential.

A 200 m limits of work is proposed on either side of the 40 m ROW to allow for any deviation of parts of the PPC during detailed design.

The Local Study Area includes the 2 km wide corridor plus a 500 m buffer around the connection facility, transformer station, turnaround areas, laydown areas, construction camps and access roads.

The Regional Study Area is specific to each environmental criterion. For example, for surface water it includes the watershed catchment areas crossed by the PPC and two alternatives.

Analysis of the amended EA

Potential environmental effects are evaluated throughout the amended EA in Sections 5.1–8.0.

Both positive and negative effects of the PPC and alternatives are discussed. The amended EA considered both direct and indirect effects of the PPC and two corridor alternatives to the environment in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.1.

The methodology for assessing effects is provided in Sections 4.0. To assess effects, criteria and indicators were used systematically to assess project-environment interactions, effects prior to mitigation, and net effects after mitigation is applied. The significance of net effects was also identified.

Additional technical work will be required for the many permits and approvals that will be required post-EA (e.g. Environmental Compliance Approvals for sewage, air and noise; Permits To Take Water; Far North Act authorization; Endangered Species Act permits; land use permits; explosives permits; fisheries permits).

Analysis of the amended EA

The potential environmental effects and mitigation measures for the preferred undertaking have been considered throughout the evaluation.

Mitigation measures are described in Sections 5.1-8.0 and further summarized in the Commitments Table in Section 12.0 of the amended EA.

Analysis of the amended EA

Advantages and disadvantage to the environment are evaluated throughout the amended EA.

Section 1.5.1, Rationale for the Project, of the amended EA lists the key benefits from the preferred undertaking, including both Phases 1 and 2.

The Executive Summary of the amended EA contains a summarized comparison of the PPC and two alternatives.

Section 13, Final Corridor Routing Analysis, analyzes and compares advantages and disadvantages of the PPC and two alternatives, summarized in Table 13.1-9.

Analysis of the amended EA

Sections 2 and 8 of the amended EA summarize the engagement record with Indigenous and other stakeholders, and Appendices 2.3A, 2.4A, 2.3C and 2.4C provide summaries of meetings and copies of correspondence.

Methods used to engage Indigenous communities included: notifications, letters, phone calls, emails, meetings, workshops, information sessions, comment and evaluation forms and traditional land and resource use studies.

Methods used to engage government and public stakeholders included: newsletters, letters, phone calls, emails, and meetings and workshops with government and municipal agencies and non-governmental organizations.

Wataynikaneyap also has a project website.

Wataynikaneyap has committed to continuing engagement with Indigenous communities and interested stakeholders during project implementation.

Analysis of the amended EA

Section 13, Final Corridor Routing Analysis, contains a comparative analysis and evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the PPC and two alternatives (Around Mishkeegogamang and Through Mishkeegogamang), summarized in Table 13.1-9.

This methodology uses a quantitative scoring mechanism and supporting narrative explanation in order to justify the PPC for selection.

The amended EA outlines the phases of implementation including construction, operation/maintenance, and decommissioning of temporary structures.

Analysis of the amended EA

Table 1.7-2 of the amended EA is the concordance table of Ontario EA requirements.

Appendix 1.6A contains a table showing where commitments made in the approved ToR are addressed in the amended EA.

Table 12.0-1, Monitoring and Commitments, contains a list of preliminary monitoring programs.

Table 12.0-2 contains a list of 606 commitments made in the amended EA.

Analysis of the amended EA

Section 1.6.3 and Table 1.6-1 contain a comprehensive list and explanation of provincial, federal and other agency permits and approvals expected to be required.

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

Submissions are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.