· FELCC for Run -of-River amend from 35,880 GWh/year to . Final Direction to Amend the Site C...

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

<contact information removed>

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

<original signed by>

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

<original signed by>

Final Direction to Amend the Site C Environmental Impact Statement July 31, 2013

Page 1 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and

Line Number Amendment

0-0-1 NA NA In the amended EIS include:

All final versions of the Technical Memos submitted during the EIS review phase

The letter submitted by BC Hydro to the Agency and EAO (dated June 28, 2013), titled “Re: Questions to assist BCEAO and CEAA in understanding responses to ‘themes’ submitted during EIS Public Review Period”.

The Aboriginal Group Amendment Report submitted May 24, 2013 and any additional information received from Aboriginal groups and assessed.

0-0-2 Executive Summary

The Executive Summary of the EIS will be amended, as relevant, based on the amendments made to the EIS.

VOLUME 1

1-0-1 Table of Concordance

N/A EIS guidelines (EISg) provide a template for the information required in the Concordance Table, including page numbers. Include page numbers in the Concordance Table in the EIS.

1-1-1 1 Page 1-1, Line 7 Page 1-3, Line 40

Amend Issuance date of EIS Guidelines from September 5, 2012 to September 7, 2012.

1-4-1 4.3.4.2 Page 4-23, Line 10

The EIS states that a multiple accounts evaluation process was undertaken to evaluate the alternatives for each segment. Characteristics evaluated included the relative safety, environmental effects (including those on fish, wildlife, and habitat), social effects (including those on property, heritage, and agriculture), and costs of each alternative. Provide the multiple accounts analysis that was done.

1-4-2 4.4.6 Vol 3, 26.1.3

Page 4-60, Line 1 Page 26-7, Line 9

As described in Section 4.4.6 of the EIS, the existing bridges at Farrell Creek and Halfway River may remain in place. Fully explain the potential impacts of leaving bridges in place, on navigation, currents and sediment buildup.

1-4-3 4 Figure 4.12 Please update Figure 4.12 to show correct transmission line configuration.

1-5-1 5 Page 5-60, Table 5.38

FFELCC for Wind Onshore amend from 38,885 GWh/year to 46,165 GWh/year.

FELCC for Run-of-River amend from 35,880 GWh/year to


Page 2 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


33,619 GWh/year.

ELCC for Run-of-River amend from 1,074 MW to 1,018 MW.

1-5-2 5 Page 5-68, Table 5.41

Present Value Differential for Site C portfolio compared to Clean Generation Portfolio (F2022 In-Service Date) amend from $450M to $460M.

1-5-3 5 Page 5-69, Table 5.42

Adjusted Unit Energy Cost for Clean + Thermal amend from 156 to 155 ($/MWh, $F2013).

1-5-4 5.2.2.2 Pages 5-12 to 5-14

To better support the target DSM selected to demonstrate the need for the Project, indicate if the DSM target has been developed in line with Section 2(b) of the Clean Energy Act “to take demand-side measures and to conserve energy, including the objective of the authority reducing its expected increase in demand for electricity by the year 2020 by at least 66%.”

1-5-5 5.4 5.5

Include a detailed consequence table/matrix (containing all attributes identified in section 5.5.1) which displays the quantitative assessment discussed on page 8 of the Technical Memo on Alternatives to the Project. An appropriate rationale should be provided for each attribute that was excluded in the final portfolio analysis rather than a general statement for all attributes excluded. There should be adequate information presented regarding the attributes of all the available resources considered in the portfolios.

1-6-1 6 All The alternative means assessment must include all components of the project, not just the dam generating stations/spillways and reservoir components, as has been presented in Section 6. Section 4 of the EIS does include information regarding alternatives considered for the following project components: transmission lines, highway 29 realignment, quarried and excavated construction materials and road and rail access.

The information in Section 4 should be referenced in Section 6.

Include an alternative means assessment for the worker accommodation component of the project.

Provide additional information to meet the EIS Guidelines direction in Section 4.3. o “Identify those elements of each alternative means that could produce effects in sufficient detail to allow

a comparison with the effects of the project”

Include a description of the process used to conduct the alternative means assessment for the project components (i.e. development of criteria to assess technical and economic feasibility and identification of environmental effects for each alternative) to better demonstrate how the alternatives were compared and how the preferred means was selected.

1-7-1 7 Page 7-4, The energy value of the clean energy resources that make up the comparable blocks (as shown in Table 5.42 of the EIS)


Page 3 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


Line 21 amend from $125/MWh to $131/MWh.

1-7-2 7 Page 7-21, Table 7.14

Average Project GHG emissions intensity amend from 7.8 g CO2e/kWh to 10.5 g CO2e/kWh as in Table 15.11, for the likely scenario.

1-7-3 7.1.2.1 Page 7-3, Line 12

The "97%" quoted is a typographical error in the document. All analysis was performed based on the 93% Clean Energy Act clean or renewable target.

1-8-1 8.3.1 Page 8-3, Line 9

Change "September" to "August".

1-8-2 8.3.2.1.3 Page 8-7, Line 6

Clarify that BC Hydro produced a first draft of the EIS Guidelines which was then amended by the EAO and the Agency prior to and after seeking public comment.

1-8-3 8.3.2.2.1 Page 8-8, Lines 16-20

Amend these lines as follows to reflect the Joint Agreement for the Cooperative Environmental Assessment:

“The Panel must be established within 260 days of the coming into force of CEAA 2012, subject to the time period being extended in accordance with Section 4.2 of the BC/Canada Agreement.” Since CEAA 2012 came into force on July 6, 2012, pursuant to Order in Council (SI/2012 0056), the federal and provincial Ministers of Environment must establish a Joint Review Panel by about March 25, 2013 as the 260th day falls on Saturday, March 23, 2013. Consequently, it is anticipated that the Panel will be appointed during the Project’s Pre Panel Stage.

1-9-1 9.2.3 Page 9-25 The Table of Concordance contains a typo. Section 7.2.1 of the EIS Guidelines is addressed through Section 9.2 of the EIS, Aboriginal Group Information Distribution and Consultation.

1-A-1 Appendix A 4.2

Page 21, Line 18

Highway 29 Realignment Clearing Strategy In March 2009 the NWPA was updated and new works are reviewed under Sec. 5(1), (2) and (3).

1-C-1 Appendix C Part 3 5.2

Page , 1st Paragraph

There does not appear to be a Table 6.1. in this appendix, it seems that this reference should be to Table 5.1, please correct or clarify.

1-C-2 Appendix C Part 4

All There is no mention of truck/equipment wash station or washroom facilities in this section, as has been described in other appendices. Please clarify if these facilities will be established.

1-C-3 Appendix C Part 4 1, 2, 4.2

Pages, 6, 7 and 11

Throughout this section, the map is referred to as both “Figure 1.1.1” and “Figure 1.1" please correct for consistency.

1-H-1 Appendix H

FCMA

Page 218-219

Amend to include Fort Chipewyan Metis in the list of Aboriginal groups that have expressed concerns about the Peace Athabasca Delta on pages 218 and 219.


Page 4 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


1-H-2 Appendix H Page 1, 1st paragraph

Amend the cut-off date from May 31, 2013 to July 8, 2013.

1-H-3 Appendix H Include a column summarizing key mitigation and accommodation measures being proposed to address issues and concerns identified by Aboriginal groups.

1-I-1 Appendix I Part 1

Please include a summary of Environment Canada’s comments in the summary table of EIS Guideline comments, as has been provided for the other government participants.

VOLUME 2

2-10-1 10 Page 10-13, Lines 4-7 Page 10-15, Line 4

September 5, 2012 should be identified as the “date of the EIS Guidelines”, rather than the “date of issuance of the EIS Guidelines.”

2-11-1 11 Page 11-36, Page 11-219

Amend references to KCB & SLI 2012 to KCB & SLI 2013. Amend citation in references to: Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd. And SNC-Lavalin Inc., 2013, Site C Clean Energy Project. Geochemical Characterization – Status at the end of 2012. January 2013.

2-11-2 11.1 Page 11-6, Lines 43-46

Typo: lines 43-46 are the same as lines 1-4 on p.11-7 of this section.

2-11-3 11.2.3.7

Page 11-27, Lines 28-29

Volume 2 Section 11.2.3.7 of the EIS should read “Average shoreline recession distances were predicted for vertical bluffs at five and 100 years after reservoir filling, as described in Volume 2 Appendix B Part 2 Preliminary Reservoir Impact Lines”. The predicted position of the modelled vertical bluff at Maximum Normal Reservoir Level five and 100 years after reservoir filling represents the 5-year Beach Line and 100-year Beach Line, respectively. As described in detail in Volume 2 Appendix B Part 2 Preliminary Reservoir Impact Lines Sections 5, 7 and 11, appropriate eroded (short-term) and ultimate (long-term) slope angles for the geological units present around the shoreline were then applied to the 100-year Beach Line predictions to establish the position of the Erosion Impact Line and Stability Impact Line, respectively.

2-11-4 11.2.5.2 Page 11-45, Lines 6-9

Amend the sentence - "In comparison, the National Building Code of Canada adopts…" to "In comparison, the National Building Code of Canada (2010) adopts...." (The NBCC may change to median values in the near future).

2-11-5 11.2.5.6 Page 11-52, Lines 1-13

In the first two paragraphs of this section there is a discussion of the recording and locating capability of seismic networks in the region. For accuracy, amend the sentence, "The Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) operates a national network of seismographs that is capable of recording and accurately locating earthquakes down to M3 or smaller." to "The GSC operates a national network of seismographs that is capable of recording and accurately locating earthquakes down to approximately M 2.5-3."


Page 5 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


In the second paragraph amend the phrase "M2 or smaller", to "approximately magnitude M2". Note that "M2 or smaller" would include M1 events - which could not be routinely detected.

2-11-6 11.2.5.6 Page 11-52, Lines 25-29

Amend these lines to: "this array will not necessarily be permanent, but will be in place for a minimum of 3 years starting in 2013. Natural Resources Canada has also advised that this array will lower the location threshold to about magnitude M2 for all/most of northeastern B.C."

2-11-7 11.4 11.4.5.2.7

Page 11-62 Page 11-82

The EIS states: “The spatial boundary selected for the characterization of potential changes to the surface water regime as a result of the Project extends from the outlet of the Peace Canyon Dam to Peace Point, Alberta, over 1,000 km downstream. This downstream boundary was selected because surface water data for that location are available, and because at that location, any changes in the surface water regime were expected to be negligible in relation to the natural variability of the baseline flow regime.” “The analysis predicts changes of varying magnitudes throughout the study reach; however, the changes predicted downstream of the Town of Peace River are negligible, considering the magnitude of the predicted change in relation to the natural variability of the baseline flow regime.” Define the meaning of “negligible change” with respect to surface water conditions during operation, downstream of the Site C dam.

2-11-8 11.4.2.1 Page 11-63, Lines 6-12 & Figure 11.4.1

Provide a revised Figure 11.4.1 showing more detailed drainage patterns in and near the Peace Athabasca Delta. The current figure appears to contain inaccuracies. i.e., some lakes are amalgamated. The watershed boundary also appears to be in error and lake Athabasca is depicted as one large lake instead of a number of smaller lakes (Claire Lake, Baril Lake, Mamawi Lake, etc. ). The Watershed boundary goes through the middle of the amalgamated lake.

2-11-9 11.4.2.4.1 Page 11-67, Lines 29-31

The sentence on lines 29-31 of page 67 (Section 11.4.2.4.1) should refer to Figure 11.4.6. As shown in Figure 11.4.6, the relative contribution of regulated flows (i.e., flows observed at Hudson's Hope) to the total flow at downstream locations is highest in the winter.

2-11-10 11 Page 11-78, Line 32

Maximum discharge rate capacity of the Project amend from 2,520 m3/s to 2,540 m3/s.

2-11-11 11.5 Clarify the following discrepancy in the EIS. The main body of the EIS indicates – in discussion of affected area downstream of the Site C dam – that Kiskatinaw River was not included as a candidate water quality station and thereby did not receive sampling effort (T. 11.5.1 and Fig. 11.5.1, for example), at least one appended report (v.2, App.P, P.2 -


Page 6 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


Site C … Hydrodynamic, water quality and productivity…) indicates that the Kiskatinaw River was included in the discussion and analysis.

2-E-1 Appendix E An error was noted in the guideline table presented in Appendix E Water Quality Baseline in the Peace River. The BC guidelines for total ammonia should be 0.606 mg/L (chronic) and 3.62 mg/L (acute) based on pH of 8.2 and temperature of 17°C.

2-11-12 11.8.3 Page 11-123, Line 9 & Figure 11.8.2

Correct legend to indicate that the green circle represents a “Proposed Dam Location”, rather than “Proposed Site C Dam Location.

2-11-13 11.9.2 Page 11-148, Line 26 & 28

The bullets in these lines of the text are virtually identical. The third bullet in this list should present the typical percentage of MeHg in sediment.

2-11-14 11.9.6.3

Page 11-164 In the Table 11.9.3 Canadian Reservoirs Comparison Matrix Summary, the text “Original: Flooded Area “ under Reservoir Characteristics, should be amended to ratio of “Total Reservoir Area: Original Area.”

2-11-15 11.9.6.3 & Appendix J Part 1

Page 11-164,

Line 1

Table 11.9.3 & 5.3

In Table 11.9.3 Canadian Reservoirs Comparison Matrix Summary, Site C predicted area = 9.3 km2 should be amended to 93.3 km2. The same error occurs in Vol.2 Appendix J, Part 1, Table 5.3.

2-12-1 12.3.1

Page 12-9, Line 29-30

Amend the Alberta provincial status of bull trout to "species of special concern.”

2-12-2 12.3.1 Page 12-11, Lines 1-3

The first sentence and the second sentence identify 6 and 7 species of interest respectively. This number should be reconciled.

2-12-3 12 Page 12-39, Line 7

Amend the “3-fold increase” in total biomass of harvestable fish in the Site C reservoir relative to what currently exists in the Peace River to a “1.8 increase” for the most likely fish community scenario.

2-12-4 12 Page 12-39, Lines 21-23

Amend changes expected to other ecosystem components in the Site C reservoir relative to current conditions in the Peace River to state: “a 30-fold increase in phytoplankton biomass, an 80% decrease in periphyton biomass, a 30% decrease in benthic biomass …”

2-12-5 12.4.4.3 Page 12-62, Line 17

Amend “(120% saturation when fish remain near the water surface or > 2 m compensating depths are available)” to “…or > 2 m compensating depths are not available”.

2-12-6 12.6.1 Page 12-82, Lines 16-17

Amend the portion of Table 12.21 defining the High category of Magnitude for fish movement to "… hindered movement of an entire life stage of a fish population", rather than


Page 7 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


"...hindered movement of a portion of an entire life stage of a fish population".

2-12-7 12.6.1

Page 12-82, Line 17

Replace the word "heritage" in the Geographic Extent and Frequency Criterion descriptions, with the words "fish and fish habitat" in Table 12.21.

2-12-8 Volume 2, s.12

Page 12-84 to 85, Table 12.22

Update the definitions of duration and Frequency to match those in Table 12.21.

2-12-9 12.8 Page 12-96, Line 14

Amend table reference to Table 12.26.

2-13-1 13.1.4 Page 13-7, Lines 22-25

Clarify the statement “Rare communities include red- and blue-listed communities ranked 1 or 2 for Goal 2 (to prevent species and ecosystems from becoming at risk) of the Conservation Framework.” This sentence seems to be implying that to be considered for the effects assessment, the selected rare communities must be both red- or blue-listed, AND must be ranked 1 or 2 for Goal 2.

2-13-2 13 Page 13-10, Lines 6-7

Page 13-11, Lines 3-4, 27-28

Page 14-16, Lines 16-17

Amend “Vegetation and Wildlife Report” to “Wildlife and Vegetation Effects Assessment” and where relevant in the EIS.

2-13-3 13.3.1.2 Page 13-20 to 13-21, Table 13.12 and 13.13

Update Section 13 and Appendix R (section 2.1.2) to discuss rare non- vascular plant losses.

2-13-4 13 Mosses and Lichens

Provide a proposal for the collection of additional information on mosses and lichen to supplement the surveys conducted in 2008.

Add to the mitigation measures described in Volume 2 Section 13.3.2, surveys to be conducted to identify mosses and lichen species at risk.

2-13-5 13.3.2 Include a wetland mitigation and compensation plan to the mitigation measures described. Describe the proposed steps to develop the Project wetland mitigation/compensation plan. Describe the mitigation hierarchy proposed for this plan.


Page 8 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


2-13-6 13.3.2 Include to the mitigation measures described in EIS Volume 2 Section 13.3.2, a requirement to work with a hydrologist to develop site-specific measures to avoid or reduce impacts to existing hydrologic balance and wetland function during construction of the Jackfish Lake Road and Project access road and the transmission line.

2-13-7 13.4.1 Page 13-22, Line 39

Incorrect reference to the agricultural land base, rather than vegetation and ecological communities. The reference occurs on page 36, line 22.

2-13-8 13.5.2 Page 13-47, Lines 12-17

The proposed protected area was identified as 6750 ha in size within the reference cited. It is noted that the proposed protected area is now 23,789.6 ha (from Volume 3, Section 25, Table 25.14). Please amend as needed in relevant sections of the EIS.

2-13-9 13 Page 13-50, Lines 35-36

Add reference: Hillcrest Geographics. 2012. Geographic Information Systems Analysis of Project Activity Zone. Unpublished database on file at BC Hydro. Vancouver, B.C.

2-14-1 14 and Technical Memo on Movement of Grizzly Bears and Large Carnivores

The technical memo states: “baseline data on grizzly bear, collected by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, indicate that the Peace River valley does not support a resident grizzly bear population (p.2).” The technical memo also concludes: “The EIS concludes that construction and operation of the Project will not have a negative effect on grizzly bear populations and other large carnivores or movement in the LAA should it proceed. Nor is it expected to affect other large carnivore species that currently reside or travel through the LAA.” If available, provide the Ministry of Environment data concerning provincial data on grizzly bear populations and movement and indicate if this data reflects current trends in grizzly bear population and movement for the study area.

2-14-2 14 Based on the mapping provided in BC Hydro's Technical Memo on Caribou, the West Pine Quarry is located within Moberly caribou herd range. Distinguish in the mapping the Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHA) from core habitat (or confirm if all core habitat is located within WHAs).

2-14-3 14 and Technical Memo on Caribou

BC Hydro's Technical Memo on Caribou advises that, 'the West Pine Quarry can be operated in such a way as to have no indirect interactions with caribou'. Please confirm that 'indirect interactions' means to disturbance-based effects, i.e. noise, increased risk of predation, etc. Indicate the types of measures BC Hydro would implement to ensure 'the West Pine Quarry can be operated in such a way as to have no indirect interactions with caribou'.

2-14-4 14.1.1 Provide a discussion of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (FPWC) in relation to:

Analysis of change and potential effects on wetland function

Development of a wetland mitigation/compensation plan.


Page 9 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


2-14-5 14.1.1.2 Page 14-10 to 14-11

Amend the wording to "except under authority of the permit therefore".

2-14-6 14.1.1.2 Page 14-30 to 14-32

Woodpeckers are missing from s14.1.1.2, pg14-1 but are listed in Table 14-4 as Key Species groups and are included in the assessment S 14.3.1.3). Please reconcile.

2-14-7 14.1.1.4 Page 14-2, Lines 34-38

The list of bird species exempt from protection under the BCWA is complete, so no need to state “includes”. Also “molthrus ater” is two words. Amend sentence to:

“A few select species are exempted from protection for management reasons – these are crows, European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), Rock Pigeons (Columba livia), Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater), House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), and Black-billed Magpies (Pica hudsonia).”

2-14-8 14.1.2 Appendix R, Part 7; s.1.5.1

Page 14-8, Table 14.2 Page 166

The rationale for exclusion of Cougar from the assessment states that “There have been few reported observations by landowners, and Conservation Officers have not dealt with the species within the Peace region between 2003 and 2012 (based on the B.C. Wild Predator Loss Control and Compensation Program). The species was not observed during any study since detailed fieldwork began in 2005. No interaction within the LAA is anticipated.” (Table 14.2)(p.14-8) Appendix R reports that “Tracks of cougar were recorded occasionally during field surveys” (p.166) It is not clear from the information provided why cougar were excluded from the assessment. Clarify why cougar were excluded from the assessment.

2-14-9 14.1.2 Page 14-8; Line 5

Table 14.2 Rationale for the Exclusion of Suggested Species “Canada Lynx A species whose population and density is strongly linked to cyclical fluctuations in prey (especially snowshoe hare). Since changes to snowshoe hare are not expected, the same is assumed for Canada lynx.” No additional information is provided in the EIS or appendix to support this statement. Provide references/evidence to support the above statement.

2-14-10 14.1.4 Page 14-11, Table 14.4

Olive-sided Flycatcher is listed on p. 14-14, but not reported in Table 14.4. Include Olive-sided Flycatcher in the list of songbirds presented in Table 14.

2-14-11 14.2.3 As available, add to the description of baseline conditions in Volume 2 Section 14.2.3 Migratory Birds: • Trumpeter Swan, using data collected in the spring of 2013 • Spring (March, April and June) waterfowl use of the Peace River.


Page 10 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


• Describe the results of surveys within the context of reservoir ice formation and melting in the spring, as predicted by the H3D modeling conducted for the Project.

2-14-12 14

Re-analyse songbird diversity in the valley and on the plateau using non-pooled data.

2-14-13 14 Provide a detailed description of methods used to conduct the 2008 boat surveys for waterfowl and to collect data.

2-14-14 14.2.3 Page 14-15 “Habitat modelling for Olive-sided Flycatcher was not completed, as stand-level attributes – e.g., snag density, tree values in a recent cut-block – are difficult to map, and the confidence in the model would be low. A qualitative assessment in the potential change was considered.”(p.14-15) Ensure that the results of the qualitative assessment conducted on the Olive-sided Flycatcher are reflected within the EIS.

2-14-15 14.2.3 Page 14-34 to 14-35

This sentence refers to “all seven rare species of warblers”. Presumably this is referring to the 7 species at risk, two of which are not warblers. Amend to clarify that there are seven at-risk songbird species: five of which are warbler species, and two that are not.

2-14-16 14.2.3 Page 14-40, Line 14

The text of S 14.2.3 refers to 7 species of woodpecker that occur in the Peace Region but only identify 4 of them specifically. Amend to identify all 7 species.

2-14-17 14.3.1.6.5 14.3.3.6.5

Page 14-40, Lines 37-41 Page 14-49, Line(s) 29 to 31

For effect assessment for habitat loss and fragmentation for wolves, the EIS states: “Road densities exceed published thresholds for road density for wolf persistence (Mech et al. 1988; Thiel 1985), but larger patches with few roads do occur. The greater restriction to wolf movement and occurrence in some parts of the LAA is considered to be caused by mortality. Hunting, trapping, and predator control are affecting local populations.” For disturbance and displacement for wolves, the EIS states: “Similar to ungulates, collisions with bears and wolves are expected to continue to occur. Increased hunting and illegal poaching associated with changes in road access is also a concern.” Complete the analysis of the potential effects of the project on wolves as a key indicator species, propose mitigation measures as appropriate and characterize any residual effects; or provide a rationale for why this information is not required.


Page 11 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


2-14-18 14 Page 14-42, Line 33

Amend the sentence “Documented disturbance of grouse includes a variety of sources ..” to “Documented disturbance of Sharp-tailed grouse includes a variety of sources …”

2-14-19 14.3.2.6.5 14.4.4

Page 14-44 Page 14-61

Section 14.3.2.6.5 reports that “Disturbance and displacement of large carnivores due to Project activities is not expected.” Table 14.16 presents mitigation measures to reduce the effect of disturbance and displacement on large carnivores. Clarify why mitigation measures for large carnivores are presented if disturbance and displacement is not expected (or provide a description of effects of disturbance and displacement on large carnivores if effects are indeed expected).

2-14-20 14.3.3.5 14.5.1.3

Page 14-47; Lines 31-42 Page 14-82; Lines 21-23

Section 14.3.3.5 states that “Mortality caused from raptor and power line interactions occurs as a result of either electrocution or collision. Electrocution is more common with distribution lines than transmission lines (Bradley 2003; Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 2006), as the spacing between two energized conductors and between a conductor and the support structure on transmission lines is too great to provide an opportunity for electrocution. Transmission lines are thought to have a greater collision risk than distribution lines based on the principle that the higher the lines are above ground, the greater the risk (Dorin and Spiegel 2005; Heck 2007). The number of vertical levels on a power line and the line height in direct relation to the surrounding landscape – e.g., through grassland or above the treetops – may increase the risk of collision (Bevanger and Brøseth 2001; Bradley 2003; Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).” (p.14-47). However, no further discussion is provided in the mitigation measures section and in the residual effects section regarding effects on mortality related to the transmission lines for raptors. In addition, section 14.5.1.3 concludes that “Residual effects of mortality during operations are not expected for migratory birds, non-migratory birds, raptors, bats, fur-bearers, or ungulates, and are not discussed.” (p.14-82). Given the description of potential effects on raptors related to the transmission lines provide the identified mitigation measures.

2-14-21 14.3.3.6.3 Page 14-49, Lines 8-9

Amend reference to Naney et al. 2012.

2-14-22 14.4 The proponent has identified supplemental feeding as a potential mitigation measure for loss of ungulate habitat.

Supplemental feeding could result in damage of stored hay and other feed on neighbouring farms, due to attraction of ungulates to certain areas. In addition, there is some evidence that hay is not well-digested by deer and may increase


Page 12 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


mortality risk. Supplemental feeding of wildlife is also contrary to provincial government policy.

Amend to remove this mitigation measure as it is against provincial government policy.

2-14-23 14.4.1 -51 Amend to list Butterflies and dragonflies under "Project Effect" as a key indicator.

2-14-24 14.4.1 Page 14-51

Table 14.15

Amend to include butterflies and dragonflies in both rows under Project Effect. Butterflies and dragonflies are wetland and wetland associated key indicators, and are mentioned in the next column.

2-14-25 14.4.3 14.5.1

Page 14-65 Page 14-66, Lines 15-16

Table 14-17 states that mortality for large carnivores would be partially mitigated. However, section 14.5.1 concludes that “Residual effects are not expected for large carnivores during construction or operations and are not discussed further.” Residual effects are effects that remain after mitigation measures have been implemented. If an effect is partially mitigated, consequently a residual effect is expected. Provide a characterization of the residual effects of mortality for large carnivores and a significance assessment.

2-14-26 14.5.1.1.1 Page 14-69 Amend title to "Summary of Characteristics of Residual Effects: Habitat Alteration and Fragmentation: key wildlife species groups".

2-14-27 14.5.1.1.3 Page 14-70 and 14-87

The EIS states that residual effects on the habitat of the Canada Warbler and Black-throated Green Warbler are reflective of the residual effects on all songbirds: “The characterization of the residual adverse effect resulting from habitat alteration and fragmentation during construction for migratory birds would differ between species, depending on habitat needs. Characterization of the residual effect of habitat alteration and fragmentation on songbirds is reflective of the effects on Canada Warbler and Black-throated Green Warbler, the two rare species that were observed the most.” P.14-70 The overall conclusion of significance for the VC wildlife determined that the only species significantly impacted are the following: “Therefore, the residual effect of the Project of habitat alteration and fragmentation on certain species would be significant because the sustainability of the regional populations of these species would be threatened (Table 14.22). This includes Yellow Rail (SARA-special concern, Red-listed), Canada Warbler (SARA-threatened, Blue-listed), Cape May Warbler (Red-listed), Bay-breasted Warbler (Red-listed), and Nelson’s Sparrow (Red-listed).” (p.14-87) Seven federally and provincially listed species are identified as key indicators for the songbirds group (p.14-11). Given that the characterization of the residual effects on songbirds is reflective of the effects on Canada Warbler, as stated


Page 13 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


above, and that a significant effect has been found for Canada Warbler, it is not clear why the same has not been concluded for the remaining key indicators for songbirds. Add the relevant species of songbirds to the list of significantly impacted species on p. 14-87 or provide the rationale for not including them.

2-14-28 14.5.1.1.3 14.5.2

Page 14-71 Page 14-87

P. 14-87 states that the threshold for significance is determined as follow: “This means that a residual adverse effect would be significant:

1. For species that are currently provincially or federally designated as, or considered candidates for, threatened or endangered status (e.g., provincially Red-listed or SARA schedule 1), and the magnitude of the residual effect is characterized as high.”

The magnitude of the residual effects for waterfowl and shorebirds has been characterized as high: “The characterization of the residual adverse effect for waterfowl and shorebirds is high in magnitude, as the Project would remove over 20% of the available river and back channel habitat, based on the ecosystem mapping” (p.14-71). However, no species of waterfowl and shorebirds is included in the list of species for which a significant impact is expected even if some of these species are red-listed species (i.e. p.14-87). If the magnitude is high for waterfowl and shorebirds, why the residual effect is not significant given that some of the species of waterfowl and shorebirds listed on page 14-15 are Red-listed species (e.g. Upland Sandpiper)? Add the relevant species of waterfowl and shorebirds to the list of significantly impacted species on p. 14-87 or provide the rationale for not including them.

2-14-29 14.6.2.1 Page 14-91 to 14-100

Residual effects on wildlife are identified for the following projects: Alliance Pipeline Sunrise Meter Station Relocation, Groundbirch Mainline, Septimus Pipeline Project, Transmission orth 2011 Expansion Project. However, it is concluded that a cumulative effect is not expected, but no rationale is provided. Provide a rationale as to why a cumulative effect is not expected.

2-15-1 15.3.3

-16, Line 10

Table 15.8 GHG Emissions Estimates; amend the values in the last row to 14.3 and 10.5, due to initial consideration of power generation over 108 years when the basis is 100 years.

2-15-2 15 Page 15-16, Table 15.8

GHG Emissions Intensity - including construction - amended from 13.3 to 14.3 g CO2e/kWh for the conservative scenario, and from 9.7 to 10.5 g CO2e/kWh for the likely scenario

2-15-3 15.4 Page 15-18 to 15-22

The magnitude thresholds omitted the superscript font. Amend Table 15.10 as follows: Low < 100,000 tonnes / year CO2e, Moderate > 100,000 tonnes and < 1,000,000 tonnes / year CO2e (and High > 1,000,000 tonnes / year CO2e (page 15-18, Table 15.10).


Page 14 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


2-15-4 15 Page 15-21, Table 15.11

Amend average emissions for BC Hydro Site C (Tier 3 – conservative, with embedded carbon, fuel, and electricity use) from 13.3 to 14.3 g CO2e/kWh Amend average emissions for BC Hydro Site C (Tier 3 – likely, with embedded carbon, fuel, and electricity use) from 9.7 to 10.5 g CO2e/kWh.

2-B-1 Appendix B, Part 4

Provide information to support why the water quality modelling did not incorporate geochemical information to address potential leaching into surface water. Additionally, provide details regarding the proposed Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leachate Management Plan to demonstrate how materials found to be of concern with respect to ARD/ML will be managed (during and post-construction) and discuss any associated monitoring. Please include the 2013 KCB/SNC Lavalin report (Geochemical Characterization – Status at the End of 2012) as an appendix to the EIS and provide a discussion of ongoing/future activities to further characterize the ARD/ML potential.

2-D-1 Appendix D, Part 1

Page 2, Table 1

Amend maximum discharge rate from 2,520 m3/s to 2,540 m3/s

2-G-1 Appendix G, 2.6

Page 9, Lines 3-6

Include the Peace River Correctional Centre in the list of water supply intakes in Section 2.6 of Volume 2 Appendix G Downstream Ice Regime Technical Data Report.

2-J-1 Appendix J Part 1

Page 84

Site C predicted area should read 93.3 km2 in the following sentence: “Site C predicted area = 9.3 km2 and falls into LOW increase category.”

2-J-2 Appendix J Part 1

Page 86 Amend the reference to the flooded area to reflect the correct area – 53.4 km2.

2-J-3 Appendix J, Part 2

Page ii

“The most popular fish species targeted by Aboriginal Groups and sport fishers were evaluated including, rainbow trout, bull trout and lake trout within the Peace River upstream of the proposed Site C dam location and walleye, goldeye and northern pike downstream of this location, into Alberta. “ Amend the above sentence to include Mountain whitefish, which is also a traditional food source (Volume 3 Appendix F Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes-Summary).

2-J-4 Appendix J, Part 3

Appendix A

Page 2

Provide a rationale for the exclusion the Ontario reservoir data in the figure.


Page 15 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


2-M-1 Appendix M

Page 2, Line 15

Page 3, Line 27

Page 77, Lines 6-7

Please amend reference to Health Canada 2012 to Health Canada 2011. Update full reference to: Health Canada. 2011. DRAFT: Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise. February 2011.

2-O-1 Appendix O

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Page ix, 63, and 201

“Abbreviations and Acronyms”

Two of the acronyms are incorrect with consistency to the provincial guidelines. Amend “WP - Yellow perch” to “YP - Yellow perch” and amend “YP – Walleye” to “WP – Walleye”.

2-P-1 Appendix P, Part 1

Page 69, Table 3.24

In column three, amend “Dinosaur Reservoir Pelagic (9.58 km2)” to “Dinosaur Reservoir Pelagic (7.02 km2)”.

2-P-2 Appendix P, Part 3

Page 57 Clarify where the estimate of lake whitefish came from by amending the typo in the paragraph above Table 6.4 which shows 1.8 t/km2 and should read 0.18t/km2. This value of 0.18t/km2 is used for the longer-term stage B (most likely) scenario, and is derived from the single species kokanee model in Appendix Fish Passage Management Plan Part 3, as described in Section 6.4.

2-P-3 Appendix P Part 3

Page 32

Correct the transcription error on page 32. The value of 0.6 t/km2 on page 32 is the periphyton reference biomass density used for Ecopath simulations of the reservoir (second column of Table 6B.1 in Volume 2 Appendix Part 3); this number should be changed to 0.23 t/km2, matching the reservoir biomass density value shown in Table 3.1 for both early and long term conditions.

2-P-4 Appendix Part 3, S5.1, Future Aquatic Conditions of the Peace River

Table 2.1 (List of sample sites in the study area) in App. P1 does not list sites in the Pine or Beaton Rivers. Data on benthic invertebrates from these rivers are not apparent, e.g., Table 3.20 (Mean dry weight biomass of invertebrates by station and sampling series) in App. P1 contains no data from the Pine and Beaton River. Nor does Sec. 5.2 in App. P3. The last sentence in Sec. 5.1 states that the Pine, Beatton, and Kiskatinaw rivers would help to restore recruitment of fish food organisms to the Peace River below the new reservoir similar to how the Halfway and Moberly Rivers function to the current Peace River.

Provide background data or rationale to support this statement.


Page 16 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


2-Q-1 Appendix Q2

Page 43 Amend the sentence “The percentage of adults with access to spawning habitat (a measure of spatial distribution and an indicator relating to adult spawning) varies between 75% and 88%” to “The percentage of adults … between 75% and 99%”

2-R-1 Appendix R Part 1, 1.1.2

Line 2 Amend the header for this section to 1.1.1.2.

2-R-2 Appendix R Part 1, 1.3.2.1

Line 6 Amend the reference to Figure 1.3.1.

2-R-3 Appendix R, Part 1,

1.4

Page 78

Provide an updated map to represent Watson Slough and Bear Flat to determine what ecological communities (sensitive and rare) occur in these areas. It is unclear exactly where these areas are in relation to the LAA and how these areas will be affected (directly or indirectly).

2-R-4 Appendix R, Part 1, 2.1.1

Line 8 Amend the references in the first part of this section: reference is to “0”, but should be Appendix D.

2-R-5 Appendix R, Part 1, 2.1.1

Page 83 Amend citation to "Appendix D of Appendix R".

2-R-6 Appendix R Part 1, 3.1

Line 11 Amend first sentence to indicate three general categories of mitigation, rather than four as currently stated.

2-R-7 Appendix R Part 2, 1.1.3

Page 4 and 5

Tables 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 are not intended to include locations. Amend the introductory sentence accordingly.


1.2.3.4

Page 16

Amend referenced figures to 1.3.14 and 1.3.15.


Page 3,

Table 1.1.1 Amend the sixth column in Table 1.1.1, to read ‘Bird Conservation Region 6’ (http://www.ec.gc.ca/mbc-com/default.asp?lang=En&n=1D15657A-1).


Page 17 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


1.1.1


1.2.1.2

Page 26

The Barn Swallow has been assessed by COSEWIC as “Threatened”. Amend this section accordingly.

2-R-11 Appendix R, Part 4

4.2.1

Page 133,

Table 4.2.1 Amend the characterization of “reversibility” for songbirds (notably Black-throated Green Warbler and Canada Warbler) during construction in Table 4.2.1 to ʺirreversibleʺ.


4.2.4

137, Table 4.2.4

Amend the criterion for reversibility to irreversible


1.6.2

Page 52-53

Amend to include the months of April and May in the Growing Season in the Sharp-tailed Grouse species account.

2-R-14 Appendix R, Part 7, 1.1.3.1

Page 25-33

Amend inconsistent subheading numbering in this section. For example, the fifth order subheading 1.1.1.1.7 is under heading 1.1.3.1.


1.3.1

Page 88, Para 3

Amend citation to Weir and others 2004: Weir, R., F. Corbould, and A. Harestad. 2004. Effect of ambient temperature on the selection of rest structures by fishers. Pages 187-197 in D. J. Harrison, A. K. Fuller, and G. Proulx, editors. Martens and Fishers (Martes) in Human-altered Environments: An International Perspective. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, New York, USA.


Page 92, Para 4, last line

Amend to “hair with attached follicle roots”


1.3.2.7

Page 101,

Para 1

Amend reference to Weir 2010.


Page 101, Para 2

Reference Jenness 2007 for Longest Lines extension.


Page 18 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


1.3.2.7


Page 115, Para 2, sent. 2

Reference should be Weir and Corbould 2006. Citation: Weir, R. D., and F. B. Corbould. 2006. Density of fishers in the Sub-boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic zone of British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist 87:118-127.


Page 117, Table 1.3.20

Volume 2, Appendix R, page 101, table 1.3.2. Strata should be the first column.

2-R-21 Appendix R, Part 7, 1.6

Page 221, Map 1.6.45 and 1.6.46

The fisher study area is referred to on this map. Please clarify, since this map focusses on large carnivores.

2-R-22 Appendix R, sub-appendix E

Page 306 -311

The note following the table in appendix E “Rare Plants Potentially Occurring Within the Site C Local Assessment Area” states that “No SARA Schedule 1 or COSEWIC Extinct, Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species are thought to have potential for occurrence in the study area.” However, Haller's Apple Moss (Bartramia halleriana Hedw.) is listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act as ‘Threatened’. Review the “Rare Plants Potentially Occurring Within the Site C Local Assessment Area” table and ensure it is updated to reflect the status of the species with a SARA Schedule1 status and/or COSEWIC designation. In addition, ensure text within the appendix and EIS stating that no SARA Schedule 1 species are found within the LAA is rectified (e.g p.13-11 of the EIS).

2-S-1 Appendix S Page E-3, Table E-1 (last row)

Page 105, Table 10.1 (5th row)

Page 107, last

Amend conservative emissions value of 13.3 g CO2e per kWh to 14.3 g CO2e per kWh. Amend likely emissions value of 9.7 g CO2e per kWh to 10.5 g CO2e per kWh.


Page 19 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


paragraph

Page 108, Table 10.2 (1st and 2nd row)

Page 111, Table 10.3 (last row)

2-S-2 Appendix S, 10.1 & 8.4.5

Page 103-104

Page 77

Amend the last line of page 103 to "… were inversely proportional ...”

2-T-1 Appendix T,

Glossary

Page vi The definitions for nival and fluvial streams are reversed in the glossary, please amend.

2-T-2 Appendix T, 1.1

Page 2 ENSO events are an example of climate variability not climate change. Please amend.


Page 5, Line 8

The statement, “Error! Reference not found”, should be deleted.


Page 10,

Foot-note 1 The EIS states “this 1961-1990 period was also used as the baseline from which anomalies of temperature, precipitation and streamflow have been calculated”. Clarify this statement by inserting the word, “projected”, before anomalies. In terms of parameters cited, "snowpack' should be added if the projections are also expressed as anomalies from this period.

2-T-5 Appendix T, 4.3.1 & 4.3.2

Page 18, Table 6

Amend Table 6 to include a list of the minimum and maximum projected annual inflow values.

2-T-6 Appendix T, 8, Figures

Figure 1 The caption in the figure refers to the coloured lines as “reconstruction techniques”. These lines do not represent different reconstruction techniques but rather different published temperature reconstructions derived using proxy data (e.g., tree rings, borehole temperatures).

Amend the reference to “reconstruction techniques” to “temperature reconstructions”.


Page 20 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


2-T-7 Appendix T, 4.3.1 and 4.3.2

NA Reference to Schnorbus et al., 2011 should be clarified in the notes for Figures 13 and 14.

VOLUME 3

3-16-1 16 Page 16-6, Table 16.5

Amend total revenue for 2009 ($000) for District of Hudson’s Hope from $41,180.00 to $4,180.00.

3-18-1 18 Page 18-20, Line 14

Amend “Direct non-labour expenditures in B.C. are estimated to be $1.7 billion” to “Direct expenditures in B.C. are estimated to be $1.7 billion”.

3-18-2 18 Page 18-20, Line 18

Amend the sentence: “The proportion of that spending that would accrue to companies in the LAA … is expected to be in the range of 10%, or $170 million” to “The proportion of that spending that would accrue to companies in the LAA … is expected to be in the range of 10%, or $226 million”.

3-18-3 18 Page 18-20, Line 34

Amend the sentence, “An estimated $170 million in Project contracts or subcontracts is estimated to be awarded …” to “An estimated $226 million in Project contracts or subcontracts is estimated to be awarded to …”.

3-18-4 18 Page 18-23, Line 40

Delete “In addition” from the beginning of sentence.

3-18-5 18 Page 18-27, Lines 22-23

Delete “… with an estimated $170 million accruing to regional contractors, including Aboriginal businesses in the LAA.”

3-19-1 19.4.4 Page 19-79 Incorporate the information from section 24.4 regarding predicted increases in hunters into section 19.4.4 (Effects Assessment - Change in Hunting and Trapping Opportunities and Practices During Construction and Operations) to reflect competition from non-Aboriginal hunters associated with the Project. Similar information is provided in section 19.4.4 for anglers. For consistency, please add the information for hunters.

3-19-2 19.2 Page 19-10, Table 19.3

Amend Table 19.3 to include access to lands and resources in the key indicators.

3-19-3 19.2 Page 19-12, Lines 1-18

Two information sources provided by the MNBC were used and are included in the bulleted list referenced in Section 19 (Volume 3, Section 19.2.1, page 19-12, lines 30-32). Given the inclusion of information sources from MNBC and the Kelly Lake Metis Settlement Society, use of the term “First Nations” in line 9 on page 19-12 is incorrect, and should read “Aboriginal groups”.

3-19-4 19.2.2 Page 19-13, Lines 22-23

Amend the sentence “Where First Nations submitted TLUS reports, these were used as the primary source of information for the baseline information presented in Section 19.2.2.” to refer to “information presented in Section 19.3


Page 21 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


of the EIS”.

3-19-5 19.3 Page 19-17, Line 2

Amend Table 19.8 to include berries as an identified resource use by T8TA.

3-19-6 19 Page 19-75, Line 8

Amend “Fish community modelling indicates an estimated three-fold increase in total biomass of harvestable fish in the reservoir relative to baseline conditions in the Peace River” to “Fish community modelling indicates an estimated 1.8-fold increase in total biomass of harvestable fish in the reservoir relative to baseline conditions in the Peace River”.

3-19-7 19.4.3 (EISG S.8.5.2.2)

Page(s) 19-77, 19-96; Line(s) 1-19, NA

Section 8.5.2.2 of the EISg requires the proponent to identify “the rationale for and effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures” and “where mitigation measures are proposed to be implemented for which there is little experience or for which there is some questions as to their effectiveness, the potential risks should be described”. BC Hydro identified, among others, the following mitigation measures for potential adverse effects on changes in fishing opportunities and practices:

Consult with Aboriginal groups respecting the development of fish habitat compensation projects that align with BC Hydro compensation programs.

Seek input from Aboriginal groups respecting mitigation strategies.

Continue to consult with Aboriginal groups on clearing plans and protocols. Amend to clarify the above approaches are not mitigation measures but rather approaches to identifying mitigation measures. This same amendment should apply throughout the EIS where relevant (e.g. sections 19.4.5, 19.4.7 and Volume 1 Appendix H).

3-19-8 19.4.4 Page 19-82,

Line 18 and 30-41

Correct the use of the word “temporary” used with respect to moose availability within the LAA.

3-19-9 19.4.5 Page 19-88, Line 12

Amend the reference to “fishing” at the end of this line to relate to hunting and trapping.

3-19-10 19 Page 19-90, Line 19

Insert the word “Peace” before the word “River”.


Page 22 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


3-19-11 19.4.7 (EISG S.8.5.2.2)

Page(s) 19-94; 19-95; 19-97. Line(s) 5-24, 1-35, NA

Section 8.5.2.2 of the EISg requires the proponent to identify “the rationale for and effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures” and “where mitigation measures are proposed to be implemented for which there is little experience or for which there is some questions as to their effectiveness, the potential risks should be described”. In addition, BC Hydro identified that the effectiveness of the mitigation measures is not well understood for effects on changes in cultural and traditional uses of the land (p. 19-97); however the EIS does not describe the potential risks as required in the EISg (s.8.5.2.2). Provide a description of the potential risks associated with the lack of understanding of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed for effects on changes in cultural and traditional uses of the land as required in the EISg. This amendment applies to all other instances in the EIS where this information is lacking (e.g. 19.4.3, 19.4.7). An acknowledgement that a follow-up program may be required could also be provided.

3-19-12 19.5.3 (EISG S.8.5.2.3)

Page(s) 19-100; Line(s) 1-3 EISG p. 32

The EISg requires that a definition be provided when qualitative terms are used when characterizing residual effects. The characterization of the criteria magnitude for residual effects on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes includes the term “adaptable”, but does not provide a definition for it. “Low: current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes is adaptable and may be readily transferred elsewhere without undermining the traditional purpose Moderate: current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes is adaptable and may be readily transferred , however, the traditional purpose is undermined High: current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes is highly impaired and is not adaptable or readily transferrable elsewhere” Clarify the term “adaptable” and discuss how it was factored in the determination of significance.

3-19-13 19.5.3 Page 19-104, Line 1

Based on the effects assessment in Volume 3 Section 19.4, amend the residual effect on changes to cultural and traditional uses of the land in Table 19.14 page 19-104 to be characterized as “Permanent and Once”, as described in the text in Section 19.5.3, page 19-102. Proponent has indicated that this update does not change the results of the effects assessment.


Page 23 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


Amend the definition of Permanent, following on the definition of “Long-Term”, to read “effect extends beyond 10 years of the operation phase”.

3-19-14 19.5.5 Page 19-105, Lines 23-27

Amend the characterization of residual effects on changes to hunting and trapping opportunities and practices in Table 19.14 on page 19-104 as follows: Duration and Frequency: “Short-term and continuous”, and Reversibility: “reversible” as described in Section 19.5.3 on page 19-102.

3-19-15 19 Page 19-108, Line 7

Amend section reference to be Section 19.2 rather than Section 19.2.1.

3-19-16 19 Page 19-110, Lines 28-29

Amend the sentence “… cumulative effect on hunting and trapping for trapping for is unlikely” to “… cumulative effect on hunting and trapping for traditional purposes is unlikely”.

3-20-1 20 Page 20-5, Table 20.3

Amend to include “Changes to wildlife presence in agricultural areas” as a Key Indicator for the Key Aspect of Effects on individual farm operations.

3-20-2 20 Page 20-6, Lines 22-23

Amend to state: “Agricultural resources located within the agricultural land and economy LAA would be affected in Years 1 through 8 during the construction phase and throughout the operating life of the Project.”

3-20-3 20 Page 20-11, Line 16

Amend to insert for reference the citation “Ministry of Environment 1983” to the statement that “most recent regional climatic capability for agricultural mapping for the general area was published in 1983”.

3-20-4 20 Page 20-14, Table 20.5

Amend table title from “Rating of Agriculturally Capable Lands” to “Suitability Rating of Agriculturally Capable Lands”

3-20-5 20 Page 20-28, Line 10

Amend text to indicate that “Islands that would be created during reservoir filling have been included in the estimates of land that would be permanently lost” (rather than “have not been” included).

3-20-6 20.3.2.1 Page 20-3, Line 5

Amend to change the reference to Section 20.3.2.4 in EIS Volume 20, Section 20.3.2.1, page 20-34, line 5 for a reference to Section 20.3.3.1.

3-20-7 20 Page 20-35, Line 26

Amend table reference to be Table 20.18 rather than Table 20.17.

3-20-8 20 Page 20-60, Line 6

Amend section reference to be Section 20.3.8.4 rather than Section 20.3.7.4

3-20-9 20 Page 20-61, Line 8

Amend table reference to be Table 20.34 rather than Table 20.35.

3-20-10 20 Page 20-65, Line 31

Amend the text “Of the 9,778 ha rated as having high utility outside of the Project activity zone …” to: “Of the 9,778 ha within the Peace River valley rated as having high utility outside of the Project activity zone …”.


Page 24 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


3-20-11 20 Page 20-68, Table 20.37

Amend the text to the following: “For permanent loss of agricultural land:

Agricultural compensation fund to support projects such as irrigation and drainage improvements

Relocation of suitable quality soil in selected locations Inclusion of land in the Agricultural Land Reserve based on discussion with the ALC, Crown and private landowners”.

3-20-12 20.7 Page 20-78, Line 27

Based on the proponent further review of the microclimate assessment results in EIS Volume 2 Appendix K, amend the distance from the reservoir within which crop drying conditions will be monitored to be increased to 3 km.

3-20-13 20 Page 20-79, Table 20.42

Under Monitoring Program Objective for Agriculture, please delete the following: “Potential for unauthorized access to farm properties due to change in land or water-based access” and “Livestock damage due to new access to the reservoir”.

3-20-14 20 Page 20-79, Lines 12-13

Amend to include the following reference: British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1983. Climatic Capability for Agriculture, Mapsheets 94A/SW and 94A/SE. Victoria, B.C.

3-21-1 21.1 Page 21-1 to 21-19

Amend Table 21.8 to contain the correct totals. The sum of the entries and the identification of deciduous volumes are incomplete.

3-21-2 21.1.1 Page 21-1,

Line 18 Amend to reflect that Section 8 (1) of the Forest Act stipulates that the chief forester must determine an allowable annual cut at least once every 10 years after the date of the last determination, not 5 years as indicated in the EIS. The proponent indicated that this update does not change the result of the assessment of potential effects of the Project on Forestry.

3-23-1 23.4 Page 23-11, Lines 7 and 8

Amend to refer to the 1st and 3rd aspect rather than the first two aspects.

3-24-1 24.3.4.2 14.3.1.6.4 14.3.2.6.5

Page 24-28 Page 14-40 Page 14-44

Table 24.15 in Section 24.3.4.2 of the EIS (Quotas (2007 to 2011) and Harvests (2006 to 2010) for Local Assessment Area Guide Outfitters Tenure) reports that 11 grizzly bears have been harvested between 2006 and 2010 within the LAA. Revise the title of Table 24.15 to clarify the data applies to the whole management area, not solely the LAA.

3-24-2 24 Page 24-32, Line 21

Amend the estimated “3-fold increase” in total biomass of harvestable fish in the Site C reservoir relative to what currently exists in the Peace River to an estimated “1.8 increase” for the most likely fish community scenario.

3-24-3 24.6.1 Page 24-52, Table 24.23

Amend the level of confidence identified for the characterization of residual effects on the Harvest of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Table 24.23 to be moderate, as described in the text supporting EIS Volume 3 Section 24.6. The proponent indicated that this revision does not change the result of the effects assessment for the Harvest of Fish and Wildlife


Page 25 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


Resources.

3-24-4 24 Page 24-55, line 21

Amend the text to read “RAA” rather than “LAA”.

3-25-1 25.3.1.1 Page 25-13, Line 15, Table 25.7

Delete boat rentals, water and sani-station from Table 25.7. The proponent has indicated that this information does not change the outcome of the assessment of Project effects on outdoor recreation and tourism.

3-25-2 25.4.3.1 Page 25-33, Line 16

Amend to include other groups such as Provincial Government agencies, local governments and user groups in the statement “The involvement of Aboriginal groups is also supported”.

3-26-1 26.3.1 Page 26-12, Lines 10-12

Amend to include the classification of potentially inundated portions of Peace River tributary rivers based on the American Whitewater Association river classification system as described below: 1) Halfway River: Predominantly a "class one" waterway at the mouth of the Peace River. Further upstream (6km past the confluence), certain reaches exhibit more difficult class 1 water, and may be considered class 2 due to reduced channel width. 2) Moberly River: Predominantly a "class one" waterway consisting of a relatively wide wetted channel and the presence of oxbow features. Significant waterborne debris is evident throughout the entire river, deposited during periods of high flows associated with freshet. The debris creates potential obstacles to navigation, limiting the potential use of the river for navigation. 3) Creeks Tributary to Peace River (e.g. Lynx, Farrell, and Cache Creeks): Creeks would be considered as "class one" waterways, although not exhibiting qualities of a good navigable waterway due to the narrow channel width, shallow depth, and the presence of obstacles to navigation (stumps, log jams etc.).

3-27-1 27.3.1 -5, Line 15

Amend sentence to read "Among other criteria, the Visual Landscape Inventory provides ratings for Existing Visual Conditions for Visually Sensitive Areas that were mapped in the field".

3-27-2 27.3.2 Page27-6, Lines 6-7

Amend to provide a visual Landscape Inventory viewpoints figure displaying major and minor viewpoints within and adjacent to the Visual Resources LAA.

3-27-3 27.3.4 Page 27-9, Table 27.7

Amend Table 27.7 to contain the most recent definitions of the VQO (Visual Quality Objectives) ratings used by the Province of B.C. available in the Forest and Range Practices Act’s Forest Planning and Practices Regulation, Section 1.1. Make any necessary revisions to the EIS based on these updated definitions.

3-27-4 27.4 Page 27-10, Line 40 -43

Amend the text as follows: "Accordingly, the Visual Landscape Inventory determines Visual Sensitive Areas on the southern slopes of the Peace River Valley as seen from Highway 29 and the Peace River and on the northern slopes as approximated from the Peace River. The Visual Landscape Inventory also defines the valleys of the Moberly River as Pine


Page 26 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


River as visually sensitive."

3-27-5 27.4 Page 27-11, Line 1

Amend to state: "The ratings for the Visually Sensitive Areas on the northern slopes of the Peace River valley range between “modification” and “preservation”.

3-27-6 27 Figure 27.2 Amend Figure 27.2 to include the missing broad visual polygons on the north side of the river and add a new entry in the legend explaining that no EVC (Existing Visual Conditions) ratings are available for those broad polygons.

3-A-1 Appendix A, Part 2

Page A-4, 2nd paragraph and Table

Amend the estimated total direct employment over the course of construction from 10,519 person years to 10,223 person years.


Page A-4, Table

Delete “including contingency” from table heading.

3-D-1 Appendix D

3.1.3

Page 17, Table 3-2

Amend the line before Table 3.2 to read “In 2011, May to September precipitation at the North Peace Airport was 128 percent of normal, and was warmer by 0.6 degrees Celsius”.

3-D-2 Appendix D Page i Amend Table of Contents, “2.3.5 Soil Capability Maps” to read “Land Capability for Agriculture Maps”.

3-D-3 Appendix D Page 12 Amend the text “2.3.5 Soil Capability Maps” to read “Land Capability for Agriculture Maps”.

3-D-4 Appendix D Page 16 Amend the text “The CCA for the Peace River region of B.C. was mapped by the provincial government in 1983 …” to read “The CCA for the Peace River region of B.C. was mapped by the provincial government in 1983 (BC Ministry of Environment 1983) …”

3-D-5 Appendix D Page 48 Amend the text “Total vegetable production in the entire Peace Agricultural Region in 2011 is reported at 41 ha …” to read “Total vegetable production in the entire Peace Agricultural Region in 2011 is reported at 28 ha …”

3-D-6 Appendix D Page 74 Amend to include the following reference: British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE). 1983. Climatic Capability for Agriculture, Mapsheets 94A/SW and 94A/SE. Victoria, BC.

VOLUME 4

4-28-1 28 -13, Line 45

Page 28-14, Line 1

Amend the text “The population increment is estimated to range from a low of 158 in Year 0 to a peak of 852 people in Year 5, equivalent to a 0.72% and 3.65% increase over the base case population forecasts…” to read “The population increment is estimated to range from a low of 163 in Year 0 to a peak of 877 people in Year 5, equivalent to a 0.74% and 3.76% increase over the base case population forecasts …”

4-29-1 29 Page 29-7, Table 29.6

Amend Table 29.6 to correct housing values for Hudson’s Hope and Taylor, and amend housing values in years 3, 6 and 8 in Table 29.21. Amend relevant tables in sections 28, 29, 30 and Volume 4 Appendix A, as required.


Page 27 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


4-29-2 29 -26, Line 9

Amend the text “The average annual number of units required would range from a low of 14 in Year 0 (2014) to 150 in 2020” to read “The average annual number of units required would range from a low of 14 in Year 0 (2014) to 91 in 2019.”

4-29-3 29.4.2.2 Page 29-28, Line 37

Amend to reference Section 29.5 Summary of Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures.

4-29-4 29 Page 29-31, Line 4

With regard to the apartment rental market after mitigation, amend statement : “… peak incremental demand would be 24 units and peak total demand 71 units” to read “… peak incremental demand would be 16 units and peak total demand 31 units.”

4-29-5 29.6.1 Page 29-31, Line 11

Amend the statement on line 11 as follow: "The probability of an adverse residual effect due to a period of low vacancies during construction would be high."

4-30-1 30.1.1.2 Page 30-2 Amend to change PEP for Emergency Management BC throughout the document).

4-30-2 30.1.2 Page 30-5, Lines 14-15

Amend text to acknowledge that Taylor’s water intakes may be impacted during construction.

4-30-3 30.3.7.5 Page 30-24, Lines 3-4

Amend to read the reference to emergency plans to read “Emergency Management BC.”

4-30-4 30.3.8.3 Page 30-26 Amend the statement “with declining enrolment until 2017, followed by increased enrolment till 2020” in EIS Section 30.3.8.3, page 30-26, line 26 to read: “with declining enrolment in 2012, followed by increased enrolment until 2020.”

4-30-5 30.3.9.2.2 Page 30-28, Lines 38-42

Amend this section to reflect the following information: “The District of Taylor has a community centre, four ball diamonds, tennis course, 18-hole champion golf course, community trail, numerous community parks, motocross track and stockcar raceway. The recreational complex offers four sheets of curling ice in winter that is converted into a 27m swimming pool in summer. Taylor also has an ice/hockey arena with a leisure ice pad, a library and a medical clinic. Peace Island Park is located on the banks of the Peace River and features 127 campsites, many group sites, day-use picnic sites, walking trails horseshoe pits, playgrounds, Rocky Mountain Fort display and a boat launch. It is the host site for numerous outdoor events.”

4-30-6 30 Page 30-39, Lines 21-22

Amend the text “… in Year 5, when the LAA would have an additional 1,618 people, with 1,096 of this total residing in Fort St. John” to read “… in Year 5, when the LAA would have an additional 1,613 people, with 877 of this total residing in Fort St. John.”

4-30-7 30 Page 30-39, Amend the text “… and Fort St. John would grow by 3.8% …” to read “… and Fort St. John would grow by 3.5%”.


Page 28 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


Line 25

4-30-8 30.5.1 -54

Amend the description of context to read: "Capacity of socio-economic systems and processes to accept change, resilience, or the level of change relative to base case or base line variation typically experienced."

4-31-1 31.4.3.7 Page 31-32, Lines 21-22

Amend lines 21 and 22 to read "In the alternative West Pine Transport scenario the total number of collisions within the LAA would increase by 22.33, compared with 29.03 under the basic ‘with Project’ scenario.”

4-32-1 32.1.5 Page 32-11, Line 12

Amend to include “preservation of heritage resources for cultural uses by Aboriginal peoples” to the list of key indicators in Table 32.2.

4-32-2 32.2.2.3 Page(s) 32-33

Section 32.2.2.3 states that “In the broader context, the cultural landscape of the Peace River region, comprising the river valley and its associated uplands, is also noted. Parks Canada (2010:253) defines cultural landscapes as “any geographical area that has been modified, influenced, or given special cultural meaning by people”. In this context, the Peace River region is both a cultural landscape and a rural historical landscape.”(p.32-33). Based on available information (e.g. the proponent’s records of its public consultation and Aboriginal consultation), provide more detail in this section on public and Aboriginal concerns regarding changes to the Peace River region as a cultural landscape and a rural historical landscape.

4-33-1 33 NA Include the document titled “Status of Mercury in Environmental Media for Site C Planning – Peace River and Dinosaur Reservoir” (Azimuth, 2011) in the amended EIS, as it contains useful information regarding the fish sampling and analysis that was undertaken for this project.

4-33-2 33 Page 33-7, Lines 22-24

Amend text to read “Due to a higher susceptibility of potential health effects of methylmercury to infant and young children, and the fact that a mother’s methylmercury exposure can be passed on to her fetus or child during lactation…”

4-33-3 33 Page 33-17, Lines 1-3

Amend text from “Operations phase Years 3-5, where anticipated peak methylmercury concentrations would occur before returning to baseline levels (20-30 years later).” to “Operations phase Years 3-8, where anticipated peak methylmercury concentrations would occur before returning to baseline levels within 10 – 15 years after peak (depending on species).”

4-33-4 33.2 Page 33-17, Line 16

Correct the publication date for Health Canada's "Useful Information for Environmental Assessments" guidance document − which is 2010 (not 2011). Update other Health Canada references in Section 33, literature cited, accordingly.

4-33-5 33.2.1.2 Page 33-18, Lines 17-18

Amend text to clarify that BC Hydro did not have a meeting with Health Canada in January 2012; however email correspondence was received during this time.

4-33-6 33.2.1.2 Page 33-18, Amend text to clarify that Health Canada received an electronic copy of BC Hydro's Air Quality Technical Study Overview


Page 29 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


Lines 19-20 and Work Plan on July 18, 2012 (not July 16, 2012).

4-33-7 33.2.2 Page 33-20, Line 26

Update all references to “Health Canada 2011a” in regards to Health Canada's advice regarding the need for a human health risk assessment. This is an incorrect citation. Update other Health Canada references in Section 33, literature cited, accordingly.

4-33-8 33.3.1.3 Page 33-26, Lines 11-13

Surface water quality data were compared to various guidelines (see Volume 2 Appendix E, Tables B2 and B3). Update guideline comparison tables to report how often parameters exceeded the maximum acceptable concentrations and apply changes throughout the EIS as relevant.

4-33-9 33.3.5.2 Page 33-35, Line 18

Amend text to read ‘Prophet River ’rather than ‘Profit River’.

4-33-10 33 Page 33-35, Lines 27-30

Amend text to read “Historical studies (i.e., pre-2001) indicate that mean mercury concentrations in most fish species from the Peace River within B.C. were less than 0.10 mg/kg. Mercury concentrations in some large individuals of piscivorous species such as bull trout ranged up to 0.34 mg/kg.”

4-33-11 33.1.1.5 Based on MethylMercury Technical Memo, Northern Health questions the validity of assumptions about the return of mercury levels to baseline based on comparisons with reservoirs in Eastern Canada. The reservoir feeding the Site C project itself should provide sufficient indication that the 20 to 25 year horizon may be an underestimate, not an overestimate of time required for mercury levels to return to baseline. The Monitoring Time Period (page 10) indicates the years up to 20 years post methylmercury peak for mercury sampling to take place, but remains vague on the end point. This should be defined by mercury levels returning to baseline, or some defined criteria. Please clarify that this is indeed defined in the plan.

4-33-12 33.3.5.3 Page 33-36, lines 9-15

Add a statement indicating that the HC standard (maximum level) for mercury in fish was developed specifically for commercial fish, and therefore may not be applicable to fish caught for sport or subsistence purposes.

4-33-13 33.4.3 NA It is acknowledged that BCH will adhere to the BC Open Burning Smoke Regulation, however there remains uncertainty as to how changes in air quality from the resultant burning may potentially impact sensitive human receptors. Address this uncertainty by discussing how burning and air quality concerns are incorporated into the smoke management plan.

4-33-14 33.4.9 Page 33-58, Lines 31-34

Add a statement indicating that the use of the recommended 150 g average fish serving size for adults is intended for consumers of commercial fish, and therefore may not be applicable to sport or subsistence consumers.

4-33-15 33 Page 33-59, Lines 11-16

Amend text to read “The human health risk assessment results were based on the forecast peak methylmercury concentrations in fish that would be experienced 3–8 years after inundation. Methylmercury concentrations are expected to gradually decline from these peak levels over time, with a return to


Page 30 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


baseline condition within 10 – 15 years after the peak, depending on species. Therefore, the risk estimates as identified in the mercury human health risk assessment would also correspondingly start to diminish 3–8 years after inundation depending on species. “

4-33-16 33 Page 33-60, Line 19

Amend text from “With a projected doubling of mercury concentrations in these species at peak…” to “With a projected doubling of mercury concentrations in these downstream species at peak…”

4-33-17 33 Page 33-61, Table 33.29

Amend the following average methylmercury concentrations in fish in mg MeHg/kg ww for Peace River Downstream, post-inundation peak:

0.332 to 0.166 for Bull trout

0.952 to 0.476 for Goldeye

0.728 to 0.364 for Walleye

4-33-18 33 Page 33-62, Lines 4-6

Amend the second line of the paragraph to read “Details of this program are included as supplementary information in the Methylmercury Technical Memo and specified in Section 39 of the EIS.”

4-33-19 33.4.10 Page 33-62, lines 3-12

Provide a rationale to support the proposed mercury monitoring program frequency and period during project’s early operation.

4-33-20 33 Page 33-65, Table 33-30

Amend table to describe changes during construction to the Key Aspect of “Country foods – methylmercury in fish.”

4-33-21 33 Page 33-66, Table 33-30

Amend monitoring frequency and duration during operations for the Key Aspect of “Country foods – methylmercury in fish.”

4-33-22 33.2.2 Page 33-69, Line 8

Amend the publication date for Health Canada's "Useful Information for Environmental Assessments" guidance document − which is 2010 (not 2011).


Page A-2, Table 2

Add citation: “BC Stats (2012)”


Page A-3 Add reference: BC Stats. 2012. Population Projections. June 2012. BC population. Available at: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationProjections.aspx. Accessed: June 2013.


Page A-7, Line 6

Amend text from “… by spousal participation rate of 65% (, line 16)” …” to “… by spousal participation rate of 65% (Table 5, line 16)”


Page A-7, Line 9

Clarify the reference to “Table” is intended to be “Table 4”.


Page 31 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and



Page A-4, Line 26

Amend the text from “The average vacancy rate … was 70% in 2011”to “The average occupancy rate … was 70% in 2011”

4-C-1 Appendix C Page vi and

viii

Amend author credits as appropriate.

VOLUME 5

5-0-1 Volume 5, Table of Contents

iii, iv and ix Update numbers for Section 37 and add reference to Appendix B, “Additional Supporting Documentation: Site C: Preliminary Historical Research Report”.

5-34-1 34 Page 34-4 “Thus, in Alberta and Saskatchewan the treaty rights to hunt, fish, and trap for food can be exercised throughout each of the provinces but the right to hunt, fish, and trap commercially is extinguished” amend to: “Thus, in Alberta and Saskatchewan (with some exceptions, such as Wood Buffalo National Park) the treaty rights to hunt, fish, and trap for food can be exercised throughout each of the provinces but the right to hunt, fish, and trap commercially is extinguished.”

5-34-2 34.3.2.1 Page 34-5, Lines 25-27

Add a pin-point citation for the asserted proposition in Lax Kw’alaams.

5-34-3 34.3.2.3 and Appendix B

Page 34-9, Lines 7-37

Include the report entitled “Site C: Preliminary Historical Research Report”. This report was included in the references for Volume 5, Section 34 and cited in Volume 5, Section 34, at page 34-10, line 29, but omitted from inclusion in the EIS.

5-34-4 34.3.3 S.20.3 of EISg calls for the EIS to include an assessment of potential adverse impacts of the Project on the exercise of asserted or established Aboriginal rights and treaty rights. Amend S.34 of the EIS to explain what methodology was used for undertaking the assessment and making conclusions about potential adverse impacts of the Project on the exercise of asserted or established Aboriginal rights and treaty rights. An explanation of the applied methodology should also disclose what assessment criteria and/or thresholds were used.

5-34-5 34.3.3 Page 34-14, The EIS states that the Project “would reduce the ability of DTFN to hunt and trap in the wildlife resources (Volume 3


Page 32 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


Lines 9-11 Section 19 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes).” Amend this sentence to describe the area and extent of the reduced ability to exercise treaty rights (e.g. the “wildlife resources LAA”).

5-34-6 34.3.3 -14, Line 10

Clarify that this sentence is referring to the wildlife resources LAA.

5-34-7 34 Page 34-18, Line 6

Amend text to read “rights” rather than “treaty rights.”

5-34-8 34 Page 34-22 Amend text to read “impact benefit agreements” rather than “Impact Benefit Agreements.”

5-34-9 34 Page 34-29, Line 13

Amend text to read “The potential adverse effects of the Project on the exercise of asserted or established Aboriginal rights, treaty rights, and interests.” rather than ““The potential adverse effects of the Project on the asserted or established Aboriginal rights, treaty rights, and interests.”

5-35-1 35.2.2.5 Page 35-10, Line 14

Amend reference to Chapter 9.1.4 to read Section 9.1.4.

5-35-2 35.2.2.12 Page 35-15, Line 13

Amend "Groundwater Quality Management Plan" to read "Groundwater Protection Plan."

5-37-1 37.1 Page 37-1, Line 6, Table 37.1

Amend reference to be Volume 1, Section 6 (Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Project) rather than Section 4.

5-37-2 37 Page 37-5, Line 28, 34 and 35

Amend “Fort St. John Airport” to “North Peace Regional Airport.”

5-37-3 37 Page 37-10 to 37-46

Update section heading numbers. Also:

Delete 37.1.7 from heading, “Concrete Dams”

Delete 37.1.8 from heading, “Earthfill Dams”

Amend 37.1.8.1.1 to 37.1.6.1.2

Amend 37.1.8.1.2 Earthfill Dam to 37.1.6.1.3 Earthfill Dam Performance

Amend 37.1.8.1.3 North Bank to 37.1.6.1.4 North Bank Performance

Amend 37.1.8.1.4 RCC Buttress to 37.1.6.1.5 RCC Buttress Performance

Amend 37.1.8.1.5 to 37.1.6.1.6 Amend remaining headings up until Section 37.2 Potential Accidents and Malfunctions.

5-37-4 37.1.8.3 Page 37-21, Correct the 50 year return period indicated in the document.. The design earthquake is dependent on bridge importance,


Page 33 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


Line 5 the type of bridge structure and the seismic risk associated with the geographic location of the bridge.

5-37-5 37 All Update all cross referencing within section 37.

5-37-6 37.1.13.2 Page 37-46, All

As described in EIS Section 37.2.5.2.1 a breach of the earthfill dam would have an adverse effect on transportation, as the CN rail bridge across the Peace River southeast of Fort St. John and the Highway 29 bridge across the Peace River at Taylor would be damaged or destroyed. Include that it is also likely that the bridges at Clayhurst would be seriously damaged or destroyed by a breach of the earthfilled dam.

5-37-7 37.2.2.4.1 Page 37-61, Line 1

Update reference to the correct Figure.

5-37-8 37.3.1.1 Page 37-77, Table 37.22

Update the interaction of potential accidents and malfunction for Fire or Explosion during the construction phase from a 1 to a 2 for current use of lands and resources for traditional purpose in Volume 5, Section 37, Figure 37.22.

5-37-9 37 Page 37-82, Table 37.24

Delete the Visual Resources information as it is a duplicate entry of Section 27.

5-38-1 38 Page 38-1, Table 38.1

Amend the current text to the following: “For permanent loss of agricultural land:

Agricultural compensation fund to support projects such as irrigation and drainage improvements

Relocation of suitable quality soil in selected locations Inclusion of land in the Agricultural Land Reserve based on discussion with the ALC, Crown and private landowners.”

5-39-1 39 Please ensure this section contains a complete listing of mitigation and follow-up measures.

5-0-2 12.6 of MLIB document submitted May 24: MLIB_TLU Baseline and Assessment Amendment

Page 5, Line 30

There is a typo on page 5, line 30. Please correct. ``Based on that consideration, a change/no change to the effects assessment is required.``


Page 34 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


Report.pdf

5-0-3 Fort Nelson First Nation Background and Rationale for Involvement in the Site C Project

Fort Nelson First Nation input to BCH was not a traditional use study. Please correct how this information was labelled.

5-A-1 Appendix A Page A-17, Part 4, Page 3

Add “Metis Nation” before British Columbia for clarification.

5-A-2 Appendix A A24, Part 4, Page 1

The proponent has advised that the following text will be deleted to ensure consistency with information provided related to other Aboriginal Groups: “While a signatory First Nation’s right to exercise these treaty rights to hunt, trap, and fish is granted throughout the “tract surrendered”, the right is limited by the Crown’s right to take up lands. Infringement of the treaty rights occurs at the point when so much land has been taken up that no meaningful right to exercise that treaty right remains over that group’s traditional territory.”

5-A-3 Appendix A1

Part 4

Page 3, 2nd last paragraph

Amend the last sentence of the second paragraph to include “Nation” at the end of the sentence.

5-A-4 Appendix A4

Part 4

Page 8,

2nd last paragraph

Amend the text to reference Dene Tha’ rather than Prophet River.

5-A-5 Appendix A08

Part 1

Page 2

Remove the map provided by Fort Chipewyan Metis to BCH indicating a ‘deemed traditional territory’ that the Alberta government conceived via its June 2010 Métis Harvesting Policy.

5-A-6 Appendix Page 1 of 5 Amend the date for the letter referred to in the Aboriginal Land and Resource Use Summary for Fort Chipewyan Metis to


Page 35 of 35

Amendment Number

Section Page and


A08, Part 3 be August 11, 2012.

5-A-7 Appendix A09 Part 5

At the request of FNFN, either re-title Part 5 as “FNFN Rationale to BCH to enter into a Stage 3 Consultation Agreement” or withdraw the Part 5 from the EIS altogether until the Parties agree to a project-specific TLUS for submission as Volume 5 Appendix A09 Part 5.

· FELCC for Run -of-River amend from 35,880 GWh/year to . Final Direction to Amend the Site C...

Documents

Transcript of · FELCC for Run -of-River amend from 35,880 GWh/year to . Final Direction to Amend the Site C...