3. Public, Agency and Aboriginal Consultationtroutlakehydro.ca.previewc40.carrierzone.com/... ·...

Horizon Hydro Operations Ltd. - Trout Lake River Hydro Project Environmental Report

H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-1

© Hatch 2013/04

3. Public, Agency and Aboriginal Consultation Public, Agency and Aboriginal consultation has been undertaken pursuant to provincial environmental assessment processes. Consultation is an integral component of the environmental assessment process as a means to determine local issues, potential impacts of the Project and to assist in the identification of mitigation strategies to prevent or minimize potential effects. Consultation was undertaken in accordance with a number of provincial guidance documents including the following:

Provincial Guidance • Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity projects (MOE, last

revision 2011)

• Code of Practice – Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process (MOE, 2007a)

• OWA Class EA for Waterpower Projects (OWA, 2012).

The following sections provide:

• a description of the consultation activities completed and to be completed in accordance with provincial processes

• issues raised as a result of the consultation activities, and relevant sections of the Environmental Screening Report, where the issue is discussed.

3.1 List of Stakeholders and Potentially Affected and Interested Aboriginal Communities At the beginning of the environmental screening process, a list of stakeholders (including federal, provincial and municipal agencies, non-governmental organizations, local businesses, etc) and Aboriginal communities that could either be affected by the Project or that could have an interest in the Project was developed. As correspondence regarding the Project was received during consultation activities, these names were added to the list of stakeholders and potentially affected and interested Aboriginal communities. As notifications were required [e.g., of a Public Information Centre (PIC)], stakeholders and potentially affected and interested Aboriginal communities were sent the notification. In addition, the Red Lake MNR office developed its own supplemental stakeholder list (those issued permits for trapping, guiding, etc), that due to privacy laws, was not divulged to Horizon. Correspondence with those on the supplemental stakeholder list was undertaken solely by MNR.

The list of stakeholders (including names and addresses of local businesses, organizations and members of the public) and potentially affected and interested Aboriginal communities was used to distribute project notices related to the Notice of Inspection and Notice of Completion. This list has not be included in this document to respect the privacy of those on the list. It is available, however, for review by the regulatory agencies upon request.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-2

© Hatch 2013/04

3.2 Record of Public, Agency and Aboriginal Issues and Concerns Comments via letters, telephone calls, meetings and emails have been received regarding the Project. Comments have also been provided via comment sheets at the PIC. These have become part of the record of Public, Agency and Aboriginal issues and concerns, and are documented within various tables presented in Sections 3.4 (Public Consultation), 3.5 (Agency Consultation) and 3.6 (Aboriginal Consultation), respectively. Those comments are also included (with names removed to respect privacy) in Appendix C.

3.3 Public Consultation In accordance with the provincial process, the ‘public’ includes all stakeholders such as individuals, companies, agencies, municipalities, organizations and interest groups, etc, that show interest in or may be affected by some aspect of the Project or who may have local knowledge in the area of the Project.

Consultation and involvement of the public was completed by notifying the public about the Project and obtaining feedback, information, comments and concerns about the Project and incorporating that information into the ER and addressing public concerns where appropriate. Horizon Hydro supported the need to obtain local knowledge, such as the current and historical use of the land and resources from the public and to obtain the concerns and issues that the public has with respect to the Project. The primary methods used include public notifications (via newspaper notices and direct mailings/deliveries) and one PIC in the Township of Ear Falls (September 29, 2009) and the project website. As questions and comments were stated or submitted, they have either been responded to directly (i.e., in the public consultation session or via response emails/letters) and/or addressed in this report. Tables in the following sections specifically address various issues which have been raised.

All stakeholders were encouraged to provide comments or questions at any time during the environmental screening process. The project information was also posted to the website and updated regularly as the project progressed.

Stakeholder organizations contacted regarding the Project included the following:

Brownlee’s Holiday North Lodge Pakwash Lake Camp Owners Association Canada North Lodge Red Lake Wilderness Initiative Cherob Resort Rich’s Minnows Domtar Inc. River Bed and Breakfast Hike Ontario Snake Falls Camp KaBeeLo Lodge Inc. Trout River Lodge Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association Tribute Minerals Inc. Northwoods Bay Resort Wenasaga Lodge Pakwash Lake Camp Woman River Camp Northern Iron Corporation Woman Lake Lodge

3.3.1 Public Consultation Summary Under the OWA “Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects (2012)”, there are three mandatory public notifications that the proponent must undertake for projects that are located on an unmanaged waterway. These include:


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, -3

© Hatch 2013/04

• Notice of Commencement

• Notice of Inspection, and

• Notice of Completion.

In addition to these mandatory notifications, a Notice of the PIC, Notice of Modification and Notice of Transition were also issued with respect to this project. A PIC was held in September 2009 to provide further information regarding the Project and to allow for an open dialogue between public stakeholders and the Proponent.

3.3.1.1 Notice of Commencement A Notice of Commencement (NOC) was published in three local newspapers: the Northern Sun News, Wawatay News and the Dryden Observer, in September 2007 (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Newspaper Announcements (September 2007)

Paper Date The Northern Sun News Wednesday, September 19, 2007 Dryden Observer Wednesday, September 19, 2007 Wawatay News September 20, 2007

The NOC along with an accompanying letter was mailed to the stakeholder list on September 25, 2007. A copy of the NOC and stakeholder letter is provided in Appendix C1.

3.3.1.2 Public/Stakeholder Responses to the Notice of Commencement Following the publication and distribution of the NOC, a total of 60 responses from the public/stakeholders were received, 55 of which were in letter form from affiliates of the Pakwash Lake Camp Owners Association. These letters have been included in Appendix C2. Table 3.2 provides a summary of concerns/issues that were raised by the public/stakeholders, and the number of respondents that raised these issues. Horizon responses to the issues or concerns in letter form (see Appendix C2). Responses are also summarized in the table below..

Table 3.2 Issues Raised by Public/Stakeholders in Response to the Notice of Commencement and Horizon Responses

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response Questioned the need for further hydro development in the northwest region of Ontario

55 Renewable energy development is being encouraged by the Ontario government to lessen dependence on fossil fuel generation and associated air quality degradation

Expressed disagreement with MNR’s site release process

55 The MNR site release process is outside of Horizon’s control and therefore outside the scope of this Project to comment on.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-4

© Hatch 2013/04

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response Negative impacts to fish populations and aesthetics resulting in effects to economic viability of local businesses

55 Limited or minimal impacts on aquatic habitat are anticipated to occur as a result of construction or operation of the facility. There will be short-term effects on fish during construction due to disturbance and temporary loss of habitat (see Section 5.3.7) but no significant negative impacts to fish populations are anticipated to occur. The facility will result in permanent loss of existing aquatic habitat, but compensation habitat is proposed to ensure that no overall loss of aquatic habitat productivity, and therefore negative effects on fish community (particularly game fish species such as walleye, northern pike and lake whitefish) occur. An authorization under the federal Fisheries Act will be required and Horizon is working with DFO, as well as MNR and MOE to ensure that mitigation/compensation requirements are met. Monitoring will be undertaken to confirm predictions and ensure that compensation is functioning as designed (see Sections 9.2 and 9.3).

Given that no significant change in game fish populations is anticipated to occur as a result of the project, no change in economic viability of the local fishery that supports local businesses is anticipated to occur.

A minimum flow regime has been proposed over Big Falls to ensure that the North Channel (which is the main site viewed by the public) always receives a continual flow. More flow is being provided during the main public viewing season (May to September), as discussed in Section 6.3.5.1. Other mitigation is also proposed (i.e., installation of small directing structures in the bypass reach) to ensure that more flow is distributed to the North Channel of Big Falls.

Negative effects to aquatic system integrity

55 Potential effects on aquatic habitat and biota have been assessed for both the construction period (Sections 5.3.7 and 5.3.8) and the operations period (Sections 6.3.7 and 6.3.8). The presence of the head pond will result in a change in aquatic habitat in that area, but compensation is proposed to ensure the fish community has access to


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-5

© Hatch 2013/04

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response sufficient habitat resources to complete their life cycle and maintain a healthy population. The benthic productivity function of the bypass reach is being maintained by the proposed bypass flow regime (Section 6.3.8.4) and installation of mitigation, including substrate addition to maintain productive benthic invertebrate habitat to supply downstream fish communities that forage in invertebrates drifting from the Big Falls reach. Fish habitat compensation is proposed to account for negative effects on existing spawning habitats immediately downstream from Big Falls due to diversion of flow through the powerhouse (Section 6.3.8.7). The run-of-the-river nature of the facility will ensure that there are no negative effects on aquatic ecosystem downstream from the localized zone if influence of the facility, such that no negative effects on critical habitat features (such as Whitefish Falls) are anticipated to occur. Overall, the proposed facility may result in some short-term effects, some long-term changes in habitat conditions, but no long-term negative effects on the aquatic ecosystem integrity.

Negative effects to social values and recreational opportunities associated with the river

55 Limited or minimal impacts forecast to social values and recreational opportunities. A minimum flow regime has been proposed over Big Falls to ensure that the North Channel (which is the main site viewed by the public) always receives a continual flow. More flow is being provided during the main public viewing season (May to September), as discussed in Section 6.3.5.1. Other mitigation is also proposed (i.e., installation of small directing structures in the bypass reach) to ensure that more flow is distributed to the North Channel of Big Falls. Recreational opportunities (fishing, canoeing, boating) will remain available within project area (see Section 6.4.5). The existing portage route will be altered, but will in fact be shorter than the current route around Big Falls (Section 6.4.5.2)..


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-6

© Hatch 2013/04

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response Negative effects to economic value associated with tourism and recreational use of the river

55 Limited or minimal impacts forecast to the economic value of the project area for tourism and recreational use. As discussed previously, no significant negative effects are anticipated to occur to the fishery that supports tourism and recreation (principally that within Bruce and Pakwash Lakes) but also within the project area. Recreational opportunities (fishing, canoeing, boating) will remain within project area (Section 6.4.5).

Impacts to the Trout Lake River watershed including Bruce and Pakwash Lakes

55 As discussed previously, no significant negative effects are anticipated to occur to the fishery that supports tourism and recreation (principally that within Bruce and Pakwash Lakes) but also within the project area due to the run of river nature of the facility and the proposed fish habitat compensation measures that will be undertaken (Section 6.3.8). Monitoring will be undertaken to confirm predictions and ensure that compensation measures are functioning as designed (Sections 9.2 and 9.3).

Characterization of biological values, habitat values, hydrology and channel morphology of the Trout Lake River and watershed

55 Extensive baseline investigations have been undertaken to characterize the existing values of the Trout Lake River within the zone of influence of the proposed project. These are described throughout Section 4 of this report.

Negative effects to aesthetics 2 Loss of falls aesthetics due to flow diversion and presence of the facility is acknowledged. In recognition of this, a minimum flow regime has been proposed over Big Falls to ensure that the North Channel (which is the main site viewed by the public) always receives a continual flow. More flow is being provided during the main public viewing season (May to September), as discussed in Section 6.3.5.1. Other mitigation is also proposed (i.e., installation of small directing structures in the bypass reach) to ensure that more flow is distributed to the North Channel of Big Falls. Aesthetic qualities will be retained during high flow periods i.e., spring.

Negative impacts to local Bait Harvest Areas

1 Limited or minimal impacts forecast to commercial baitfish operations. Horizon committed to compensate baitfish licence holder for negative impacts on revenue due to Project (see Section 6.4.4)


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-7

© Hatch 2013/04

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response Loss of traditional spawning beds 1 Spawning beds within the head pond

and at the base of Big Falls will be negatively affected as a result of the project. Horizon will be installing new spawning beds in both locations to ensure that the fish community has access to suitable spawning resources (Section 6.3.8) and monitoring will be undertaken to ensure the new spawning beds are functioning as designed.

Negative effects of water level fluctuations

1 No water level fluctuations (outside natural fluctuations) beyond immediate project area will occur since the facility will be operated in a run-of-the-river mode (see Section 6.3.5.2 for a discussion on water levels changes and Section 8 for the proposed WMP for the facility). The WMP will require that Horizon operate the facility in accordance with the water level regime agreed to with MNR and discussed in this ER.

Negative effects to water quality 1 Construction of the facility within and adjacent to the Trout Lake River does have the potential to have negative effects on surface water quality due to turbidity and accidental spills. Construction site best management practices will be undertaken to prevent such occurrences and minimize the negative effects should accidents occur, as discussed in Section 5.3.6). Following head-pond creation, localized changes in surface water quality parameters may occur including increases in nutrients due to inundation of terrestrial soils and decomposition of vegetation. This is expected to be a temporary occurrence with water quality returning to normal conditions over a period of years (Section 6.3.6). No significant negative effects on surface water quality are anticipated to occur in the downstream Trout Lake River as a result of the project. Monitoring will be undertaken during construction and operations to confirm predictions (Sections 9.2 and 9.3).

Negative effects to wildlife habitat

1 Limited or minimal impacts forecast. Monitoring will be undertaken to confirm predictions.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-8

© Hatch 2013/04

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response Negative effects to local Bear Management Area

1 Limited or minimal impacts forecast to local Bear Management Area operator. Horizon committed to compensate operator for negative impacts on revenue due to Project (see Section 6.4.4).

Negative effects to First Nation lands and resources

1 Consultation has been undertaken with First Nations communities to determine existing uses of lands and resources in the project area. Traditional uses including canoeing have been identified, while other resources such as wild rice and medicinal plants are known to be present in the area, although present uses are unknown. Horizon will be ensuring that the portage around Big Falls remains open and in fact, the portage will be shorter than existing (see Section 6.4.5.2). Horizon has committed to re-establishing a small wild rice patch that will be lost due to the head pond (see Section 6.4.7). Horizon has also committed to working with First Nation communities to determine if there are medicinal plants in the project area and if any mitigation is required to accommodate for the loss of these plants due to project development.

Two responses were also received from MOE and MAA. Table 3.3 provides a summary of the concerns/issues that were raised, and the agency that raised those concerns/issues. Horizon responses to the issues or concerns are also provided in the table.

Table 3.3 Issues Raised by Provincial Stakeholders in Response to the Notice of Commencement

Issue

Agency Raising the Issue

Horizon Response

The proponent will be required to complete an ESR in accordance with Ontario Regulation 116/01 Electricity Projects.

MOE Project transitioned to OWA Class EA in December 2011 as per MOE requirements.

The MAA relayed that some First Nations either have or assert rights in an area in which the Project is located. The MAA recommended a number of agencies and First Nations to be contacted regarding potential impacts of the Project.

MAA Consultation undertaken with First Nations to determine issues and work toward a satisfactory outcome.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-9

© Hatch 2013/04

3.3.1.3 Notice of Modification A Notice of Modification was published in three local newspapers; the Northern Sun News, Wawatay News and the Dryden Observer, in July 2009 (see Table 3.4).

The Notice of Modification served to advise that the Water Management Planning as required under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) and described in the Water Management Planning Guidelines will now be undertaken during the environmental assessment for the Project. The Project would remain the same as that described in the original NOC published in September 2007.

Table 3.4 Newspaper Announcements (July 2009)

Paper Date The Northern Sun News Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Dryden Observer Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Wawatay News Thursday, July 9, 2009

The Notice of Modification along with an accompanying letter was mailed to the stakeholder list, on July 6, 2009. A copy of the Notice of Modification and stakeholder letter is provided in Appendix C3.

3.3.1.4 Notice of Public Information Centre – September 16 and 17, 2009 The Notice of PIC for the Project was published in three local newspapers: the Northern Sun News, Wawatay News and the Dryden Observer, in September 2009 prior to the PIC on September 29, 2009. Stakeholders on the stakeholder list were mailed a notification of the PIC on September 11, 2009. Appendix C4 contains a copy of the Notice of PIC and a sample of the stakeholder letter.

In addition, a community wide delivery of the notice was distributed using Canada Post’s Unaddressed Ad-mail service. This notice was delivered to 634 households and businesses in the Township of Ear Falls (Postal Code P0V 1T0), and to 1311 households and businesses in the Municipality of Red Lake (Postal Code P0V 2M0).

Following the Notice of PIC, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) sent a letter dated October 8, 2009. This letter stated that NRCan does not have a current role in the provincial EA. The letter provided contact information if the Project triggered a federal EA. This letter is provided in Appendix C7.

3.3.1.5 Public Information Centre – September 29, 2009 A PIC was held on September 29, 2009 at the Legion Hall, Township of Ear Falls, Ontario. The PIC was held from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and display boards were set up to provide information regarding the Project. Representatives from Horizon Hydro and Hatch were on hand to provide information and answer questions.

The purpose of the PIC was to:

• provide the public with an opportunity to become familiar with the proposed Project,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-10

© Hatch 2013/04

• provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and/or identify any concerns related to the Project.

The following information was provided during the PIC (display materials provided at the PIC are included in Appendix C5):

• a preliminary description of the Project components,

• information on Horizon Hydro and Hatch,

• presentation boards showing preliminary drawings of the proposed structures,

• maps illustrating the Project location and projected inundation area,

• a description of studies completed for assessment of effects of the Project,

• a description of the potential benefits as well as potential environmental impacts of the Project and mitigation measures,

• the anticipated construction schedule,

• a description of Water Management Planning on the Trout Lake River including proposed facility operation and head-pond water level management, and

• comment sheets providing opportunity for public comment on the Project and identification of issues or concerns.

Comment sheets were offered to all those present at the PIC as a means of providing comments and/or identifying concerns. Handouts of the display boards were also offered to all attendees.

Twenty-four people signed in at the PIC and a representative from the Township of Ear Falls was also in attendance to observe the proceedings. Twenty-two comment sheets were completed during/following the PIC. Table 3.5 provides a summary of the responses to the questions asked in the comment sheet.

A sample of the sign-in sheet and the comment forms have been provided in Appendix C5.

Table 3.5 Summary of Responses to Comment Sheets, September 29, 2009 Public Information Centre

Question Responses Yes No Not Specified Total Where do you reside? Ear Falls 11 11 Red lake 1 1 Trout river lodge 1 1 Trout Lake 1 1 Snake Falls Road 1 1 Perrault Falls 1 1 Do you use any areas in the vicinity of the Project? 14 1 1 16


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-11

© Hatch 2013/04

Question Responses Yes No Not Specified Total Please state which areas you use: All of the Areas 2 2 Whitefish Falls 2 2 Big Falls 6 6 Trout Lake River 3 3 Trout Lake River (Downstream)

1 1

Trout Lake River and its Tributaries

1 1

Trout Lake River (Whitefish Falls to Little Trout Lake)

1 1

What do you use this area for? Hunting 11 11 Fishing 12 12 Trapping 7 7 Traditional Heritage activities

1 1

Tourist Camp or Lodge (Operator)

5 5

Land Owner 1 1 Sightseeing 2 2 Relaxation 1 1 Canoe trips as traditional migration route

1 1

Recreation 3 3 Commercial Bait Harvest 1 1 Plant Study 1 1 Berry Picking 1 1 Cabin Site 1 1 Hiking 1 1 Picnic 2 2 Please provide details regarding your use of the area, such as a description of the activities, and the frequency, season and duration: Trapping in fall 2 2 Trapping in winter 1 1 Hunt in fall 2 2 Fishing in summer 1 1 Ice fishing in winter 1 1 Fishing six times a year 1 1 Boat cache above Big Falls used several times in a year

1 1

Fish 6 to 10 times a year at/around Big Falls

1 1


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-12

© Hatch 2013/04

Question Responses Yes No Not Specified Total Grew up trapping all around Big Falls, for the last 30 years mostly from May to December

1 1

Hunting during moose season

1 1

Trapline cabin site all seasons, mostly in the fall, less frequent in the winter

1 1

Gardening and maintenance at cabin site during spring and summer

1 1

Big Falls area is very good for high bush cranberry picking

1 1

• Sightseeing from May to September

1 1

• Spring visit when snow melts

1 1

• Picnic/play during the summer

1 1

• Bear Management Areas from August to September

2 2

• Remote fishing trips below the Big Falls May to October

1 1

• Use Road to travel to and from town

1 1

• Seasonal tourism 1 1 • Relaxation in the spring 1 1 • Use the aesthetics of

the Falls for guest to stop and view, fish

1 1

• Bait harvest from May to October

1 1

Are you in favour of hydroelectric power generation?

10 6 16

Are you in favour of the Trout Lake River Hydroelectric Project?

2 11 3 16

Do you have any concerns with the Project?

14 2 16


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-13

© Hatch 2013/04

Question Responses Yes No Not Specified Total Do you see your use of the Big Falls area changing as a result of the Project?

14 1 15

Additional Comments 6 6

Concerns related to the Project and potential issues that were raised by the public, and the number of respondents that raised these issues are provided in Table 3.6. Horizon responses to the issues or concerns are also provided in the table.

Table 3.6 Issues Raised by Public/Stakeholders and ER Section, September 29, 2009 Public Information Centre

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response Loss of remoteness/ aesthetic appeal

7 The proposed facility is located adjacent to a forestry road that is well used and although it is outside of developed areas, it is not considered overly remote due to good available access. Aesthetic appeal of falls will be reduced after project is in place. A minimum flow regime has been proposed over Big Falls to ensure that the North Channel (which is the main site viewed by the public) always receives a continual flow. The minimum flow regime that was presented at the PIC was ultimately increased to include more flow during the main public viewing season (May to September), as discussed in Section 6.3.5.1. Other mitigation is also proposed (i.e. installation of small directing structures in the bypass reach) to ensure that more flow is distributed to the North Channel of Big Falls.

Impacts to aquatic environment

4 Impacts to aquatic environment, including habitat and aquatic biota (fish, benthic invertebrates) have been assessed for both construction and operations periods. Short-term effects will occur during construction, including temporary disturbance and loss of habitat (see Sections 5.3.7 and 5.3.8) for a full description of effects and identification of mitigation measures to prevent or minimize potential effects. The proposed facility will result in long-term changes to aquatic habitat conditions, and Horizon will be installing new spawning beds to ensure that important fish species such as walleye and white sucker have access to critical spawning habitat to maintain current population levels (see Section 6.3.8.7). A minimum flow will be maintained in the bypass channel (Section 6.3.5.1) to maintain benthic


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-14

© Hatch 2013/04

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response invertebrate habitat, and other measures (substrate addition and installation of flow diversion structures) will be also be installed in the bypass reach to maximum use of available flow for benthic invertebrate production. The run-of-river nature of the facility and the relatively small head pond will minimize wide-scale effects on the aquatic environment due to those which could occur under alternative operational regimes or with a much larger facility.

Loss of aesthetic flow 3 Aesthetic appeal of falls will be reduced after project is in place. A minimum flow regime has been proposed over Big Falls to ensure that the North Channel (which is the main site viewed by the public) always receives a continual flow. The minimum flow regime that was presented at the PIC was ultimately increased to include more flow is being provided during the main public viewing season (May to September), as discussed in Section 6.3.5.1. Other mitigation is also proposed (i.e. installation of small directing structures in the bypass reach) to ensure that more flow is distributed to the North Channel of Big Falls. Spring flow will continue to provide a scenic experience.

Negative effects to northern Ontario for the benefit of southern Ontario

2 Renewable energy development is encouraged by the Ontario government to lessen dependence on fossil fuel generation and associated adverse effects on air quality. Local benefits will come during construction due to expenditures of the workforce in Ear Falls and possibly Red Lake, as well as for equipment and material suppliers.

Flooding 2 Head pond will inundate an additional 6.5 ha within the head-pond limits upstream from the proposed overflow weir. Seasonal flooding of riparian areas outside project limits will be unaffected. Due to the run-of-the-river operation of the proposed facility, there will be no change in flow and water levels downstream from the site.

Sound level increase 1 Sound levels in close proximity to the facility will increase during operations due to ventilation from the powerhouse, hum from the transformer and periodic operation of the back-up diesel generator. However, the closest sensitive reception (a trapper cabin) is located 1.2 km from the site, and no change in sound level is anticipated to occur in that area (see Section 6.3.3).

Effects to terrestrial wildlife 1 There will be effects on wildlife due to disturbance during construction (Section 5.3.9.3) and loss of wildlife habitat due to vegetation removal for the project


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-15

© Hatch 2013/04

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response components (Section 5.3.9.1). Temporary effects on beaver and minor potential moose aquatic feeding habitat in the small wetland in the head pond will occur upon head pond inundation, but over the long term it is anticipated that the head pond will form wetlands that provide as much, or more wetland habitat compared to current conditions (Section 5.3.9.3). Mitigation measures are proposed to prevent disturbance during the bird nesting period (Section 5.3.9.3).

Restoration of interpretive trail around facility following construction

1 Trail around facility (i.e., from area below Big Falls to head pond) will be present after construction. Interpretive signage could be reinstated (with approval by MNR who owns signs) after construction and supplemented with signage regarding the facility.

Changes to portage route 1 Portage route on west side of project area will be shorter post-project (see Section 6.4.5.2 and Figure 6.14).

Loss of bear habitat 1 Small change to habitat area (6.5 ha) when viewed in local and regional context, with no negative effects on bear populations anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project. Some negative impacts to bear habitat will be seen in immediate area of project during construction due to increased noise and human presence. However, this is for a relative short period of time (12 to 18 months). Mitigation for potential effects on bear management area operator identified in Section 5.4.5.2.

Changes to water levels 1 Water levels will increase in the 1.7-km long head pond upstream from the overflow weir, and will decrease in the bypass reach through Big Falls. However, the run-of-river operation of the facility will prevent changes in water levels in the Trout Lake River downstream from the facility due to its operation. Section 6.3.5.2 provides more detail on operational water levels.

Negative effects to trapping 1 Negative effects on trapping are not anticipated to occur. Head pond likely to provide more habitat for furbearers, and better opportunities for trapping. Mitigation for potential effects on local trapper identified in Section 5.4.5.3.

Construction footprint 1 The proposed construction footprint is small, not significant in local or regional area

Loss of public access 1 Public access to the site will be restricted during construction to ensure public safety. Access to head pond and upstream reach improved post-project. The only area to be lost to public during operations will be the


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-16

© Hatch 2013/04

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response footprint of the powerhouse, the small switchyard and the power canal. These areas will be restricted for safety reasons.

Less water flowing to Whitefish Falls

1 Due to the run-of-the-river nature of operation of the facility, no change in flows will occur at Whitefish Falls. Only the short bypass reach at Big Falls will experience any reduction in flow due to diversion through the powerhouse.

Fish ladder not proposed 1 Big Falls is a barrier to upstream fish migration (see Section 4.1.8), so fish are not currently moving past this point in the Trout Lake River. DFO and MNR are in agreement that Big Falls is a barrier to upstream movement (see correspondence and meeting minutes in Appendixes C8 and C9). Since fish passage is not occurring in the existing natural situation, installation of a fish ladder is not thought to be beneficial to the fish community.

Concern regarding EA process timeline

1 EA has been in progress since 2007, which is a long duration.

Loss of traditional spawning beds

1 Fish habitat compensation is proposed to account for negative effects on existing spawning habitats immediately downstream from Big Falls due to diversion of flow through the powerhouse (Section 6.3.8.7). Compensation is also proposed to account for negative effects on fish spawning habitats within the facility head pond (Section 6.3.8.7).

Effects of water level fluctuation

1 No water level fluctuations (outside natural fluctuations) beyond immediate project area due to the run of the river operation of the proposed facility (see Section 6.3.5.2).

Negative effect to resource harvester income

1 No adverse effect anticipated. Horizon is committed to compensating the local trapper, bait fisherman, local bear management area operator and local commercial wild rice harvester should any negative effects on income occur due to the Project (see Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.4).

Comment sheets encouraged members of the public/stakeholders to make additional comments they felt were relevant to the Project. These comments are provided in Table 3.7.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-17

© Hatch 2013/04

Table 3.7 Comments by Public/Stakeholders, September 29, 2009 Public Information Centre

Comments Horizon Responses Some of the best wilderness in North America and requires preservation in contrast to the development of southern Ontario.

Renewable energy development is encouraged by the Ontario government to lessen dependence on fossil fuel generation and associated adverse effects on air quality.

Most of the people in the area are very familiar with Big Falls. It is one of the very few places left with which to enjoy the outdoors to the fullest.

Acknowledged. Spring flow will continue to provide a scenic experience. Bypass flow presented at PIC have been increased during the main public viewing season (May to September), as discussed in Section 6.3.5.1.

Agree with MNR’s former interest in Big Falls as a park or recreational area.

MNR removed their interpretive signage when site released for waterpower development. If MNR agrees, Horizon will re-establish the signage at the site after construction.

No tourism values exist in the area. Agree that Big Falls is not a primary tourist destination.

3.3.1.6 Class Environmental Assessment Transition Notice – January 2011 On January 13, 2011, a letter was sent to all those on the stakeholder list informing them that Horizon Hydro had been advised by MOE that the Project would need to transition to the OWA Class EA from the Ontario Regulation 116/01 (Electricity Project Regulation). The reason for this transition was the approval of the new OWA Class EA in October 2008, and the subsequent coming into force of Ontario Regulation 336/08 which added a transition provision to Ontario Regulation 116/01 which allowed project proceeding under Regulation 116 to move to the OWA Class EA process.

The Project is on an unmanaged waterway, and therefore transitioned to Phase 3 of the Class EA as of January 1, 2011. The newspaper notice was published in local newspapers (Northern Sun News, Wawatay News and the Dryden Observer). A copy of the notice and the stakeholder letter advising of the change has been included in Appendix C6.

3.3.1.7 Notice of Inspection As per the requirements of the OWA Class EA process for a new development on an unmanaged waterway, a Notice of Inspection was published in the Northern Sun News and the Dryden Observer on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 and in the Wawatay News on Thursday, November 1, 2012. In addition, a letter accompanying the Notice of Inspection was sent to Project stakeholders and potentially interested Aboriginal communities on October 26, 2012. The Notice of Inspection was issued to advise that a draft of the ER is available for their review and comment (Hard copies of the draft ER were made available at several locations within the Township of Ear Falls and the Municipality of Red Lake areas). These copies were accompanied by contact information should the public have any comments, questions or concerns. The review period was from November 1 to 30, 2012 with comments accepted until December 15, 2012. A copy of the Notice and Letter are included as Appendix C7.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-18

© Hatch 2013/04

An article posted in the Northern Sun News on December 10, 2012 discussing the Project is included in Appendix C7.

3.3.1.8 Responses to the Notice of Inspection Following the review and comment period for the Notice of Inspection described in Section 3.3.1.7 comments on the ER were received from the public. A copy of the comments provided by the Ontario Rivers Alliance (ORA) and the subsequent response by Horizon is provided in Appendix C7. Comments submitted electronically via the website are summarized in Table 3.8. One letter, dated February 10, 2013, was also received. Although outside the formal Notice of Inspection comment period, this letter is being included as a comment (provided in Appendix C7), and is also discussed in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 Comments by Public/Stakeholders, Notice of Inspection

Comments Horizon Responses Inquired as to whether Horizon would be willing to sell a portion of the Project.

Response is considered to be confidential.

Requested to be added to the stakeholder mailing list.

Stakeholder added,

Concern regarding interference with the Pakwash Lake fish habitat and spawning grounds.

Studies undertaken indicate that the main spawning area for walleye and lake whitefish from downstream sources (i.e., Bruce and/or Pakwash lakes) is Whitefish Falls. Habitat compensation is proposed below Big Falls to offset any changes resulting from the altered flow regime at the falls. Facility is run-of-river, so no downstream flow changes that would affect spawning at Whitefish Falls. DFO and MNR are in agreement with the proposed fish habitat compensation measures.

Expressed concern regarding the use of the fishery for now and future generations and the need to keep the lake levels constant, the food and habitat plentiful and ensure that the fish populations grow over time.

See response above regarding habitat compensation. Due to the run-of-the-river nature of the facility, there will be no change in Bruce or Pakwash Lake water levels as a result of operation.

In Section 6 for several potential effects “stable water levels in the head pond” is indicated as a mitigation measure. I would be careful with this approach since you don’t have a good idea what was there in the first place and what was lost.

The fish community and aquatic habitat within the head pond is well known (see Section 4).

If this is a “run of the river” facility shouldn’t the water flows and levels fluctuate according to the natural hydrologic cycle? I agree that fluctuation in water level will not be as large as normal but fluctuation in water levels is important for maintaining the characteristics of Trout River.

Water levels within the head pond reach (approximately 1700 m in length) will be relatively stable (~368.8 m with some variation due to natural flow variation). Above and below the head pond, the flows and levels will remain unchanged.

Monitoring needs to be undertaken to ensure that this facility will not adversely affect the terrestrial and aquatic environment downstream by significantly changing the natural hydrologic cycle.

As noted above, the downstream flow regime will remain unchanged due to run-of-river operational mode. Monitoring of flows and levels will be conducted per the requirements of the WMP (see Section 8 and proposed monitoring in Section 9.3).

How do you know that the creation of a head pond will compensate for the loss of high velocity habitat when you weren’t able to adequately assess the fish and benthic invertebrate production coming from that area?

Head-pond habitat and its values were assessed during a number of studies, with the most recent being in spring 2012. Compensation habitat is proposed and will be monitored to verify it is functioning as intended (Section 9.3). DFO and


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-19

© Hatch 2013/04

Comments Horizon Responses You need to monitor the creation and use of new habitat created by the head pond.

MNR are in agreement with the proposed compensation measures for the head pond.

I am convinced that you have minimized the potential net adverse effects of the proposed development for your own benefit. For example, 19 potential effects are indicated for the construction phase and 13 for the facility operation phase. Then you indicate that 18 and 13 potential effects respectively are “not significant”. This would be the first time in history that a dam across a pristine river wouldn’t have any major effects!

The potential effects are local and small scale. None are significant in that they cannot be mitigated. Monitoring is proposed to verify predictions of effect and ensure created habitat functions as intended.

This opinion is based on: Your admission that sampling for a number of aspects of the aquatic environment was incomplete so you don’t have an adequate understanding of the aquatic ecosystem above and below the proposed facility; The fact that MNR had to push on you very hard throughout this process in order to try and get you to undertake a well thought out sampling program. Your approach during these discussions was to do the least amount of work possible. Since I was present for many of these discussions I am a little concerned about the effort that you put into the sampling and the quality of the results; There is a large volume of peer reviewed scientific literature that clearly describes that dams have long term irreversible effects on riverine aquatic ecosystems.

The procedures used to assess habitat and fish community characteristics are standard sampling procedures for river ecosystems developed by MNR personnel. Those procedures were employed to assess habitat and community characteristics.

Much of the peer reviewed literature related to dams pertains to large dams and reservoirs (10s to 100s of km2) that operate as storage vessels so that hydro can be produced as needed. That is not the case here – it is a very small (6.3 ha of additional inundated area) and will operate in a run-of-river fashion. The head pond is essentially a small in-line lake within a river system – something that is not uncommon within many northern river systems.

For myself and the general public I believe that it would have been better to acknowledge that there will be significant effects on certain aspects of the aquatic environment and that there is a lot of uncertainty around your assessments. The way things are written in this report gives the reader the impression that you have a good handle on the potential effects.

We do not acknowledge that the studies have been inadequate, and consider that the potential effects are reasonable and well documented.

Cumulative effects are not addressed in any way. This needs to be addressed in the report.

There is no requirement to assess cumulative effects as there is no federal screening required (as of July 2012 – see Section 1)

I’m not sure how you can say that changes in river hydrology during head pond filling and maintenance are “reversible”. You are changing the aquatic environment from a river system to a lake system and you are losing fast water habitat. New habitats will be established in the head pond but how this new habitat will offset loss of current habitat is completely unclear since your understanding of the aquatic ecosystem above the head pond is inadequate.

The head pond will result in an increase in water levels and decrease in flow velocity, but riverine characteristics will still be maintained as opposed to lake characteristics due to the relatively low changes in retention time in the proposed head pond. The effects that will occur are considered reversible as they can be compensated by the installation of replacement habitat that provides similar functions.

The temperature regime is not adequately addressed in this section of the report although I see that temperature monitoring is part of the environmental monitoring report. MNR provided you with data on full year temperatures in the river but this is not mentioned anywhere in the report. Will the temperature regime be changed or not? Depending upon where you take water

No significant effect on the temperature regime is forecast. Head-pond resident times will change minimally (see Table 6.6), and will not substantially increase the potential for warming.

Water will be drawn into the intake channel from the upper portion (upper 5 to 6 m of the head pond depth – see Section 6.3.6.1). This will be similar to


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-20

© Hatch 2013/04

Comments Horizon Responses in the water column there could be a change in water temperatures downstream from what is normally seen. At least address this aspect.

the conditions that exist in the river at present.

I would also like to see the genetic contribution from fish populations above the proposed dam site to fish populations below the dam site addressed. I am particularly concerned that there is no impact on sport fish populations in Bruce Lake and Pakwash Lake since these lakes support significant tourism establishments.

Presently there is no upstream passage for fish over Big Falls, but it is likely that some fish (larval forms, YOY or small fish and occasional larger fish) pass downstream through the falls (unintentionally). That situation will remain post-project.

How are changes in the sediment transport regime “reversible’ as indicated for operation of the dam? Dams are known to act as sediment sinks. There is going to be an effect on this aspect of the Trout River ecosystem.

Sediment transport assessment indicates that high flow events will continue to transport material past the weir (see Sections 5.3.2.1 and 6.3.2.2).

Why are fish populations not addressed specifically? You know that fish populations are of particular concern to the public, particularly the tourist industry, so you need to address this effect in the tables.

Assuming this is in reference to downstream fish populations in Bruce and Pakwash lakes, no changes are predicted

I want the weekly environmental monitoring results to be available to the general public as well as the regulating agencies.

The information will be provided to the provincial agencies and therefore are considered to be public documents, available upon request.

Your assertion that you can create new habitat above the dam over time to “mitigate” certain effects needs to be monitored and evaluated.

Monitoring of the head-pond habitat and fish communities is proposed (see Section 9.3).

I agree that fish population assessments of area above the dam need to be undertaken.

Fish community assessments of the river from Whitefish Falls to the Chutes were undertaken using standard sampling techniques developed by MNR (i.e., RIN)

Monitoring the sediment regime below the dam needs to be conducted to assure the public that your assertion that the sediment regime will not be changed is true.

No significant change to the sediment regime is forecast. High flow events will continue to transport material past the weir (see Section 6.3.2.2).

Flows through the bypass channel need to be monitored to confirm that the flows indicated in this report are maintained or exceeded.

Flow monitoring will take place as per the requirements of the facility water management plan

Monitoring needs to be undertaken to ensure that this facility will not adversely affect the terrestrial and aquatic environment downstream by significantly changing the natural hydrologic cycle.

Monitoring of various aspects of the terrestrial and aquatic environment in proposed during the construction and operational phases (see Section 9)

Cumulative effects needs to be addressed in the annual monitoring report.

No requirement to address cumulative effects.

I want copies of the annual environmental monitoring report.

The information will be provided to the provincial agencies and therefore are considered to be public documents, available upon request.

I don’t want this facility to adversely affect the terrestrial and aquatic environment downstream by significantly changing the natural hydrologic cycle.

Downstream hydrologic cycle will remain unchanged once beyond the limits of the flow junction below the South Falls.

Fish population use of Whitefish Falls must be maintained at current levels and fish production from this site must not be degraded.

The facility will have no effect on Whitefish Falls

Fish populations in Bruce and Pakwash Lakes must not be adversely affected by the proposed

No effect on these fisheries is predicted.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-21

© Hatch 2013/04

Comments Horizon Responses facility since the fisheries that are based on these populations support significant recreational and tourism interests. I am writing to you out of concern for Horizon’s proposed hydro project at Big Falls. I urge you to stop your steps toward the project immediately. The First Nations people of Trout Lake are concerned about the impact of this project on their lands and water. Their concern need to be addressed, and their understanding of what needs to happen on those lands should be given high priority in decision making. It is indeed the job of the MNR to consult properly before licenses are granted, but experience shows that their assessment may not includes some very important voices of people who have called Trout Lake home for many, many generations. These same people have been struggling to feel free on their lands which are their homes and sacred places.

In this time of climatic change, alternatives to dirty generation are very important. But this should not take precedent over the wishes of the Trout Lake Anishinaabe.

Horizon has undertaken consultations with First Nations communities throughout the Class EA process and has committed to entering into partnerships with First Nations communities so that they can benefit economically from the Project.

3.3.1.9 Consultation with Commercial Resource Users On January 2, 2013, Horizon sent letters to the commercial Baitfish Licence Holder, the licensed Wild Rice Harvester, the Bear Management Area Operator and the licensed trapper to provide additional information on the proposed Project, request information regarding their commercial operations, and express the commitment to compensate for any economic losses to their operations that are deemed to be caused by the Project. No responses to these letters were received from the Baitfish Licence Holder, Wild Rice Harvester or Licenced Trapper at the time of finalization of this ER for the Notice of Completion. A response was received from the BMA holder outlining estimated financial impacts to its operation. Horizon has replied and committed to working to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the BMA holder.

3.3.1.10 Notice of Completion and 30-Day Review Period A “Notice of Completion” will be published to inform the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities that the ER is available for public review for 30 days between April 18 and May 17, 2013. The Notice of Completion will be prepared as per the requirements of the OWA Class EA (2011) and posted in the local newspapers (Northern Sun and Dryden Observer on April 17, 2013 and Wawatay on April 18, 2013) and mailed directly to all members of the stakeholder mailing list. Hard copies of the draft ER will be made available at several locations within the Township of Ear Falls and the Municipality of Red Lake areas. These copies will be accompanied by contact information should the public have any comments, questions or concerns.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-22

© Hatch 2013/04

During this review period, members of the public are encouraged to discuss any potential issues or concerns with the proponent and work toward resolution. Members of the public also have the opportunity to request (to the MOE with a copy to the proponent) that the Project be elevated to a higher level of assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act, should they feel that there are outstanding issues that remain unresolved. This process is referred to as a ‘Part II Order”.

3.3.1.11 Continued Public/Stakeholder Consultation Opportunities Upon the successful conclusion of the 30-day ER review period (i.e., no Part II Order requests for elevation of the Project), Horizon will file its Statement of Completion with MOE. This will represent a conclusion to the public/stakeholder consultation effort. Following successful completion of the Class EA Process, Horizon Hydro will be required to obtain all necessary permits and approvals, as identified in Section 11 of this ER. Additional consultation opportunities may be required during these permits/approvals, if required by issuing agencies. Once all required permits/approvals are obtained, Horizon Hydro will be in position to commence construction of the Project.

3.4 Agency Consultation The following provides information related to consultation with federal, provincial and municipal agencies. Meetings and consultation with federal and provincial agencies were often undertaken simultaneously, with both groups in attendance to discuss issues and concerns. Project information was also posted to the website and updated regularly as the project progressed. A summary of agency consultation is provided in Table 3.11. Appendixes C8 and C9 contain correspondence and consultation material with federal and provincial agencies, respectively.

3.4.1 Federal Agency Consultation Summary A number of federal agencies were consulted during the approximately 5-1/2-year period leading to the completion of this ER. In July 2012, Horizon was advised that a federal screening of the project is no longer required due to changes to the federal EA process. The following section provides the history of that consultation process, the agencies consulted, and the issued raised/resolved. As portions of that consultation process involved both federal and provincial agencies, this section has been left in this report for completeness and to demonstrate the interaction between agencies and the proponent. The federal agencies consulted included:

• CEA Agency,

• Transport Canada (TC),

• Natural Resources Canada (NRCan),

• Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC),

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO),


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-23

© Hatch 2013/04

• Environment Canada (EC), and

• Health Canada (HC).

In July 2012, the federal government made changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). These changes resulted in the project no longer being reviewed under the CEAA. The project may still require specific approvals and/or permits from the above agencies.

As of July 2012, their input into the EA process is no longer required, however, discussions with DFO, Environment Canada and Transport Canada have continued as permits will be required under the Fisheries and Navigable Water Protection Acts prior to construction. The Environment Canada/Water Survey of Canada water gauging station was replaced in 2012 to allow for both the old and new station to gather information for a common period of time for calibration of the new station data. Ultimately, the old gauging station will need to be decommissioned and removed during construction of this project.

3.4.1.1 Agency Meeting – DFO and MNR – August 9, 2007 A meeting was held on August 9, 2007, in the Municipality of Red Lake, with DFO and MNR. The meeting was preceded by a tour of site. The purpose of the meeting was to familiarize all parties with the Project site and to initiate the EA process with the MNR. The following topics were discussed:

• role of MNR as provincial coordinator,

• project schedule,

• EA process and regulations,

• potential All-Agency Meeting,

• publication of the Notice of Commencement,

• baseline field data collection program and schedule, and

• First Nation and Public Consultation.

Table 3.8 provides a summary of concerns/issues that were raised and Horizon response to those concerns. Minutes of the meeting are provided in Appendixes C8 and C9.

Table 3.8 Issues Raised by the MNR During August 15, 2007 Meeting

Issue Horizon Response Consultation with Lac Seul First Nation including their “adhesion community” at Trout Lake.

Information Centres scheduled with Lac Seul “on reserve’ members as well as those in the Red Lake area.

Wabauskang First Nation will require inclusion in all consultation notices.

Acknowledged.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-24

© Hatch 2013/04

3.4.1.2 Submission of Field Study Program A field study program was submitted to DFO and MNR on September 14, 2007 for their review. The program is contained in Appendix D2.

3.4.1.3 Response to Submission of Field Study Program Table 3.9 provides a summary of concerns/issues that were raised via written correspondence from DFO and MNR, following the August 9, 2007 agency meeting and the submission of the Field Study Program by Hatch.

Table 3.9 Issues Raised by Agencies Following August 15, 2007 Agency Meeting and Submission Hatch’s Field Study Program

Issue

Provincial Agency Raising the Issue

Effects to fish spawning, feeding and nursery habitat for key species upstream and downstream, including the inundated area of the river

DFO and MNR

Confirmation of spawning areas and potential impacts to wetland areas and shallow nursery, feeding and spawning areas.

DFO and MNR

Effect of inundation of two upstream rapids to spawning potential for walleye and whitefish

DFO and MNR

Baseline water quality information on areas of the river that will be impacted. Potential negative effects to fish habitat as a result of increased water temperatures, suspended sediment and low oxygen levels, and reduced/ redirected flows

DFO and MNR

Identification of species at risk DFO and MNR Baseline information regarding Benthic Invertebrates species DFO and MNR Characterization of substrate, aquatic plants, and fish habitat types

DFO and MNR

Potential for bank/shoreline instability or erosion and sedimentation issues

DFO and MNR

Survey of water depths and velocities over rapids areas to predict potential effects to fish habitat

DFO and MNR

Investigation of potential compensation options for loss in productivity capacity of fish habitat

DFO and MNR

3.4.1.4 Distribution of Project Description – October 2007 A Project Description was prepared in accordance with the CEA Agency Operational Policy Statement entitled Preparing Project Descriptions under the CEAA. The Project Description (Hatch, 2007) was submitted to the CEA Agency for distribution to relevant federal agencies. The Project Description was also submitted to the MOE and MNR.

The Project Description was prepared and distributed to assist the federal authorities to determine:

• whether they have a decision-making responsibility that triggers the need for the environmental assessment of a project, and, if so,

• which other federal authorities may also have a responsibility or interest and need to be notified under the Federal Coordination Regulations.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-25

© Hatch 2013/04

In January 2008, a revised version (Hatch, 2008a) was issued that changed the operating regime from run-of-river to one that included peaking. Subsequent to concerns expressed by regulatory agencies and Lac Seul and Grassy Narrows First Nation communities, Horizon withdrew the proposal for peaking, and reverted to the original plan as noted in the October 2007, Rev 0 report. The final project plan was documented in the Feasibility Report – Trout Lake River Hydro Project (Hatch 2008b) and is the basis for the project plan described in Section 2 of this report. A copy of both Project Description reports is included in Appendix D1 for information.

3.4.1.5 Agency Meeting – October 4, 2007 An all-agency kick-off meeting was held on October 4, 2007, in Kenora, with a number of federal and provincial agencies in attendance. Agencies included DFO, Ministry of Culture (MCL), Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM), MOE and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). The purpose of the meeting was to:

• provide description of the Project and proponent,

• discuss EA process and federal provincial coordination,

• discuss EA activities to date and proposed field surveys,

• obtain agency feedback on proposed fieldwork,

• discuss Public and First Nation consultation plans, and

• obtain agency feedback on planned consultation.

Table 3.10 provides a summary of concerns/issues that were raised and the agency that raised those concerns/issues. Correspondence and responses arising from discussions with federal and provincial agencies, and minutes of the meeting are contained in Appendixes C8 and C9.

Table 3.10 Issues Raised by Agencies During October 4, 2007 Meeting

Issue


Data collection re: extent of boating and scenic use MNR Determination of mining claims in the area and resolution/impact MNDM Confirmation of whitefish spawning at Big Falls MNR Requirement for Archaeological/ Heritage Assessment MNR Establishment of baseline data on downstream water levels and turbidity data.

MNR

Consideration of coarse fish and minnows, and critical habitat mapping.

MNR

3.4.1.6 Redistribution of Project Description – January 2008 The Project Description was updated on January 10, 2008 to reflect changes to the Project layout. The document was redistributed to the agencies listed in Section 3.4.1 above. A copy of the revised Project Description is included as Appendix D1.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-26

© Hatch 2013/04

3.4.1.7 Agency Teleconference – October 2, 2008 A teleconference was held on October 2, 2008 with the CEA Agency, DFO, TC, Industry Canada (IC), and the MNR. The purpose of the meeting was to:

• obtain up-to-date Project information from the proponent,

• provide guidance on federal information needs for EA process, and

• establish a federal review team and determine next steps in the federal EA.

Following the October 2, 2008 agency teleconference, Hatch received correspondence from DFO regarding the agencies concerns with the Project’s proposed modifications in flow particularly during low flow periods. DFO conveyed its’ responsibility to determine the extent of HADD of fish habitat and impacts to fish populations. DFO also relayed the importance of detailed baseline information and predicted impacts to fish populations and habitat.

3.4.1.8 Agency Teleconference – November 20, 2008 A teleconference was held on November 20, 2008 with DFO, TC, CEAA, MNR and MOE. The purposes of the meeting was to discuss the proposed change of operating regime i.e., to go back to a true run-of-river mode as per letter issued to MNR and copied to DFO on November 19, 2008. Topics included:

• updated facility layout and operation,

• scope of fieldwork required and updated of fieldwork completed,

• proposed compensation flows,

• relocation of existing Water Survey of Canada gauging station,

• sediment transfer after construction of new weir,

• First Nation consultation update and additional planned/proposed First Nation consultation,

• planned Public Information Centre, and

• coordination of the Water Management Planning requirements with the screening process.

3.4.1.9 Agency Meeting – February 10, 2009 An agency meeting was held on February 10, 2009 with DFO, MOE and MNR to discuss the current status of the project and outstanding issues. Discussion topics included:

• water management planning process,

• requirement to post a Notice of Modification to update the original Notice of Commencement for the EA to include Water Management Planning,

• fish and fish habitat field study program,

• water quality and quantity,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-27

© Hatch 2013/04

• review of DFO scoping document,

• wildlife and wildlife habitat field program,

• social and economic considerations,

• planned information centres,

• archaeological study review,

• aboriginal consultation, and

• relocation of the existing Water Survey of Canada gauging station.

3.4.1.10 Agency Teleconference – April 3, 2009 A teleconference was held on April 3, 2009 with DFO and MNR. Notes from the call are in included in Appendixes C8 and C9. Discussion topics included:

• natural hydrologic regime,

• benthic invertebrate quantification,

• water quality regime,

• sediment regime,

• bed load transport,

• response to DFO comments,

• relative abundance of species,

• First Nation consultation, and

• water management planning.

3.4.1.11 Agency Teleconference – November 17, 2009 A teleconference was held on November 17, 2009 with DFO and MNR to discuss DFO’s letter (Tom Kleinboeck) dated November 6, 2009 which also refers to a DFO letter from Earl Jessop and Hatch/Horizon response dated May 26, 2009. Notes from the teleconference are included in Appendixes C8 and C9.

Discussions were based on critical spawning areas, nursery habitat (littoral areas/ productivity), and reduced flows by-pass channel.

DFO expressed their interest in spawning fish count (abundance) using netting techniques as a measure of the effectiveness of identified spawning areas and as baseline data. They also expressed their support for the EA moving forward and that additional/supplemental testing could be done at a later date to form part to the baseline data record for future monitoring comparisons.

MNR stated that they require supplementary information with regards to critical spawning areas. MNR proposed to conduct another RIN in 2010 and possibly 2011.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-28

© Hatch 2013/04

The meeting continued on November 19, 2009 (see next section for details).

3.4.1.12 Agency Teleconference – November 19, 2009 This teleconference was held on November 19, 2009 with DFO and MNR to allow continuation of the discussions on Agency data and fieldwork requirements which began on Tuesday, November 17, 2009. Notes from the call are included in Appendixes C8 and C9.

Discussions were based around the following topics:

• critical spawning areas below Big Falls,

• Big Falls Reach (South Channel included with proposed reduced flow and wetted perimeter (bypass channel),

• potential for the operation of the plan during low flows to affect fish and fish habitat below the proposed tailrace area,

• turbidity, suspended solids, head-pond shoreline erosion potential, and

• potential for increased mercury levels in fish tissue.

Minutes of the meeting are provided in Appendix C8.

Following the November 19, 2009 agency teleconference, Hatch received correspondence from MNR regarding by-pass flows for the proposed hydro development at Big Falls. MNR suggested a face-to-face meeting to discuss potential methods and technical feasibility for assessing hydraulics in the bypass reach. MNR also expressed that MNR, MOE and DFO would like the opportunity to discuss the overall progress of the EA as well as specific data requirements as previously identified in conference calls and letters.

3.4.1.13 Preliminary Draft ESR for MNR and DFO Review – May 2010 A preliminary Draft ESR, dated October 2009, was issued to MNR and DFO in May 2010 for discussion purposes regarding work completed to date and next steps in the process in a subsequent meeting in June 2010.

3.4.1.14 Preliminary Draft ESR for MOE Review – August 2010 A preliminary Draft ESR, dated October 2009, was issued to MOE in August 2010 to aid review of the Additional Field Investigations – Summer and Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 report (Hatch, July 2010).

3.4.1.15 Agency Meeting – June 10, 2010 A meeting was held on June 10, 2010 with federal and provincial agencies including DFO, MOE and MNR to move forward with detailed discussions about obtaining relevant data to support the environmental assessment process. As a result of the meeting, a number of additional studies were requested of Horizon, including the following:

• modeling of pre- and post-project flows and levels to assess significance of aquatic habitat changes within the head pond reach,

• spring walleye spawning and fish habitat downstream of Big Falls,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-29

© Hatch 2013/04

• whitefish spawning and relative abundance of fish/fish habitat downstream of Big Falls,

• nursery habitat be mapped and post-project habitat areas be estimated,

• sample benthic invertebrates within the falls reach,

• bypass flow study,

• habitat compensation be developed,

• assessment of sediment transport and shoreline erosion potential,

• water sampling – mercury levels in fish tissues,

• continued First Nation consultation and Public consultation, and

• species at risk evaluation.

Minutes of the meeting are provided in Appendixes C8 and C9.

An initial sampling program was developed and submitted to MNR, MOE and DFO to address the majority of the points. The initial program included hydrology studies to address changes in flows and levels above and below the facility, summer 2010 fish community, fall 2010 lake whitefish spawning and spring 2011 walleye spawning, as well as collection of additional fish flesh to meet MOE requirements for mercury in fish flesh analysis. Subsequent studies examined flow paths within the falls in more detail, collected benthic samples within the falls and undertook a second assessment of spawning in the head pond reach upstream to the Chutes. These work programs are contained in Appendix D2.

3.4.1.16 Agency Teleconference – September 13, 2010 An agency teleconference was held with DFO and MNR on September 13, 2010 to provide an update on the field studies recently completed and upcoming falls field studies. Discussions were based on the following:

• results of RIN study completed in August 2010,

• planning for upcoming fall whitefish spawning studied for which MNR would be assisting.

3.4.1.17 Agency Teleconference – March 11, 2011 An agency teleconference was held on March 11, 2011 with DFO and MNR. Discussions were based on the following:

• Aboriginal consultation update,

• results of the recently submitted data report,

• upcoming spring walleye spawning study to be completed,

• SAAS modelling, and

• relocation of the existing Water Survey of Canada gauging station.

Notes from the conference call, as well as several follow up emails are provided in Appendix C9.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-30

© Hatch 2013/04

3.4.1.18 Agency Teleconference - March 17, 2011 A teleconference was held on March 17, 2011 with TC, CEAA, EC, MNR and MOE. Discussions were based on the following:

• review of the recently submitted data report,

• mercury testing, and

• Aboriginal consultation update.

3.4.1.19 Agency Teleconference – September 22, 2011 A teleconference was held on September 22, 2011 with MNR and EC to discuss the relocation of the existing Water Survey of Canada gauging station.

3.4.1.20 Agency Teleconference – October 11, 2011 A teleconference was held on October 11, 2011 with DFO, TC, MNR and MOE. Discussions were based on the following: Minutes of the meeting are included in Appendix C8.

• review of the results from the summer 2010 RIN study, fall 2010 whitefish spawning study, and spring 2011 walleye spawning study,

• review of water quality study (2010),

• review of erosion and sediment transfer study (2011),

• benthic invertebrate study, and

• Aboriginal consultation update.

3.4.1.21 Interagency Meeting – December 8, 2011 A meeting was held on December 8, 2011 with various federal and provincial agencies including DFO, Transport Canada, MOE and MNR. The purpose of the meeting was to follow up on a provincial agency meeting that was held on November 24. Discussions were based on the following:

• Aboriginal consultation,

• update on work completed since October meeting in Dryden,

• upstream rapids/chutes/upstream spawning areas, and

• next steps.

New information was presented to the agencies and additional comments were received. Minutes of the meeting are provided in Appendixes C8 and C9.

3.4.1.22 Draft ER Review Meeting – June 19, 2012 An interagency meeting was held on June 19, 2012 with various federal and provincial agencies including MNR, MOE, DFO and Transport Canada, The intent of the call was to provide an opportunity for discussions on the draft ER report before its release to the public via the Notice of Inspection. Discussions were based on the following:


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-31

© Hatch 2013/04

• review of project components/layout,

• summary of winter/spring 2012 work,

• Aboriginal consultation,

• effects and mitigation during construction and operation,

• net and cumulative effects,

• water management planning,

• monitoring programs,

• report conclusions, and

• next steps.

Minutes of the meeting are provided in Appendixes C8 and C9.

3.4.1.23 DFO Comments on Draft ER – August 27, 2012 DFO provided comments on the draft ER on August 27, 2012 (see Appendix C8). Specific comments on the draft ER were addressed in response and the draft ER was revised to reflect these comments. A copy of the comments on the draft ER, as well as the responses from Horizon/Hatch, are provided in Appendix C8.

3.4.1.24 Agency Meeting – August 30, 2012 An interagency meeting was held on August 30, 2012 with MNR, MOE and DFO, Minutes of meeting and the presentation provided by Horizon are provided in Appendix C8. See Section 3.4.2.36 for details regarding the discussion at the meeting.

3.4.1.25 Agency Meeting/Teleconference – December 5, 2012 A meeting was held on December 5, 2012 with DFO in Burlington and DFO Thunder Bay participated via teleconference to discuss fish habitat compensation design. DFO stated that it was preferred to have both the proposed upstream and downstream compensation habitat shoals located across the river channel as opposed to along the shorelines. Some discussion was held regarding proposed depths and velocities. It was acknowledged that design techniques would be different for the head-pond area that would have a fairly constant water level compared with the tailrace that would be subject to greater fluctuations based on changes in flow throughout the year. It was agreed that the upstream compensation work may need to be done after the head-pond filling, therefore, may lose one spawning season before the new compensation shoal is in place. DFO agreed that this was acceptable. DFO noted that they are more concerned with long-term effectiveness than short-term construction impacts. DFO also acknowledged the work across the river may not be possible from a safety perspective during high flows. It was agreed that during high flow years, the existing spawning areas below the south falls should still be productive.

3.4.1.26 Agency Teleconference – January 25, 2013 A teleconference was held on January 25, 2013 with DFO and MNR to discuss the approach to upstream habitat compensation. DFO and MNR acknowledged that it was not possible to


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-32

© Hatch 2013/04

completely design a compensation habitat shoal within the head pond at the present time, since 2D hydraulic modeling could not be completed until the head pond was filled. DFO/MNR agreed that following head-pond filling, Horizon would undertaken a bathymetry survey in the proposed habitat compensation area, complete 2D hydraulic modeling to design the habitat compensation shoal (1400 m2), submit for agency approval and install the habitat prior to the first spring spawning period. Monitoring will then be completed to ensure the habitat is functioning as designed. An email issued by Hatch to DFO and MNR on February 26, 2013 confirming that Horizon will implement the approach approved by DFO and MNR is included in Appendixes C8 and C9. The ER has been revised to identify this approach to upstream habitat compensation (Section 6.3.8.7) and the operational monitoring section (9.3) has been revised to address agency comments on the proposed monitoring program in regard to monitoring of the compensation habitat.

3.4.2 Provincial Agency Consultation Summary Provincial agencies consulted during the environmental assessment for the Project include:

• Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), • Ministry of the Environment (MOE), • Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport (MCTS), • Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA), • Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM), • Ministry of Transportation, and • Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

Relevant provincial agency correspondence is included in Appendix C9.

3.4.2.1 Agency Meeting – August 9, 2007 A meeting was held on August 9, 2007 with DFO and MNR (see Section 3.4.1.1).

3.4.2.2 Submission of Field Study Program For review, a field study program was submitted to DFO and MNR on September 14, 2007 (see Section 3.4.1.2).

3.4.2.3 Response to Submission of Field Study Program Concerns/issues were received from the DFO and MNR following the August 9, 2007 agency meeting and the submission of the Field Study Program by Hatch. See Section 3.4.1.3 for a summary.

3.4.2.4 Distribution of Project Description – October 2007 The distribution of the Project Description inclusive of provincial agencies is discussed in Section 3.4.1.4.

3.4.2.5 Agency Meeting – October 4, 2007 A meeting was held on October 4, 2007 with various federal and provincial agencies including DFO, MCL, MNDM, MOE and MNR (see Section 3.4.1.5).

3.4.2.6 Redistribution of Project Description – January 2008 The Project Description was redistributed in January 2008 (see Section 3.4.1.6).


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-33

© Hatch 2013/04

3.4.2.7 Redistribution of the Field Study Program The Proposed Fish and Wildlife Field Study Program for Big Falls and the Trout Lake River was redistributed with updated comments on April 18, 2008. Additional issues are listed in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11 Issues Raised in Response to Redistribution of Field Study Program

Issue


Effects to significant habitat areas, wetland areas, aquatic vegetation, substrate

MNR

Current level of habitat use in the study area MNR Structure of fish community MNR Benthic invertebrate biodiversity MNR Presence of VTE or invasive species MNR Water Quality and mercury sampling MNR Breeding bird surveys MNR

3.4.2.8 Agency Teleconference – October 2, 2008 A meeting was held on October 2, 2008 with various federal and provincial agencies including DFO, MCL, MNDM, MOE and MNR (see Section 3.4.1.7).

3.4.2.9 Agency Teleconference – November 20, 2008 A teleconference was held on November 20, 2008 with federal and provincial agencies including MNR, MOE, DFO, TC and CEAA (see Section 3.4.1.8).

3.4.2.10 Agency Teleconference – February 10, 2009 A teleconference was held on February 10, 2009 with federal and provincial agencies including MNR, MOE, and DFO (see Section 3.4.1.9).

3.4.2.11 Agency Teleconference – April 3, 2009 A teleconference was held on April 3, 2009 with federal and provincial agencies including MNR and DFO (see Section 3.4.1.10).

3.4.2.12 Agency Teleconference – June 5, 2009 A teleconference was held on June 5, 2009 with MNR to discuss the following:

• action items from April 3rd teleconference and correspondence received from MNR

• project description difference between package sent to First Nations earlier and the most recent version provided to MNR

• terms of reference for water management planning

• Aboriginal consultation

• public consultation including information centre and Notice of Modification.

MNR provided comments on the draft Terms of Reference for the WMP on June 5, 2009. Comments are included in Appendix C9.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-34

© Hatch 2013/04

3.4.2.13 Agency Teleconference – August 20, 2009 A teleconference was held on August 20, 2009 with MNR to discuss the following:

• outstanding action items from April 3rd teleconference,

• terms of reference for water management planning and next steps in process,

• responses from posting of Notice of Modification,

• upcoming PIC and First Nation open houses, and

• agenda for upcoming meeting with Grassy Narrows, Lac Seul and Wabauskang First Nations.

3.4.2.14 Water Management Planning Steering Committee Meeting/Teleconference – September 11, 2009 A teleconference was held on September 11, 2009 as a kick-off meeting for the Water Management Planning process with MNR and Treaty 3 Aboriginal representative. Topics included:

• confirmation plan will be a “simple plan” as defined in the regulations,

• confirmation of overall approach will be a “coordinated” approach as defined in the regulations,

• Terms of Reference,

• Objectives,

• identification of outstanding items, and

• consultation plan.

3.4.2.15 Water Management Planning Steering Committee Meeting/Teleconference – September 22, 2009 A teleconference was held on September 22, 2009 for the Water Management Planning process with MNR. Topics included:

• bypass flows,

• run-of-river operations strategy i.e., no daily water level fluctuations,

• confirmation that the peaking option has been rejected by Horizon, and

• review of PIC panels on WMP.

3.4.2.16 Water Management Planning Steering Committee Meeting/Teleconference – October 23, 2009 A teleconference was held on October 23, 2009 for the Water Management Planning process with MNR. Topics included:

• review of comments on WMP from PIC and First Nation open houses,

• run-of-river operations strategy i.e., no daily water level fluctuations,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-35

© Hatch 2013/04

• confirmation that the peaking option has been rejected by Horizon, and

• review of PIC panels on WMP.

3.4.2.17 Agency Teleconference – November 17, 2009 A teleconference was held November 17, 2009 with DFO and MNR (see Section 3.4.1.11).

3.4.2.18 Agency Teleconference – November 19, 2009 A teleconference was held November 19, 2009 with DFO and MNR (see Section 3.4.1.12).

3.4.2.19 Preliminary Draft ESR Review – May 2010 and August 2010 A preliminary draft ESR, dated October 2009 was issued to MNR and DFO in May 2010 (see Section 3.4.1.13), and to MOE in August 2010 (see Section 3.4.1.14)

3.4.2.20 Agency Meeting – June 10, 2010 A meeting was held June 10, 2010 with various federal and provincial agencies including DFO, MOE and MNR (see Section 3.4.1.15).

3.4.2.21 MNR Comments on Fall 2010 Field Program – August 2010 MNR provided comments on the proposed field study program on August 13, 2010 and Hatch responded to MNR on August 16, 2010. The email with comments and responses from MNR and Hatch is provided in Appendix C9.

3.4.2.22 Agency Teleconference – September 13, 2010 A teleconference was held September 13, 2010 with DFO and MNR (see Section 3.4.1.16). Following this meeting, MNR and Hatch corresponded by email regarding the proposed field program. Emails between August 27 and September 21, 2010 are included in Appendix C9.

3.4.2.23 Agency Teleconference – September 30, 2010 A teleconference was held on September 30, 2010 with MNR to discuss aboriginal consultation, roles and responsibilities.

3.4.2.24 Agency Teleconference – March 11, 2011 A teleconference was held on March 11, 2011 with MNR and DFO (see Section 3.4.1.17).

3.4.2.25 Agency Teleconference – March 17, 2011 A teleconference was held on March 17, 2011 with MNR, MOE, DFO, TC and CEAA (see Section 3.4.1.18).

3.4.2.26 Agency Teleconference – June 3, 2011 A teleconference was held on June 3, 2011 with MNR to provide an update on the progress with the aboriginal consultations.

3.4.2.27 MNR Comments on Caribou Habitat Assessment – August 2011 MNR confirmed via email to Horizon that they felt the Caribou Habitat Assessment report prepared by Dr. Fryxell (see Appendix D) was satisfactory, and the 2010 observation of caribou on the island was likely a transient observation. The email from MNR to Horizon is included in Appendix C9.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-36

© Hatch 2013/04

3.4.2.28 Agency Teleconference – September 22, 2011 A teleconference was held on September 22, 2011 with MNR and EC regarding the replacement of the existing Water Survey of Canada gauging station.

3.4.2.29 Agency Teleconference – October 11, 2011 A teleconference was held on October 11, 2011 with MNR, MOE, DFO and TC (see Section 3.4.1.20). Minutes of the Meeting are included in Appendix C9.

3.4.2.30 Agency Teleconference – November 3, 2011 A teleconference was held on November 3, 2011 with MNR to discuss aboriginal consultation roles, responsibilities and strategies.

3.4.2.31 Agency Teleconference – November 24, 2011 A teleconference was held on November 24, 2011 with MNR, and MOE. The discussion focus was fish and fish habitat upstream at the upstream rapids.

3.4.2.32 Agency Teleconference – December 1, 2011 A teleconference was held on December 1, 2011 with MNR and MOE to discuss aboriginal consultation roles, responsibilities and strategies.

3.4.2.33 Agency Teleconference – December 8, 2011 A teleconference was held on December 8, 2011 with MNR, MOE, DFO and TC (see Section 3.4.1.21).

Follow-up emails were exchanged between Horizon and MOE in December 2011, particularly regarding mercury assessment requirements (see Appendix C9). The email from MOE on December 16, 2011 confirmed that MOE would not require that mercury modeling or screening level assessment and identified operational monitoring requirements regarding fish tissue mercury (sportfish and baitfish assessment).

3.4.2.34 MNR Discussions/Email – April 2012 Hatch and MNR discussed the proposed spring 2012 spawning investigation methodology in April 2012. Emails from April 11, 2012 are included in Appendix C9.

3.4.2.35 Draft ER Review Meeting – June 19, 2012 An interagency meeting was held on June 19, 2012 with various federal and provincial agencies including MNR, MOE, DFO and Transport Canada, (see Section 3.4.1.22). Minutes of meeting are provided in Appendix C9.

3.4.2.36 Agency Meeting – August 30, 2012 An interagency meeting was held on August 30, 2012 with MNR, MOE and DFO, Minutes of meeting and the presentation provided by Horizon are provided in Appendix C9. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and come to resolution on four key topics including:

• upstream/head pond,

• bypass reach,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-37

© Hatch 2013/04

• downstream/tailrace, and

• physical works of the Project.

The five key objectives of the meeting were to:

1. discuss and resolve issues,

2. finalize aquatic habitat compensation plan input,

3. finalize WMP input,

4. delineation of EA versus permitting requirements, and

5. discuss next steps.

The main points coming out of the meeting included the following:

• A full dam safety assessment would not be required at the Class EA stage, but additional information should be added to the ER to discuss potential effects of dam failure on the downstream mine and the highway bridge. (Note: additional information on potential effects of dam failure is provided in Section 2.4 and Section 6.5.1.)

• Acid rock testing is not required at the Class EA stage, but Horizon would have to commit to testing prior to use of rock on site. (Note: see Section 5.3.6.6 for the testing commitments made by Horizon.)

• Details regarding cofferdam designs and construction environmental management would be dealt with at the permitting stage.

• MOE requested additional information on hydraulic modeling completed for the Project (see Section 4.1.5 for additional information on the 1-D and 2-D modeling completed).

• DFO and MNR requested information on calculation of fish habitat areas and compensation requirements (see Section 6.3.8).

• Bypass flows were discussed along with mitigation measures including direction of main flow through the north channel with ~1/3 directed through the south channel via small structures and enhancement of habitat in interconnecting channel. Monitoring will be required to assess effects (see proposed operational monitoring strategy in Section 9.3). It was agreed that there was no upstream fish passage through Big Falls.

• Downstream fish habitat compensation was discussed including creation of shoals adjacent to the tailrace and design targets for velocity and benching of shoals. The habitat should be assessed at both average May flow (24.5 m3/s) and 1:2-year flow (42 m3/s) (see Section 6.3.8.7 for a discussion of downstream habitat compensation measures).

• Prior to head-pond filling, beaver will be trapped out by the local trapper and/or First Nations trappers (see Section 5.3.9.3).


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-38

© Hatch 2013/04

• Horizon committed to helping re-establish a small patch of wild rice currently growing in the proposed head-pond area (see commitments in Section 6.4.7).

• Back-up diesel generator will require an Environmental Compliance Approval. (Note: it has been determined that the back-up diesel generator will require registration on the Environmental Activity Sector Registry and will not actually require an Environmental Compliance – see Section 6.3.3.)

• Sediment and erosion monitoring will be conducted in Years 1, 3 and 5 following commencement of operations (see Section 9.3).

• Riverine Index Netting (RIN) will be used to assess effects on fish populations (see Section 9.3). No monitoring will be required in Bruce and Pakwash Lakes. Drift netting will be used to assess spawning.

• Regarding WMP requirements, it was agreed that the intent is being met through the ER and that proposed water levels and compensation flows were reasonable.

3.4.2.37 MOE Comments on ER – December 14, 2012 The MOE provided comments on the ER on December 14, 2012 (see Appendix C9) during the Notice of Inspection review period described in Section 3.3.1.7. Specific comments on the ER were addressed in response and the final ER was revised to reflect these comments. A copy of the comments on the ER are provided in Appendix C9, as well as the response from Horizon/Hatch.

3.4.2.38 MNR Comments on ER – December 15, 2012 The MNR provided comments on the ER on December 14, 2012 during the Notice of Inspection review period described in Section 3.3.1.7. Specific comments on the ER were addressed in response and the final ER was revised to reflect these comments. A copy of the comments on the ER as well as the response from Horizon/Hatch, are provided in Appendix C9.

3.4.3 Municipal Consultation Summary The Township of Ear Falls and the Municipality of Red Lake were sent the NOC, Notice of Modification, Notice of PIC and the Class EA Transition letter. No formal responses were received in response to those notifications.

Both the Township of Ear Falls and Municipality of Red Lake were sent the Notice of Inspection, and will be included on the distribution list for the Notice of Completion.

The Township of Ear Falls responded to the Notice of Inspection by sending a letter stating that the Township Council had reviewed the notice and accompanying letter and ultimately passed a Council ”Resolution of Support” for the proposed hydro project on November 21, 2012. The resolution is contained in Appendix C10.

3.5 Aboriginal Consultation Under the Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA) Class EA for Waterpower Projects, any project that “interferes with or infringes on the exercise of these rights or potential rights may result in a duty to consult on the part of the Crown”. Although the ultimate responsibility for fulfillment of


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-39

© Hatch 2013/04

the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate rests with the Crown, the Crown has delegated certain procedural aspects of Aboriginal consultation to Horizon Hydro as per the correspondence from the MNR dated March 7, 2011. A copy of this correspondence is included in Appendix C11. Accordingly, Aboriginal consultation has been developed in coordination with each identified community and the relevant provincial agencies (i.e., MNR and MOE). Unique consultation plans have been developed and implemented to ensure the concerns of each community are respected and addressed. Accommodation Plans, specific to each community, will be prepared (if required) after final Aboriginal review of this document. The focus during the EA process has been, however, to mitigate all issues brought forward in order to minimize or eliminate impacts where possible and practical.

3.5.1 Objectives of Aboriginal Consultation It is intended that consultation will result in the engagement of potentially affected and interested Aboriginal groups via written correspondence and meetings, resulting in information pertinent to the EA including as a minimum:

• use of lands and resources within the study area for traditional purposes by Aboriginal groups,

• ATK (Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge) of the study area, such as its historical use, any cultural resources including ossuaries and information related to the natural environment, and

• any potentially negative effects as a result of Project construction or operation.

Horizon Hydro has considered the information needs of the Aboriginal communities in appropriately engaging these communities. This has included clear and concise information regarding the construction and operation phases of the Project.

3.5.2 Aboriginal Consultation Principles In developing an Aboriginal consultation program, comprehensive principles and objectives have been determined as directed by the MOE Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch Code of Practice for Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process (MOE, 2007a). The following principles have been developed to guide the consultation plan:

• respect for traditional knowledge and values of First Nations and other Aboriginal communities,

• inclusion of First Nations and other Aboriginal communities and their traditional knowledge throughout the environmental assessment process,

• understanding and flexibility in the environmental assessment process when engaging First Nations and other Aboriginal community members and in determining consultation approach, and

• transparency when communicating information and utilizing traditional knowledge within the environmental assessment process.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-40

© Hatch 2013/04

Guidance was also provided from the Red Lake MNR office in establishing these consultation plans in the form of a draft First Nations Consultation and Accommodation Plan. This draft plan has not been included in the ER due to confidentiality concerns on behalf of the First Nation communities. This information may be released confidentially to regulatory agencies upon request and with the permission of First Nation communities. The principles with the plan have been applied and considered in determining the key elements of Aboriginal consultation. Activities to date are described in the following sections.

3.5.3 Aboriginal Consultation Activities – General Aboriginal and Aboriginal agency consultation was an important part of the environmental screening process, during which various potentially affected and interested Aboriginal communities were contacted to determine their potential interest in the Project. Project information was also posted to the website and updated regularly as the project progressed. The following aboriginal communities, groups and agencies were contacted to:

• identify any other potentially interested Aboriginal communities and invite them to participate in the environmental assessment process,

• determine whether there are First Nation Claims outstanding pertinent to the Project area, and

• determine whether there is any interest in the Project area by non-status Indians or Métis:

Grassy Narrows First Nation

Lac Seul First Nation

Wabauskang First Nation

Bimose Tribal Council

Grand Council Treaty 3

Métis Nation of Ontario

Independent First Nations Alliance

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

The issues raised by Aboriginal communities throughout the consultation process have been documented and are summarized in Table 3.12. The following sections provide detailed documentation of the various consultation events and their outcomes.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-41

© Hatch 2013/04

Table 3.12 Aboriginal Issues Tracking Table

Issue/Concern Raised

Source

Response

Comments

Issue Status

Water Levels Impacts to flooded/ inundated area

LSFN, WFN, GNFN, MNO

Inundation area is approximately 6.3 ha. Impacts to fish community mitigated.

Potential impacts and mitigation measures are provided in Sections 5.3.8 and 6.3.8 (Aquatic Biota) and 5.3.6 and 6.3.6 (Surface Water Quality).

Impacts downstream from peaking operations

GNFN Peaking of project is no longer being considered, will now be run-of-river.

Resolved

Impact on areas to be dewatered

WFN The area of the falls will have a reduction in flow during operations of the facility. The impacts of this have been studied during the EA process and found to be minimal. Some compensation for impacts to invertebrates is proposed. MOE is in agreement with proposed bypass flows, subject to confirm of suitability during post-construction monitoring (see MOE comments on Draft Environmental Report in Appendix C9).

This item is discussed in detail in Sections 5.3.8.2 and 6.3.8.4 of this report.

Access/Appearance Loss of remoteness/ aesthetic appeal

Lac Seul FN/Red Lake

Site is not remote; it is adjacent to a forestry road that is well used. Aesthetic appeal of falls will be reduced after project is in place. Minimum bypass flows and mitigation are proposed to lessen impacts on aesthetics. In particular, greater bypass flows will be provided during higher use times (May to Sep). A greater percentage of the bypass flows will be directed over North Falls that is more easily viewed from the shore.

Site will be restored upon completion of construction, but cannot further mitigate aesthetics, however aesthetic flows are discussed in Sections 6.3.5.1 and 8.8.

Resolved.

Limited access to Big Falls area for traditional use


Access to Big Falls area will be improved after project is in place.

Resolved.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-42

© Hatch 2013/04


Source

Response

Comments

Issue Status

Compensation flows over falls

LSFN The compensation flows will be based on both aesthetics and environmental considerations. MOE is in agreement with proposed bypass flows, subject to confirm of suitability during post-construction monitoring (see MOE comments on Draft ER in Appendix C9).

This item is discussed in detail in Sections 6.3.5.1 and 8.8 of this report.

Loss of spiritual connection to the sound of the river

MNO A guaranteed minimum flow will be maintained over the falls. Flow over the falls will be significantly higher than the guaranteed minimum at high river flow periods.

Aquatic Impacts Impacts to aquatic environment


Impacts are assessed in the Class EA with mitigation/compensation applied as required. New spawning beds will be constructed downstream from Big Falls and within the proposed head pond to compensate for existing spawning areas lost due to the development. Minimum bypass flows and benthic habitat enhancement proposed for the bypass reach.

Current report summarizes impacts and mitigation/compensation (Section 6.3.8)

Invasion of smelts GNFN Rainbow smelt are not present within Trout Lake River.

Development of the project will not lead to their presence in Trout Lake River

Resolved

Impacts to fisheries in general


Impacts are being studied and mitigation and/or compensation measures will be introduced for any impacts.

This item is discussed in detail in Section 5.3.8 and 6.3.8 of this report. Horizon has agreement with MNR and DFO on the conceptual fish habitat compensation plan included in the ER (Section 6.3.8.7) and will preparing an application for Authorization under the Federal Fisheries Act based on this plan.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-43

© Hatch 2013/04


Source

Response

Comments

Issue Status

Fish passage up Big Falls

LSFN Big Falls is too steep and high for fish migration by the species at this site. DFO and MNR are in agreement that the base of Big Falls is a barrier to upstream fish movement (see correspondence in Appendixes C8 and C9).

Resolved.

Impacts from stopping flow during construction

LSFN The river flow will not be stopped during construction. There will be up to a 10% decrease in flow while head pond is filled, which is the maximum allowed by MOE. A 10% decrease is not anticipated to result in any negative effects during the short term head pond filling period.

Resolved

Impacts to walleye spawning areas


Impacts are assessed in the Class EA with mitigation/compensation applied as required. New spawning beds will be constructed downstream from Big Falls and within the proposed head pond to compensate for existing spawning areas lost due to the development.

This item is discussed in detail in Section 6.3.8 of this report

Effectiveness of walleye spawning habitat restoration procedures


Creation of walleye spawning habitat has been used for years throughout Ontario with great success.

Replacement habitat and walleye spawning activity will be monitored for 10 years after operation commences

Resolved

Impacts to sturgeon possibly retuning to the area

MNO There are no sturgeon at the site. They are known to be present in the English River downstream from Manitou Falls, but the hydroelectric facility at that location prevents movement farther upstream.

This item is discussed in detail in Section 4.1.13.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-44

© Hatch 2013/04


Source

Response

Comments

Issue Status

EA Process Aboriginal communities require capacity to review the technical studies of the EA


Horizon will finance an independent peer review of the EA for the aboriginal communities.

Horizon financed independent peer reviews for LSFN, WSFN and GNFN including having the reviewer hold additional community meetings for each community to discuss results and concerns.

Resolved for LSFN, WFN, GNFN. MNO has not committed to this solution.

Aboriginal communities concerned with only having 30 days to review the EA


Under the new Class EA there will be a 30 day review for Notice of Inspection and 30 day review for Notice of Completion plus approximately 30 days between. Therefore, approximately 90 days for review.

All four communities were provided a draft of the ER for review between May and September 2012 through an information email notice of posting of the document to a password protected website. No comments were received. The Notice of Inspection review period was then increased for the communities from 30 days to 5 months. In addition, there will still be a 30-day review period for the Notice of Completion review therefore totalling approximately 10 months.

Resolved.

Water Quality/Mercury, etc Increases to mercury levels due to flooding


This item was studied during the EA process and it was concluded that mercury increases will be minimal. Although increased fish consumption restrictions are not anticipated to occur, monitoring will be conducted following construction and if increases are noted, Horizon will directly notify Aboriginal communities.

Horizon has agreed to immediately inform the aboriginal communities of any significant increase in mercury levels found during the monitoring.

This item is discussed in detail in Section 6.3.6.2 of this report.

Sediment disturbance as a result of project


This item was studied during the EA process and it was concluded that the impacts will be minimal.


Effects to water temperature

LSFN There will be no significant impact to water temperature from

Resolved.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-45

© Hatch 2013/04


Source

Response

Comments

Issue Status

this project. The small size of the head pond and run-of-the-river nature of the proposed facility prevent any significant increase in temperature due to increases in surface area or residence time.

Wildlife Impacts to wildlife in general


There will be some short-term disturbance to wildlife and long-term loss of terrestrial wildlife habitat. No significant negative effects on wildlife populations are anticipated to occur. There will be a long-term increase in habitat for aquatic wildlife and waterfowl in the proposed head pond.

This item is discussed in detail in Sections 5.3.9 and 6.3.9 of this report.

Impacts to hunting and trapping


There may be a short-term disturbance to resource use in the immediate area during construction, but no long-term effects are anticipated.

This item is discussed in detail in Sections 5.4.5 and 6.4.4 of this report.

Impacts to moose populations

MNO This issue was studied during the EA process and it was concluded that there will be minimal impact to moose populations. Large moose habitat areas will remain untouched by the project.

This item is discussed in detail in Sections 5.3.9.3 and 6.3.9 of this report.

Impacts to caribou and other game movements

MNO Studies have been conducted on the area and concluded that there is no sign of caribou usage on the island. downstream of the falls. In general the site is not typical caribou habitat. MNR is in agreement with this conclusion.

Information provided by LSFN members support the conclusion that there is no caribou usages at this location.

This item is discussed in detail in Sections 4.1.13, 5.3.10 and 6.3.10 of this report.

Impact to migratory birds

MNO There will be some loss of terrestrial habitat and an increase in habitat for migratory waterfowl due to the project. Mitigation implemented to prevent disturbance to nesting migratory birds.

This item is discussed in detail in Sections 5.3.9.3 and 6.3.9 of this report.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-46

© Hatch 2013/04


Source

Response

Comments

Issue Status

Socio-Economic Negative impacts to archaeological resources


Archaeological studies Stage 1 and 2 were undertaken and signed off on by MTCS. Mitigation will be implemented should any undiscovered artifacts be unearthed during construction. Horizon will have a communication protocol in place to inform Aboriginal communities should this occur.

No artifacts were found.

Requirement for a local resource for archaeological/heritage studies

LSFN A local LSFN representative was retained by the Stage 2 Archaeologist.

Resolved

Requirement for Métis specific knowledge for archaeological/heritage studies

MNO Stage 2 Archaeological study did not find any artifacts in area with possible Métis significance.

Historical use of river for canoeing, etc


Canoeing travel may continue. Portage trail on west side will be reduced, and east side will be closed for construction only, but existing paths will be driveways.

From safety point of view, the west side portage should be the primary portage route with the project in place.

See Section 6.4.5.2.

Benefits to aboriginal groups using this area as traditional use area


Mitigation strategies are under discussion.

Horizon is currently in discussions with GNFN and WFN to become ownership partners in the project. This opportunity was offered to LSFN but the offer was declined

Ongoing

Effects on employment


There may be some opportunities for community members during construction.

This item continues to be discussed through partnership discussions with WFN and GNFN.

Ongoing

Concern was expressed over use of “Trout Lake River Small Hydro Project” name for project.

LSFN (Trout Lake community)

The project was named after the water body on which the project exists. However, if the community objects, another name will be discussed with the potential First Nation ownership partners (GNFN and WFN) with the intention of changing before commencing

When the new name is determined a notice will be sent to LSFN to inform them of the change.

Resolved


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-47

© Hatch 2013/04


Source

Response

Comments

Issue Status

operations. Terrestrial Impacts Impacts to native medicines at the site

WFN Noted. The only medicinal plants that have been identified to Horizon are tamarack and water lily. Horizon will walk the area with a medicinal plant expert from First Nations communities and identification mitigation if required. .

Resolved. To be addressed prior to start of construction.

Impacts to wild rice at the site

WFN Horizon will commit to re-establishing the small wild rice bed in head pond after it is filled and will monitor success of plantings.

Resolved.

Impacts to blueberries at the site

WFN Noted. This is a common plant and impacts to blueberries will not be significant with respect to overall abundance. No mitigation is proposed.

Resolved.

Impacts to wetlands LSFN, WFN, GNFN, MNO

The wetland in the head pond will be lost due to inundation, but it is anticipated that similar type wetlands will develop over time in the head pond. The overall wetland area is expected to increase with the project.


Impacts to shoreline vegetation in head pond from flooding

Shoreline vegetation will naturally re-establish itself after filling of head pond.

This item is discussed in detail in Section 5.3.9.1 of this report.

3.5.3.1 Notice of Commencement The publication and distribution of the Notice of Commencement is discussed in Section 3.3.1.1. This notice accompanied by a cover letter was sent to the communities, groups and agencies listed above in Section 3.5.3 on September 25, 2007. A copy of the letter and Notice of Commencement is included as Appendix C1.

3.5.3.2 Responses to the Notice of Commencement Two First Nation communities responded following the publication and distribution of the Notice of Commencement. Table 3.13 provides a summary of concerns/issues that were raised and the community that raised the concerns/issues.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-48

© Hatch 2013/04

Table 3.13 Responses/Issues Raised by Aboriginal Community Members Following the Notice of Commencement

Response/Issue

Respondents Raising the Issue

Advised that Lac Seul First Nation would be meeting with Band members from the Red Lake/Trout Lake area to discuss the Project.


Grassy Narrows expressed an interest in participating in the Environmental Screening process. Potential effects sited include those to hunting and trapping areas and impacts to traditional territory and community members’ exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Grassy Narrows First Nation

On October 15, 2007, a letter was received from the MAA. MAA provided a list of First Nations that could be impacted by or interested in the Project and should be contacted. This letter has been included in Appendix C11.

3.5.3.3 Notice of Modification The publication and distribution of the Provincial Notice of Modification was discussed in Section 3.3.1.4. The Notice of Modification accompanied by a letter was sent to Aboriginal communities, groups and related agencies on July 6, 2009. A copy of the letter and notice is included as Appendix C3.

3.5.3.4 Responses to the Notice of Modification Following the publication and distribution of the Notice of Modification, two responses were received from Aboriginal and related contacts. Table 3.14 provides a summary of concerns/issues that were raised and the group that raised the concerns/issues.

Table 3.14 Responses/Issues Raised by Aboriginal Community Members Following the Notice of Modification

Response/Issue

Respondents Raising the Issue

Provided information sources for determining potentially affected and interested Aboriginal communities

INAC

Métis Nation of Ontario stated that the proposed Project is located within their traditional area.

Métis Nation of Ontario

3.5.3.5 Notice of Aboriginal Information Centre – Red Lake – September 2009 The Notice of Information Centre for the project was published in three local newspapers: the Northern Sun News, Wawatay News and the Dryden Observer, on September 16 and 17, 2009 prior to the Aboriginal Information Centre on September 30, 2009. All recipients on the mailing list (Aboriginal, agencies and public) were mailed a notification of the information centre on September 11, 2009. Appendix C4 contains a sample of the letters as well as the notification.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-49

© Hatch 2013/04

3.5.3.6 Response Following the Notice of Aboriginal Information Centre – September 2009 Following the Notice of Aboriginal Information Centre, one response was received from INAC. The Litigation Management and Resolution Branch replied that their inventory of active litigation cases in the vicinity of the project included two cases:

• Chief Christine Garneau, Councillor Yvonne Williams, Councillor George Kooshet suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of Wabigoon Lake First Nation vs Her Majesty the Queen, Federal Court of Canada, court file reference #T-1909-93; and

• Francis Kavanaugh vs Attorney General of Canada, Ontario Court of Justice, filed in Thunder Bay, court file reference #99-0039.

Follow-up with the Litigation Management and Resolution Branch of INAC revealed that the case filed by Chief Christine Garneau was in relation to the Wabigoon River, near Dryden and as such is unrelated to the Project site. The second case referenced was made by Francis Kavanaugh, then Grand Chief of the Treaty 3 Council. This case was filed in 1999, and is now dormant; however Grand Council Treaty 3 is included in the stakeholder mailing list, and continues to receive Project information.

3.5.3.7 Information Centre – Off-Reserve Wabauskang, Grassy Narrows and Lac Seul First Nation Members – September 30, 2009, Red Lake An Information Centre was held on September 30, 2009 at the Red Lake Legion, Red Lake, Ontario. The Information Centre was open from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and display boards were set up to provide information regarding the project. Representatives from Horizon Hydro and Hatch were on hand to provide information and answer questions.

The purpose of the Information Centre was to:

• provide off-reserve community members with an opportunity to become familiar with the proposed project, and

• provide an opportunity for off-reserve Aboriginal community members to ask questions and/or identify any concerns related to the project.

The following information was provided during the information centre (Information Centre materials are included in Appendix C5):

• a preliminary description of the project components,



• maps illustrating the project location and projected inundation area,

• a description of studies completed for assessment of effects of the project,

• a description of the potential benefits as well as potential environmental impacts of the project and mitigation measures,



H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-50

© Hatch 2013/04


• comment sheets providing opportunity for public comment on the project and identification of issues or concerns.

Table 3.15 summarizes attendance at the Information Centre according to the sign-in sheets.

Table 3.15 September 30, 2009 Information Centre Attendance

Date

Time

Information Centre Location

No. of Attendees Signed-In

September 30, 2009 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Red Lake Legion Red Lake

7

Comment sheets were offered to all those present at the Information Centre as a means of providing comments and/or identifying concerns.

Comments Three comment sheets were completed during/following the Information Centre on September 30, 2009. Table 3.16 provides a summary of the responses to the questions asked in the comment sheet.

Table 3.16 Summary of Responses to Comment Sheets, September 30, 2009 Information Centre

Question Yes No

Not Specified Total

1. Where do you reside? - Trout Lake - Ear Falls - Red Lake area

1 1 1

1 1 1

2. Do you use any areas in the vicinity of the Project?

3 3

3. Please state which areas you use: - Big Falls - Trout Lake - Above and below Big

Falls

1 1 1

1 1 1

4. What do you use this area for? - Hunting - Fishing - Trapping - Traditional Heritage

Activities - Canoe trips as

traditional migration route

1 1 1 2

1

1 1 1 2

1


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-51

© Hatch 2013/04

Question Yes No

Not Specified Total

5. Please provide details regarding your use of the area, such as a description of the activities, and the frequency, season and duration: - Fishing at various

times of year - Use the area May to

December

1

1

1

1

6. Are you in favour of hydroelectric power generation?

3 3

7. Are you in favour of the Trout Lake River Hydroelectric Project?

3 3

8. Do you have any concerns with the Project?

3 3

9. Do you see your use of the Big Falls area changing as a result of the Project?

2 1 3

Concerns related to the project and potential issues that were raised and the number of respondents that raised the issue are presented in Table 3.17.

Table 3.17 Issues Raised and Relevant ER Section, September 30, 2009 Information Centre

Issue

No. of Respondents Raising the Issue

Horizon Response

Loss of remoteness/aesthetic appeal

1 Site is not remote; it is adjacent to a forestry road that is well used. Aesthetic appeal of falls will be reduced after project is in place. However, more flow will be passed in summer and aesthetic appeal will be available in periods of high flow i.e., spring.

Impacts to aquatic environment 1 Impacts to aquatic environment assessed during EA process, with mitigation/compensation applied as required.

Limited access to the Big Falls area for traditional use

1 Access to the Big Falls area will be improved after the project is in place


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-52

© Hatch 2013/04

3.5.3.8 Project Information Package – Varied Dates of Issuance (See Each Community for Issuance Date) A Project Information Package was issued to Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) at various times, generally based on when specific meetings were held. This package included the following information:

• project description (Appendix D1),

• project outline presentation,

• project drawings (Appendix A),

• Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Studies (Appendixes D8 and D9),

• PIC Display boards from 2009 open houses (Appendix C5), and

• copies of Notice of Commencement and Notice of Modification (Appendixes C1 and C3).

3.5.3.9 Additional Project Information Package – April 2011 Additional information was provided to Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and the MNO on April 2011 (see Appendix C11). This package included the following:

• Summary of activities to date in the form of a Powerpoint presentation (dated December 7, 2010),

• Existing Environment section from the preliminary draft EA (dated April 2010), and

• Summer and Fall 2010 Fisheries Report (Hatch 2011c).

3.5.3.10 Archaeological Assessment Clarifications Letter – May 27, 2011 A letter was issued to Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and the MNO to clarify the results of the archaeological investigations undertaken for the project. The Stage 1 report had recommended a Stage 2 investigation on the basis of a record in the Ministry of Culture data base of an archaeological site (EfKg-1 – unknown cultural components) “on an island in the river in front of Big Falls” (Boreal Heritage, 2008). The subject area was examined during the Stage 2 investigation (Woodland Heritage, 2008). Despite a specific survey of the island, no First Nation artifacts were found. A copy of the letter is provided in Appendix C11.

3.5.3.11 Additional Project Information Package – August 17, 2011 Additional information was provided to Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and the MNO on August 17, 2011. This package included the following:

• 2011 Spring Fisheries Report (Hatch, 2011b),

• 2011 Caribou Survey Report (Hatch, 2011g), and

• 2011 Erosion and Sediment Transport Assessment Report (Hatch, 2011f).


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-53

© Hatch 2013/04

3.5.3.12 Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling Study – September 22, 2011 The 2011 Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling Study (Hatch, 2011c) was sent to Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and the MNO on September 22, 2011. No response has been received to date, however as discussed in Section 3.5.3.15, an independent peer review is being undertaken on behalf of the Aboriginal communities which may result in the submission of comments.

3.5.3.13 Preliminary ER Draft – May 15, 2012 A preliminary draft of the ER was provided to Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and the Métis Nation of Ontario in digital format. No comments were received on this preliminary draft.

3.5.3.14 Notice of Inspection and 30-Day Review Period – November 1, 2012 A Notice of Inspection was issued to Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and the MNO including hard copies of the draft EA for initial review and comment on November 1, 2012. Wabauskang First Nation arranged for an independent review of the ER for the First Nation communities (financed by Horizon), including consultation with each community and identification/ documentation of any community specific issues or concerns (see Section 3.5.3.15). It should be noted that MNO was offered to participate in a similar independent review at the time of writing this report but declined the offer.

3.5.3.15 Independent Peer Review of ER Wabauskang First Nation organized/retained, and Horizon financed independent peer reviews of the ER by a third party – Ottawa Engineering Limited/WESA (OEL-WESA) on behalf of three of the First Nation communities consulted for the project (Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation). (Note that a similar, separate peer review opportunity was also offered to MNO but they declined.) OEL-WESA was retained to meet with representatives from the three First Nations and prepare an independent general Technical Review Report of the ER. OEL-WESA then met with each of the three aboriginal communities to present the results and discuss community-specific issues or concerns on the following dates:

• December 10, 2012 – Meeting with Lac Seul First Nation at Lac Seulf First Nation,

• December 11, 2012 – Meeting with Wabauskang First Nation,

• December 12, 2012 – Meeting with Grassy Narrows First Nation, and

• December 13, 2012 – Meeting with Lac Seul First Nation at Red Lake

Final Individual Community Consultation Reports were then prepared outlining the results of these Independent Peer Reviews.

An additional community meeting was then held at Grassy Narrows on February 14, 2013 in which Horizon presented the project and addressed concern to the initial open session, which was followed by a closed session (without Horizon) in which OEL-WESA met with the attendees to discuss the peer review and discuss any outstanding issues.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-54

© Hatch 2013/04

The results of this Independent Peer Review was some modification of the ER prior to the issuance of the Notice of Completion to address specific concerns from the First Nation both with respect to project commitments and supplementing information provided in the ER.

The following sections provide overall summaries of the specific consultation steps taken to date and the concerns raised to date, including during the peer review. Note that copies of the peer Technical Review and Individual Community Consultation Reports have not be included in this document at the request of the First Nation communities for whom they were prepared, however the concerns expressed by each First Nation and Horizon’s responses have been summarized below.

3.5.3.16 Notice of Completion and 30-Day Review Period A “Notice of Completion” was published to inform Aboriginal communities, groups and agencies that the ER is available for public review for 30 days (April 18 to May 17, 2013) with notices published on April 17 (Northern Sun and Dryden Observer) and April 18 (Wawatay). The Notice of Completion was prepared as per the requirements of the OWA Class EA (2011) and posted in the local newspapers and mailed directly to all members of the stakeholder mailing list. Hard copies of the finalized ER will be made available at several locations within the Township of Ear Falls and the Municipality of Red Lake areas. Copies will also be provided to each of the Aboriginal communities (i.e., Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation and the MNO) for use by their respective communities. All copies will be accompanied by contact information should they have any comments, questions or concerns.

During this time, anyone with comments was encouraged to contact the proponent to attempt to resolve the issues to their mutual satisfaction. If there are outstanding issues that remain unresolved, the reviewer has the opportunity to request a Part II Order (i.e., that the Project be elevated to a higher level of assessment) of the MOE under the Environmental Assessment Act.

3.5.3.17 Continued Aboriginal Consultation Effort –Through Construction, Operation and Decommissioning The successful conclusion of the 30-day ER review period (i.e., no Part II Order requests for elevation of the Project) will represent a conclusion to the ER and the Aboriginal consultation for the environmental assessment. However, aboriginal consultation will continue throughout the project. Following successful completion of the Class EA Process, Horizon Hydro will be required to obtain all necessary permits and approvals, as identified in Section 11 of this ER. Additional consultation opportunities may be required during these permits/approvals, if required by issuing agencies. Once all required permits/approvals are obtained, Horizon Hydro will be in position to commence construction of the Project.

Communications with the local Aboriginal communities will continue during the construction and operation phases of the project to ensure that any unforeseen impacts on the communities or their environment are quickly identified and properly addressed.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-55

© Hatch 2013/04

3.5.4 Grassy Narrows First Nation Consultation Activities Grassy Narrows First Nation (also known as Asubeeschoseewagong First Nation or Asabiinyashkosiwagong Nitam-Anishinaabeg) is an Ojibwa First Nation located approximately 80 km north of Kenora, Ontario. Their land base is the 4145-ha English River 21 Indian Reserve. It had a registered population of 1402 as of March 2010, of which their on-reserve population was 910. They are a signatory to Treaty 3 and a member of the Bimose Tribal Council. The Grassy Narrows First Nation experienced mercury poisoning from a Dryden chemical company that discharged effluent into the Wabigoon-English River system in the early and mid 1900s.1

The following is a brief summary of the consultation activities with Grassy Narrows First Nation for this project. Grassy Narrows FN initially requested that Horizon direct all correspondence through its legal counsel. The record of those letters and emails between Horizon and Grassy Narrow’s legal counsel have not been included in this document for privacy issues. An information centre/open house was originally planned to be held at Grassy Narrows First Nation for October 1, 2009, however, this event was later cancelled due to unforeseen scheduling issues at Grassy Narrows First Nation. As of late 2011, Horizon has been consulting directly with Grassy Narrows through its Chief and council.

The First Nation is located approximately 200 km downstream of the site.

3.5.4.1 Meeting with Grassy Narrows Chief and Council, MNR and DFO (Proponent Not Present) – November 6, 2008 This meeting was led by MNR for the purpose of identifying the level of interest (aboriginal and/or treaty rights that may be impacted) and develop a consultation approach as required. The regulatory approval process was also discussed.

3.5.4.2 Meeting with Grassy Narrows Chief and Council, MNR and DFO (Proponent Present) – November 6, 2008 A meeting was held on November 6, 2008 to present the project to the Grassy Narrows Chief and Council and answer questions and determine what concerns the community may have regarding the project. The possibility of possibly incorporating a daily peaking operating regime for the project was discussed and an estimated 1100 m of upstream inundation. Concerns noted at this meeting included:

• possible increased mercury levels due to flooding,

• invasion of smelts, and

• impacts to fish, wildlife and wild rice.

3.5.4.3 Grassy Narrows First Nation Information Package – April 9, 2009 A project information package was sent to Grassy Narrows (via GNFN legal counsel) on April 9, 2009.

1 Information from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/asubeeschoseewagong_First_Nation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/asubeeschoseewagong_First_Nation�


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-56

© Hatch 2013/04

3.5.4.4 First Nation Information Package – Distributed June 18, 2009 On June 18, 2009 a Project Information Package was sent to the Wabauskang, Lac Seul and Grassy Narrows First Nations. This package consisted of updated information originally sent on April 9, 2009. The following information was included:

• project description,

• project components and structures,

• compensation flow information,

• inundation area,

• feasibility level drawings depicting the Project layout (Appendix A), and

• Stage One and Two Archaeological Assessment (Appendixes D8 and D9).

A copy of the information package is contained in Appendix C11.

3.5.4.5 Joint First Nation/Agency Meeting – August 17, 2009 A meeting was held on August 17, 2009 in Dryden, ON with representatives from Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation, MNR and DFO. A pre-meeting was held with the First Nations and agencies only (Proponent not present) immediately prior to the main meeting with the Proponent. Discussions were based on the following:

• overview of project works, studies completed to date, proposed operation and possible impacts,

• consultation plans – a draft consultation plan had been developed by MNR in collaboration with Lac Seul was provided to Grassy Narrows but no feedback had been received,

• funding for consultation and independent technical review of EA,

• information centres and meeting with the communities,

• mercury level impacts, fishing impacts, sediment transfer, erosion,

• Water Management Planning,

• environmental approvals process, and

• project schedule.

3.5.4.6 Meeting with Grassy Narrows First Nation Chief and Council – November 18, 2011 A meeting was held with Horizon and Grassy Narrows First Nation on November 18, 2011. Discussions were based on the following:

• consultation process, and

• relationship building.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-57

© Hatch 2013/04

3.5.4.7 Meeting with Grassy Narrows First Nation Chief and Council – February 15, 2012 A meeting was held with Horizon and Grassy Narrows First Nation on February 15, 2012. Discussions were based on the following:


• studies completed and to be completed, and

• discussion of possible mitigation and accommodation measures.

3.5.4.8 Meeting with Grassy Narrows Council – June 13, 2012 A meeting was held between Horizon and the Grassy Narrows First Nation Council (Chief did not attend) on June 13, 2012. A presentation was made outlining the project and the studies completed to date. Discussion focused on a mutually acceptable consultation plan that included an Independent Peer Review of the ER and a community meeting.

3.5.4.9 Meeting with Grassy Narrows First Nation Community – July 31, 2012 A meeting was held with Horizon and the Grassy Narrows First Nation community. Approximately 15 community members attended along with the Chief and Council. A presentation was made by Horizon and Hatch, questions were answered, and information panels were hung around the room, outlining the following:

• an outline of the project,

• benefits of waterpower,

• Class EA process,

• proposed consultation plan,

• maps and photographs of the site,

• inundation area,

• Project schedule,

• studies completed to date,

• details of the fish studies completed and findings, and

• outline of proposed mitigation measures.

3.5.4.10 Independent Peer Review OEL-WESA met with First Nation community representatives in Dryden on October 2, 2012 to identify appropriate community contacts and introduce the project. As noted above OEL-WESA then completed a general Technical Review Report dated November 30, 2012 based on the Notice of Inspection version of the ER. OEL-WESA and its biological subconsultant Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) held a community meeting to review the Technical Review Report and obtain community input on December 12, 2013 (12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.) of which Horizon was not included. A project questionnaire was provided for further community distribution along with a copy of the Technical Review Report, maps and a copy of the OEL-WESA presentation was provided to Council. Subsequent to that meeting, GNFN


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-58

© Hatch 2013/04

requested Horizon complete another open house at the community on February 14, 2013 (see below for discussion on the February 2013 open house). OEL-WESA then prepared and finalized with GNFN the Individual Community Consultation Report outlining the community comments and/or concerns (March 1, 2013). Horizon subsequently reviewed these comments and/or concerns with GNFN council members via a teleconference on which OEL-WESA was also present. Table 3.18 is a summary of the comments and/or concerns and Horizon’s responses:

Table 3.18 Grassy Narrows First Nation Peer Review Comments/Concerns

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status Mercury Contamination of Trout Lake RiverIt was recommended by OEL-WESA that the monitoring program include additional sampling of YOY year fish and ensure fish samples were collected from both upstream and downstream of the falls.

Horizon has committed to MOE to complete additional sampling of YOY prior to construction. This commitment has been noted in the updated ER.

Resolved

Monitoring for mercury contamination should also include sediment sampling from the proposed inundation area and downstream of the weir.

Horizon has committed to monitor mercury levels both in fish flesh and in the water and therefore does not feel that additional sampling of the sediment would be warranted.

Resolved

Consumption advisories should be included as part of a communication strategy between the proponent and the First Nation, if increased mercury levels are detected subsequent to project commissioning.

Horizon agreed to notify GNFN (along with other aboriginal communities) immediately of any increase in mercury levels noted during the monitoring program.

Resolved

Flooding and Water Fluctuations It was acknowledged that since peaking is no longer being considered for the project, the facility’s operational regime would be limited to the potential effect to initial filling of the reservoir which will result in a short term reduction of downstream flows.

Horizon confirmed this acknowledgement and clarified that during initial filling of the reservoir, the downstream flows would be reduced by a maximum of 10% of the available flow i.e., 90% of the available flow would continue to be passed through the bypass channel and downstream. This is a standard procedure accepted by DFO throughout Canada to minimize impact to fish and fish habitat.

Resolved

Requested additional information be provided in the ER regarding the flow requirements in the bypass reach to sustain ecological health of the waterway. Requested that the ER provide additional information on the potential of the project to impact upon fisheries in the bypass reach.

Horizon agreed to supplement the information regarding the bypass flows in the ER. Horizon noted that Big Falls is considered to be a barrier to upstream migration of fish and that the regulatory agencies have stated agreement with this.

Resolved


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-59

© Hatch 2013/04

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status Baseline Water Quality It was acknowledged that the baseline surface water quality program taken for the project was comprehensive. It was noted that these measurements noted no current exceedances for mercury in water.

Horizon agrees with this statement.

Resolved.

Traplines It was recommended that additional discussions be held with GNFN to determine the effects of the project on trapping.

Horizon noted that it was aware of one trapline that encompasses the entire project impact area. Horizon has been in contact with this trapper and committed to ensure that the project does not negatively affect him financially. To Horizon’s knowledge, the trapper is not a member of the GNFN.

Resolved. GNFN subsequently confirmed that the GNFN trapper does not own the trapline at the project site and that the GNFN trapper has no concern with the project .

Liabilities associated with burial grounds that might become accidentally inundated during project development.

Horizon stated that there was a low risk of this occurring. Stage 1 and 2 archaeology studies had been completed (with assistance from Lac Seul community members) and accepted by MTCS that found no signs of potential burial grounds in this area. Furthermore, since the flooded area will include mostly shorelines (since steep slopes), it is unlikely that a burial ground would be located so close to the water. Horizon did confirm, however, that if a burial ground, or other artifact, is found, it will follow the current regulations for archaeological finds and notify the appropriate regulatory agencies and aboriginal communities before proceeding.

Resolved

Concern over mining interests competing for use of the site.

Horizon noted that it has been in touch with the company that holds mining claims in the project area (both for the structures and inundation area). That company has provided the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines with a release for Horizon to complete the project. This document was not provided to Horizon, it was sent directly from the mining company to the Ministry, and is therefore not provided in this document. However, Horizon has received verbal confirmation from the Ministry that all appropriate

Resolved


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-60

© Hatch 2013/04

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status paperwork has been received for Horizon to proceed.

Use of concrete and the impact on water quality.

Horizon noted that standard best management practices will be used by the contractor to ensure wet concrete is not spilled in the river. All concrete construction work will be completed in the dry behind cofferdams or rock plugs. It was noted that once concrete has hardened, it does not pose any significant impact on water quality.

Resolved

Potential for formation of algae. Algal blooms could potentially be a short term occurrence in the shallow, peripheral portions of the newly inundated head pond due to release of nutrients associated with decomposition of inundated vegetation and terrestrial soils. However, this is anticipated to be a relatively short occurrence, likely in the first summer following head pond inundation, based on experience with other newly inundated head ponds in northern Ontario. Algal blooms are not likely to persist more than 1 to 2 years following head pond creation, as the decomposition process ceases and more normal water quality conditions are restored. While we can't predict specifics, we would suggest that the most likely areas would be in the embayment upstream from the WSC gauge (on the newly inundated portion), and potentially within the flooded portion of the tributary where the portage route will be accessed, since these areas are outside the main flow, and would therefore have less flow circulation than within the main channel of the river. We don't expect algal blooms throughout the upstream portion. We don't expect any measurable impact on downstream water quality due to the temporary presence of algal blooms in the head pond. The ER notes the potential for short term increases in nutrients in Section 6.3.8 upon head pond creation, and some of those nutrients would be

Resolved.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-61

© Hatch 2013/04

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status transported into the downstream reach, although given the small size of the head pond, quick renewal time and dilution, the change in downstream nutrient concentrations is not anticipated to have any effect on productivity. Generally, we would consider the increase in algal in the head pond to be indicative of increased productivity and not a negative effect. Algae can provide habitat for biota (plankton, bugs and fish) and a source of forage for lower trophic levels species, which in turn provide forage for fish. We don’t foresee algal blooms in the head pond causing any negative effects on water quality or aquatic habitat or biota.

3.5.4.11 Meeting with Grassy Narrows First Nation Community – February 14, 2013 A meeting was held with Horizon and the Grassy Narrows First Nation community on February 14, 2013 with OEL-WESA in attendance. A total of 12 community members including members of Council were present. A presentation was made by Horizon and Hatch, questions were answered, and information panels were hung around the room, outlining the following:

• Project Study Area,

• Proposed project design,

• Confirmed fish spawning locations at Big Falls, Whitefish Falls and the Chutes, and

• Post-project portage routes, trails and signs.

Following Horizon and Hatch’s presentation and question period, OEL-WESA held a closed meeting (without Horizon and Hatch) with the community members. That meeting was later summarized in the GNFN Individual Community Consultation Report prepared by OEL-WESA as discussed above.

3.5.4.12 Business Meetings with Grassy Narrows First Nation Chief and Council – Ongoing Horizon has offered Grassy Narrows First Nation the opportunity to become an ownership partner for this project. Numerous meetings between Horizon and GNFN, and agents from both groups, have occurred throughout 2012/13 to discuss particulars of such a partnership. The content of these discussions is confidential, however, Horizon and GNFN are working toward finalizing such an arrangement in the coming months. This partnership agreement should have the effect of providing significant long-term economic benefits for the community through both project revenue and employment opportunities.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-62

© Hatch 2013/04

3.5.5 Lac Seul First Nation Consultation Activities The Lac Seul First Nation (Obishikokaang) is located approximately 38 km northwest of Sioux Lookout. It is one of the largest reserves in the Treaty 3 area. The general membership consists of approximately 2700 people, two-thirds of which live off reserve. The reserve has a large base, which is bounded to the north and east by Lac Seul Lake. The reserve is made up of three communities, Kejick Bay, Whitefish Bay, and Frenchman’s Head. In 1929, the former Ontario Hydro constructed a dam at Ear Falls (downstream of this project) to produce electricity. Lac Seul Lake was flooded. The flooding caused the area known as Kejick Bay to become an island, permanently separated from the mainland and splitting the community into two parts. The flooding forced many families to relocate to higher ground. Many families, and now their descendents, continue to live in the surrounding area of Red Lake, Trout Lake and Ear Falls.2

Based on information from a self-declared spokesperson for the Trout Lake group (provided during the peer review by OEL-WESA), it was noted that the Trout Lake (Namekosipiink) community reportedly remains a separate community from Lac Seul. Although community ancestors were signatory to Treaty 3, they never had reserve land surveyed. The community has reportedly not had full time inhabitants since 1998.

3.5.5.1 Lac Seul First Nation Consultation – Meeting December 4, 2007 A meeting was held on December 4, 2007 in Frenchman’s Head at the Band Office. Attendees included members of Lac Seul First Nation including two councillors, and an MNR representative. A description of the Project was presented and discussions followed.

Table 3.19 provides a summary of other concerns/issues that were raised, the respondents who raised the issue(s) as well as the response given.

Table 3.19 Issues Raised During Lac Seul First Nation December 4, 2007 Meeting

Issue

Agency/Stakeholder Raising the Issue

Responses Provided During the Meeting

Potential effects to wildlife and aquatic populations and habitat and mitigation of negative effects

Lac Seul First Nation Noted

Negative impacts to archaeological resources

Lac Seul First Nation Noted. Archaeological studies (Stage 1 and 2) to be undertaken.

Fish passage up Big Falls Lac Seul First Nation Noted Flooded/inundation area and potential impacts to areas of cultural heritage value

Lac Seul First Nation Flooded area is to be 300 m.

Will the Project be visible to other area users?

Lac Seul First Nation Yes

Who are the other stakeholders identified for the Project

Lac Seul First Nation Other stakeholders include tourism, local angler and hunting groups, municipality and township representatives, Bear Management Area

2 Information from Lac Seul First Nation website: http://lacseul.firstnation.ca/


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-63

© Hatch 2013/04

Issue


Responses Provided During the Meeting

holders, canoe outfitters, trappers, bait harvest operators.

What is the Project’s head? Lac Seul First Nation 12 to 15 m. What permits and approvals are required?

Lac Seul First Nation Fisheries Act authorization, various provincial approvals

How will water be diverted during the construction within the river?

Lac Seul First Nation Two stage process, from one side to other as dam built

Requested a document be provided which outlines the approval process.

Lac Seul First Nation MNR responded that they would be providing a Community Preparation Package explaining the process and rough timelines.

How long will Lac Seul First Nation be engaged in the process?

Lac Seul First Nation Throughout the process. If the Project goes forward, completion is expected in 2010.

3.5.5.2 Lac Seul First Nation Consultation – Meeting December 5, 2007 A meeting was held on December 5, 2007 with Trout Lake community members of Lac Seul First Nation in Balmertown. The purpose of this meeting was to seek input into the proposed Project. Attendees included six community members, and two MNR representatives.

Table 3.20 provides a summary of other concerns/issues that were raised and the community who raised the issue(s).

Table 3.20 Issues Raised During Lac Seul First Nation December 5, 2007 Meeting

Issue Agency/Stakeholder Raising the Issue

Potential effects to habitat Lac Seul First Nation Negative impacts to archaeological resources Lac Seul First Nation Fish passage up Big Falls Lac Seul First Nation Flooded/inundation area Lac Seul First Nation

3.5.5.3 Lac Seul First Nation / Agency Teleconference – February 4, 2008 A meeting was held on February 14, 2008 with federal and provincial agencies including DFO and MNR and a representative of Lac Seul First Nation. The purpose of the meeting was to:

• review previous meetings (December 4 and 5, 2007) at Frenchman’s Head and Red Lake,

• to confirm avenues of communication with Lac Seul First Nation,

• to update Lac Seul First Nation representatives on the revisions to the proposed Project, and

• to discuss the EA process.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-64

© Hatch 2013/04

Table 3.21 provides a summary of other concerns/issues that were raised, the respondents who raised the issue(s) as well as the response given.

Table 3.21 Issues Raised by Agencies During February 14, 2008 Meeting

Issue


Response During the Meeting

Area of flooding/inundation Lac Seul First Nation Horizon acknowledged that the potential impacts of the Project would have to be assessed.

Lac Seul First Nation’s role in the review and approval of the EA

Lac Seul First Nation Hatch stated that the regulations ascribed approval roles only to government agencies.

Requirement for a local resource for archaeological/ heritage studies

Lac Seul First Nation Horizon Hydro suggested a local representative (Mr. T. Binguis) may be appropriate for this role.

3.5.5.4 Lac Seul First Nation/Agency Meeting – October 20, 2008 A meeting was held at Lac Seul First Nation with Chief, council, Grand Chief Treaty 3, and MNR. The discussions were based on the following:

• project description (note this included possibility of a daily peaking mode of operation),

• compensation flows,

• concerns including hunting, gathering, trapping, means of transport (historical use of the river), and

• concern was noted for possible damage to community properties downstream i.e., worried that proposed peaking operations would affect Grassy Narrows First Nation.

3.5.5.5 Lac Seul First Nation - Consultation and Accommodation Plan On June 5, 2009 a Consultation and Accommodation Plan for the Trout Lake River Hydro Project was provided to Horizon Hydro by MNR. The plan provided direction on the following topics:

• consultation plan objectives,

• consultation plan principals,

• consultation approach,

• scope of consultation,

• Lac Seul First Nation Representatives,

• other potentially interested parties,

• anticipated issues and concerns,

• suggested consultation methods and techniques,

• documentation required,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-65

© Hatch 2013/04

• Crown/Proponent action plan,

• consultation materials distributed, and

• accommodation measures implemented.

Both Lac Seul First Nation and Horizon provided comments. This plan was considered to be a “living document” to be modified as the process proceeds. At the request of LSFN, the current version of the Consultation and Accommodation Plan has not been included in this document for privacy issues.. This document may be available to regulatory agencies for confidential review upon request and with the permission of LSFN.

3.5.5.6 Joint First Nation/Agency Meeting – August 17, 2009 A meeting was held on August 17, 2009 in Dryden, ON with representatives from Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation, MNR and DFO as discussed in Section 3.5.4.5.

3.5.5.7 Meeting with Councillors of Lac Seul First Nation, Frenchman’s Head – September 28, 2009 A meeting was held on September 28, 2009 at Frenchman’s Head with councillors Elvis Trout and Sam Manitowabi of Lac Seul First Nation; Chris Angeconeb, Lands and Resources Coordinator for Frenchman’s Head and representatives of Horizon Hydro and Hatch Ltd. The purpose of the meeting was to:

• discuss that evenings Information Centre,

• discuss the formation of the Water Management Plan Committee,

• discuss the progress of the environmental assessment,

• determine any concerns in response to the First Nation Information Package distributed on June 18, 2009, and

• discuss the need for additional Information Centres.

Table 3.22 provides a summary of concerns/issues that were raised.

Table 3.22 Issues Raised by Lac Seul First Nation During September 28, 2009 Meeting

Issue Stakeholder Raising the Issue

Sediment disturbance as a result of the Project Lac Seul First Nation Effects to water temperature Lac Seul First Nation Effects to aquatic habitat Lac Seul First Nation Necessity for additional consultation meetings with Lac Seul community members in Thunder Bay, Kenora and Dryden



H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-66

© Hatch 2013/04

3.5.5.8 Information Centre – Lac Seul First Nation, Frenchman’s Head – September 28, 2009 An Information Centre was held on September 28, 2009 at the Frenchman’s Head reserve of the Lac Seul First Nation. The information centre was open from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and display boards were set up to provide information regarding the project. Representatives from Horizon Hydro and Hatch Ltd. were on hand to provide information and answer questions.

The purpose of the Information Centre was to:

• provide Aboriginal communities and groups with an opportunity to become familiar with the proposed project, and

• provide an opportunity for Aboriginal communities and groups to ask questions and/or identify any concerns related to the project.

The following information was provided during the information centre:

• a preliminary description of the project components,



• maps illustrating the project location and projected inundation area,

• a description of studies completed for assessment of effects of the project,

• a description of the potential benefits as well as potential environmental impacts of the project and mitigation measures,



• comment sheets providing opportunity for public comment on the project and identification of issues or concerns.

Table 3.23 summarizes attendance at the Information Centres according to the sign-in sheets.

Table 3.23 September 28, 2009 Information Centre Attendance

Date

Time

Location


September 28, 2009 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Lac Seul First Nation, Frenchman’s Head

10



H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-67

© Hatch 2013/04

Comments Four comment sheets were completed during/following the Information Centre on September 28, 2009. Table 3.24 provides a summary of the responses to the questions asked in the comment sheet.

Table 3.24 Summary of Responses to Comment Sheets, September 28, 2009 Information Centre

Question Responses Yes No Not Specified Total

1. Where do you reside? - Lac Seul First Nation

4

4

2. Do you use any areas in the vicinity of the Project?

2 2 4

3. Please state which areas you use: - Lac Seul First Nation - Trout Lake

1 1

1 1

4. What do you use this area for? - Hunting - Fishing - Traditional Heritage

Activities - Resident

3 3 3 1

3 3 3 1

5. Please provide details regarding your use of the area, such as a description of the activities, and the frequency, season and duration: - Year Round - Camping and Fishing

in summer - Fishing, hunting and

camping in fall - Hunting and camping

in spring

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1


3 1 4


2 2 4


1 2 1 4


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-68

© Hatch 2013/04

Question Responses Yes No Not Specified Total


2 2 4

Concerns related to the project and potential issues that were raised and the number of respondents that raised these issues are presented in Table 3.25.

Table 3.25 Issues Raised and Relevant ER Section, September 28, 2009 Information Centre

Issue

No. of Respondents Raising the Issue

Horizon Response

Benefits to nearby First Nation communities

2 No revenue sharing plan in place at this time

Effects to employment 1 Local jobs created during construction process. One or two operational employees

Harvest of First Nation traditional territory without First Nation Input or involvement

1 Noted

Comment sheets encouraged members of the Lac Seul First Nation to make additional comments that may be relevant to the project. Only one person filled out that portion of the comment sheet. These comments are provided in Table 3.26.

Table 3.26 Comments by Lac Seul First Nation, September 28, 2009 Information Centre

Comment This seems like a very smart idea. You have my support.

3.5.5.9 Lac Seul First Nation/Agency Meeting – November 16, 2010 A meeting was held at Lac Seul First Nation, Kejick Bay, on November 16, 2010 with Chief, council and MNR. Discussions included the following:

• project description and summary of studies completed to date and those proposed to be completed over next year or so,

• portage trails around site,

• concern expressed about stopping flow during construction and proposed staging during construction was discussed,

• compensation flows,

• cost of project,

• possibility of using Red Lake community members for local labour force to help with studies etc,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-69

© Hatch 2013/04

• requirements, if any, for FN partnership in project, and

• attendees we issued copy of Project Information Package (see Section 3.5.3.1).

3.5.5.10 Lac Seul First Nation Meeting – December 1, 2011 A meeting was held at Lac Seul First Nation, Frenchman’s Head with Chief Bull and Sam Manitowabi, Consultation Officer. The meeting was focused on relationship building and discussion of next steps in the process. Concern was noted with respect to land flooding from the project.

3.5.5.11 Lac Seul First Nation Meeting – February 2, 2012 A meeting was held with the Chief and other representatives of the Lac Seul First Nation on February 2, 2012. The purpose of this meeting was to:

• reopen communication with the community regarding the project,

• discuss consultation process, and

• discuss possible mitigation and accommodation measures.

3.5.5.12 Independent Peer Review OEL-WESA met with the First Nation community representatives in Dryden on October 2, 2012 to identify appropriate community contacts and introduce the project. As noted above OEL-WESA then completed a general Technical Review Report date November 30, 2012 based on the Notice of Inspection version of the ER. OEL-WESA and its biological subconsultant NRSI held a community meeting in Frenchman’s Head Lac Seul First Nation, to review the Technical Review Report and obtain community input on December 10, 2013 (4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) of which Horizon was not included. Notice of the event was coordinated by LSFN, however, no one from the community attended the meeting however, OEL-WESA and NRSI were able to meet with Lac Seul’s Economic Development Advisor regarding the project, the Technical Review and concerns that had been voiced by community members during earlier consultation events with Horizon Hydro.

A second community meeting was held in Red Lake on December 13, 2012 (4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) at the Red Lake Indian Friendship Centre. Three community members attended the event including one person from Lac Seul’s Trout Lake community. Horizon was not included in this meeting.

OEL-WESA then prepared and finalized with LSFN the Individual Community Consultation Report outlining the community comments and/or concerns (March 1, 2013). Horizon subsequently reviewed these comments and/or concerns with LSFN council members via a teleconference on which OEL-WESA was also present and a letter response on March 4, 2013. Table 3.27 is a summary of the comments and/or concerns and Horizon’s responses:


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-70

© Hatch 2013/04

Table 3.27 Lac Seul First Nation Peer Review Comments/Concerns

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status Impact on Woodland Caribou Some of the membership expressed concern over the potential to impact woodland caribou. Lac Seul’s representative stated that based on his knowledge of and experience on the landbase, woodland caribou calving habitat is generally limited to the islands in the northwest quadrant of Lac Seul, not in the woodland areas adjacent to the Trout Lake River.

Horizon acknowledge the LSFN’s representative’s knowledge on the subject and noted that this is consistent with the findings of its caribou expert that completed a caribou study at the project site.

Resolved.

Agricultural Fields It was noted that there are agricultural fields located adjacent to the northwestern corner of Bruce Lake. These fields were historically utilized by Lac Seul First Nation. The project presents a potential impact on the fields caused by fluctuating water level.

Horizon noted that water levels downstream of the project area will not be impacted. Therefore, no impact is expected to these fields.

Resolved.

Study Design It was noted that the ER does not clarify the detailed design of the control structure, however, it was acknowledged that detailed design is not required at the EA stage.

Horizon agrees with this statement and confirmed it will be completing detailed design following the completion of the EA process and prior to obtaining its permits for construction.

Resolved.

First Nation Traplines The project site is in the vicinity of a First Nations trapline. Duck hunting areas are located downstream of the proposed project site. It was requested that further information be provided with respect to impacts to traplines, hunting and bait fishing.

Horizon agreed to provide additional information regarding impacts to traplines, hunting and bait fishing in the ER and that impacts would be minimal. Horizon noted that it was aware of one trapline that encompasses the entire project impact area. Horizon has been in contact with this trapper and committed to ensure that the project does not negatively affect him financially. To Horizon’s knowledge, the trapper is not a member of the LSFN.

Resolved.

Erosion and Monitoring The Lac Seul community is located along the Kejick Bay and Whitefish Bay. In 1929, Ontario Hydro constructed a hydroelectric generation at Ear Falls resulting in flooding of Lac Seul. The flooding caused the Kejick Bay area to be transformed to an island, dividing the community into two parts, with Whitefish Bay located on the mainland. Erosion was identified

Horizon agreed to provide further information within the ER regarding erosion potential and proposed mitigation and monitoring.

Resolved.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-71

© Hatch 2013/04

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status as a principal concern based on historical impacts. It was requested that further information be provided in the ER regarding the potential for erosion. Public Safety A concern was noted at the Red Lake community meeting with respect to the potential for collisions between boats and floating or submerged debris (trees etc) in the inundation area, resulting in unsafe boating conditions. It was acknowledged that the ER states that the forest in the zone of inundation would be cleared prior to reservoir filling but it was not confirmed that floating debris would be collected and disposed of should it occur as a result of reservoir filling.

Horizon acknowledged the safety concern and confirmed that vegetation would be cleared prior to inundation. It was also confirmed that any large floating debris would be collected and disposed of should it occur as a result of reservoir filling.

Resolved.

Consultation A self-declared spokesperson for the Trout Lake community voiced opposition to the project including inadequate project related consultation for the Trout Lake community.

Horizon notes that three meetings were held with Trout Lake community members since 2007 (including the one held by the peer review team) to discuss the project in addition to meetings in Frenchman’s Head, sharing of information with Lac Seul Chief and Council, and the creation of a project website (www.troutlakehydro.ca). No further community meetings have been requested.

Ability to resolve this issue is uncertain.

Project Name The name of the project, Trout Lake River Hydro Project, was voiced as being affront to a member(s) of the Trout Lake community.

Horizon notes that the project was simply named after the water body on which it will be located and was not meant to offend the Trout Lake community or any others. Horizon agrees that if the naming of the project continues to be an issue for the community, it will rename the project prior to commencement of operations based on future discussions with its potential FN partners (WFN and GNFN). Horizon agrees to notify LSFN of the new name when it is chosen.

Resolved.

http://www.troutlakehydro.ca/�


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-72

© Hatch 2013/04

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status Archaeological Work Concern was expressed that the archaeological work had been done from a “white perspective” and was focused on artifact discovery. It failed to include a more holistic approach to archaeological investigations such as “stories of the river that will be lost”. Concern that the cultural importance of the Big Falls site has not been adequately incorporated into the archaeological report. It was recommended that Horizon develop a protocol to inform FN community if any archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction and/or operations.

Horizon noted that a member of the LSFN community assisted with the Stage 2 study and it was approved by MTCS. Concern for the cultural importance has been noted but it unclear what mitigation is possible for this impact. Horizon is committed to following all required protocols should any archaeological resources be unearthed during construction or operations of the project.

Resolved. Ability to resolve is uncertain. Resolved.

Economic Evaluation of Project The Trout Lake community member questioned the expected income from the project. It was acknowledged that the project will provide approximately 16 GWh/yr and have a capacity of 3 to 4 MW.

Horizon noted that if Lac Seul had accepted its offer to become an ownership partner in the project, there would have been a high potential for economic benefits for LSFN. These benefits are reduced, however, given LSFN’s decision to reject the offer.

Resolved.

Cultural Importance of Water to Women The spiritual importance of water (especially to women) was raised and it was noted that this was not addressed in the ER.

Horizon acknowledges the spiritual importance of water, however, it is unclear as to how impacts to this could be mitigated.

Unable to resolve adequately.

Potential Land Use Conflict/Potential Land Claim It was noted that Lac Seul is currently pursuing two land claims. Once is unrelated to the zone of influence, the second includes a portion of land in the vicinity of Bruce Lake.

Horizon confirmed that Bruce Lake is not considered to be within the zone of influence for this project.

Resolved.

The Trout Lake River is an ancestral canoe route of the Trout Lake community. The community hopes to revive the cultural knowledge of their community by conducting canoe trips down the river between Trout Lake and Bruce Lake). Another traditional route runs between Trout Lake and Lac Seul. The community is planning to initiate a business opportunity by offering cultural eco-tours and feels that the project would destroy one of the major attractions of the route and would therefore be a land use conflict.

Horizon notes that a portage route will be maintained around the project to ensure canoe trips can continue. It should be noted that minimum by-pass flows have been proposed for the falls with additional flow being provided during high use times (spring/summer).

Resolved.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-73

© Hatch 2013/04

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status Aquatic/Medicinal Plants It was noted that a medicinal plant known as “weecance”, along with many other medicinal plants would be affected by the inundation resulting from the project.

Horizon will walk the area with a medicinal plant expert from First Nations communities and identify mitigation if required.

Resolved.

Fish Spawning Concern was expressed for the loss of fish spawning grounds at the base of Big Falls.

Horizon has worked with MNR and DFO to mitigate impacts to spawning and is committed to providing new spawning beds to compensate for any lost habitat. With the proposed mitigation and compensation plans (as described in this ER), no significant impacts are expected to spawning in the project area.

Resolved.

3.5.5.13 Business Meetings with Lac Seul First Nation Chief and Council – February 2012 – February 2013 Horizon has offered LSFN the opportunity to become an ownership partner for this project. Numerous meetings between Horizon and LSFN, and agents from both groups, have occurred throughout 2012/13 to discuss particulars of such a partnership. The content of these discussions is confidential. In March 2013, LSFN Chief and Council, however, passed a resolution to withdraw from these discussions and from becoming a partner in the Project at the request of a portion of the Lac Seul community. This partnership opportunity would have had the effect of providing significant long-term economic benefits for the community through both project revenue and employment opportunities.

3.5.6 Wabauskang First Nation Consultation Activities The Wabauskang First Nation is a small Anishinaabek community of approximately 270 registered members located on Wabauskang Lake approximately 100 km north of Vermillion Bay. Wabauskang First Nation is a member of the Bimose Tribal Council. Members of the Kingfisher Clan of the Anishinaabek Nation have always lived in the English-Wabigoon River system. Wabauskang represented a main gathering place for many families that later formed Grassy Narrows and Wabauskang First Nations. In 1873, these families were represented by Ogimaaxi Sah-Katch-eway and they were signatories to Treaty 3. In 1882 they were given two reserve sights, one near the current reserve at Grassy Narrows and the other at Wabauskang. Anishinaabek people would spend the winter on family hunting and trapping rounds within the English-Wabigoon River system, gathering for their summers at Wabauskang to trade, fish, conduct ceremonies and engage in the governance of the nation. In 1919 a terrible epidemic of small pox and tuberculosis hit the small community and killed a great many people. The Chief at the time decided that the families should move away from Wabauskang. Many moved to Grassy Narrows Reserve, Lac Seul, Eagle Lake and Quibel. One year later, pulp and paper operations began in Dryden, causing contamination of the English-Wabigoon River. In the mid-1940s people began to get sick in Quibel, believed to be caused by the contamination from the Dryden pulp and paper industry.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-74

© Hatch 2013/04

In the early 1970s, the reserve was re-established at Wabauskang, and the Anishinaabek people of Quibel became band members there.3

Horizon initially contacted Wabauskang First Nation regarding the proposed project in fall 2007 when letters were sent and phone calls made to the Chief requesting an opportunity to make a presentation to Chief and Council on the project. These requests were met with a response that they were not interested in consultation on the project.

MNR later informed Horizon prior to the Joint First Nation meeting of August 17, 2009 that Wabauskang’s new Chief and council were requesting consultation.

3.5.6.1 Joint First Nation/Agency Meeting – August 17, 2009 A meeting was held on August 17, 2009 in Dryden, ON with representatives from Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation, MNR and DFO as discussed in Section 3.5.4.5.

3.5.6.2 Project Information Package and Draft Consultation Plan – April 8, 2011 A copy of the Project Information Package as described in Section 3.5.3.1 was sent to Wabauskang First Nation along with a draft Consultation Plan based on the plan developed by MNR described in Section 3.5.5.5 for discussion and comment. This package was sent along with a letter requesting a meeting to update Wabauskang on the project since the Dryden meeting in August 2009.

3.5.6.3 Wabauskang First Nation Meeting – October 19, 2011 A meeting was held with Wabauskang First Nation at its community centre. MNR arrived at the meeting at the request of Horizon, but were asked to leave by Wabauskang First Nation. Wabauskang First Nation stated that they did not consider the meeting to be part of “consultation” and therefore representatives of the Crown should not be present. MNR stated, before leaving, that any meeting with information sharing on a project was considered by the crown, to be “consultation”. Present at the meeting were the Chief and members of the Resource Committee. Horizon and Wabauskang agreed that the meeting would be considered an “information presentation” meeting only. Information presented at the meeting included:


• studies completed to date and proposed further studies to be undertaken,

• proposed operations plan and alternatives explored,

• potential impacts,

• appointed points of contact for both Wabauskang First Nation and Horizon,

• provided all background information sent previously in a digital format,

3Information from Nation Talk website: www.nationtalk.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10364


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-75

© Hatch 2013/04

• initial concerns expressed: bypass area to be “dried up”, aesthetics of waterfall, portage route, overall environmental impacts, consultation plan, and

• received Wabauskang Consultation Protocol.

Concerns expressed:

• the area to be dewatered and the impacts of any dewatering,

• aesthetic impacts of a “beautiful area”,

• impacts to portage route, and

• general concern for environmental impacts.

3.5.6.4 Wabauskang First Nation Site Visit – October 19, 2011 Immediately following the Information Presentation meeting on October 19, 2011, Horizon and Hatch took Wabauskang First Nation representatives including Chief Cameron on a tour of the site. Discussion during the site visit included:

• project layout,

• extent of proposed flooding at weir,

• presence of native medicines and wild rice at the site,

• possible traditional portage routes, and

• traditional fishing, hunting and boating in the area.

Concerns expressed:

• impact to wild rice patch in head pond where water level will be increased, and

• impacts to vegetation including aboriginal medicines.

3.5.6.5 Draft Consultation Plan – November 3, 2011 Horizon provided a draft Consultation Plan for this project based on Wabauskang’s Consultation Protocol for discussion and comment (note that at the request of WFN for privacy reasons, the draft Consultation Plan has not been included in this document).

3.5.6.6 Project Information Binder – November 14, 2011 Both hard and soft copies of the Project Information Binder were issued to Wabauskang First Nation on November 14, 2011. Information provided in this binder included:

• copies of the Notice of Commencement and Notice of Modification (Appendixes C1 and C3),

• copy of the September 11, 2009 letter sent out announcing the open houses in Ear Falls (general public) and Red Lake (for First Nation members only),

• copy of Notice of Transition (Appendix C6),

• Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Studies (Appendixes D8 and D9),


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-76

© Hatch 2013/04

• updated May 27, 2011 letter providing Clarifications with Respect to Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment,

• the existing environment section from the preliminary draft EA from April 2010,

• July 25, 2011 Caribou Survey (Appendix D7),

• Summer and Fall 2010 Fisheries Report, dated February 2011 (Hatch, 2011c),

• July 15, 2011 Spring Fisheries Report Draft (Hatch2011d),

• July 26, 2011 Erosion and Sediment Transport Assessment (Hatch 2011f), and

• September 16, 2011 Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling Study (Hatch, 2011b).

3.5.6.7 Wabauskang First Nation Meeting – February 8, 2012 A “Meet and Greet” meeting was held with Wabauskang First Nation Chief and representatives, Wabauskang’s legal counsel, and Bimose Tribal Council Resource Development Officer in Winnipeg. Discussions were based on the following:

• brief outline of the proposed project and location of other similar projects i.e., Misema in Englehart,

• explanation of peaking versus non-peaking (run-of-river) operation modes,

• agencies involved in the approvals process,

• proposed project schedule,

• information provided to date,

• discussion of possible mitigation and accommodation measures, and

• next steps for project and consultation process.

Questions/concerns expressed:

• Will there be any job creation, training and/or learning available to the First Nation members?

3.5.6.8 Wabauskang First Nation Meeting – February 29, 2012 A meeting was held with Wabauskang First Nation representatives including Chief Cameron, Elder and Youth Representatives, and Bimose Tribal Council Resource Development Officer in Winnipeg. Discussions were based on the following:

• Wabauskang comments to draft consultation plan prepared by Horizon on November 3, 2011 based on Wabauskang’s Consultation Protocol,

• acceptance of Consultation and Accommodation Plan by both parties (note that at the request of WFN for privacy reasons, this Consultation and Accommodation Plan has not been included in this document, it may be available for confidential review by regulatory agencies upon request and with the approval of WFN),

• independent technical review of EA,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-77

© Hatch 2013/04

• communication protocols between parties,

• proposed project schedule,

• concerns regarding impacts to wild rice and medicines in the low land areas from proposed flooding, and


3.5.6.9 Wabauskang First Nation Meeting – April 2, 2012 A meeting was held with Wabauskang First Nation Resource Committee, Chief Cameron and Bimose Tribal Council Resource Development Officer in Thunder Bay. Discussions were based on:

• introduction of new Resource Technician for Wabauskang First Nation,

• review of draft consultation budget,

• possible open house dates to present project to Wabauskang community,

• independent technical review of EA,

• schedule of project, and


3.5.6.10 Wabauskang First Nation Chief and Council Meeting and Community Meeting – June 12, 2012 Meetings were held with the Wabauskang First Nation Chief and Council followed by an information session with the community. Approximately 25 community members were present in addition to the Chief and council members. Horizon and Hatch made a presentation (see Appendix C11) to the group and panels were placed around the room showing the project location, inundation area general layout. Following the presentation, Horizon and Hatch answered questions from the attendees. Discussions included:

• Introduction of Horizon Hydro,

• Overview of the project,

• Overview of studies completed to date, expected impacts and proposed mitigation/compenstation measures,

• Proposed project schedule, including next steps,

• Outline of the proposed Peer Review process,

• Outline of the investment/partnership offer,

A sign-in sheet and comment sheets were provided to attendees.

Table 3.28 summarizes the date, time, and location of the meeting, and identifies the number of attendees that signed in.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-78

© Hatch 2013/04

Table 3.28 June 12, 2012 Information Centre Attendance

Date

Time

Location


June 12, 2012 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Wabauskang First Nation, Community Centre

11


Comments Seven comment sheets were completed during/following the Information Centre on June 12, 2012. Table 3.29 provides a summary of the responses to the questions asked in the comment sheet.

Table 3.29 Summary of Responses to Comment Sheets, June 12, 2012 Information Centre

Question Responses

Yes No Not Specified Total 1. Do you use any areas in

the vicinity of the Project? 3 2 5

2. Please state which areas you use: - land - water (Trout Lake

River) - all of it - portage areas - Wabauskang Lake and

other lakes

1 2 1 1 2

1 2 1 1 2

3. What do you use this area for? - Hunting - Fishing - Trapping - Traditional Heritage

Activities - Historical Travelling /

Canoeing - Blueberry picking

4 3 3 5 2 1

4 3 3 5 2 1


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-79

© Hatch 2013/04

Question Responses

Yes No Not Specified Total 4. Please provide details

regarding your use of the area, such as a description of the activities, and the frequency, season and duration: - Canoeing - Fishing - Medicine and berries - Hunting - Trapping in

Wabauskang and Cliff Lake areas

2 2 1 2 1

2 2 1 2 1


5 1 6


5 2 7


4 2 1 (maybe) 7


2 3 5

Concerns related to the project and potential issues that were raised and the number of respondents that raised these issues are presented in Table 3.30.

Comment sheets encouraged members of the Wabauskang First Nation to make additional comments that may be relevant to the project. Only three people filled out that portion of the comment sheet. These comments are provided in Table 3.31.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-80

© Hatch 2013/04

Table 3.30 Issues Raised and Relevant ER Section, June 12, 2012 Information Centre

Issue

No. of Respondents

Raising the Issue

Horizon Response Would like to have own assessment of project?

1

Wildlife, plant life, natural medicine 1 Any portage routes considered for “abandonment” should still be maintained for historical and heritage purposes.

1

Different levels of water for hunting/trapping.

1

Water ways flooded, animals dying off, fish dying off, spawning areas damaged.

1

Clear cutting causes problems with migration of animals re: trapping.

1

Table 3.31 Comments by Wabauskang First Nation, June 12, 2012 Information Centre

Comment I asked most questions in person. What is the anticipated revenue from the hydroelectric plant. Could the FN communities share a larger percent of the ownership and ultimately revenue? We have two traplines, fishing in our lakes that are accessible to us. Small lakes on our trapline are very highly rich for trapping, hunting and fishing.

3.5.6.11 Independent Peer Review OEL-WESA met with First Nation community representatives in Dryden on October 2, 2012 to identify appropriate community contacts and introduce the project. OEL-WESA then met separately with WFN community representatives and outlined several issues of concern to be examined during the technical review. These issues included: potential impact to caribou, traplines, portage and travel routes, bird habitats (specifically ducks and waterfowl), aquatic and terrestrial plant species (medicine plants), soil erosion, loss of land and changes in water. As noted above OEL-WESA then completed a general Technical Review Report date November 30, 2012 based on the Notice of Inspection version of the ER. OEL-WESA and its biological subconsultant NRSI held a community meeting to review the Technical Review Report and obtain community input on December 11, 2013 (12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.) of which Horizon was not included. Five members of the WFN attended the meeting. OEL-WESA then prepared and finalized with WFN the Individual Community Consultation Report outlining the community comments and/or concerns (February 1, 2013). Horizon subsequently reviewed these comments and/or concerns with WFN council members via a formal response letter dated March 4, 2013. Table 3.32 is a summary of the comments and/or concerns and Horizon’s responses:


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-81

© Hatch 2013/04

Table 3.32 Wabauskang First Nation Peer Review Comments/Concerns

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status Dam Operation Information was requested regarding how the water control structure would be operated. It was acknowledged that the operation would be automated to allow for more accurate response to changing conditions.

Horizon confirmed that operation will be automated with an operator making periodic visits and completing regular maintenance.

Resolved.

Adequacy of Consultation Concern was expressed with respect to the length of meeting time afforded to date to explaining the technical details of the project. It was the perception of some community members that emphasis was focused on the business to business relationship.

Horizon noted that as per the mutually accepted consultation and accommodation plan prepared for the project by Horizon and WFN, the Independent Peer Review would form a major element of informing the community on the technical aspects of the project. Horizon considers consultation for this project to be ongoing throughout construction and operations.

Resolved.

Wild Rice Community members stated that the area of wild rice upstream of the proposed weir location was inadequately described in the ER, noting that it grows all along the shoreline upstream of the project site.

Horizon notes that during the field studies, Hatch biologists only noted a small patch of approximately 100 m2. It should be noted that since the project started in 2007 there has been no one come forward to state that they harvest this wild rice. This is not a licensed wild rice patch. Horizon has, however, made a commitment in the ER to work with WFN to re-establish wild rice in the head pond after construction when there will be an increase in suitable habitat for wild rice. Horizon has also committed to post-construction monitoring of the new wild rice paddy.

Resolved.

Traditional Medicines Traditional medicines (tamarack, lily pads) were noted to be present within the proposed footprint of the control structure and inundation area.

Horizon is open to working with WFN to investigate, mitigate and possibly relocate any plants that may be present.

Resolved.

Impact on Water Flows and Levels Concern was expressed that the project could lead to additional flooding during spring freshet within the English River watershed specifically at Lac Seul. OEL/NRSI explained that the project would operate as run-

Horizon confirmed this acknowledgement and clarified that during initial filling of the reservoir, the downstream flows would be reduced by a maximum of 10% of the available flow i.e. 90% of the available flow would

Resolved.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-82

© Hatch 2013/04

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status of-river and the potential zone of impact for the project did not extend to Lac Seul. It was explained that water levels downstream of the tailrace area could be impacted for a short duration during the initial filling of the head pond upstream of the dam until water level equilibrium is reached.

continue to be passed through the bypass channel and downstream. This is a standard procedure accepted by DFO throughout Canada to minimize impact to fish and fish habitat.

Wildlife Concern for the potential impact to avian wildlife. It was noted by community members that bald eagles are numerous along the English River system in general.

Avian wildlife will be disturbed during construction and a small amount of terrestrial habitat will be lost due to the Project. However, similar habitat types are abundant in the general area and no long-term impacts on avian communities are anticipated to occur. The head pond will provide additional habitat for waterfowl. No long term negative effects to bald eagle are anticipated to occur. No nests are known to occur in the Project area and eagles are anticipated to continuing foraging in the area following construction of the project.

Portage The loss of the portage on the east side of the river was identified as a significant issue. OEL-WESA clarified that the project would result in a shorter western portage.

It was noted that there would still be the ability to portage around the Big Falls. While there will still be access on the east side of the river, portaging landing and launching will not be recommended with respect to safety concerns.

An alternative portage is provided. Further resolution not possible.

Caribou Some of the membership expressed concern over the potential to impact woodland caribou. OEL-WESA noted that a representative of Lac Seul had stated that based on his knowledge of and experience on the landbase, woodland caribou calving habitat is generally limited to the islands in the northwest quadrant of Lac Seul, not in the woodland areas adjacent to the Trout Lake River.

Horizon acknowledge the LSFN’s representative’s knowledge on the subject and noted that this is consistent with the findings of its caribou expert that completed a caribou study at the project site.

Resolved.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-83

© Hatch 2013/04

Comment / Concern Horizon Response Issue Status Traplines Horizon noted that it was aware

of one trapline that encompasses the entire project impact area. Horizon has been in contact with this trapper and committed to ensure that the project does not negatively affect him financially. To Horizon’s knowledge, the trapper is not a member of the WFN.

Resolved.

Ducks and waterfowl There will be some loss of terrestrial habitat and an increase in habitat for migratory waterfowl due to the project. Mitigation implemented to prevent disturbance to nesting migratory birds.

Resolved.

Erosion Horizon agreed to provide further information within the ER regarding erosion potential and proposed mitigation and monitoring.

Resolved.

Loss of land Horizon has committed to minimizing the footprint required for project. Unfortunately, for public safety some areas will need to be restricted to the public such as the powerhouse, high voltage electrical switchyard and the power canal during operations. The construction site will also be restricted for the 12 to 18 months during construction. However, Horizon will however maintain access to river throughout the project.

Issue has been mitigated. Unable to resolve fully.

Changes to surface water. OEL-WESA acknowledged that the baseline surface water quality program undertaken for the project was comprehensive. It was noted that these measurements noted no current exceedances for mercury in water.

Horizon agrees with this assessment.

Resolved.

3.5.6.12 Business Meetings with Wabauskang First Nation Chief and Council – Ongoing Horizon has offered Wabauskang First Nation the opportunity to become an ownership partner for this project. Numerous meetings between Horizon and WFN, and agents from both groups, have occurred throughout 2012/13 to discuss particulars of such a partnership. The content of these discussions is confidential, however, Horizon and WFN are working toward finalizing such an arrangement in the coming months. This partnership agreement should have the effect of providing significant long-term economic benefits for the community through both project revenue and employment opportunities.


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-84

© Hatch 2013/04

3.5.7 Métis Nation of Ontario Consultation Activities The Métis people are a distinct aboriginal people resulting from a mixed ancestry of First Nation women and European men. The Métis people were connected through the highly mobile fur trade network, seasonal rounds, extensive kinship connections and a collective identity. In Ontario, historic Métis settlements emerged along the rivers and watersheds for the province, surrounding the Great Lakes and throughout the northwest of the province. These settlements formed regional Métis communities in Ontario that are an indivisible part of the Métis Nation. In 1993, the MNO was established through the will of the Métis people and Métis communities coming together throughout Ontario to create a Métis-specific governance structure. The Métis citizens are represented at the local level through MNO Charter Community Councils. The Community Councils operate in accordance with MNO Charter Agreements, which give councils the mandate to govern, while ensuring accountability, transparency and consistency.4

MNO has nine regions. The proposed project is within Region 1, with the closest Community Council being the Northwest Métis Nation of Ontario Council (NMNOC) and is within the MNO Lake of Woods/Lac Seul harvesting area. Consultation with the MNO for this area is done through the Treaty 3/Lake of the Woods/Lac Seul and Rainy Lake/Rainy River Regional Consultation Committee

The MNO called Hatch on July 29, 2009 and to notify that the NMNOC had officially notified its office of potential impacts to their “traditional harvesting area” and noted that the Northwest Métis Council expectation is to be consulted during the EA process. On November 30, 2010 MNR issued Horizon a letter outlining consultation aspects being delegated to Horizon with respect to the MNO and the NMNOC.

3.5.7.1 Métis Nation of Ontario and Northwest Métis Nation of Ontario Council Letter – December 7, 2010 Horizon issued a formal letter to MNO and NMNOC outlining the project, project history and offer to start consultation on December 7, 2010. Attached to this letter was a copy of the Project Information Package as described in Section 3.5.3.1.

3.5.7.2 Métis Nation of Ontario Meeting - March 24, 2011 A meeting we held with the MNO in Toronto to go through MNO’s “Métis 101” presentation/course outlining the MNO history in Ontario and their aboriginal rights.

3.5.7.3 Métis Nation of Ontario Meeting – April 5, 2011 A meeting was held with the MNO Treaty 3/Lake of the Woods/Lac Seul and Rainy Lake/Rainy River Regional Consultation Committee in Fort Frances on April 5, 2011. The discussions were based on the following (a summary of the concerns expressed were summarized in a letter from MNO’s dated May 13, 2011):

• Regional Métis history,

• project description, project completed to date and upcoming studies,

4Information from MNO website: www.metisnation.org


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-85

© Hatch 2013/04

• concerns with respect to possible impacts including:

moose populations,

caribou and other game movements,

walleye spawning habitat restoration procedures may not be successful,

possibility of sturgeon returning to area,

spiritual connection to the “sound of the river” may be lost,

Métis specific archaeology,

canoe routes,

flooding models,

wetland impacts,

erosion,

sediment and soil transfer, mercury levels etc, and

impacts to fish.

• project schedule,

• additional information provided at the meeting included:

Project Information Package as described in Section 3.5.3.1,

Existing Environment Section of the preliminary draft EA report from April 2010, and

Summer and Fall 2010 Fisheries Report.

3.5.7.4 Letter Response to Métis Concerns – July 26, 2011 In response to the concerns expressed both at the April 5th meeting and the MNO’s follow-up letter dated May 13th, Horizon issued a formal response letter on July 26, 2011.

3.5.7.5 Métis Nation of Ontario/Agency Meeting – October 20, 2011 A meeting was held in Dryden with the MNO Treaty 3/Lake of the Woods/Lac Seul and Rainy Lake/Rainy River Regional Consultation Committee and MOE on October 20, 2011. Discussions were based on the following:

• brief review of description of project and studies previously completed, and

• review of recent studies completed.

Concerns expressed included:

• impacts to shoreline vegetation in head pond from flooding,

• impacts Moose feeding habitat in existing head pond from flooding,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-86

© Hatch 2013/04

• walleye spawning above the falls – concern was expressed that we missed the spawning period during the field study,

• soil samples with respect to mercury levels,

• impacts to wetland areas,

• MOE concerns expressed - Noise assessment, ammonia, Permit to Take Water requirements with respect to minimum flows, and

• MNO’s proposed Letter of Intent (LOI) with respect to its consultation plan (presented to Horizon immediately prior to meeting). Note that at the request of MNO the LOI has not been in this document for privacy reasons. This document may be available to regulatory agencies upon request and with the approval of MNO.

3.5.7.6 Letter Response to Métis Nation of Ontario LOI – February 13, 2012 Horizon issued a letter on February 13, 2012 in response to MNO’s proposed LOI. Note that at the request of MNO the LOI has not been in this document for privacy reasons. This document may be available to regulatory agencies upon request and with the approval of MNO.

3.5.7.7 Métis Nation of Ontario/Agency Meeting – April 20, 2012 A meeting was held with the MNO Treaty 3/Lake of the Woods/Lac Seul and Rainy Lake/Rainy River Regional Consultation Committee, MNR, and MOE in Dryden on April 20, 2012. Discussions were based on:

• project update, and

• MNO’s proposed LOI with respect to its consultation plan.

Horizon issued a letter to MNO on April 26 in response to MNO’s proposed LOI. No response was received from MNO to that letter. Note that at the request of MNO the LOI has not been in this document for privacy reasons. This document may be available to regulatory agencies upon request and with the approval of MNO.

3.5.7.8 Métis Nation of Ontario Meeting – September 16, 2012 A meeting was held with the MNO Treaty 3/Lake of the Woods/Lac Seul and Rainy Lake/Rainy River Regional Consultation Committee in Dryden on September 16, 2012. Discussions were based on:

• project schedule and process,

• consultation plan, and

• suggested that caribou use the rocks and little island below the falls.

Concerns expressed:

• impacts to fish spawning habitat,

• effect of sedimentation,

• impacts to caribou and moose,


H327203.201.03, Rev. 1, Page 3-87

© Hatch 2013/04

mercury changes,

cumulative impacts of waterpower projects to the region including socio-economic impacts,

possible existence of Métis specific archeological artifacts,

impacts to portage routes, and

migratory birds.

3.5.7.9 Métis Nation of Ontario Meeting – October 12, 2012 A meeting was held with the MNO Consultation Assessment Coordinator and Horizon in Toronto. The discussion focused on trying to finalize the consultation plan and project schedule.

3.5.7.10 Métis Nation of Ontario – Memorandum of Understanding – April 5, 2013 On April 5, 2013 Horizon Hydro and the Métis Nation of Ontario finalized a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the Project. At the request of the MNO, the MOU is considered confidential and is therefore not provided in this document or for review by the regulatory agencies. The MNO, however, provided email confirmation stating "Horizon Energy has satisfied the Métis Nation of Ontario with respect to the Trout Lake Hydro project. We are satisfied that through an agreement and working relationship we may deal directly with the company or their successor on issues related to Métis rights should they arise". (Appendix C11). The email also notes that a formal letter will be forwarded to the Government confirming this statement.

3. Public, Agency and Aboriginal Consultationtroutlakehydro.ca.previewc40.carrierzone.com/... ·...

Documents

Transcript of 3. Public, Agency and Aboriginal Consultationtroutlakehydro.ca.previewc40.carrierzone.com/... ·...