lake superior link transmission project - hydro one · hydro one networks inc. -lake superior link...

Lake Superior Link Transmission Project

Prepared by Hydro One Networks Inc.

January 2019

Environmental Assessment Amended Terms of Reference

Hydro One Networks Inc. - Lake Superior Link Transmission Project 1


Lake Superior Link Transmission Project

Individual Environmental Assessment

Amended Terms of Reference

Prepared for and by: Hydro One Networks Inc.

483 Bay Street Toronto, ON

M5G 2P5 January 2019


Executive Summary Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) is the proponent of the Lake Superior Link Transmission Project which consists of a new, approximately 400 kilometre double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line that generally parallels the existing East-West Tie, a double-circuit 230 kV transmission line corridor. It connects the Wawa Transformer Station (TS) to the Lakehead TS near Thunder Bay (with a connection at the Marathon TS), and is referred to as the reference route. The Lake Superior Link Transmission Project is required to ensure an adequate, safe, reliable and affordable supply of power to enable future growth and development in Northwestern Ontario.

The purpose of the Terms of Reference (ToR) is to provide the overall framework for the planning and decision making process that will be followed during the Environmental Assessment (EA). The public, Indigenous communities, government agencies and other interested individuals are provided with opportunities to consult on the Project. Should the ToR be approved by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, it will be used by Hydro One to guide the completion of the EA to ensure that it fulfills the requirements of the EA Act and any other applicable requirements. The results of the EA process will then be documented in an EA Report to be submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) for review and approval.

There are two key documentation requirements for approval to proceed with an undertaking under subsection (1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, 1990 (EA Act):

• the development, submission, review and approval of the ToR; and, • the preparation, submission, review and approval of the EA document in accordance with the

framework set out in the MECP approved ToR.

The assessment of natural, socio-economic, cultural/built and technical environment is integral to the EA process. Natural features include physical environment, water resources, Environmentally Significant Areas, wildlife and habitat, vegetation, forests and wetlands, aquatic ecosystems, species at risk, and acoustics. The socio-economic and cultural/built features will include cultural heritage, regional planning, commercial and industrial activities, demographics and community profile, traditional and Indigenous land use, human health, visual quality, archaeology, infrastructure and services, and property value. Technical features will include safety, constructability, budget, location, access and interactions with other infrastructure.

Effective consultation for both the ToR and EA is a vital part of the Project lifecycle. Consultation and engagement with various stakeholders and Indigenous communities is expected to be on-going throughout the EA process and into the project implementation phase. Interested parties can raise concerns about the Project during the ToR and EA process so that issues can be identified and addressed. Consultation can result in mitigation of effects to individuals and communities, fewer conflicts and delays and helps to improve transparency around the ToR, EA and Project planning process. Interactions with stakeholders will be compiled and consultation commitments will be recorded in the Record of Consultation to capture the wide range of Project interests and allow participation in meaningful ways.


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................. 9

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11

1.1 Background on the Electricity Sector in Ontario ......................................................................... 13

1.2 Background on the East-West Tie Expansion ............................................................................. 14

1.3 Proponent ................................................................................................................................... 17

1.4 Purpose of the Study and Undertaking ....................................................................................... 17

1.5 Outline of the Terms of Reference ............................................................................................. 18

2. Regulatory Framework for the Project ........................................................................................... 19

2.1 Provincial Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................... 19

2.1.1 Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act ........................................................................... 19

2.1.2 Other Applicable Provincial EA Processes ........................................................................... 22

2.1.3 Ontario Energy Board Act ................................................................................................... 22

2.1.4 The Expropriation Act ......................................................................................................... 23

2.1.5 Other Relevant Provincial Legislation, Permits and Policies ............................................... 24

2.2 Federal Regulatory Framework................................................................................................... 26

2.2.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ........................................................................... 26

2.2.2 Section 67 of CEAA 2012 ..................................................................................................... 26

2.2.3 Indian Act ............................................................................................................................ 27

2.2.4 Species at Risk Act ............................................................................................................... 28

2.2.5 Other Relevant Federal Legislation, Permits, and Policies ................................................. 28

3. Indication of How the EA Will Be Prepared .................................................................................... 29

3.1 EA Document Preparation and Submission ................................................................................ 33

3.2 Flexibility to Accommodate New Circumstances ........................................................................ 34

4. Description of the Undertaking ...................................................................................................... 35

4.1 Technical Overview of the Undertaking...................................................................................... 35

4.1.1 Design Considerations ......................................................................................................... 36

4.1.2 Transmission Line ................................................................................................................ 37


4.1.3 Transmission Line Structures .............................................................................................. 37

4.1.4 Access Roads ....................................................................................................................... 38

4.1.5 Storage, Laydown and Fly Yards ......................................................................................... 39

4.1.6 Construction Offices ............................................................................................................ 39

4.1.7 Temporary Construction Easements................................................................................... 39

4.1.8 Transformer Station Expansions ......................................................................................... 40

4.1.9 Construction Camps ............................................................................................................ 40

4.2 Project Phases ............................................................................................................................. 41

4.2.1 Construction ........................................................................................................................ 41

4.2.2 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................................... 42

4.2.3 Decommissioning ................................................................................................................ 42

5. Existing Environmental Conditions in the Study Area .................................................................... 43

5.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 43

5.2 Data Collection Methodology ..................................................................................................... 44

5.2.1 Published Sources of Information ....................................................................................... 49

5.3 Natural Environment................................................................................................................... 50

5.3.1 Geology, Soils and Physical Environment ........................................................................... 50

5.3.2 Groundwater and Surface Water ........................................................................................ 51

5.3.3 Environmentally Significant Areas ...................................................................................... 52

5.3.4 Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ........................................................................................... 55

5.3.5 Vegetation, Forest Resources, and Wetlands ..................................................................... 55

5.3.6 Water Bodies, Fish Habitat and Aquatic Ecosystems .......................................................... 58

5.3.7 Species at Risk ..................................................................................................................... 63

5.3.8 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 69

5.3.9 Acoustic Environment ......................................................................................................... 69

5.4 Socio-economic Environment ..................................................................................................... 70

5.4.1 Regional Planning ................................................................................................................ 70

5.4.2 Economy, Resource, Commercial and Industrial Activities ................................................. 70

5.4.3 Population, Demographics and Community Profile ............................................................ 71

5.4.4 Human Health ..................................................................................................................... 71

5.4.5 Visual ................................................................................................................................... 72


5.4.6 Infrastructure and Services ................................................................................................. 72

5.4.7 Property Value .................................................................................................................... 73

5.5 Cultural Heritage Resource Environment ................................................................................... 74

5.5.1 Cultural Heritage Resource Environment ........................................................................... 74

5.5.2 Traditional/Indigenous Land Use ........................................................................................ 75

5.6 Potential Effects on the Natural Environment ............................................................................ 75

5.6.1 Preliminary Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................... 77

5.6.2 Guidelines and Best Management Practices ...................................................................... 78

5.7 Potential Effects on the Socio-economic Environment .............................................................. 79

5.8 Potential Effects on the Cultural and Built Environment ............................................................ 80

5.8.1 Effects on Traditional / Indigenous Land Use ..................................................................... 81

6. Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Methods ................................................................... 82

6.1 Alternatives to the Undertaking ................................................................................................. 82

6.2 ‘Do Nothing’ Alternative ............................................................................................................. 82

6.3 Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Undertaking ............................................................... 83

6.3.1 Alternative routes ............................................................................................................... 83

6.3.2 Alternative Designs ............................................................................................................. 84

6.3.3 Local Refinements of the Reference Route ........................................................................ 85

6.4 Evaluation of Alternative Methods ............................................................................................. 85

6.5 Technical, Administrative and Cost Considerations.................................................................... 87

7. Potential Environmental Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures ........................................ 89

7.1 Effects Assessment...................................................................................................................... 89

7.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................... 90

8. Commitments and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 92

8.1 Project Effects Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 92

8.2 Compliance Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 93

8.3 Commitments ............................................................................................................................. 93

9. Consultation .................................................................................................................................... 94

9.1 Principles and Approach ............................................................................................................. 96

9.2 Duty to Consult with Indigenous Peoples ................................................................................... 97

9.3 Consultation on the ToR ............................................................................................................. 98


9.3.1 Government Agency and Public Consultation .................................................................... 99

9.3.2 Indigenous Communities .................................................................................................. 100

9.3.3 Record of Consultation ..................................................................................................... 102

9.4 Consultation Plan for the EA ..................................................................................................... 103

9.4.1 Stakeholder Identification ................................................................................................. 103

9.4.2 Consultation and Engagement Activities .......................................................................... 104

9.4.3 Indigenous Community Consultation ............................................................................... 106

9.4.4 Indigenous Traditional Knowledge ................................................................................... 109

9.4.5 Methodology for Obtaining and Incorporating Traditional Knowledge ........................... 110

9.4.6 Government Agency Consultation Plan ............................................................................ 113

9.4.7 Record of Consultation ..................................................................................................... 114

9.5 Documentation and Issues Resolution Strategy ....................................................................... 115

10. References ................................................................................................................................ 116

Figures Figure 1 – Proposed Lake Superior Link transmission line reference route and reference route alternative sections ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2 – Environmental assessment timeline. Source: MECP 2016 ......................................................... 21 Figure 3 – Proposed typical structure types and heights. .......................................................................... 38 Figure 4 – Solid line (reference route) and dotted line (reference route alternative sections) intersecting provincial parks, national parks and ANSIs (light green) ............................................................................ 54 Figure 5 – Reference route (pink) and reference route alternatives (red) traversing provincial parks, national parks and ANSIs (light green polygons). ....................................................................................... 54 Figure 6 – Reference route (solid red line) and reference route alternative sections (dotted red line). ... 84 Figure 7 – Consultation activities in relation to the EA process ................................................................. 95

Tables

Table 1 – Provincial permits and approvals ................................................................................................ 24 Table 2 – Federal permits and approvals .................................................................................................... 28 Table 3 – EA and ToR requirements. ........................................................................................................... 31 Table 4 – Published sources of information ............................................................................................... 49 Table 5 – Fish species that are expected based on aquatic features of the study area. ............................ 59 Table 6 – Species at Risk status, habitat characteristics, and preliminary presence/absence determination ............................................................................................................................................. 64


Table 7 – Project activities and potential effects on the natural environment .......................................... 76 Table 8 – Project activities and potential effects on the socio-economic environment ............................ 79 Table 9 – Project activities and potential effects on the cultural/built environment ................................ 80 Table 10 – Preliminary environmental and criteria during Project planning.............................................. 89

Appendices

Appendix 1 – List of Preliminary Criteria and Indicators .......................................................................... 118 Appendix 2 – OEB - OPA - IESO Supporting Documentation .................................................................... 128 Appendix 3 – Commitments Made During ToR Consultation Period ....................................................... 129


Acronyms AACI Accredited Appraisal Institute of Canada ACSR Aluminum Conduit Steel Reinforced ANSI Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest BMA Bear Management Areas BMPs Best Management Practice(s) CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEAA 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 CHAR Cultural Heritage Assessment Report CHER Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report CIC Community Information Centre CLI Canada Land Inventory COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada COSSARO Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Environmental Assessment EAPB Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch ECA Environmental Compliance Approval ECCC Environment and Climate Change Canada ELC Ecological Land Classification EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields ESA Environmentally Significant Areas FMU Forest Management Unit GIS Geographic Information System HEPCO Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario HIA Hydro One

Heritage Impact Assessments Hydro One Networks Inc.

IEA Individual Environmental Assessment IESO Independent Electricity System Operator ISC Indigenous Services Canada IPSP Integrated Power System Plan Km Kilometre kV Kilovolt LACP Land Acquisition Compensation Principles LIO Land Information Ontario LTEP Long-Term Energy Plan MAH Ministry of Housing MDS Minimum Distance Separation MMA Ministry of Municipal Affairs MMAH Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing MENDM Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines MNRF Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry MECP Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTO Ministry of Transportation NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation


NMCA National Marine Conservation Area NHIC Natural Heritage Information Centre OBBA Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas OEB Ontario Energy Board OGCC Ontario Grid Control Centre OHA Ontario Heritage Act OLID Ontario's Land Information Directory OM&A Operation, Maintenance and Administration OPA Ontario Power Authority OPGW Optical Ground Wire PM Particulate Matter PNP Pukaskwa National Park PSA Project Study Area PSW Provincially Significant Wetlands ROM Royal Ontario Museum ROW Right-of-way SAR Species at Risk SARA Species at Risk Act SARO Species at Risk in Ontario SFL Sustainable Forest License ToR Terms of Reference SWH Significant Wildlife Habitat TRCA Toronto and Region Conservation Authority TS Transformer Station UTM Universal Transverse Mercator


1. Introduction

Administered by the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), the Terms of Reference (ToR) is a document that establishes the framework for the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. This document is submitted by the proponent to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for approval. The ToR serves to assist in planning and informing the decision-making process during the EA report. Alongside the ToR document, material to be submitted includes the Record of Consultation and other supporting documentation. The Record of Consultation is a written record that outlines the consultation, feedback, comments, meetings and concerns of government agencies, Indigenous (First Nation and Métis) communities, public, and other stakeholders during the development of the ToR.

Projected growth in industrial activities in the northwest of Ontario is expected to require additional electricity resources. Based on this projected growth, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has forecast a need for new supply in Northwestern Ontario. The IESO determined that expanded transmission capacity of the existing East-West Tie 230kV line, rather than additional regional generation, was the preferred alternative to ensure the long-term reliability of the electricity supply in Northwestern Ontario (OPA 2011). In addition, the IESO has identified the expansion of the East-West Tie as a priority to meet Ontario’s electrical transmission needs. This recommendation is contained in a series of Ontario Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP) documents (OPA/IESO 2010, 2013, 2017a), that outline specific energy projects and other initiatives. Criteria to determine the priority status of the Project was based on technical, economic and other considerations. The need for the Project was recently confirmed in the Updated Assessment of the Need for the East-West Tie Expansion (IESO 2017b), with a specified a targeted in-service date of the end of 2020 for the new line.

The Lake Superior Link Transmission Project (the Project) is a new approximately 400 km, double-circuit 230 kV transmission line between Lakehead Transformer Station (TS) near Thunder Bay and Wawa TS near Wawa. As shown on Figure 1, the reference route is generally adjacent to Hydro One’s existing East-West Tie transmission corridor with the exception of a new section of corridor creating a bypass near Dorion and a section through Pukaskwa National Park where existing infrastructure would be modified. Alternative reference route sections have been identified around Pukaskwa National Park and, because of consultation on the initial draft Terms of Reference, along the existing transmission corridor through the Township of Dorion and Township of Shuniah. Based on the length, voltage and scale of the Project, O. Reg. 116/01 stipulates that an Individual EA be completed and has triggered the requirement for approval of an EA under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, 1990 (EA Act).


Figure 1 – Proposed Lake Superior Link transmission line reference route and reference route alternative sections


In preparing this ToR, Hydro One has initiated the first key step in the EA process for the Lake Superior Link Project for consideration and approval by the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks. Hydro One will prepare the EA in accordance with the framework laid out in the ToR document, the Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (MECP 2014), and other applicable legislative requirements.

1.1 Background on the Electricity Sector in Ontario

This section summarizes the background of the electricity sector planning in Ontario and its relation to the current Project.

Over the past two decades the electricity sector in Ontario has changed significantly due to a number of key pieces of legislation. In October 1998, the Ontario Legislature enacted the Energy Competition Act, 1998, authorizing the restructuring of Ontario Hydro with the aim of introducing competition in the wholesale and retail electricity markets in Ontario. Of note, the Energy Competition Act, 1998 changed the landscape of the electricity market in Ontario and introduced market deregulation. On April 1, 1999, in accordance with the Energy Competition Act, 1998, Ontario Hydro was restructured principally into three separate entities:

• Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) with the mandate to generate electricity for Ontarians. OPG generates almost half of the electricity that Ontario homes, schools, hospitals and businesses rely on each day;

• Ontario Hydro Services Company Inc., later renamed Hydro One Inc. Hydro One Networks Inc., a subsidiary of Hydro One Inc. is Canada’s largest electricity transmission and distribution service provider which transmits and distributes electricity across Ontario, home to 38 per cent of Canada’s population; and,

• the Independent Electricity Market Operator, later renamed Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) which operates the power system in real time, oversees Ontario’s electricity market, promotes conservation and plans for Ontario’s future energy needs.

Through the Electricity Restructuring Act, 2004, the Ontario government also established the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) This legislation established the OPA as the province’s long-term energy planner. The OPA was given direction to develop long term electricity plans to provide sustainable electricity to all Ontarians. In 2007, the OPA prepared the Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP), a 20-year energy plan and, together with subsequent public policy initiatives such as the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009, transformed how Ontario plans its electricity usage and generation. This plan was triggered due to a looming supply-demand imbalance and serves to inform regulatory decisions on Ontario’s electrical network. Implementation of the IPSP was planned through developing transmission solutions,


conservation measures, and electricity generation procurement. This regulatory body has the ability to determine the supply mix, that is, the combination of amount and types of generation, electricity conservation, transmission, distribution, and demand management which make up the electricity usage of Ontarians. The IPSP’s goal was to ensure that whether Ontarians want to turn on a light at home or initiate a large scale resource extraction operation, the electrical network would have been properly planned to have the necessary capacity. On January 1, 2015 the OPA merged with the IESO to create a new organization that combines the OPA and IESO mandates. The IESO is now directly responsible for establishing the need for new transmission facilities. As part of the ongoing updates to the IPSP, the IESO publishes updated LTEPs to provide direction to energy stakeholders and regulators.

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) is Ontario’s independent energy regulator. This board sets the rules for energy companies in Ontario such as electricity and gas providers, establishes the rates consumers pay for energy, licenses the aforementioned providers of energy, monitors the electricity market and companies and develops new energy policies in consultation with government. Through these responsibilities, the Lake Superior Link Project would be regulated by the OEB.

The OEB issued a policy document titled Framework for Transmission Project Development Plans on August 26, 2010, which sets out the policy of the OEB for a framework for new transmission investment in Ontario (OEB 2010). This framework assists transmitters to move forward on development work in a timely manner, provide competition and resources for new entrants to transmission, and further support economic efficiency for the benefit of ratepayers. This framework is leveraged in the planning of the Project.

1.2 Background on the East-West Tie Expansion

The existing East-West Tie line, built in the 1960s, is a 230kV double-circuit line connecting Wawa TS to Marathon TS, and then from Marathon TS to Lakehead TS. The width of the corridor varies but is generally approximately 47m. This line has reliably supplied the Northwest of Ontario with electricity for more than 50 years. The East-West Tie Expansion Project is required to ensure an adequate, safe, reliable and affordable supply of power to enable future growth and development in Northwestern Ontario and to build upon the successes of the past 50 years.

As discussed in Section 1.1, the OPA prepared the IPSP in 2007 to plan how electricity is created and used in Ontario. This energy plan assessed the province transmission system and subsequent LTEPS published by the IESO/OPA have served to update the planning document in light of recent development, changing demographics and updated technologies. The 2010 LTEP (Appendix 2) was published by the Ministry of Energy (now known as Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines) as an update to the 2007 IPSP and provided recommendations on transmission planning. The report outlined five transmission projects and recommended that work proceed on them immediately. The East-West Tie Expansion Project is one of the five identified transmission projects. The LTEP was


updated again in 2017 and the East West Tie Project was cited as a major project under development. In 2011, the then Minister of Energy (Now Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines) wrote to the OEB to begin the process to select a designated electricity transmitter for the Project (Appendix 2). Shortly afterward, the OEB then requested a report from the OPA to determine the need for the Project. In response to the OEB request, the OPA penned the “Long-Term Electricity Outlook for the Northwest and Context for the East-West Tie Expansion” (OPA 2011) (Appendix 2) which outlined the background and rationale for the Project. The document provides insight and recommendations for Project planning, in-service date requirements, scope of the Project and insight on potential electrical supply scenarios in Northwestern Ontario. These letters can be found in the Record of Consultation and a summary of the reports can be found in (Appendix 2).

The OPA analysis identified two potential alternatives – increased local generation in the North or added capacity for transmission of supply via an expanded East-West Tie. During the regulatory and technical planning phase of the Project, the IESO provided guidelines for the capabilities of the new line. Technical specifications for the new line indicate two-way (east and west) movement of electrical capacity in the order of 650MW. On August 18, 2011, the feasibility study “An Assessment of the Westward Transfer Capability of Various Options for Reinforcing the East-West Tie” (Appendix 2) assessed various alternatives to provide the required westward electrical capacity. Based on the OPA selection criteria of cost, flexibility, and reliability, and the IESO feasibility study, the expansion of a double-circuit 230kV East West Tie was chosen as the preferred alternative for the Project (OPA 2011, IESO 2011).

Based on the aforementioned IESO and OPA reports, on August 22, 2011, the OEB invited “All Licensed Electricity Transmitters, All Applicants and Potential Applicants for an Electricity Transmitter License, All Interested Parties” to file interest in developing the Project. The OEB provided the Information Package on the East-West Tie Line to the interested parties to inform technical requirements and a project description (OEB 2011) (Appendix 2).

In 2012 the OEB initiated a competitive process to designate an electricity transmitter (successful bidder of the competitive project development process to which costs would be awarded) to develop a 230kV high voltage transmission line between Thunder Bay and Wawa. This request for proposal process drew on all the previous information packages, needs assessments and long-term energy planning documents to inform design and scope of the Project (Appendix 2).

On October 8, 2013, the OPA released a report titled Updated Assessment of the Rationale for the East-West Tie Expansion (Appendix 2) to further assess the need for the Project. The Ministry of Energy’s 2013 LTEP notes that the project is a priority project and that engineering and engagement should commence on the East-West Tie Expansion project to meet anticipated electricity supply needs in Ontario’s northwest (IESO 2013).

In August 2013, the OEB, through a designation process, awarded Upper Canada Transmission Inc. (NextBridge Infrastructure L.P. or NextBridge, “the designated electricity transmitter”) the development phase of the East-West Tie Project. Hydro One, as the owner of the existing stations, is responsible for


connecting the new East-West Tie transmission lines by upgrading the associated transmission station infrastructure. The designation for the development phase is the initial engineering design, engagement, and environmental portion of the Project. The construction, maintenance, operation and decommissioning of the Project remains to be awarded through the ‘Leave to Construct’ process.

Further to the 2013 needs assessment, The Updated Assessment of the Need for the East-West Tie Expansion (IESO 2017b) (Appendix 2) states that a new transmission line “…continues to be the recommended alternative to maintaining a reliable and cost-effective supply of electricity in Northwestern Ontario for the long term.”

On July 31, 2017, the designated electricity transmitter applied to OEB for Leave to Construct for the line portions of the project. On August 4, 2017, the Minister of Energy addressed a letter to the President and CEO of the IESO expressing concerns of the scale of cost increases of the designated electricity transmitter’s budget estimates. In response, the Minister of Energy directed the IESO to review all options to ensure that ratepayers are protected and to update the need assessment for the project based on the latest costs and system needs (Appendix 2). Previously, in the 2017 LTEP the government had stated the following regarding the cost of the East-West Tie Transmission Project:

“As the project has moved through development, estimates on its total cost have increased. This is a concern, as Ontario is focused on making the electricity system more cost-effective. The government will review all options to protect ratepayers as the project continues to be developed.”

Appendix 2 contains a compilation of energy regulator documents and correspondence related to the development of the project and assessment of need. In response to the OEB’s concerns regarding the cost of the project, as well as its environmental impacts, Hydro One is proposing its expansion of the East-West Tie corridor project, called “Lake Superior Link”. A brief summary of the proposed expansion of the East-West Tie corridor project chronology to date is presented below:

• In 2007, the IPSP was developed by the OPA to outline plan how electricity is created and used in Ontario;

• In 2012 the OEB initiated a competitive process to designate an electricity transmitter to develop a 230kV high voltage transmission line between Thunder Bay and Wawa;

• In 2013 a designated electricity transmitter was chosen by the OEB for the development phase of the project;

• In May 2014, the designated electricity transmitter’s Amended Individual EA Terms of Reference was issued;

• In 2016, through an Order-in-Council, the East-West Tie was declared a priority project; • Summer 2017, the designated electricity transmitter’s Leave to Construct updated construction

cost projections substantially exceeded the costs submitted in the designation proceeding; • In August 2017 the Minister of Energy asked the IESO to explore options and update the Needs

Assessment of the project. The IESO reconfirmed the project as the preferred alternative to meet the needs of long-term electricity supply for the northwest on December 1, 2017;


• On February 15, 2018 Hydro One filed a Section 92 Leave to Construct application with the OEB for a new transmission facility - “Lake Superior Link”. Relative to the proposed alternative, the Lake Superior Link reference route provides savings in excess of approximately $140 million of capital costs and over $3 million in operations, maintenance and administration costs;

• A motion to dismiss Hydro One’s Leave to Construct application in May 2018 was unsuccessful; • The updated need assessment June 29, 2018 concludes that the new transmission line is still

required; • In October 2018, a combined hearing for the stations and the line was held by OEB to determine

the successful proponent for the Leave to Construct; and, • In December 2018, an OEB Decision and Order requested both potential Leave to Construct

proponents to submit a not-to-exceed (NTE) price on January 31, 2019.

1.3 Proponent

Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) is the proponent for Lake Superior Link and is responsible for the development of the ToR and subsequent EA document. Hydro One Networks Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hydro One Inc. Hydro One Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hydro One Limited, and is Ontario's largest electricity transmission and distribution provider with more than 1.3 million valued customers, $25 billion in assets and 2017 annual revenues of nearly $6 billion. With a team of over 7,400 skilled and dedicated regular and non-regular employees Hydro One proudly and safely serves suburban, rural and remote communities across Ontario through our 30,000 circuit km of high-voltage transmission and 123,000 circuit km of primary distribution networks. Hydro One is committed to the communities we serve, and has been rated as the top utility in Canada for its corporate citizenship, sustainability, and diversity initiatives. Hydro One is one of only five utility companies in Canada to achieve the Sustainable Energy Company designation from the Canadian Electricity Association. Hydro One also provides advanced broadband telecommunications services on a wholesale basis utilizing an extensive fibre optic network. The common shares of Hydro One Limited, the parent corporation of Hydro One Inc., are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: H).

1.4 Purpose of the Study and Undertaking

The purpose of the EA study is to determine the preferred undertaking and to assess the natural, socio-economic and cultural/built environments, as well as technical considerations within the Project area as the Project may have potential effects on the environment. The EA study has been triggered under the Environmental Assessment Act to assess the baseline state of the environment, potential effects and mitigation measures to eliminate or minimize these potential effects. As one of the first steps of the EA process, the ToR provides the framework for the EA and discusses the major aspects of the EA and how it will be approached.


The purpose of the undertaking is to ensure an adequate, safe, reliable and affordable supply of power to enable future growth and supply in Northwestern Ontario. The need for the Project and its priority status has been clearly identified in a number of regulatory documents outlined throughout Section 1. Successfully implementing the Project would increase capacity of the electrical supply to Northwestern Ontario and satisfy the priority project status of the transmission line.

1.5 Outline of the Terms of Reference

This ToR sets out the detailed requirements for the preparation of the EA document for the Lake Superior Link Project in accordance with the requirements of the EA Act. If approved by the MECP, the EA must be prepared in accordance with the detailed requirements set out in the approved ToR. In accordance with the MECP Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario, (MECP 2014) the ToR contains the following information:

• Identification of the proponent; • Indication of how the environmental assessment will be prepared; • Purpose of the study or undertaking; • Description of and rationale for the undertaking; • Description of and rationale for alternatives; • Description of the existing environment and potential effects of the undertaking; • Assessment and evaluation; • Commitments and monitoring; • Consultation plan for the environmental assessment; • Flexibility to accommodate new circumstances; and, • Other approvals required.

The ToR document is organized into the following sections in order to satisfy the requirements under Section 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act:

• Regulatory Framework for the Project (Section 2) • Indication of how the EA will be Prepared (Section 3) • Description of the Undertaking (Section 4) • Existing Environmental Conditions in the Study Area (Section 5) • Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Methods (Section 6) • Potential Environmental Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures (Section 7) • Commitments and Monitoring (Section 8) • Consultation (Section 9)


2. Regulatory Framework for the Project

The following sections outline the framework for regulatory approvals in Ontario for electricity transmission projects and how they apply to the Project, including a preliminary list of federal and provincial approvals and permits that may be necessary for the Project. This list of permits/approvals is subject to change as the Project is further developed and refined. All permits and approvals that are necessary for the Project will be outlined in the EA document. It may not be practicable to complete all required surveys in relation to other approvals prior to submission of the EA document, but Hydro One will commit to continue the collection of necessary information following the completion of the EA to secure all other related permits and approvals for the Project.

2.1 Provincial Regulatory Framework

The following sections identify the pieces of provincial legislation and regulations that may be applicable to the Project.

2.1.1 Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act

In Ontario, new and expanded transmission lines are subject to the EA Act. Formed under the EA Act, Ontario’s Electricity Projects Regulation (O. Reg. 116/01 outlines the EA requirements for electricity projects in Ontario on the basis of the project type (e.g., transmission lines, transformer stations, power generation plants, etc.) and, in the case of transmission lines, the voltage of the line and distance traversed. The voltage of the line and length of the Lake Superior Link Project (a Category C undertaking under O. Reg. 116/01) requires that an Individual EA application be prepared and submitted under Section 5 of the EA Act to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for approval, which includes preparation, submission and approval of a ToR and an EA Report.

The Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects (MECP 2011) differentiates between Class EAs and Individual Environmental Assessments (IEA). Class EAs are EAs approved under the EA Act to pre-approve certain classes of projects that have predictable and mitigable environmental effects. IEA is a term used to differentiate an EA performed under subsection 5(1) of the EAA from Class EA projects and generally have more uncertainty or potential for greater environmental impacts.

Approval under the EA Act comes first and approval under one piece of legislation does not guarantee approval under another. To reduce timelines, permit or approval applications may be submitted concurrently with the EA; however, these will not be approved until the EA process is complete. Hydro One will consult with other government agencies to coordinate documentation that could meet both the EA and other applicable approvals as needed.


Figure 2 outlines the EA process and the first step is the development of a ToR. The ToR provides a framework for the planning and decision making process that will be followed during the EA and is outlined in the ToR document. The public, Indigenous communities, stakeholders and government agencies are provided with opportunities to comment throughout the process.


Figure 2 – Environmental assessment timeline. Source: MECP 2016


The ToR will be submitted for review and approval by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. If approved, the ToR will then be used by Hydro One to direct the EA process to fulfill the requirements of the EA Act and other regulatory requirements. The resulting EA process will be then documented in an EA Report to be submitted to the MECP for review and approval.

There are two key documentation requirements for approval to proceed with an undertaking under subsection (1) of the EA Act:

• the development, submission, review and approval of the ToR; and, • the preparation, submission, review and approval of the EA document in accordance with the

framework set out in the MECP approved ToR.

2.1.2 Other Applicable Provincial EA Processes

Portions of the Project within Crown lands are subject to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) EA requirements for MNRF Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects and the MNRF Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves. Consultation with MNRF will continue throughout the EA process to facilitate disposition of Crown land for the Project and to satisfy MNRF EA requirements.

In addition, public land transactions under the jurisdiction of Infrastructure Ontario are subject to the requirements of the Ministry of Infrastructure Public Work Class EA. It is Hydro One’s intention that these other EA process requirements will be met through the Individual EA process for the Project.

2.1.3 Ontario Energy Board Act

The Lake Superior Link Project requires OEB approval. The OEB regulates Ontario’s natural gas and electricity industries and is responsible for ensuring construction and operation of proposed transmission facilities are in the public interest. The OEB’s role is to review a transmission project’s effect on consumers with respect to prices, reliability and quality of electricity service. The OEB operates as an adjudicative tribunal and carries out its functions through oral or written public hearings. There are potentially two applications with the OEB related to the Project:

• Leave to Construct - The Project is subject to “Leave to Construct” approval under Section 92 of the OEB Act. The OEB review of Hydro One’s application for Leave to Construct approval examines technical aspects, consumer protection and also includes provisions for engagement/consultation. Hydro One submitted a section 92 Leave to Construct application to the OEB on February 15, 2018.


• Early Access to Land (subsection 98 (1.1) of the OEB Act). Early access allows Hydro One employees and representatives to access private properties affected by the proposed Project in order to undertake a limited number of activities (including biological and archaeological field studies, data collection, legal surveys and soil testing) while the Section 92 application is under consideration by the OEB. This early access is required to gather seasonal data for the EA and other approvals and to bring the Project in-service by the required due date.

The OEB considers the potential impacts of Indigenous consultation and environmental matters on cost and schedule as part of its analysis. The OEB reviews material and makes it public for opportunity for interested parties to provide input on proceedings.

2.1.4 The Expropriation Act

Hydro One’s goal is to secure voluntary property settlements with affected property owners (“Property Owners”) in a timely manner, to the extent practicable, for the portion of properties to be utilized for the Project. Property Owners will be offered the choice of Hydro One acquiring either an easement or the fee simple interest (ownership of the land and any improvements to the land in perpetuity) in the lands required for the Project. Hydro One’s offers will be based upon appraisal reports prepared by external, independent Accredited Appraisal Institute of Canada (AACI) appraisers retained by Hydro One.

Hydro One’s primary intent is to negotiate easement rights with landowners. In some cases, it will be necessary to purchase entire properties where current uses are incompatible with a transmission corridor e.g., a permanent structure or residence under a transmission line.

These Project-specific land acquisition compensation principles are founded upon Hydro One’s past experience pertaining to land acquisition matters for new transmission projects. Hydro One’s central consideration has been the need for Property Owners to have flexibility and choice while balancing Hydro One’s desire to achieve timely acquisition of property interests and its obligation to ensure that expenditures are fair and reasonable to ratepayers.

Should voluntary property settlements meet an impasse, Chapter E.26 under the Ontario Expropriations Act outlines the conditions and restrictions under which a claim for expropriation can be submitted and the rights of residents facing the claim. The expropriation plan must be approved and registered under both the OEB Act and the Expropriations Act prior to commencement of construction of the new line. Expropriations would also need to be approved by the OEB under s.99 of the OEB Act.


2.1.5 Other Relevant Provincial Legislation, Permits and Policies

Based on current information, a number of permits, licences and approvals under Provincial legislation may be required. In some cases, a final determination cannot be made until the detailed design phase for the Project. Table 1 lists provincial approvals which may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Table 1 – Provincial permits and approvals

Regulator Permit/Works Act Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines

Withdrawal of staking rights or lands from prospecting

Mining Act

Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks

Authorizations for Endangered Species (Section 17)

Endangered Species Act


Permits under the Section 53 for water taking or discharge, dewatering

Ontario Water Resources Act


Approvals under the Section 9 on airborne emissions, noise, hazardous waste and sewage/waste management.

Environmental Protection Act


Permits for application of pesticides for vegetation management during the operation phase;

Pesticides Act

Ministry of Labour Compliance with industrial design/construction safety regulations, including filing notice of project before construction commences

Public Health Act

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Approval to undertake work on shore lands and works within a water body (Consolidated Work Permit)

Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act


Approval for ownership/easement of land on which structures are built

Public Lands Act


Site alteration on Crown lands or infrastructure on or over Crown lands

Public Lands Act


Work permit controls, at all times of the year, for clearing within 300 m of a forest or woodland

Forest Fires Prevention Act


Aggregate extraction approval within Crown lands

Aggregate Resources Act



Forest Resource License to harvest timber on Crown lands

Crown Forest Sustainability Act


Fish Scientific Collectors Permits and Wildlife Scientific Collection Authorizations

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act


Approvals to work within provincial parks and conservation reserves

Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act


Authorization to impact wildlife Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Archaeological assessment clearance

Ontario Heritage Act


Heritage and heritage landscape compliance

Ontario Heritage Act

Ministry of Transportation Approval of new structures, encroachment entrances or construction that may affect existing and planned highways

Provincial Transportation and Highway Improvement Act

Other Acts, guidelines and policies include:

• Provincial Policy Statement [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Ministry of Housing (MMA, MAH), 2014};

• Occupational Health and Safety Act; • Technical Standards and Safety Act; • Health Protection and Promotion Act; and, • Water Management Policies and Guidelines (MECP), Policy 1 and 2; and,

Hydro One will identify and describe all necessary permits, approvals, acts, policies and guidelines that may be required during EA development, Project planning and construction. Where appropriate, Hydro One will initiate other permit and approval activities and applications concurrent with the EA process. It will be necessary to initiate some permit and approval activities or applications during the EA process, including any required consultation activities with members of the public, municipalities, government agencies, and Indigenous communities. In addition to the permits listed above, Hydro One will enter discussions with Sustainable Forest License (SFL) holders to consult on the harvest of wood within the SFL Forest Management Units (FMU), wood scaling agreements, handling of wood, land title restrictions, and timber salvage plans. It should be noted that some permits and approvals typically rely on more detailed engineering and design information than is available during the EA process. In this event, Hydro One will carry out required studies necessary to support those approvals following the completion of the EA.


Table 1 provides a preliminary list of other provincial permits and approvals that may be necessary for the Project. This list is subject to change as the Project is further developed and refined. All provincial permits and approvals that are necessary for the Project to proceed will be outlined in the EA document. It may not be practicable to complete all required surveys in relation to other approvals prior to submission of the EA document, but Hydro One commits to complete information collection following the completion of the EA.

2.2 Federal Regulatory Framework

The following sections identify the pieces of federal legislation that may be applicable to the Project. Hydro One will consult with CEAA and will work closely with federal authorities to provide specific details about the location and extent of the Project, including potentially providing a project description, to enable a determination of any permit or authorization requirements.

2.2.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

An electricity project subject to the EA Act may also be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012). CEAA 2012 includes a list of projects or activities (also known as Regulations Designating Physical Activities), which identify major projects with the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental impact and thus require a federal EA under CEAA 2012.

The Lake Superior Link Project is not considered a “designated project” as the Project does not meet the requirements as stipulated in the regulation designating physical activities. These designated physical activities are the following: 1 The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment, in a wildlife area or migratory bird sanctuary, of a new

(a) electrical transmission line; 39 The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a new electrical transmission line with a voltage of 345 kV or more that requires a total of 75 km or more of new right of way.

2.2.2 Section 67 of CEAA 2012

Although the Lake Superior Link Project is not a designated project, it is acknowledged that Section 67 approval under CEAA 2012 will apply to the Project. The Project will require federal approvals or authorizations where the transmission route crosses federal lands. Federal lands include two First Nation reserves (Michipicoten First Nation Reserve and Pays Plat First Nation) under Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) jurisdiction (formerly Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) and one National Park (Pukaskwa National Park) under Parks Canada jurisdiction. At the time of construction, federal lands may


also include the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA) under Parks Canada jurisdiction

Section 67 of CEAA 2012 for projects carried out on federal lands details the following:

67 An authority must not carry out a project on federal lands, or exercise any power or perform any duty or function conferred on it under any Act of Parliament other than this Act that could permit a project to be carried out, in whole or in part, on federal lands, unless

(a) the authority determines that the carrying out of the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects; or (b) the authority determines that the carrying out of the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and the Governor in Council decides that those effects are justified in the circumstances under subsection 69(3).

2012, c. 19, s. 52 "67", c. 31, s. 431(E).

Authorization for works within Pukaskwa National Park will be required from Parks Canada. Hydro One currently has a License of Occupation for its existing infrastructure within Pukaskwa National Park and this license is currently being renewed, remaining in effect until such renewal is complete. Upgrades to infrastructure within the Park to quad-circuit towers as part of the Lake Superior Link Project can be considered within the License of Occupation agreement, provided all federal laws and policies including the results of the detailed impact assessment, and Indigenous consultation obligations are fulfilled. The completion of a Detailed Impact Assessment will be necessary to fulfill Section 67 of the CEAA 2012 legal requirement for the section of the reference route which passes through Pukaskwa National Park. The Detailed Impact Assessment will identify the potential effects of the Lake Superior Link Project to natural and cultural resources within Pukaskwa National Park and identify results of consultations with public, stakeholder and Indigenous communities about this Project within Pukaskwa National Park. Once the Lake Superior NMCA is formally established, authorization for works within the Lake Superior NMCA will be required from Parks Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has also advised that Section 67 of CEAA 2012 would also apply should the Project require ECCC to issue a SARA permit, and will also be required by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) to support their authorization for the use of First Nation reserve lands.

2.2.3 Indian Act

The usage of First Nation reserve land would require ISC authorization. Requirements to this end may be via Project Description Report and/or through a Land Use Permit such as authorization under Section 28(2) of the Indian Act, or equivalent. Consultation with local First Nations is ongoing throughout the lifecycle of the Project and will include further determination of approvals for use of reserve land.


2.2.4 Species at Risk Act

A permit may be required from ECCC under the Species at Risk Act for the works occurring on federal lands.

2.2.5 Other Relevant Federal Legislation, Permits, and Policies

Table 2 outlines other relevant federal legislation and policies which include, but are not limited to:

Table 2 – Federal permits and approvals

Permit/Works Regulator Act Migratory bird permit Environment and Climate

Change Canada Migratory Birds Convention Act

Species at Risk permit Environment and Climate Change Canada

Species at Risk Act

Fisheries Act authorization or request for review

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Fisheries Act

Navigation Protection Program Application

Transport Canada Navigation Protection Act

Aeronautics Act authorizations Transport Canada Aeronautics Act Railway Safety Act authorizations

Transport Canada Railway Safety Act

Canada Transportation Act authorizations

Transport Canada Canada Transportation Act

Navigable Waters Protection Act authorizations

Transport Canada Navigable Waters Protection Act

Indian Act authorizations Indigenous Services Canada Indian Act Explosives Act authorizations Natural Resources Canada Explosives Act Canada National Parks Act authorizations

Parks Canada Canada National Parks Act

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act authorizations

Parks Canada Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

Federal policies regarding species and habitat protection include:

• Policy on Wetland Conservation; • Canadian Biodiversity Strategy; • Convention on Biological Diversity; and • Wildlife Policy for Canada.


3. Indication of How the EA Will Be Prepared

Following an extensive engagement and consultation process, the EA study will comply with requirements set out in the EA Act. Hydro One will submit the EA for review and approval to the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks. The MECP states: “A proponent should use subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) if there is a more defined planning process and more details of the proposal are already known (for example, the potential alternatives it wishes to evaluate).” Based on the previously conducted needs assessment and the prioritization of the Project from regulatory bodies, a more focused approach to the EA will be utilized. A more fulsome explanation of the previously conducted needs assessment and rationale for the Project can be found in Section 1.

The EA will consist of the following components:

• a description and purpose of the Project; • a description of and statement of the rationale for the Project; • the EA will include a description and rationale for the ‘Do Nothing’ alternative ; • the EA will not include a description and rationale of alternatives to as it has already been

extensively studied by the OPA and IESO and the preferred alternative to has already been identified. However, the EA will include a description of and statement of rationale for the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking such as route alignment, design considerations and location refinements;

• a description of the environment that will be affected, or might reasonably be expected to be affected directly or indirectly by the Project and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking;

• a description of the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment

• a description of the actions necessary or that may be reasonably expected to be necessary to prevent, change, remedy or mitigate any effects;

• an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment as a result of the Project, and the alternative methods of carrying out the Project;

• description and documentation of the public, government agency, stakeholder, and Indigenous community engagement and consultation undertaken during the EA process;

• environmental monitoring plans, follow-up programs and commitments; and, • supporting documents, maps, or any other documents as required under the EA Act and its

regulations, such as O. Reg. 334.

An outline of the ToR and its contents can be found in Section 1.5 which will contribute to the overview of the EA process and requirements for the proposed Project. The Project as a whole will be assessed using the best information available with levels of detail tailored to maximize the clarity of the process.

Under the EA Act, an EA can proceed under section 6.1(2) which includes an assessment of “alternatives to” the undertaking and “alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking or it can proceed in


accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act which allow focusing of the EA. The following excerpts document the Sections quoted from the EA Act.

Section 6.1(2) of the EA Act

6.1(2) Subject to subsection (3), the environmental assessment must consist of,

(a) a description of the purpose of the undertaking; (b) a description of and a statement of the rationale for,

(i) the undertaking, (ii) the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking, and (iii) the alternatives to the undertaking;

(c) a description of, (i) the environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, (ii) the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment, and (iii) the actions necessary or that may reasonably be expected to be necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the effects upon or the effects that might reasonably be expected upon the environment, by the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking;

(d) an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking; and, (e) a description of any consultation about the undertaking by the proponent and the results of the consultation. 1996, c. 27, s. 3.

Section 6.1(3) of the EA Act

6.1(3) The approved terms of reference may provide that the environmental assessment consist of information other than that required by subsection (2). 1996, c. 27, s. 3

Section 6(2) of the EA Act

6(2) The proposed terms of reference must,

(a) indicate that the environmental assessment will be prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in subsection 6.1 (2); (b) indicate that the environmental assessment will be prepared in accordance with such requirements as may be prescribed for the type of undertaking the proponent wishes to proceed with; or (c) set out in detail the requirements for the preparation of the environmental assessment. 1996, c. 27, s. 3

A proponent will generally move forward with an EA under Section 6.1(2) and 6(2)(a) if the planning phase of the project is in the early stages or details regarding the need for the undertaking, undertaking, potential environmental effects and alternatives are not fully fleshed out. Proponents will submit an EA under subsection 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act if there is a more defined planning


process and more details of the project are already known. This is generally referred to as a ‘focused EA’. The reason for proceeding with this undertaking has been established by the IESO and is documented in Section 1. The IESO concluded that a new transmission line is the most practical and cost-effective method of bolstering electricity capacity in Northwestern Ontario. As such, this ToR proposes that the method and purpose planning for the Project has been established and the EA be prepared in accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act. The focused EA will meet the requirements of subsection 6.1(2) and will not fully assess all the ‘alternatives to’ but will instead include consideration of the alternatives to “Proceed with the Transmission Line Project” and “Do Nothing”. “Alternatives methods” of carrying out the Project will also be considered as part of the EA. Alternative methods are “different ways of doing the same activity” (MOECC 2014). Table 3 provides a comparison of Section 6 requirements and the proposed Lake Superior Link EA documentation.

Table 3 – EA and ToR requirements.

Section of EAA 6.1(2)

Described in Terms of Reference

To be Described in EA Document

(a) description of the purpose of the undertaking.

The ToR describes the purpose and alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking (Section 1).

The EA will describe the purpose of the undertaking.

(b) description of and statement of the rationale for: (i) the undertaking; and, (ii) alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking. (iii) alternatives to the undertaking

i) The ToR provides a description of and rationale for the undertaking (Section 1). ii) The EA will assess alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking (Section 6) iii) The ToR provides a rationale for a focused EA that considers a ‘Do Nothing’ alternative and contemplates alternatives to the undertaking (Section 6).

i) The EA will provide a description of and rationale for the undertaking. ii) The EA will assess alternative reference routes. iii) The EA will reiterate the rationale for a focused EA that was presented in the ToR.


(c) description of: (i) environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly (ii) the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment; and, (iii) the actions necessary or that may reasonably be expected to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the effects upon or the effects that might reasonably be expected upon the environment by the undertaking and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking.

i) The ToR generally describes the environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected by the Project either directly or indirectly. (Section 5) ii) The ToR describes the framework of how the EA will assess and identify any effects on the environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected by the Project. (Section 0) iii) The ToR describes how the EA will address any identified effects either through prevention, change or mitigation. (Section 7)

i) The EA will describe, in greater detail, the environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly by the Project. ii) The EA will assess and identify any effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment. iii) The EA will evaluate any effects identified and address them through prevention, change or mitigation. iv) The EA will include a detailed description of the environment to be affected by the Project, identification and assessment of any effects to the environment, and addressing any effects through prevention, change or mitigation, be conducted and documented for those portions of the Project that cross First Nation reserve lands

(d) an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking.

The ToR provides a commitment to describe advantages and disadvantages of the undertaking and alternative methods in the EA document (Section 6).

The EA will provide an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking”

(e) a description of the consultation about the undertaking by the proponent and the results of the consultation.

The ToR describes the Indigenous, public and stakeholder consultation that was conducted for the development of the ToR. (Section 9) The ToR provides a list of contacts and a record of consultation developed through the ToR process. (Section 9)

The EA will provide a description of the Indigenous, public and stakeholder consultation that was conducted throughout the EA process. The EA will identify a list of contacts consulted with and provide a record of consultation, status of consultation, summary of issues and summary of issue


The ToR also describes the consultation framework that will be undertaken during the EA process to consult with Indigenous communities, the public and stakeholders. (Section 9).

resolution.

3.1 EA Document Preparation and Submission

The EA will be prepared in accordance with the requirements in the EA Act and in accordance with Section 4.3 of MECP’s Code of Practice on Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario (Code of Practice). The EA will include:

• an Executive Summary; • list of studies and reports; • Terms of Reference requirements; • identification of the proponent; • commitments and monitoring; • other approvals; • consultation summary; and, • appendices.

In addition, commitments to post-approval actions including Project notification, remedial action plans, etc. will also be described. The EA will document need, the purpose for the undertaking, alternative routes, engagement/consultation undertaken, a description of and rationale for the undertaking, environmental baseline, environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures associated with the undertaking, commitments to compliance monitoring, and future commitments to be satisfied at subsequent design stages. Further information will be included if warranted.

In addition to the EA, detailed technical studies completed in support of the EA will be prepared at appropriate stages of the EA to document technical work that is undertaken to support the decision-making process. These detailed technical studies completed in support of the EA will be included as technical appendices to the EA as described in Section 4.3 of the MECP Code of Practice.

A draft EA will be made available to the public, federal and provincial government agencies, municipalities and Indigenous communities and groups for review prior to formal submission to the MECP. The documentation will be available at government offices and on the Project web site. Hard copies will be made available to the Indigenous communities to allow for comments by their members.


Subsequent to the pre-submission review and consideration of any comments received, the EA will be formally submitted to the MECP for an approval decision. The EA will provide a comprehensive list of all relevant commitments made during the preparation of the ToR and the EA to guide future environmental work and engagement/consultation as well as effects and compliance monitoring. All monitoring will be consistent with MECP requirements.

3.2 Flexibility to Accommodate New Circumstances

In accordance with Section 5.2.10 of the Ministry’s Code of Practice, it is important that flexibility be incorporated when preparing the ToR document. The lifecycle of a complex and geographically extensive and diverse project from the conceptual stage to operation may be subject to project changes. In addition, the time gap between a ToR and a successful EA submission potentially allows for new circumstances to arise. To address these potential changes, there is a requirement for flexibility within the ToR document. Project design updates, study area refinements, novel information, and implementation of input from the consultation process are examples of new circumstances arising during a project lifecycle. Flexibility allows proponents reasonable measures to address unforeseen circumstances but still maintain regulatory compliance throughout the project phases without starting the ToR and EA process anew. Hydro One has prepared this ToR with the most complete state of knowledge at the time of its preparation but acknowledges the Project need to adapt to new circumstances. If significant changes to the Project are being considered, Hydro One will consult with the MECP to determine if the proposed changes can be accommodated within the framework of the ToR.


4. Description of the Undertaking

This section provides a general description of the undertaking. A more detailed description of the undertaking will be provided in the EA. The description within the EA will be sufficiently detailed to enable the identification and assessment of potential effects for all phases of the Project.

The Project consists of a new approximately 400 km long double-circuit 230kV transmission line connecting the Lakehead TS to the Wawa TS, with a connection at the Marathon TS. The majority of the new transmission line will be constructed on a new right-of-way (ROW) that is largely on or adjacent to the existing Hydro One transmission corridor (the existing East-West Tie, or EWT). There are two exceptions to this routing. The first is the section of approximately 35 km in the Reference Route through Pukaskwa National Park where existing infrastructure will be renewed and replaced, with no corridor widening required. Two new circuits and the two existing circuits would be installed on new quad-circuit structures. The second exception is the reference route that includes routing the line around the communities of Dorion and Loon Lake (approximately 57 km in length) within the section between Nipigon and Lakehead TS, which deviates from the existing EWT. See Figure 1 for further details on the reference route and reference route alternatives. Temporary and permanent access roads, storage and laydown yards, will form part of the Project facilities and are discussed further in this section.

4.1 Technical Overview of the Undertaking

The general location of the Project and certain technical specifications has been determined by the OEB. Specifically, on December 20, 2011, the OEB issued an Information Package on the East-West Tie Line to Electricity Transmitters that registered to participate in the bid process for the Project. The information package provided a definition of the Project for designation purposes, as well as the minimum technical requirements for the Project which identified a double-circuit 230kV line running from Wawa to Thunder Bay with a connection in Marathon. Climate change will be taken into account during the design of the Project. The need and scope for the Project has been clearly identified Section 1 and Appendix 2.

The Project Definition for Designation for the East-West Tie Line (2012) defines the Project in the following way:

“The project, as defined by the Ontario Power Authority, is for new transmission facilities between Northeast and Northwest Ontario that, in conjunction with the existing tie, will provide total eastbound and westbound capabilities on the order of 650 MW, while respecting all North American Electric Reliability Corporation, North East Power Coordinating Council and Independent Electricity System Operator reliability standards. The East-West Tie expansion should be designed to have a lifetime of at least 50 years…”


Minimum technical requirements for the Project can be found in the November 9, 2011 OEB document Minimum Design Criteria for the Reference Option of the E-W Tie Line (230kV Wawa to Thunder Bay Transmission Line). The following sections outline the technical portions of the Project.

4.1.1 Design Considerations

The Project will enhance safety and security of electrical supply and design considerations will be evaluated consistent with this purpose. Alternative design considerations involving span length, tower height, alignment of access roads, timing of construction and tower design will be evaluated based on site-specific environmental and technical considerations and stakeholder input. Changes to Project design may be made to accommodate landowner and Indigenous community concerns if it is practicable to do so without negatively affecting other landowners, traditionally sensitive areas, culturally sensitive areas, and environmental features (all environmentally sensitive areas that could include among others: Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs), water bodies, wetlands, rare vegetation communities or significant wildlife habitats) or significantly negatively affecting overall Project costs. Hydro One will document how these decisions were made, and the results in light of landowner issues, Traditional Knowledge and traditionally and culturally sensitive areas. Design considerations are applicable to all alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking.

Alternative design considerations available to mitigate potential effects include:

• span length between the towers to avoid environmental features where required; • tower height to avoid environmental features, where required; • access road specifics, including alignment, location, and removal or possible retention after

construction is complete, if required; • if impacts to wetlands are anticipated or required, a proper assessment must be completed and

appropriate mitigation measure applied for impacted wetlands; • alternative design considerations for water crossing methods and types of infrastructure (e.g.

bridges, culverts etc.) as well as supporting infrastructure requirements (e.g. access roads, laydown areas etc.) and the lifecycle of these structures (permanent/temporary) will be described, considered and assessed in the EA;

• site-specific vegetation management regimes; • construction timing (seasonal) and staging along the ROW to minimize potential effects on the

natural environment and farming operations; and, • tower siting and placement for specific applications to minimize aesthetic effects on the local

public and the traveling public or disturbances to farming operations.


4.1.2 Transmission Line

The transmission line will be designed to be an overhead 230 kV Alternating Current (AC) double-circuit transmission line. The transmission line will consist of transmission structures, insulators, conductors, overhead shield wires (OHSW), optical ground wire (OPGW) and grounding.

Where the proposed route is adjacent to the existing East-West Tie Transmission Line the ROW will typically be up to 37 metres (m) wide. New ROWs not adjacent to the existing East-West Tie corridor, typically up to 46 m wide, will be cleared of vegetation to accommodate the transmission line. For the reference route through Pukaskwa National Park where quad-circuit towers are proposed as a design consideration, the corridor will not be widened and as such no vegetation removals will be required outside the existing ROW. The ROW width for the line has been determined primarily through consideration of the design of the structures to be constructed, the span between structures, the sag of the conductor, and ability to utilize areas within the existing EWT corridor during construction. During construction, the requirement for additional permanent ROW easements may be identified to accommodate tower assembly and erection; and conductor stringing and tensioning, angles in the route, or long spans.

The EA will describe and assess Project interactions with other transmission lines and other infrastructure. Where the Lake Superior Link Project crosses other transmission lines (such as T1M), some existing infrastructure such as poles or towers may need to be relocated to accommodate the Project. Those areas that may be impacted by rerouting of existing and proposed transmission corridors (i.e. construction related activities) will be assessed as part of the EA process.

4.1.3 Transmission Line Structures

Different transmission structure types will be used, depending on the line location, which may include guyed towers and self-supporting structures. Figure 3 shows some of the different types of proposed structures. The actual tower engineering design, height, number of structures and type of foundation will depend on span distances between the structures, turning points and as determined by topographic, meteorological, technical environmental and socio-economic constraints. This will be further discussed in the EA.


Figure 3 – Proposed typical structure types and heights.

4.1.4 Access Roads

Temporary and permanent access roads will be required for the construction and operation phases of the Project. The access requirements for construction and operation are different. Construction requires temporary access to the ROW for clearing and site preparation, construction of each tower with heavy equipment and for cleanup and site restoration. The operation phase requires permanent access to the ROW for lighter vehicles conducting inspections, maintenance, emergency repairs, and vegetation management.

It is Hydro One’s preference to use the Project ROW and build access roads within the ROW, as required. Where travel in the ROW with heavy equipment is not possible due to terrain, ground conditions or environmental sensitivities, Hydro One will use existing roads and/or trails that connect to the Project ROW, which in some cases may require upgrades or improvements. In the event there are no existing roads or trails that connect to the ROW, Hydro One will build new access roads.

The specific number, location, and characteristics of existing and proposed new access roads to be used for the Project will be refined through the EA process technical design and through consultation with Indigenous communities and stakeholders. Mitigation measures for access roads and water crossings will be further developed during the EA process. Temporary access roads that are required only for construction will be restored following construction, including those within the Project ROW.


4.1.5 Storage, Laydown and Fly Yards

Storage, laydown and fly yards will be required to receive and distribute materials and equipment needed for construction of the transmission line. The EA will assess sites for potential usage as yards and it is expected that these yards will be established in strategic locations near the Project and communities. Materials, equipment and supplies from the storage yards will be transported by truck to laydown yards or to structure locations within the ROW, as required. The contractor may choose to transport materials by helicopter to structure locations not accessible by ground vehicle, and more specifically to those tower locations within PNP. Permits and/or authorizations for the storage and fly yards will be obtained prior to their use, where applicable. Further details on number and size of yards will be determined later in the EA process.

4.1.6 Construction Offices

The contractor will establish temporary construction offices and communications. The exact locations and number of offices will be determined by Hydro One’s contractor. Typically, these facilities are leased or rented and may be located in the City of Thunder Bay, Township of Nipigon, Town of Marathon and/or Municipality of Wawa or near laydown yards, storage yards, or other temporary facilities. The construction offices will be decommissioned and/or returned to existing uses following completion of construction activities.

4.1.7 Temporary Construction Easements

Temporary construction easements refer to agreements allowing for the temporary occupation of lands for the purposes of construction. These agreements may be authorized differently depending on the occupation of private vs. Crown lands. Irrespective, the appropriate approval authority will be obtained when required.

Temporary construction easements are anticipated to be required at select locations along the corridor such as at dead-end structures to provide adequate space for equipment and materials to enable conductor pulling/tensioning. Once construction has been completed, all temporary construction easement areas will be decommissioned and restored as required.


4.1.8 Transformer Station Expansions

When the designated electricity transmitter was awarded the development phase of the East-West Tie Corridor Expansion Project in 2013, the portion of the Project to modify Lakehead TS, Marathon TS, and Wawa TS to accommodate the additional capacity of the new transmission line remained within the accountability of Hydro One as the asset owner. The modification required at each of the stations needed the station footprint to be expanded in order to accommodate the necessary electrical equipment to connect the new line. The initiation of the Individual EA process for the Lake Superior Link Project separately from the respective EA processes of the TS. Based on this timeline Hydro One continues to maintain the line and TS components as separate applications. The following details the specific works underway for the TS upgrades.

Lakehead TS

The Lakehead TS expansion is on Hydro One-owned land and did not trigger an environmental assessment. Potential permits and approvals required include Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) drainage, Air and noise approval (for reactor) and a Building permit (for new building). Marathon TS

After a discussion and agreement of the MECP, a separate Class EA Full Process for Minor Transmission Facilities (2016) was undertaken for the station expansion at Marathon. Since the Marathon TS expansion required the acquisition of Crown land, MNRF RSFD Class EA obligations are also being considered and addressed through the Hydro One Class EA (Full Process for Minor Transmission Facilities). Hydro One followed the Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities Full Process while coordinating closely with the MNRF Nipigon District to ensure that requirements under both Class EAs were met. Potential permits and approvals required include MNRF forest resource license (for crown timber), MNRF work permit (for relocated trail), ECA drainage, Air and noise approval (for reactor) and Building permit (for new building).

Wawa TS

The Wawa TS expansion is on Hydro One-owned land that was acquired in the fall of 2018. After a discussion with and under the direction from the MECP, a Class EA Full Process for Minor Transmission Facilities (2016) is being undertaken for the approximate 0.6 hectare station expansion at Wawa.

4.1.9 Construction Camps

The need for construction camps during the execution of the Project is expected. These camps are anticipated to be located in Nipigon, Marathon and White River in areas that are in proximity of the laydown yards and have easy access to the fly yards and major access points. Accommodations will also


be sought in both Thunder Bay and Wawa, however it is anticipated that the local infrastructure would be able to accommodate the anticipated labour force.

4.2 Project Phases

The Project includes the planning, design, construction, and operation and maintenance of the above Project components.

4.2.1 Construction

The construction and commissioning of the Project is expected to occur within an approximately 30-month period, after acquiring all the necessary approvals, permits and clearances to construct. Pre-construction activities will include identification and delineation of vegetation buffers, site reconnaissance for species at risk, un-mapped streams and other environmental features. Some of these activities will occur during the data collection phase of the Project. Construction activities will continue year-round, with some construction activities being staged and implemented to avoid or minimize potential effects on traditionally sensitive areas, culturally sensitive areas, and environmental features or life cycle periods of wildlife, such as avoiding clearing of vegetation during the migratory bird nesting season. The detailed construction staging and sequencing of the Project will be determined by Hydro One in discussion with its construction contractor. Construction activities will typically occur during the working hours of 07:00 to 19:00 from Monday to Friday. However, regularly scheduled night-time work and/or weekend work may be required to address schedule delays caused by weather or other unexpected conditions. Project commissioning and start-up is expected to occur shortly after construction and testing is completed. The main construction activities that have the potential to affect the natural environmental and socio-economic features include the following, in sequential order:

• surveying, staking and geotechnical investigations; • clearing and grubbing of vegetation; • construction of supportive infrastructure (e.g., access roads, watercourse crossings, laydown

yards, and construction camps); • material delivery/distribution to sites; • foundation installation for transmission structures; • assembly and erection of transmission structures; • tower replacement within Pukaskwa National Park; • conductor installation (pull, sag and clip); • tie-in to existing transformer stations (Lakehead, Marathon and Wawa); • clean-up and restoration; and,


• testing and commissioning.

Mitigation measures for the construction phase such as timing windows, monitoring, sediment and erosion control, decommissioning of temporary infrastructure and other construction activities will be developed during the EA process.

4.2.2 Operation and Maintenance

Activities such as vegetation maintenance and transmission line assessments would be regularly performed on the transmission line. Vegetation management activities are performed to manage and mitigate safety and reliability risks due to vegetation growing both on and off the ROW. A Transmission Vegetation Management Program, developed with consultation from Indigenous communities, will apply to the operation and maintenance of the corridor.

The operating and maintenance services to be conducted include:

• structure climbing and helicopter inspections; • line hardware and insulator thermography; • ROW inspections; • visual ground patrol; • Vegetation management; and, • Repairs and maintenance.

4.2.3 Decommissioning

The Project will be operated for an indeterminate time period and retirement (or decommissioning) is not anticipated. Should decommissioning activities eventually be considered for some or all Project components, decommissioning will be planned and conducted in accordance with the relevant standards and regulatory requirements in effect at that time. If decommissioning activities are required, a detailed review of the potential environmental effects and mitigation measures will be provided. Consideration toward the permanency or temporary nature of supporting infrastructure will be considered throughout EA development. In addition, a description and consideration of Project lifecycle phases (i.e. pre-construction, decommissioning, maintenance and monitoring) will be addressed within the EA.


5. Existing Environmental Conditions in the Study Area

The biophysical and socio-economic baseline environmental conditions of the reference route alternative and much of the reference route have been recently studied. Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the Project, Hydro One will not be duplicating these studies, but will use publicly available information and Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation to inform assessment efforts. Hydro One will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements.

Hydro One performed a gap analysis of the existing environmental study information to identify the need of verification or collection of data to complete the environmental description and include the area of the reference route through Pukaskwa National Park and the Park approaches as well as the corridor section near Dorion, west of Nipigon through Lakehead TS.

Hydro One is conducting field surveys to characterize the biophysical environment in the areas identified in the gap analysis as mentioned in the above paragraph, in compliance with the requirements of the MECP, Parks Canada, MNRF and other government agencies to complete the Individual EA Study. These field surveys include aquatic, vegetation, wildlife and species at risk studies to identify and document the existing biological conditions present. These are initial studies and additional studies may be required as the EA process unfolds.

This section describes the existing natural and socio-economic environments existing in the Project study area. A more detailed description of the environment and the baseline conditions for all environmental components will be provided in the EA. A list of preliminary assessment criteria and indicators can be found in Appendix 1.

5.1 Study Area

The Project is located in the Province of Ontario and extends from the Municipality of Shuniah near the City of Thunder Bay to east of the Municipality of Wawa. A key map showing the location of the Project and routing of the transmission line is presented in Figure 1. The majority of the Project is located on provincial Crown land, traditional territories of Indigenous communities and with some sections within easements acquired from private landowners. The EA will study both reference route and reference route alternative study areas.

The Study Area can generally be broken up into three components: the Project Study Area (PSA), Local Study Area (LSA) and Regional Study Area (RSA). For the general purposes of Lake Superior Link, PSA is 500 m on either side of the ROW for reference route and alternative routes; LSA is 1 km from Reference Route boundary/ROW; and the RSA is approximately 5 km from the boundary of LSA. However, LSAs and RSAs aren’t always consistent for each environmental factor. For example, study areas for the socio-


economic assessment will be defined by criterion-specific LSAs and RSAs. A more detailed description of the study area and how the study area boundaries were determined will be provided in the EA.

5.2 Data Collection Methodology

Overall data collection methodology will vary from study to study and will be refined further under respective subheadings under Section 5.3 and Section 5.4. This section will describe overarching data collection methodology goals and processes to develop a fulsome understanding of natural, socio-economic and cultural/built environments.

Desktop studies will be utilized to determine the state and pertinence of knowledge of the listed environmental factors. This knowledge will serve to inform preliminary Project design and direct efforts for further assessment of the environment. Information used for the purpose of documenting existing natural heritage conditions will be gathered from background information provided by government agencies and other stakeholders, as well as published and unpublished data sources. Traditional knowledge from Indigenous communities will be incorporated into aspects of the EA, subject to consultation with traditional knowledge holders and communities.

Identification and subsequent assessment of criteria and indicators is a vital part of the EA process. Criteria are overarching concerns about components of the environment whereas indicators are specific, measurable factors that can then inform the assessment of the criteria. For example, if a criterion was a concern about the effect of air quality the indicator for air quality could be a measure of air particles like NOx, or particulate matter (PM) such as PM10 or PM2.5.

Information collected is structured around the following environmental features. These secondary source desktop studies will draw upon secondary sources such as the following:

• previously conducted environmental studies; • regulatory databases; • aerial photographs; • Geographic Information System (GIS) databases; • academic literature; and, • information obtained through consultation with stakeholders and Indigenous communities.

If necessary, primary sources of information, such as field work or further consultation with Indigenous communities and other stakeholders will be conducted to supplement the data gathering effort. Field work will focus on the identified reference route and reference route alternatives. Additional effort will be made to conduct further studies within areas of potential local design considerations and route refinements may occur. The scope and intensity of study and its associated data collection methodology will be further refined during the EA process throughout consultation with stakeholders, Indigenous communities, data gap analysis, in response to novel information and Project refinements.


These primary field methods will include, but are not limited to, the following:

Winter Aerial Caribou Survey

An aerial Woodland Caribou survey was conducted in winter 2018 according to survey methodology for identifying and delineating woodland caribou winter habitat, as provided by the MNRF in their publication titled Selected Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory Manual (Ranta 1998), to the extent possible. This survey consisted of flying a grid of parallel transects, spaced 2 km apart and oriented perpendicular to the Lake Superior coastline, using a Bell 206 Long Ranger helicopter. The extent of the survey grid extended between the northwestern border of PNP (where the East-West Tie caribou survey terminated) to west of the transformer station in Wawa. Transects extended 10 km on either side of the alternative route. In total, 56 transects, were surveyed, for an approximate total survey length of 1085 km. The survey was conducted on consecutive days between March 6-8, 2018 to ensure deep snow conditions (>30cm). All wildlife observations made during the survey were recorded on a data sheet and included date, time, transect number, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates, species name, number of individuals, and habitat type. Results of this survey will be documented in an environmental baseline condition report to support the EA.

Bat Hibernaculum Screening

A review of secondary source information, including MENDM mine shaft data and karst areas will be undertaken to identify natural and man-made features along the proposed route that may provide bat hibernaculum habitat. In the event that habitat suitable for use by bats as a hibernaculum is located within the LSA, it is recommended that acoustic surveys be conducted during the detailed design phase rather than during the baseline study phase in proximity to any entry points in late August or September. This is recommended to determine whether swarming is occurring at that site, indicating use of the feature as a hibernaculum.

Bat Maternity Roost Habitat

To the extent possible, maternity roost habitat assessments will be conducted in accordance with the MNRF Bat Survey Protocol for Treed Habitats (2017) and/or other protocols as recommended by the MNRF to identify forest habitat capable of hosting bat maternity roosts. Forest Resource Inventory vegetation community metadata across the Project Study area will be screened using ArcGIS software for the presence of older, more mature tracts of deciduous forest or mixed forest greater than 80 years old for which the transmission line would cross. This is the age at which trembling aspen, a common, large diameter deciduous tree in the boreal region, attains a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 20 cm. Once more mature forest areas are identified; snag density survey plot locations will be distributed as evenly as possible across accessible areas along the alternative route. Snag density surveys will be conducted across these plots with the primary objective of generating a quantitative index of habitat suitability across mature treed areas across the study area. Snag density will be calculated as the total number of snags recorded for all plots within a contiguous candidate habitat site, divided by the total


area surveyed. All snags >10cm DBH will be recorded and given a snag classification according to applicable MNRF protocols.

Bat Acoustic Surveys

Acoustic surveys will be conducted with the primary objective of determining the presence or absence of bats along the LSA as well as the species diversity thereabouts. Acoustic recordings will be collected concurrently at multiple locations at a time, using Song Meter SM3BAT (Wildlife Acoustics Inc.) full-spectrum, ultrasonic recording devices. Each detector will be paired with a Wildlife Acoustics SM3-U1 ultrasonic, omnidirectional microphone using a 3 m microphone cord. Detectors will be located in open areas along linear habitat features such as watercourse and clearing edges in proximity to deciduous ecosites with trees of large DBH. Microphones will be positioned approximately 10 m from the forest edge in an attempt to make recordings in a low-clutter environment and, thus, maximizing the clarity and quality of recorded echolocation calls for more accurate species identification. Each detector will be left to passively record bat activity for ten consecutive nights of low wind and without precipitation.

Bat recordings will be analyzed using the acoustic analysis program Kaleidoscope Pro (Wildlife Acoustics), which auto-identifies each recording by comparing the acoustic pulses to a known reference library and by identifying species-specific characteristics of each pulse (i.e. frequency, slope, duration). Recordings will be identified to species, where possible. In instances where identification cannot be assigned definitively to one species, the recording will be assigned a grouping that best encompasses the identifying characteristics of the pulses therein.

Breeding Birds

Inventories for migratory and year-round resident bird species that are expected to nest within the Project study area will be conducted using principles of the Forest Bird Monitoring Program as well as the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas survey protocols. These protocols are described in the MNRF’s publication Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques (Konze and McLaren 1997) and the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Participants Guide (OBBA 2001). Breeding bird point counts will be conducted at pre-determined stations, positioned in distinct habitat types, such as coniferous forest, mixed forest, deciduous forest, open country, and thicket. These surveys will be completed during the bird nesting period, between May 24 and July 10th in the morning between one half hour before sunrise and 5 hours after sunrise. Each count station will have a point count duration of ten minutes and will be surveyed twice during the bird nesting period at least ten days apart.

Data collected during point count surveys will be summarized to calculate the total diversity present within the study area, total diversity at each count station, Shannon diversity index at each station, relative abundance at each station, species densities per habitat type, the number of Partners in Flight (PIF) species observed, and the locations of observed species.


Marsh Bird Habitat

Marsh bird surveys will be conducted according to the Marsh Monitoring Program marsh bird survey methodology described in the MNRF’s publication Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques (Konze and McLaren 1997). Marsh bird surveys will be conducted concurrently with amphibian call count surveys at predetermined locations within appropriate wetland habitat features identified during the background data review such as marshes, fens, and thicket swamps. Marsh bird inventories will be conducted during the bird nesting period, between May 24 and July 10th in the morning between one half hour before sunrise and 4 hours after sunrise. Each count station will be surveyed twice during the bird nesting period at least 10 days apart.

Marsh bird surveys will be conducted using call playback to illicit call response from target marsh species. Standardized playback surveys will include the calls of Virginia Rail, Sora, Least Bittern, Pied-billed Grebe, and American Coot. All birds observed during marsh bird playback surveys will be recorded. Data collected during each point count will include date, weather conditions (wind, temperature, cloud cover, and precipitation), start time, count station name, UTM location, habitat description, species observed, number of individuals, distance from observer, time period when first observed, and breeding code.

Data collected during point count surveys will be summarized to identify wetland bird species using each wetland feature observed, relative wetland bird abundance at each station, and the locations of wetland SAR, including Least Bittern. This survey type will also inform the identification of the Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) waterfowl nesting areas type.

Crepuscular Birds (Eastern Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk)

Eastern Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk are both crepuscular aerial insectivores and members of nightjar family Caprimulgidae. Surveys for these crepuscular species will follow the MNRF Survey Protocol for Eastern Whip-poor-will in Ontario (2014) as no standardized protocol yet exists for Common Nighthawk in Ontario. Crepuscular surveys are undertaken in the evening between late May and early July, during periods of lunar illumination greater than 50%. Surveys will be conducted during hours when lunar illumination is visible, as this tends to be the period when call frequency is greatest. Counts will consist of 6-minute point counts at predetermined locations within or adjacent to suitable habitat for either species. To the extent possible, survey stations will be located at least 500m apart.

Data collected during each point count will include date, weather conditions (lunar phase, wind, temperature, cloud cover, and precipitation), start time, count station name, UTM location, species observed, number of individuals, distance from observer, direction from observer, time period when first observed, habitat type, and breeding code.

Amphibian Call Counts

Amphibian call counts will be conducted according to the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) amphibian survey methodology described in the MNRF’s publication Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory


Techniques (Konze and McLaren 1997). These surveys will be conducted at predetermined locations within accessible amphibian habitat breeding features such as marshes, fens, bogs, thicket swamps, and treed swamps identified during the background data review.

Stationary surveys will be conducted at each count station for three minutes and will be surveyed twice across spring and early summer to account for spring and summer-breeding species. The MMP prescribes surveys to occur between May 1-15, June 1-5 and July 1-5 in northern Ontario. Amphibian surveys will be conducted starting one half hour after sunset and finished before midnight during warm evenings with little wind (up to 3 on the Beaufort wind scale).

Data collected during each call count will include count station name, date, time started, weather conditions (wind, temperature, cloud cover, and precipitation), UTM location, species observed, call level, number of individuals, and distance from observer. According to the MMP, call levels will include: “0 – None heard; 1 – Individuals can be counted, calls not overlapping; 2 – Numbers of some individuals can be estimated or counted, others overlapping; 3 – Full chorus, calls continuous and overlapping, individuals not distinguishable.”

Aquatic Habitat Surveys

An aquatic habitat survey will be conducted in reaches at or near the proposed crossings. The methodology will be generally based Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (Stanfield 2017) and other applicable protocols.

For each waterbody, habitat variables such as location, waterbody name, watershed name, flow regime (ephemeral, intermittent, or permanent), waterbody type (watercourse, or lake/pond), and thermal regime (cold, cool, or warm) will be documented, where available. Stream morphology habitat types such as riffle, rapids, run, flat, pool, impoundment, and backwater will be visually assessed in the survey reach (O’Neil and Hildebrand, 1986). Other habitat variables such as bank-full width, wetted width, water depth, in-situ water quality/chemistry measurements (temperature, pH, conductivity, total dissolved solids, and dissolved oxygen), turbidity, water quality samples, instream cover, substrate type, presence of fish passage barriers, documented fish species, documented fish species in upstream or downstream water bodies will be visually assessed and documented. Based on the habitat features observed, the overall aquatic habitat value in each water body will be rated as either nil, low, moderate, high, or unknown.

The habitat will also be described in terms of potential fish use and the sensitivity of the habitat at or near the proposed crossing. The habitat sensitivity will be rated based on the available spawning, migration, rearing and overwintering habitat potential and will be evaluated and assigned a fish habitat sensitivity value of low, moderate, or high.

Further information on natural and social environments can be found in Section 5.3 and Section 5.4.


5.2.1 Published Sources of Information

Table 4 outlines the published sources of information to be used to determine existing conditions of each environmental component.

Table 4 – Published sources of information

Source of Information Document Banton et al. Ecosites of Ontario: Boreal Range (2009) Birds Ontario (Bird Studies Canada, OFO, ECCC, Ontario Nature, MNRF)

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA) (2007)

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)

Wildlife Species Assessments

Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO);

Ontario Species at Risk (May 2000)

Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO);

Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List

ECCC Species at Risk in Canada (SARA) List Federation of Ontario Naturalists Ontario Mammal Atlas (1994) Knight Piesold Eagle’s Nest Project Terrestrial Baseline Studies –

Vegetation MECP Environmental assessments, registry and approvals

database. MECP Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law Noise

Pollution Control Guideline (NPC) Construction Equipment, Publication NPC-115 (NPC-115) (1978)

MECP Environmental Noise Guideline Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning, Publication NPC-300 (NPC-300) (2013)

Ministry of Transportation (MTO), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), MNRF

Protocol for Protecting Fish and Fish Habitat on Provincial Transportation Undertakings (2013)

MNRF Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (2000) MNRF Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion Criteria

Schedules (2012) MNRF Ontario’s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan

(2009) MNRF Bat Survey Protocol for Treed Habitats (2017) MNRF Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory

Techniques for Ontario (1997) MNRF Land Information Ontario (LIO) (2016) MNRF Survey Protocol for Eastern Whip-poor-will in

Ontario (2014) NHIC Biodiversity Explorer Database NHIC Rare Vascular Plants (1999) NHIC, MNRF Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas (2000)

https://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/BoardDetails.asp?boardID=141880





Ontario Nature Ontario Nature Reptile and Amphibian Atlas Ontario Parks Datasheets for Vegetation Plot Layers, and

Groundcover/Substrate Plot Information Ontario Parks Provincial Park Management Plans and Life Science

Reports Phair, C., Henson, B.L., and Brodribb, K.E. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Aquatic

Biodiversity. Volume 2: Tertiary Watershed Summaries (2005)

Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Ontario (2008)

5.3 Natural Environment

The following sections document the natural environment present in the proposed Project study area. The specific study area sizes will be determined through the EA process. All information collected as part of the natural environment field programs and through Traditional Knowledge studies and consultation with Indigenous communities and other stakeholders will be used in the Environmental Assessment to identify potential effects and practicable mitigation measures, and to fine tune the location of towers, access roads and water crossings (where appropriate). Information will also be used for any approvals that may be required prior to construction.

5.3.1 Geology, Soils and Physical Environment

The Ontario Shield is part of the broader Boreal Shield and is the largest ecozone of the province at 61% of the landmass. This is named after the intersection of the boreal forest and the Canadian Shield and is typified by the exposed Precambrian granite bedrock which is routinely exposed. Glaciers have regularly shaped the landscape over the eons and have created the rolling hills, wetlands and lakes of the region. These geological processes and physical geography influence the formation of soils, and subsequently, vegetation and animal assemblages (Ontario Biodiversity Council 2010).

The EA will provide a description of the geological characteristics including tectonics, structural features and stratigraphic units and the effects of glaciation on Northern Ontario physiography based on Ontario Geological Survey information, as well as mapping and descriptions of the Lake Superior Link Project. Regional soils and physical geology of the Project study area will be assessed using existing knowledge bases and mapping resources. Geophysical structure will be considered as a potential indicator for physical environment.

The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented, where required, with field work, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from


stakeholders for visual identification or characterization of geological formations or structures, terrain or soil characteristics.

5.3.2 Groundwater and Surface Water

The Lake Superior Link Project is situated solely in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence primary watershed. The Project study area contains many of the 500+ watercourses within the primary watershed, all of which flow toward Lake Superior (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017). The Lake Superior secondary watershed contains seven tertiary watersheds, which span the breadth of the Project study area. They are listed below along with their tertiary watershed identifier. Lake Superior is charged by over 200 rivers, including several larger rivers in the Project study area: Black Sturgeon River, Nipigon River, Pic River, and White River. Dog Tertiary Watershed (2AB)

This watershed drains Dog Lake, Kashabowie Lake, Muskeg Lake, Greenwater Lake, and Lower Shebandowan Lake and drains into Lake Superior in and around Thunder Bay. Approximately 90% of the watershed is comprised of stream systems (Phair et al. 2005). Black Sturgeon Tertiary Watershed (2AC) This watershed empties into Black Bay on the northwestern side of Lake Superior. Over 80% of the watershed is comprised of stream systems (Phair et al. 2005). Nipigon Tertiary Watershed (2AD) This watershed contains the Nipigon, Kopka, and Ombabika rivers. A quarter of its surface area is covered by Lake Nipigon. Approximately 70% of the watershed is comprised of stream systems (Phair et al. 2005). Jackpine Tertiary Watershed (2AE) Significant features of this watershed include: a large portion of the north-central Lake Superior coastline, part of the Lake Superior archipelago, Nipigon Bay, and Vert Island. The watershed drains into north-central Lake Superior. Approximately 85% of the watershed is comprised of stream systems (Phair et al. 2005). Little Pic Tertiary Watershed (2BA) This watershed contains the Aguasabon, Steel, and Little Pic Rivers, and it drains into north-central Lake Superior. Over 85% of the watershed is comprised of stream systems (Phair et al. 2005). Pic Tertiary Watershed (2BB) Significant features within this watershed include the Black and Pic Rivers, which drain into northern Lake Superior. Over 90% of the watershed is comprised of stream systems (Phair et al. 2005). White Tertiary Watershed (2BC) This watershed contains the White and Pukaskwa Rivers, and drains into northeastern Lake Superior. Over 85% of the watershed is comprised of stream systems (Phair et al. 2005).


Michipicoten-Magpie Tertiary Watershed (2BD) The primary feature in this watershed is the Magpie River. The watershed drains into eastern Lake Superior. Approximately 85% of the watershed is comprised of stream systems (Phair et al. 2005). The EA will provide a description of groundwater and surface water. The description will be developed via desktop studies and supplemented with field work and Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders, where required. Supplemental field work will be required where access road crossings (temporary or permanent) are proposed, where needed to characterize baseline conditions for the impact assessment and where needed to use during the construction monitoring program. Should fisheries surveys of watercourses designated as potential temporary crossings be required, hydrologic, surficial sediment type, and surface water parameters will be measured and recorded on-site. The hydrologic data will be provided in the post-EA applications for watercourse crossing permits.

The EA will also provide a description of groundwater resources including groundwater levels, yields and quality based on MECP water well records and Permit to Take Water published information. A questionnaire will be provided which requests information on the location of any wells near the construction areas. Consultation will include information on construction activities which will take place on each individual property. This site-specific information will be used to augment the information provided by MECP in their wells database.

Wellhead protection areas, intake protection zones, highly vulnerable aquifers and significant groundwater recharge areas, source water protection documentation and relevant policies will be reviewed. The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with fieldwork for characterization of groundwater quality or measurements of water levels or drawdown of water wells, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders.

5.3.3 Environmentally Significant Areas

ESAs include Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs), Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Significant Wildlife Habitat, and/or Conservation Reserves. These areas provide sensitive and significant ecological functions for both wildlife and humans alike. ESAs may be crossed by the proposed transmission corridor.

The reference route currently runs through an existing transmission corridor within Pukaskwa National Park. The Lake Superior Link Project also crosses several other Provincial Parks and ANSIs. Figure 4 and Figure 5 outline the route and its interaction with ESAs. The reference route intersects through or near the following Provincial Parks, Nature Reserves, Conservation Reserves, regulated waterways, and recreational areas:


• Black Sturgeon River Provincial Park • Cavern Lake Provincial Park • Craig's Pit Nature Reserve • Gravel River Provincial Park • Kama Hills Provincial Park • Neys Provincial Park • Michipicoten Provincial Park • Nimoosh Provincial Park • Ouimet Canyon Provincial Park • Prairie River Mouth Provincial Park • Pukaskwa River Provincial Park • Rainbow Falls Provincial Park • Red Sucker Point Provincial Park • Ruby Lake Provincial Park • White Lake Provincial Park

The study area also intersects or is situated nearby the following ANSIs

• Jimmy Kash River Candidate ANSI • Kama Hill ANSI • Makwa River Candidate ANSI • Magpie River/Terraces Candidate ANSI

The Project reference route and reference route alternative sections also cross within 1km of the following Conservation Reserves:

• Gravel River Conservation Reserve • Kwinkwaga Ground Moraine Uplands Conservation Reserve • Kama Cliffs Conservation ReserveSouth Michipicoten River-Superior Shoreline Conservation

Reserve


Figure 4 – Solid line (reference route) and dotted line (reference route alternative sections) intersecting provincial parks, national parks and ANSIs (light green)

Figure 5 – Reference route (pink) and reference route alternatives (red) traversing provincial parks, national parks and ANSIs (light green polygons).


The term “near” refers to features that are located within the Local Study Area, but are not directly intersected or crossed by Project infrastructure.

5.3.4 Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat

Lands within the study area provide agricultural, woodland, wetland and riparian habitat for wildlife. Birds, mammals, insects, reptiles and amphibians inhabit these ecosystems along the Lake Superior coastline within the Ontario Shield Ecozone. Preliminary desktop studies to assess current levels of knowledge will be conducted for wildlife and wildlife habitat to better understand species incidences. Desktop and field studies will be supplemented by Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders.

A terrestrial wildlife field program will be undertaken with the purpose of characterizing species diversity and composition throughout the Study Area as well as identifying and quantifying terrestrial wildlife habitat therein. The baseline data resulting from this field program will be used to support baseline studies for this Project, conduct an environmental impact assessment as part of the EA process for the Project and will inform potential permitting. Wildlife surveys to be undertaken as part of the wildlife field program will include a winter aerial survey, breeding bird point count surveys, crepuscular bird surveys, marsh bird surveys, amphibian call counts, hibernaculum screening, bat maternity roost habitats, bat habitat assessment, and bat acoustic surveys (Section 5.2). Studies of migratory birds and species at risk with respect to the First Nation reserve lands (specifically Pays Plat and Michipicoten First Nations) proposed to be crossed by the Project will be conducted based on a gap analysis of available data and consultation. The data gathered would be used to satisfy CEAA 2012 and ISC requirements. These surveys are designed with the purpose of sampling wildlife diversity and composition within the Project Study Area (PSA) as well as informing the presence of the significant wildlife habitats. Data collected during each survey is likely to contribute to the assessment of multiple significant wildlife habitats types, as well as the presence/absence of SAR and species of Special Concern that use those specialized habitat types.

5.3.5 Vegetation, Forest Resources, and Wetlands

The study area includes forested areas, woodlots, open fields, wetlands, and other vegetated habitats. For the study area, the EA will describe and map vegetation communities and delineate plant species in all natural areas, such as ESA’s, wetlands, and municipally-designated significant woodlands, valleylands and wildlife habitat, based on NHIC database, published information, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation, information from stakeholders and field studies. Existing aerial/satellite imagery, along with other information such as Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) database polygons will be used to establish locations for survey plot locations prior to execution of the field


program. Their selections will also be informed by previous studies. Should it be necessary, field surveys will also be undertaken in semi-natural communities within the study area.

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) will be used by qualified biologists during field studies to characterize the vegetation communities within portions of the study area. This information will be used to confirm aerial photography and published data and boundaries of natural features. During the vegetation surveys, any significant or specialized wildlife habitat including odonates and butterflies will be identified and any casual observations of wildlife species recorded.

Plots will be assessed following the Ontario Parks datasheets for Vegetation Plot Layers, and Groundcover/Substrate Plot Information. Key vegetation information collected for each layer (canopy, sub-canopy, understory tree/shrubs, dwarf shrubs, herbaceous, moss/lichen etc.) will include: percent cover, species composition, species percent cover, and any other comments. For those plots where tree height exceeds 10 m a diameter at breast height (DbH) measurement will be taken for a representative tree of each dominant or co-dominant species. No ages of trees will be recorded.

At each sampling point a soil sample will be taken using a hand auger to establish whether soils are organic, or mineral, as well as the texture of any mineral soils. Mottling of soils or presence of gley will be noted along with depth to bedrock and water table where applicable.

To assess impacts to vegetation communities along the proposed sections of the PSA, vegetation classification field surveys will be carried out in order to characterize the vegetative communities within 1 kilometer of the proposed works. The objectives and key considerations of the field program will be to:

• Survey vegetation community types (forest, wetland, riparian) within the Study Area; • Conduct a detailed inventory of the communities sampled; • Define vegetation community function (e.g. wildlife habitat); • Identify sensitive vegetation communities; • Identify plant species of conservation concern, including species ranked as S1-S3 by the NHIC or

listed by Species at Risk Act or on the Species at Risk list of Ontario; • Target a representative cross section of community types based on their distribution within the

Project area; • Identify rare/listed plants or critical landform with specific vegetation community associations;

and, • Assess accessibility.

The study area passes through 4 ecodistricts (Kakabeka 4W-2, Black Sturgeon 3W-3, Schreiber 3W-5, and Tip Top Mountain 3E-4) and 8 (2AB, 2AC, 2AD, 2AE, 2BA, 2BB, 2BC, 2BD) tertiary watersheds within those districts. The majority of these ecodistricts and are heavily forested with depressions resulting in open fens and bogs (Phair et al. 2005). Below is a summary of tertiary watersheds as outlined previously in Section 5.3.2.


Dog Tertiary Watershed (2AB)

The majority of vegetation within this watershed is deciduous or mixedwood forests with small pockets of coniferous stands and patches of treed fens and open bogs occurring in the northern reaches. Some rare species that may be in this watershed include: Auricled Twayblade (Neottia auriculata), Creeping Rush (Juncus repens), and Ram’s head Lady Slipper (Cypripedium arietinum) (Phair et al. 2005). Black Sturgeon Tertiary Watershed (2AC)

Mixed forests are the predominant forest cover within the watershed but pure conifer and deciduous stands are scattered throughout. Wetlands in the form of open and treed bogs and fens can be found here as well. The Auricled Twayblade (Neottia auriculata), is documented in this area as well (Phair et al. 2005). Nipigon Tertiary Watershed (2AD)

This watershed contains a relatively even mix of mixedwood, conifer and deciduous forests. There are no records of rare or significant vegetation species in this area (Phair et al. 2005).

Jackpine Tertiary Watershed (2AE)

Mixedwood forests are characteristic in the watershed with pure stands of deciduous and coniferous forests abundant. There are no records of rare or significant vegetation species in the area (Phair et al. 2005).

Little Pic Tertiary Watershed (2BA)

Fires in the not too distant past have affected the area but mixed coniferous and coniferous forests are the majority of forest cover in the area. Wetlands are primarily treed bogs when they do occur. No rare or significant vegetation species have been recorded in the area (Phair et al. 2005).

Pic Tertiary Watershed (2BB)

Open fens and bogs can be found commonly in this area as they are interspersed with large swaths of coniferous and mixed coniferous forest. No documented rare vegetation communities have been recorded in the watershed. (Phair et al. 2005).

White Tertiary Watershed (2BC)

Coniferous and mixed coniferous forests are common, deciduous forests are sparse. Few wetlands are present and represented by open and treed fens and open bogs. No rare vegetation or significant vegetation species have been recorded in the area (Phair et al. 2005).

Michipicoten-Magpie Tertiary Watershed (2BD)

The dominant forest type is mixed deciduous forest with a few scattered wetlands in the form of treed and open bogs and open fens. No rare vegetation or significant vegetation species have been recorded in the area (Phair et al. 2005).


5.3.6 Water Bodies, Fish Habitat and Aquatic Ecosystems

The primary purpose of the aquatic study program will be to characterize the aquatic habitat that could potentially be affected by the construction of the transmission line and to provide baseline information to support the EA process. The EA will map known coldwater, cool water and warm watercourses, as well as list fish species present in the watercourses in the study area based on previous regional EA studies, MNRF Field Collection Records, Conservation Authority databases, published information, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation, information from stakeholders and supplemental field surveys, where required. Any protected fish habitat (e.g., Sanctuary Areas) will be identified and described. Representative watercourse locations will be field inspected prior to construction to confirm presence/absence of fish habitat and fish species present in areas where gaps within existing knowledge bases are found. . Supplemental field work will be required where access road crossings (temporary or permanent) are proposed, where needed to characterize baseline conditions for the impact assessment and where needed to use during the construction monitoring program. Should fisheries surveys of watercourses designated as potential temporary crossings be required, hydrologic, surficial sediment type, and surface water parameters will be measured and recorded on-site. The hydrologic data will be provided in the post-EA applications for watercourse crossing permits. Where appropriate, detailed assessments will also be conducted on those watercourses that will be crossed by construction access roads. Existing aerial/satellite imagery, along with other background information will be used to establish survey locations prior to execution of the field program. Their selection will also be informed by previous studies. Sample locations will be determined as design progresses, Traditional Knowledge is gathered through Indigenous consultation and pertinent information from stakeholders is obtained. Specific focus of sampling locations will also be on areas where clearing is required. Consideration of any new temporary or permanent access roads will also be included in the survey plans in order to characterize impacts associated with construction staging requirements, or ancillary infrastructure required for long term maintenance of the line. Sampling may also be conducted at selected points along the Project to identify potential sensitivities. Key considerations in establishing aquatic habitat sampling locations will include:

• Targeting of a representative cross section of aquatic habitat community types based on their distribution within the Project area;

• Aquatic Species at Risk; and, • Accessibility.

Table 5 outlines a list of the species of fish that are expected based on aquatic features of the study area:


Table 5 – Fish species that are expected based on aquatic features of the study area.

Family Scientific Name Common Name Presence Expected

Presence Documented

Provincial S-rank

Provincial SARO Status

Federal SARA Status

Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon ✓ ✓ S2 Endangered No Status

Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American Eel ✓ ✓ S1 Endangered No Status

Catostomidae Catostomus catostomus Longnose Sucker ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Catostomidae Moxostoma macrolepidotum Shorthead Redhorse ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Catostomidae Moxostoma anisurum Silver Redhorse ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii White Sucker ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill n/a ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Clupeidae Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Cottidae Myoxocephalus thompsonii Deepwater Sculpin ✓ ✓ S3 No Status Threatened

Cottidae Cottus bairdii Mottled Sculpin ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cottidae Cottus cognatus Slimy Sculpin ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cottidae Cottus ricei Spoonhead Sculpin ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose Dace ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Notropis heterolepis Blacknose Shiner ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus Bluntnose Minnow ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Hybognathus hankinsoni Brassy Minnow n/a ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common Carp ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Luxilus cornutus Common Shiner ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a


Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Chrosomus neogaeus Finescale Dace ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Carassius auratus Goldfish ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Couesius plumbeus Lake Chub ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Margariscus nachtriebi Northern Pearl Dace ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Chrosomus eos Northern Redbelly Dace ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Notropis rubellus Rosyface Shiner n/a ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner n/a ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Cyprinidae Notropis hudsonius Spottail Shiner ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Esocidae Esox masquinongy Muskellunge ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Esocidae Esox lucius Northern Pike ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Gadidae Lota lota Burbot ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Gasterosteidae Culaea inconstans Brook Stickleback ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Gasterosteidae Apeltes quadracus Fourspine Stickleback ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Gasterosteidae Pungitius pungitius Ninespine Stickleback ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Gasterosteidae Gasterosteus aculeatus Threespine Stickleback ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Gobiidae Neogobius melanostomus Round Goby ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Gobiidae Proterorhinus semilunaris Tubenose Goby n/a ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead n/a ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Ictaluridae Ameriurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Osmeridae Osmerus mordax Rainbow Smelt ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Percidae Etheostoma exile Iowa Darter ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a


Percidae Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Percidae Etheostoma microperca Least Darter ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Percidae Percina caprodes Logperch ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Percidae Gymnocephalus ceruna Ruffe ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Percidae Sander canadensis Sauger ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Percidae Sander vitreus Walleye ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Percidae Perca flavescens Yellow Perch ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Percopsidae Percopsis omiscomaycus Trout-Perch ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Petromyzontidae Lethenteron appendix American Brook Lamprey ✓ ✓ S3 n/a n/a

Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon fossor Northern Brook Lamprey ✓ ✓ S3 Special Concern

Special Concern

Petromyzontidae Petromyzon marinus Sea Lamprey ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon unicuspis Silver Lamprey ✓ ✓ S3 Special Concern

No Status

Salmonidae Coregonus hoyi Bloater n/a ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook Trout ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Salmonidae Salmo trutta Brown Trout ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Salmonidae Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Salmonidae Coregonus artedi Cisco ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Salmonidae Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho Salmon ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Salmonidae Salvelinus namaycush Lake Trout ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Salmonidae Coregonus clupeaformis Lake Whitefish ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Salmonidae Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink Salmon ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Salmonidae Prosopium coulterii Pygmy Whitefish ✓ ✓ SU n/a n/a

Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow Trout ✓ ✓ SNA n/a n/a

Salmonidae Prosopium cylindraceum Round Whitefish ✓ ✓ S4 n/a n/a

Salmonidae Coregonus zenithicus Shortjaw Cisco ✓ ✓ S2 Threatened Threatened

Salmonidae Coregonus reighardi Shortnose Cisco n/a ✓ SH Endangered Endangered

Salmonidae Coregonus kiyi kiyi Upper Great Lakes Kiyi ✓ ✓ S3 Special Concern

Special Concern


Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a

Umbridae Umbra limi Central Mudminnow ✓ ✓ S5 n/a n/a


5.3.7 Species at Risk

The EA document will map the general locations of known incidences of species at risk (SAR), endangered and threatened species, and species of special concern in the study area. This information will be based on the MNRF’s “Species at Risk in Ontario List”, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) list, Environment Canada species at risk search tool (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/), and Environment Canada, CWS and NHIC databases, as well as known locations based on personal communications, published and unpublished information, such as Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders.

Desktop studies, field work, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders will be used to supplement SAR information in tandem with other studies such as vegetation and wildlife assessments to identify rare plants and at risk wildlife. All general locations within the study area that would be directly affected by construction activities will be screened to confirm presence/absence of any species at risk (if practicable) and evaluate habitat potential to support species at risk. Regionally and locally rare species will be considered as an indicator for the EA, based on information obtained from NHIC, MNRF, local conservation authorities and field observation.

From the desktop and field analyses completed an effects assessment on SAR potentially affected by the Project will be completed. This assessment will also include the identification of avoidance and mitigation measures within the planning and design phase. Regulators will be engaged to determine if permits under the Species at Risk Act and/or the Endangered Species at Risk may be required.

A preliminary list of SAR and potentially found within the Project area can be found in Table 6.


Table 6 – Species at Risk status, habitat characteristics, and preliminary presence/absence determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status in Canada1

Status in Ontario2

S-RANK3 Information Source4

Potential Habitat in

Local Study Area

Rationale

Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed Myotis

No Status Endangered S2, S3 Species at Risk in

Ontario Public Registry

No The study area includes forests that could have hollow trees or rocks. However, Eastern Small-footed

Myotis’ northern range tends to stop at Lake Superior Provincial Park.

Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis

Endangered Endangered S4 Atlas of the Mammals of

Ontario

Yes Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario records indicates that this species has been observed within the study area.

Myotis septentrionalis

Northern Myotis Endangered Endangered S3 SAR Public Registry

Yes The study area includes forests that could have hollow trees or loose

bark. Perimyotis subflavus

Tri-coloured Bat Endangered Endangered S3 SNC Lavalin 2018 Field

Data

Yes Single recording observed at 3 locations. Manual vetting of data could not conclusively determine

that recording was not a tri-coloured bat.

Puma concolor couguar

Eastern Cougar No Status Endangered SU Atlas of the Mammals of

Ontario

Yes The habitat within the study area is not considered remote enough for cougars. Forested habitats may not support enough White-tailed Deer

for cougars. Canis lycaon Eastern Wolf Special

Concern No Status S4 Atlas of the

Mammals of Ontario

Yes The habitat within the study area could support eastern wolves, but

population trend information outside of Algonquin Park is not well known.

Rangifer tarandus Woodland Caribou, Boreal

Population

Threatened Threatened S4 Atlas of the Mammals of

Ontario

Yes Caribou have been observed on the northern shores and islands of Lake

Superior and on the mainland as part of the Caribou Continuous Coastal

Zone. . However, due to human development causing habitat

fragmentation, populations have become isolated and have receded.

Pukaskwa National Park staff recorded a caribou sighting in 2016.


Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Bald Eagle No Status Special Concern

S2N, S4B

OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that this species has been found breeding

within the study area.

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow No Status Threatened S4B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that this species has been found breeding

near the study area. Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow No Status Threatened S4B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that this

species has been found breeding near the study area.

Chlidonias niger Black Tern Not at risk Special Concern

S3B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that this species has been found breeding

near the study area.

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Bobolink Threatened Threatened S4B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that this species has been found breeding


Cardellina canadensis

Canada Warbler Threatened Special Concern

S4B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that there is confirmed breeding evidence for this

species within the study area.

Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift Threatened Threatened S4B, S4N

OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that there is probable breeding evidence for this species near the study area. Hollow

trees and rock cliff crevices are present throughout the study area.

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk

Threatened Special Concern

S4B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that there is possible breeding evidence for this

species within the study area.

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark

Threatened Threatened S4B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that there is possible breeding evidence for this

species near the study area.

Antrostomus vociferous

Eastern Whip-poor-will

Threatened Threatened S4B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that there is probable breeding evidence for this

species near the study area.

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1233




Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee

Special Concern

Special Concern



Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher



species near the study area. Falco peregrinus

anatum/ tundrius Peregrine Falcon anatum/tundrius

Special Concern

Special Concern



Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Special Concern

No Status S4B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that this species has been found breeding

near the study area. Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Special

Concern Special

Concern S2N, S4B

OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that there is probable breeding evidence for this

species near the study area. Hylocichla mustelina

Wood Thrush Threatened Special Concern


species near the study area. Coturnicops

noveboracensis Yellow Rail Special

Concern Special

Concern S4B OBBA Yes OBBA records indicate that there is

possible breeding evidence for this species near the study area.

Anguilla rostrata American Eel No Status Endangered S1 Holm et al., 2009

No American Eel is found within the Great Lakes that are connected to the Atlantic Ocean through the St. Lawrence River and the Welland

Canal. Lake Superior is considered outside of the study area.

Myoxecephalus thompsonii

Deepwater Sculpin

Threatened No Status S3 Holm et al., 2009

Yes Lakes in the study area are known to support Deepwater Sculpin.

Acipenser fulvescens

Lake Sturgeon No Status Endangered S2 NHIC, Scott and

Crossman, 1998, Holm et

al., 2009

Yes Rivers and lakes in the study area are known to support Lake Sturgeon.

Ichthyomyzon fossor

Northern Brook Lamprey

Special Concern

Special Concern

S3 Scott and Crossman,

1998, Holm et al., 2009

Yes Rivers and lakes in the study area are known to support Northern Brook

Lamprey.





Ichthyomyzon unicuspis

Silver Lamprey No Status Special Concern

S3 Holm et al., 2009

Yes Silver Lamprey is found on the northern shores of Lake Superior.

Coregonus kiyi kiyi Upper Great Lakes Kiyi

Special Concern

Special Concern

S3 SAR Public Registry

Yes Upper Great Lakes Kiyi can be found near shore in Lake Superior as they

move to shallower water depths (50 m) at night. However, they are most

abundant at depths of 150 m. Chelydra

serpentina Snapping Turtle Special

Concern Special

Concern S3 Reptile and

Amphibian Atlas

Yes Reptile and Amphibian Atlas indicates sightings of this species

have been recorded within the study area.

Chrysemys picta marginata

Midland Painted Turtle

Special Concern

No Status N/A Reptile and Amphibian

Atlas

Yes Reptile and Amphibian Atlas indicates sightings of this species

have been recorded near the study area.

Iris lacustris Dwarf Lake Iris Special Concern

Special Concern

S3 SAR Public Registry

Yes Largest populations occur up to several kilometers from Lake Huron

Leptogium rivulare Flooded Jellyskin Threatened No Status S3 Ontario SAR Public

Registry

Yes Flooded Jellyskin is found mainly between the 45°N and 60°N parallels

where the study area is. Danaus plexippus Monarch Special

Concern Special

Concern S2N, S4B

SAR Public Registry

Yes Grasslands are located along the right-of-way in the study area.

Coccinella novemnotata

Nine-spotted Lady Beetle

No Status Endangered SH Ontario SAR Public

Registry

Yes The study area includes a mix of deciduous and coniferous forests.

Bombus terricola Yellow-banded Bumblebee

Special Concern

Special Concern

S5 Ontario SAR Public

Registry

Yes Occurrence overlap with Project area.

Bombus bohemicus Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee

Endangered Endangered S1, S2 Ontario SAR Public

Registry


Coccothraustes vespertinus

Evening Grosbeak No Status Special Concern

S4B Ontario SAR Public

Registry


Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

American White Pelican

No Status Threatened S2B Ontario SAR Public

Registry


Trimerotropis huronia

Lake Huron Grasshopper

No Status Threatened S2 Ontario SAR Public

Registry

Yes Occurrences near the mouth of Pic River


Cirsium pitcher Pitcher’s Thistle Special Concern

Threatened S2 Ontario SAR Public

Registry

Yes Occurrences near the mouth of Pic River

Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Gray Fox Threatened Threatened S2 Ontario SAR Public

Registry

Yes Species observations in the RSA.

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-headed Woodpecker


S4B Ontario SAR Public

Registry

Yes Special observations in the RSA with and near Thunder Bay during

migration periods. Vermivora

chrysoptera Golden-winged

Warbler Threatened Special

Concern S4B Ontario SAR

Public Registry

Yes Recently reported occurrences East of Nipigon in RSA.

Emydoidea blandingii

Blanding’s Turtle Threatened Threatened S3 Ontario SAR Public

Registry

Yes Recently reported occurrence in Nipigon District.

1 Federal Species at Risk Act 2 Species at Risk in Ontario List. (2014, August 11). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list 3 Conservation Ranking 4 Various sources 5 MNRF Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide Appendix G (MNRF, 2000) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151p.


5.3.8 Air Quality

Air Quality metrics are published in annual Air Quality in Ontario Reports published by Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. The closest two air quality monitoring stations operated by the province of Ontario are in Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay. In general, these two stations report lower than average concentrations of air pollutants as compared to other parts of Ontario and are generally lower than Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (MECP 2015). The Project will evaluate existing studies of air quality, potential Project emission sources, identification of receptors, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders. Potential Project emission sources will be evaluated against regulatory standards in the EA.

5.3.9 Acoustic Environment

The acoustic environment (sound/noise) is an important component of atmospherics. The major sources of noise in the rural environment are road traffic and the resource industry such as forestry, mining and associated support industries. The EA will characterize baseline or background noise conditions, based on published information or noise surveys, as required. It will also identify sensitive receptors to noise emissions such as recreational areas and communities within the Preliminary Study Area. Information for the acoustic environment baseline and assessment of potential impacts will involve the review of the data sources listed in Section 5.2.1. Other potential receptors may be determined through consultation with Indigenous communities to identify potential noise impacts to areas of traditional usage.

A noise “receptor” or Point of Reception (POR) is a location where an assessment, measurements, or predictions of noise levels are made. The potential PORs in the acoustic environment will be identified in general accordance with the MECP NPC-300 noise guideline (MECP 2013). The NPC-300 guideline defines PORs as sensitive land uses with human activity, including dwellings, campsites or campgrounds, sensitive institutional uses (e.g., educational, nursery, hospital, healthcare, community centre, place of worship or detention centre), or sensitive commercial uses (e.g., hotel or motel). From the preliminary review of the MNRF LIO spatial data set (MNRF 2016) there is a significant number of structures that have been conservatively considered as “potential” PORs, but it is anticipated that most of these structures will not qualify as PORs as defined by the MECP and therefore not be considered noise sensitive spaces. Existing noise sensitive land uses will be verified in the EA, including through ground-truthing methods, if required. Existing baseline noise levels in the acoustic environment at PORs will be described using the MECP NPC-300 noise guideline that is based on a classification system. Noise level measurements, studies and/or mitigation measures may be required in some areas depending on the proximity to sensitive receivers. Potential effects, appropriate mitigation measures, and predicted net Project effects for the acoustic environment will be described in accordance with appropriate MECP guidelines and standards.


5.4 Socio-economic Environment

The following sections outline the socio-economic environments within the Project study area. The sections will establish the baseline conditions and the information required to characterize socio-economic components.

5.4.1 Regional Planning

Northern Ontario is subject to a number of planning initiatives, both provincially and regionally. The majority of the Project is located on Crown Land and will be subject to Provincial regulations and area-specific Crown land use policy and direction. These policies will be used as guidance for natural, socio-economic, cultural/built and technical environment considerations. Other portions of the Project are privately owned. Under the Planning Act, the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) outlines the framework for development, land use and approved developments. The goals of the PPS are as follows:

“The Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 applies province-wide. Its policies set out the government’s land use vision for how we settle our landscape, create our built environment, and manage our land and resources over the long term to achieve livable and resilient communities” (MMAH 2014). In addition, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has published two ‘Places to Grow, Growth Plan for Northern Ontario” which documents the plan for the region for the next 25 years. Of note, the plan has a goal of strengthening the economy of Northern Ontario through the following (MMA 2011):

• Diversifying the region's traditional resource-based industries • Stimulating new investment and entrepreneurship • Nurturing new and emerging sectors with high growth potential.

The region has varying levels of development with the highest density near Thunder Bay and less development further east. Owing to the length of the transmission corridor, the Project will pass through many current land uses such as mining, forestry, trapping, hunting, fishing, residential, commercial, industrial, and agriculture, among others. In addition to these previously mentioned official plans, crown land use policies, district land use guidelines, forestry management, land claims and rights, and other land uses will be assessed in the EA document.

5.4.2 Economy, Resource, Commercial and Industrial Activities

Northern Ontario communities rely on a resource extraction economy with a focus on forestry and mining. These sectors are dominated by large industrial employers in the region whose facilities rely on a consistent supply of electricity. The Project may cross mining claims and forestry management units


which will be identified during the EA process, including the potential effects the Project may have. All SFL holders have first right of refusal to harvest wood within their FMU, and first right of refusal to utilize wood within their FMU. MNRF requires that SFL holders are consulted and in agreement with wood harvest/clearing prior to MNRF approving licensing/agreements to clear trees.

In addition to resource extraction, Northern Ontario communities provide a gateway for recreation and tourism, and outdoor guiding and outfitting activities. The communities cater to visitors to local parks and activities such as hunting, fishing and camping are all important aspects of the Northern Ontario experience. The economy includes traditional land uses by Indigenous communities including hunting, trapping, and harvesting. The Project footprint also includes areas subject to Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Consultation with Indigenous communities and potential employment and economic benefits is an important aspect of meaningful participation in the Project. Where appropriate, Hydro One will work with Indigenous communities to discuss economic participation throughout the EA process. The EA document will describe and assess existing commercial, recreational, and industrial activities in the region and address potential effects on these sectors. Leaseholders, claim owners, Indigenous communities and other stakeholders will be consulted as part of the EA process. Indicators used to describe the economy and employment will be detailed (employment rates, income, etc.). The EA will also address economic development, sectors, businesses, governmental finances, and housing characteristics.

5.4.3 Population, Demographics and Community Profile

Northern Ontario’s population has generally been on a decline since at least 2001, with the age bracket of 15 to 34 having the largest out-migration of the region. This exodus of young people in the region has, in turn, increased the average age of communities. Industries such as pulp and paper mills shutting down or relocating, a general slowdown in forestry and depressed mineral prices since 2011 have impacted employment prospects in the region and, relatedly, the demographics that tend to serve in these sectors (Northern Policy Institute 2014). Projects such as Lake Superior Link may provide workers in the area employment opportunities.

The EA will detail the existing state of communities and potential effects on the population and demographics in relation to the Project. This information will be documented through government statistics, plans, stakeholder and Indigenous engagement, and other sources.

5.4.4 Human Health

Human Health concerns will be addressed in the EA. In addressing potential health issues, Hydro One looks to the scientific expertise of Health Canada to assess the scientific studies and provide advice and

http://www.northernpolicy.ca/article/is-northern-ontario%E2%80%99s-population-aging-or-is-it-just-getting-less-young-286.asp


guidance. Potential changes in surface water, air quality and noise due to Project activities can act as pathways to potential effects on human health. These criteria will be drawn upon to inform human health concern assessments in the EA.

Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are invisible lines of force produced by the flow of electricity in a wire or electrical device. The strength of these fields rapidly weakens away from their source. Everyone is exposed daily to EMF from many sources, including household wiring, power lines and appliances. As part of its mission to set public health policy, Health Canada continues to monitor the scientific research on EMF and human health.

Hydro One recognizes the public concerns over potential health effects from exposure to EMF and takes seriously its responsibility to understand, appropriately address and communicate the scientific data/developments on this issue. Therefore, Hydro One will address the following in the EA document:

• continue to communicate accurate and timely information to its employees and customers; • continue to provide, upon request, EMF measurement services at no cost to direct customers of

Hydro One and individuals and/or organizations whose property is adjacent to Hydro One distribution and/or transmission facilities;

• health concerns identified by Indigenous communities or groups resulting from the Project specifically on their traditional lifestyle and overall health and well-being;

• monitor worldwide scientific research, judicial decisions and regulatory requirements relating to EMF, and make necessary adjustments to its policies, programs and practices;

• support collaborative research; and, • consider EMF research when siting, designing, and communicating about new and upgraded

facilities and when operating its facilities.

5.4.5 Visual

During the EA, the Project team will prepare a description of the landscape character within the study areas, identifying landscape settings and features of importance. This assessment will focus on valued viewpoints by the public, Indigenous communities, and those identified by the Project team as contributing to the aesthetic character of an area (e.g., ESA’s and river valleys). Ongoing consultation has also identified potential areas of visual assessment that will be considered. The team will review available models for this assessment. In addition to desktop studies, visual assessments of key viewpoints will occur to assess visual changes to the landscape as a result of the Project.

5.4.6 Infrastructure and Services

The proposed transmission corridor crosses existing infrastructure and services, from remote fly-in only access to sophisticated large towns and cities. Some of the communities along the route can provide


waste management, municipal and community services, emergency services, police, and many other ancillary services. The construction portion of the Project will generate some galvanized steel waste (estimated at 500 MT) and other construction waste. Preliminary inquiries to local waste management companies indicate that sufficient capacity for waste management exists along the proposed corridor.

The EA will describe infrastructure and services which have a potential to interact with the proposed Project. Other infrastructure in the area may include pipelines, transmission and distribution lines, roads and highways (including traffic counts), rails, air transportation, and utilities, etc. In addition to this, the Project may also have the potential to interact with communities and services such as police and fire stations, hospitals, schools, churches and other religious buildings, local businesses, and residential areas.

5.4.7 Property Value

During the consultation process, landowners have raised the issue of potential effects on property values. Contact has been initiated with all landowners who may be directly affected by the Project crossing their property (i.e. those affected by the reference route and the route refinement options identified to date). The Hydro One Land Acquisition Compensation Principles (LACP) will be sent out to property owners detailing the method of land acquisition and compensation Hydro One employs. Compensation will be available to those whose properties will be crossed by the approved undertaking. For all other properties which are directly affected by the proposed ROW widening, independent appraisals will be conducted and offers based on market value for an easement in the area of the proposed widened corridor will be made to the landowners. If it is determined to be appropriate to relocate a structure on a farm property, the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae will apply.

LACP are project-specific principles that are founded upon Hydro One’s past experience pertaining to land acquisition matters for new transmission projects. Hydro One’s central consideration has been the need for Property Owners to have flexibility and choice while balancing Hydro One’s desire to achieve timely acquisition of property interests and its obligation to ensure that expenditures are fair and reasonable to ratepayers. Hydro One is committed to fair, open and consistent treatment of all affected landowners. Hydro One will consult with municipal stakeholders as part of our efforts to minimize any inconveniences caused by the Project and will consult with municipalities to understand and address their concerns.


5.5 Cultural Heritage Resource Environment

The following sections outline the approach to cultural heritage resources within the Project study area. The sections will establish the baseline conditions and the information required to characterize cultural/built environmental components.

5.5.1 Cultural Heritage Resource Environment

To describe and assess potential effects on heritage resources and archaeology in the study area, the EA will draw upon the results of archaeological assessments, cultural heritage resources studies, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders. Archaeological assessments will be undertaken by an archaeologist licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). As part of the archaeological assessment, the Project will leverage existing Stage I and Stage II archaeological studies completed in the region. Additional Stage I and Stage II studies are planned for additional areas as a result of a gap analysis performed to identify missing datasets for the proposed transmission corridor. Stage I assessment will be conducted along the corridor during the EA process. Stage II archaeology assessment will be conducted pre-construction. The locations of the assessment will be determined using Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists for work in Northern Ontario. Results from these studies will be incorporated into impact assessment, EA decision-making and construction planning.

A cultural heritage resource study, which includes built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, will be undertaken within municipalities along the transmission route to describe their development history and the transmission route development history. A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and/or Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) may be conducted for cultural heritage resources not previously assessed. The requirement for the development of these documents will be identified early in the EA process and the technical studies shall be submitted to MTCS and the local municipalities for review and comment. In both a CHER and HIA, the cultural heritage value or interest of listed properties or newly identified resources will be evaluated using Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, or, as appropriate Ontario Regulation 10/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest or Provincial Significance (Government of Ontario 2006) and will be conducted by a qualified person. The technical studies shall be submitted to MTCS and the local municipalities for review and comment. CHER and HIA report where applicable will be circulated to local municipalities who express interest and submitted to MTCS for review and comment. If undocumented archaeological resources are impacted by Project work, all activities impacting these resources must cease immediately, MTCS must be notified, and a licensed archaeologist is required to carry out an archaeological assessment in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act and the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.


Chance-find protocols will be implemented within the archaeological assessment and Indigenous communities will be engaged in the archaeological studies. If human remains are encountered, all activities must cease immediately and the local police, as well as the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, must be contacted. In situations where human remains are associated with archaeological resources, MTCS should also be notified to ensure that the site is not subject to unlicensed alterations which would be a contravention of the Ontario Heritage Act. All technical cultural heritage studies and their recommendations are to be addressed and incorporated into the EA. A response protocol will be developed with relevant aboriginal groups to manage any accidental discovery of archaeological and/or human remains. Indigenous communities will also be consulted for information on any archaeological, built heritage and cultural heritage landscape resources in the study area.

5.5.2 Traditional/Indigenous Land Use

First Nations and Métis communities in the area have expressed interest in participation in the Project and assisting in the identification of effects it is projected to have on traditional land usage. The 18 communities identified by the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines and the additional four communities have a history of traditional land usage in the region since time immemorial, of which many aspects continue today. Mapping indicates that the study area overlaps with many traditional use territories. Information sharing will also be an important aspect of EA studies between Hydro One and Indigenous communities.

Hydro One will document existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights; including traditional and current Indigenous land uses and other socio-economic aspects. Such information will be acquired through methodologically sound traditional use studies for Indigenous communities. These will be assessed during the effects assessment process during the EA. This information will be integrated into all relevant aspects of the EA, but the data will remain proprietary to the communities that provide it. Consultation will occur during the EA to discuss how to address those concerns. The EA document will describe Indigenous communities, their traditional uses of the land and their established and asserted claims. Section 9 details the consultation process with Indigenous communities in greater detail and lists the 18 identified communities.

5.6 Potential Effects on the Natural Environment The following section identifies the preliminary potential environmental effects of the Project and its alternatives and associated preliminary mitigation measures to avoid or minimize negative effects. Construction activities associated with the Lake Superior Link Project that may have an effect on the natural environment include:


• brushing, clearing and grading; • staging and stockpiling areas; • construction of access roads including stream crossings; • delivery of equipment and materials; • delivery, assembly and installation of new towers; • stringing of conductors; and, • rehabilitation/restoration.

Potential negative effects of the proposed undertaking on the natural environment such as soils, surface water and groundwater resources, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries resources and environmentally significant areas will be assessed. Appropriate design considerations and mitigation/remedial measures recommended to reduce or eliminate those effects will be outlined in the EA. Aligning a new ROW adjacent to an existing ROW will reduce potential negative effects on environmental features by reducing ROW widening requirements relative to a greenfield ROW. The reference route will also use existing ROWs in areas where widening is not possible in Pukaskwa National Park.

The EA will consider potential cumulative effects of the incremental net effects of the Lake Superior Link Project in combination with reasonably foreseeable future activities and developments that have been, or will be, carried out within the defined spatial and temporal boundaries for the Project. Specifically, this will include certain/planned projects and activities that have received approval. As well, the assessment will include reasonably foreseeable developments defined as those for which details on the location and physical footprint are available, but the anticipated year of construction is uncertain; and those that have not yet been formally proposed and/or do not have detailed information that is publicly available on the physical footprint.

A list of potential Project effects on the natural environment is listed in Table 7 below:

Table 7 – Project activities and potential effects on the natural environment

Project Activity Potential Effects • Brushing, clearing and grading; • Staging and stockpiling areas; • Blasting; • Aggregate extraction; • Construction of access roads including

stream crossings • Temporary in-stream works; • Delivery of equipment and materials; • Delivery, assembly and installation of new

towers; • Stringing of conductors; • Operation and maintenance such as line

repairs, vegetation clearing; and, • Rehabilitation/restoration of environment

• Soil compaction and erosion from construction equipment and exposed soils;

• Loss of vegetation from clearing and associated loss of wildlife habitat;

• Displacement of wildlife or effects to nesting birds and species at risk;

• Habitat fragmentation; • Water quality and fish habitat degradation ; • Degradation of environmentally significant

areas. • Impact to groundwater, artesian conditions

and water supply wells • Potential contaminant discharges and

incidental spills of oil, gasoline and other


for temporary infrastructure and Project decommissioning.

chemicals; • Disturbing pre-existing shallow

contaminated soils; • Leaching of herbicides; • Effects from dewatering; and, • Blasting.

5.6.1 Preliminary Mitigation Measures

Transmission towers will not be constructed in water courses or waterbodies including streams, wetlands etc.. Similarly, no dewatering, filling in, and/or relocating of watercourses are anticipated. Although dewatering is not anticipated it is prudent that the EA provide for mitigation measure should it be found that dewatering is required. Efforts will be made to prevent any short term stream flow interference (i.e. culvert crossing installations) which could cause adverse effects. The construction plan will minimize or avoid any direct works in water bodies and most construction will occur at appropriate setbacks from water bodies. The potential for these effects will be addressed in the EA and on a site specific basis, through the permitting processes.

Hydro One will consider opportunities for habitat improvements including streamside buffers within the proposed reference route including any selected route refinements. Development of best management practices and mitigation approaches when conducting vegetation clearing activities around environmental features will also be developed and take into account habitat connectivity. This will be done in consultation with affected property owners, interested Indigenous communities, conservation authorities, provincial ministries and affected municipalities.

The issue of soil compaction and measures to mitigate effects on soil permeability, drainage and hydraulic balance will be addressed in the EA. The potential for soil contamination will be considered and the Guide on Site Assessment, the cleanup of Brownfield Sites and the Filing of Record of Site Condition will be consulted to determine the most appropriate course of action.

The EA will include a spill prevention and response plan, a waste management plan, fire prevention and preparedness plan and a blast management plan, should blasting be required. The blast management plan may consider road closures, public notification, safety/signage and consultation with stakeholders. If possible, the use of ammonium nitrate explosive in the vicinity of water supply wells should be avoided. Should blasting be required, best management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures specific to explosives management and use will be employed.

Dust and noise from construction are controlled with appropriate mitigation measures and environmental best management practices. Potential air quality effects from construction activities, especially for the potential receptors near the transmission line will be considered. Air quality impact assessment will be conducted and included in the environment assessment.


Sediment and erosion control measures will be identified and addressed in the EA document. This includes identification of areas where soil or other factors could affect the effectiveness of those measures. Trigger/threshold values will be established for suspended sediment and turbidity be followed where bankside, in-stream and/or if dewatering work is required. Sampling will occur in potential sensitive receivers before, during and after such work is undertaken.

5.6.2 Guidelines and Best Management Practices

To reduce or eliminate potential negative environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facilities, the following proven environmentally sound guidelines and BMPs will be implemented where appropriate. The construction, operation and decommissioning details in these documents will inform mitigation strategies to be developed during the EA process.:

• “Environmental Guidelines for the Construction and Maintenance of Transmission Facilities” (Hydro One 2009);

• “Best Management Practices for Wetland Crossings” (Morissette 2014); • Crown Land Bridge Management Guidelines (MNR 2008) • Northern Land Use Guidelines – Access: Roads and Trails (INAC 2010) • Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Water Quality Guideline for

the Protection of Aquatic Life • Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS 805) – Construction Specifications for Temporary

Erosion and Sediment Control Measures • Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS 182) – General specifications for Environmental

Protection for Construction in Waterbodies and on Waterbody Banks • Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS 518) – Construction Specifications for Control of

Water from Dewatering Operations • “Overhead Line Construction” (DFO 2007); • “Riparian Zone Protocol” (Fitzsimmons 2010); • “Debris Removal for Culvert Maintenance” (TRCA 2014); • “Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings” (MNR 1990); • “Guidelines for Evaluating Construction Activities Impacting on Water Resources” (MECP 1995); • “Utility Vegetation Management” (Cieslewicz 2004); • “Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources” (MECP 2017); • BMPs for Renewable Energy, Energy Infrastructure and Energy Transmission Activities and

Woodland Caribou in Ontario (MNRF 2013); • Ontario’s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan (MNRF 2009); • Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRF 2010); • Forest management: conserving biodiversity at the stand and site scales (MNRF 2014); • Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF 2000); and, • Significant Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Support Tool (MNRF 2015).


In addition, all other relevant environmental requirements and policies will be identified and taken into account in the EA.

5.7 Potential Effects on the Socio-economic Environment

Socio-economic impacts can be positive or negative; and can occur at various units of social order: individuals, businesses, communities, economic sectors; however, the objective of the Lake Superior Link Project is to provide an overall benefit to the Province of Ontario. The socio-economic impact assessment will identify positive and negative effects of the Project locally and to the Province.

Potential effects of the proposed undertaking on the socio-economic features identified will be assessed and appropriate mitigation/remedial measures will be recommended to reduce or eliminate the significant negative effects. The assessment of effects will be based on data collected from primary and secondary sources. A broad assessment of potential socio-economic considerations of the alternative methods both during and after construction on existing land use, potential development, businesses and community features shall be prepared and will identify proposed mitigation measures. The data collected as part of the baseline environmental description will be provided in the EA document and will form the basis for measuring effects of the Project. This includes data from supporting technical studies, surveys and environmental inventories collected from within the study area. A list of potential Project effects on the socio-economic environment is listed in Table 8 below.

Table 8 – Project activities and potential effects on the socio-economic environment

Project Activity Potential Effects • Construction of Project infrastructure

(transmission towers, conductor stringing, access roads, laydown yards, etc.);

• Human and physical resource acquisition; • Property acquisitions and access

agreements; • Increased number of personnel in study

area; • Waste management; • Transportation of equipment, material and

personnel; • Operation and maintenance; and, • Rehabilitation/restoration.

• Increased employment opportunities; • Increased commercial activity due to

construction; • Training and skills development; • Improved availability of electricity for

mining, forestry and aggregate industries; • Improved First Nations economic

participation; • Stimulus of local economies; • Impacts to human health (injury, illness,

etc.); • Displacement of residents and businesses; • Land use compatibility; • Disruption to commercial activities; • Disruption to mining and aggregate

operations; • Displacement of people;


• Disruption to traffic and parking; • Displacement of businesses; • Disruption of property usage; • Increased usage of community and waste

services; • Impacts to visual quality; • Disruption of recreational users; • Compatibility with park and conservation

policies; and, • Disruption of recreational facilities and

lands.

5.8 Potential Effects on the Cultural and Built Environment

The Project may have potential effects on the cultural heritage resource environment, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Archaeological sites and areas of archaeological potential; • cultural heritage resources (archaeological, built heritage, cultural heritage landscape); and, • churches and cemeteries.

To assess the potential effects of the Project on heritage, archaeology and cultural resources, the EA will draw upon the available results of a Stage I and Stage II archaeological assessment and future archaeological work, subject to availability. A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and/or Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) may be conducted for cultural heritage resources not previously assessed. The requirement for the development of these documents will be identified early in the EA process. Information and data will also be obtained from Municipal Heritage Groups, heritage planners, Indigenous communities, secondary source information, and discussions during the engagement/consultation process. Appendix 1 provides additional information on development of criteria and indicators for effects on the cultural and built environment. Hydro One will engage with Indigenous communities to identify criteria and indicators for identifying potential impacts and mitigation measures. A list of potential Project effects on the cultural/built environment is listed in Table 9 below.

Table 9 – Project activities and potential effects on the cultural/built environment

Project Activity Potential Effects • Brushing, clearing and grading; • Construction of access roads including

stream crossings; • Property acquisitions and access

agreements;

• Damage or loss to cultural heritage resources including burial grounds, sacred sites and areas;

• Disruption to traditional land uses; and, • Disruption of First Nation reserve lands.


• Delivery of equipment and materials; • Delivery, assembly and installation of new

towers; • Stringing of conductors; • Operation and maintenance; and, • Rehabilitation/restoration

• Disruption to Indigenous and traditional land usage;

• Effects on exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights;

5.8.1 Effects on Traditional / Indigenous Land Use

Indigenous communities may have an interest in a project in addition to or apart from any potential effects on Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Through discussions with Indigenous communities, Hydro One will consult to determine the extent and nature of any potential effects on Aboriginal and Treaty rights..

Hydro One is currently undertaking consultation activities with the 18 First Nation and Métis communities identified by the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines to gain information on traditional values as they relate to the Project. As part of the EA process, Hydro One will provide to Indigenous communities who wish to receive it, species information which is gathered from the field studies. Hydro One will also consider any information Indigenous communities provide on protection of plant and animal species which have traditional, cultural, social or economic value. Hydro One will engage with Indigenous communities to identify criteria and indicators for identifying potential impacts and mitigation measures. Appendix 1 provides additional information on development of criteria and indicators for effects on traditional / Indigenous land use. Section 9.4.4 provides additional information on how traditional knowledge will be collected and incorporated into the EA process.


6. Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Methods

The EA Act requires proponents to identify and evaluate alternatives to the Project. According to the EA Act, the differentiation between alternative methods and alternatives to the Project is outlined below. Alternative methods of carrying out the proposed undertaking are different ways of doing the same activity. Alternative methods could include consideration of one or more of the following: alternative technologies; alternative methods of applying specific technologies; alternative sites for a proposed undertaking; alternative design methods; and, alternative methods of operating any facilities associated with a proposed undertaking. Alternatives to the proposed undertaking are functionally different ways of approaching and dealing with a problem or opportunity.

6.1 Alternatives to the Undertaking

The Environmental Assessment Act requires proponents under Section 6.1 (2) to conduct an alternatives assessment to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of the preferred alternative in comparison to other alternatives considered. The East-West Tie Corridor Expansion Project has been identified by the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, the OEB and the IESO as a priority project, as per an Order-in-Council issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on March 4, 2016. As such, this ToR proposes a focused EA will be prepared. An extensive alternatives assessment process has been previously performed by these government agencies in the needs assessments and rationale for the East-West Tie Corridor Expansion Project conducted by OPA and IESO. Section 1 further outlines these needs assessments and scoping of the Project. In these assessments, other alternatives to the undertaking, such as increased local generation and other transmission solutions were assessed and the proposed East-West Tie Corridor Expansion Project was identified as the preferred option (IESO).

In accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act, a focused EA will be prepared. The assessment of alternatives to the undertaking will take into account the IESO and OPA planning processes. As such, the need and method for the goals of the project has been clearly identified and the EA will not contain an assessment of alternatives to the undertaking. A summary of the needs assessments and analysis of alternatives to conducted by OPA and IESO planning processes can be found in Appendix 2.

6.2 ‘Do Nothing’ Alternative

The ‘Do Nothing’ alternative represents what is expected to happen if none of the alternatives being considered is carried out (MECP 2014). It is the starting point of the comparison of alternatives. Despite


the documented need for the Project, it is important to consider the ‘Do Nothing’ alternative which will take into account the identified potential impacts of the absence of the Project in light of natural and socio-economic terms. The EA will focus on the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the proposed reference route and reference route alternatives as well as provide a ‘Do Nothing’ alternative.

6.3 Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Undertaking

The evaluation of alternatives to the Project will not be assessed based on previously outlined criteria. The alternative methods for carrying out the undertaking will be assessed such as alternative routes between Thunder Bay and Wawa, local refinements to the reference route, alternative infrastructure designs and siting, revised ancillary infrastructure (access roads, fly yards, etc.) and others. Alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking will be identified, evaluated and assessed in the EA. A reference route will be evaluated against an alternative reference routes to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each option in the context of the natural environment, socio-economic environment and technical-administrative and cost considerations.

6.3.1 Alternative routes

Hydro One has put forward reference route alternatives for assessment between Thunder Bay and Wawa. Each of the proposed routes fulfills the connection criteria outlined by the government and have been developed to be located adjacent to existing transmission corridors, where possible, in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement. Figure 6 shows the reference route (solid line) and identified reference route alternatives (dotted lines). A full consideration of alternatives assessment and rationale for reference route and reference route alternatives will be undertaken which will include an understanding of the origin of the reference route and reference route alternatives.

The reference route travels from the Wawa TS through Pukaskwa National Park to the Marathon TS along the existing Hydro One ROW. From there, it follows the shore of Lake Superior until Dorion where it travels north of the existing ROW and connects to the Lakehead TS. The reference route alternative section between Wawa and Marathon follows the same route as the reference route, except that, prior to entering Pukaskwa National Park from the east, it travels north to White River and follows Highway 17 west to the Marathon TS to avoid the area through Pukaskwa National Park. Based on regulatory feedback, a reference route alternative section twinning the existing East-West Tie through the Townships of Dorion and Shuniah area is also proposed.

There are a number of existing linear corridors between Thunder Bay and Wawa which would satisfy the connection criteria for the Project. The identified route alternatives have been presented due to cost, construction, operation, maintenance, reliability, stakeholder consultation and environmental concerns.


Large portions of the proposed corridor have been recently studied and significant public and Indigenous consultation has gone into identifying the proposed route alternatives. Section 5.2.5 of the Code of Practice states the ToR should provide justification for limiting the examination of alternatives and a statement of the rationale for the alternatives that will be examined the EA. A thorough screening of route alternatives will be provided in the EA.

The red solid and dotted lines indicate the reference route and reference route alternatives, respectively. The figure below identifies these transmission routes which will be assessed and will describe the local refinement and design considerations.

Figure 6 – Reference route (solid red line) and reference route alternative sections (dotted red line).

6.3.2 Alternative Designs

Alternative designs to the Project will be examined on a case-by-case basis based on feedback received or through the assessment of natural and socio-economic environments. These alternative designs may be used to accommodate stakeholder and Indigenous community concerns or as a mitigation measure for a particular environmental component. These alternative designs could be different tower structures, heights, alignment on a property, modification to access roads or other Project infrastructure, or other identified design concerns. Consideration of alternative designs and/or locations will also be required for EA permitting requirements as well as other aspects of the undertaking. Understanding of criteria and indicators, alternatives analysis and rationale for decisions will be required within the EA.


6.3.3 Local Refinements of the Reference Route

The Project team, in consultation with affected/interested persons and Indigenous communities, will highlight specific areas where the reference route could be refined if an alternative will result in potentially significant benefits. Local refinements to the reference route might be required as a result of consultation to avoid environmental features, areas of value (natural, socio-economic, cultural etc.), technical considerations, and request of landowners. The need for local refinements to the reference route and final siting will be determined and evaluated during the EA process.

As a result of consultation, the EA will work to seek other local route refinements and evaluate them. The evaluation will examine the differences in net effects and costs associated with local alignment configurations. After engagement/consultation with landowners, agencies, municipalities, Indigenous communities, and interest groups, the Project team may refine the reference alignment. Hydro One acknowledges that consideration of local refinements may require additional and timely notification of new potentially affected landowners. The decision-making process will be clearly documented and presented to stakeholders and Indigenous communities for input and comment, and to ensure that issues have been addressed.

6.4 Evaluation of Alternative Methods

The purpose of this section is to describe the approach to be taken in the assessment and evaluation of the alternatives in the EA. At the heart of the EA planning process in Ontario is the comparative analysis of alternatives, assessing advantages and disadvantages and determining the best alternative that is appropriate to address the problem or opportunity. In accordance with Section 5.2.7 of the Ministry’s Code of Practice, this ToR outlines the general parameters that will be used to identify the evaluation methods in the EA.

The identified alternative routes and designs will be assessed and evaluated to select on balance, the alternative that has more advantages than disadvantages. The evaluation will take into account potential effects and mitigation that could be implemented to minimize or avoid the effects. The evaluation of alternative methods will be based on a set of evaluation factors, criteria and indicators that will document a systematic and traceable approach for making decisions regarding route evaluation and selection. The assessment and evaluation process would be comprised of the following key steps:

1. Identify and establish criteria and indicators in order to evaluate alternatives, which will be developed and refined with input from stakeholders and Indigenous communities;

2. Collect data from available background data sources and field surveys to inform the criteria and indicators and allow for comparative evaluation;

3. Complete comparative evaluation of alternative methods to determine the following on the environment, during all phases of the Project (i.e. construction, operation, maintenance etc.):


a. Potential environmental effects; b. Impact management measures; c. Net effects; and, d. Advantages and disadvantages.

4. From the comparative evaluation and input from stakeholders and Indigenous communities identify the preferred alternative route/method for the undertaking.

When alternative methods are being considered, a local study area will be established. Data will be collected for environmental features within the study area to identify the preferred alternative method. This data is intended to assist in determining the overall effect of the ROW alignment on the natural, socio-economic and cultural/built environments to develop appropriate mitigation measures. These evaluation criteria and indicators may be subject to refinement and modification during the EA process based on study findings, consultation and provincial policy. Technical, administrative and cost criteria will also be considered in this process.

The evaluation methods are based on a set of criteria and indicators. Sufficient information about the criteria and indicators and how they will be developed is presented in the ToR to ensure that they can be understood by interested persons who are then able to provide informed comments. A preliminary list of criteria and indicators can be found in Appendix 1. Appendix 1 details the rationale for the selection of each of the proposed criteria and indicators, and an explanation about how each criteria and indicator may be further developed during the EA process. The criteria, indicators and evaluation methods will be further developed and refined during the EA process in consultation with the public, government agencies, Indigenous communities, and any other interested persons.

Alternative method selection will be evaluated in a comparative manner by different factor groups (natural environment, socio-economic environment, technical-administrative-cost); criteria (human and natural components of the environment that potentially could be affected by the Project); and indicators (direct quantitative measures that can be used to represent the measurements of potential effects for each criterion). Data sources will be identified for each indicator. For consistency and reliability, data sets will be limited to secondary source data readily available to Hydro One, for example, in a consistent GIS format for the various options. Some examples of indicators to be used for each criterion include the following:

• Natural Environment (proximity to known Species At Risk); • Socio-economic environment (number of properties crossed); • Cultural/built environment (effect on natural heritage values) • Technical, Administrative and Cost Criteria (total route distance and area)

The methods chosen will produce an assessment that is clear logical and traceable. The alternatives evaluation will also examine the differences in net effects and costs associated with alignment configurations. The following general principles will be applied by Hydro One during the EA process in the development and evaluation of alternative methods:


• maximizing paralleling existing infrastructure corridors; • minimization of the clearing of undisturbed greenfield areas and reduce vegetation clearing;

minimizing negative effects on exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights or traditional land use; • minimizing the affected land area including supporting infrastructure; • minimizing effects on cultural heritage resources. • minimizing negative effects on existing and designated land uses; • minimizing negative effects on agricultural lands and operations; • minimizing negative effects on natural systems, with particular emphasis on natural features,

functions and communities (including treed lots and vegetation); • minimizing impacts of environmental features minimizing negative effects on built-up areas that

provide a cultural, recreational, social and economic benefit; • minimizing negative effects on businesses, farmers and landowners; and, • maximizing opportunities to enhance positive effects on the natural and socio-economic

environment.

Other factors will be considered depending on stakeholder and Indigenous community input. For consistency and reliability, data sets will rely on secondary source data readily available to Hydro One, supplemented, as appropriate, by primary data collected from interest groups, agencies, utilities, members of the public, Ministries, Indigenous communities and field studies. Published secondary source data for the evaluation of alternative methods, such as aerial photos and GIS data, will be obtained from agencies and municipal Official Plans. The analysis and results of the methodology described above will be prepared and documented in the EA and its appendices. Appendix 1 contains a list of criteria and their indicators. Avoidance and protection considerations of known values of significant interest and protected areas will also inform local refinements of the reference route.

The principles for evaluating alternative methods are intended to minimize significant environmental effects. Significance and environmental effects are determined during the EA process effects assessment. Modifications to the Project design will occur throughout the Project planning in conjunction with discussions with stakeholders and Indigenous communities. Evaluation methodologies will be fully documented within the EA. The EA will consider climate change adaptation and mitigation and cumulative effects in the evaluation and assessment of alternatives and the preferred undertaking.

6.5 Technical, Administrative and Cost Considerations

The technical, administrative and cost considerations will be used to evaluate the alternatives, including the considerations for development of criteria and indicators in the bullet points below.

• system safety and reliability; • constructability and feasibility analysis; • duration and impacts of line outages to enable connections for the new line; • availability of tower and other infrastructure materials; • timely regulatory and agency approvals;


• material differences or design changes arising from the EA or other approvals; • design changes to accommodate requirements from Alternative Methods analysis; • poor or contaminated soil conditions; • unexpected site drainage requirements; • adverse weather conditions; • conflicts with other utility ROW’s that intersect or parallel the proposed facilities. • land costs; • construction capital costs; and, • operations and maintenance costs

Appendix 1 provides additional information on development of criteria and indicators for effects on the technical environment.


7. Potential Environmental Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures

Once the assessment and comparative evaluation of the alternatives is completed, a preferred undertaking will be identified. The purpose of this section is to describe the approach to be taken in the evaluation of the environmental effects of preferred undertaking. The intent is to allow the additional details developed on the preferred undertaking (i.e. design, operations etc.) to be assessed. It also allows for the evaluation of impact management measures and net effects within the context of a more comprehensive description for the preferred undertaking.

7.1 Effects Assessment

The evaluation methods will be developed and refined during the EA process to assess the following on the undertaking on the environment, during all phases of the Project (i.e. construction, operation, maintenance etc.):

• Potential environmental effects; • Impact management measures; • Net effects; and, • Advantages and disadvantages

The evaluation methods chosen will produce an assessment that is clear, logical and traceable. The evaluation methods are based on a set of criteria and indicators. Table 10 identifies the criteria that will be assessed in the evaluation of potential environmental effects. Preliminary criteria and indicators have been developed for the potential environmental effects evaluation utilizing the general principles detailed in Section 6 and further expanded upon in Appendix 1. Hydro One will collect relevant raw data from the indicators and use them in the assessment of the effects evaluation. The preliminary list of criteria and indicators will be developed and refined during the EA process in consultation with the public, government agencies, Indigenous communities, and any other interested persons.

Table 10 – Preliminary environmental and criteria during Project planning

Environment Criteria

Natural Environment • Wetlands, Watercourses and Water bodies • Fish and Aquatic habitat • Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) • Species at risk (SAR) • Terrestrial wildlife and wildlife habitat • Forests, vegetation and woodlands • Hazard lands • Migratory birds


• Air Quality • Protected Areas (Provincial Parks and Conservation

Reserves) • Linear disturbance – the amount of new linear disturbance

(Greenfield areas) vs. previously disturbed areas. • Cumulative Impacts • Significant Wildlife Habitat • Rare Plant Species (S1, S2, S3) • Critical Landform Vegetation Association (CLVA) –

consideration of these on the landscape and their significance or representation within the Province, Eco District and protected area or ANSI

• NHIC Provincially Tracked Species Observations: (Wild Rice, Zizania palustris or Z. aquatica) should be highlighted for its local and traditional harvesting importance.

Socio-economic Environment

• Existing land use and development • Commercial activities • Potential effect on mineral and aggregate resources • Community profile • Community services • Landscape and visual assessment • Usage of Provincial Parks and Conservation Areas • Recreational facilities (camp ground, park, sport field, golf

course) • Impacts on recreational use of land (hunting, fishing,

trapping etc.) Cultural/Built Environment

• Cultural Heritage Resources • Traditional/Indigenous Land Use

Technical considerations

• Safety and Reliability • Constructability • Budget • Location • Access • Interactions with other infrastructure

7.2 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures will be developed and described in the EA to avoid or minimize negative effects on the natural, socio-economic and cultural/built environments as well as technical considerations during all phases of the Project (construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning). The EA will


recommend construction and operational monitoring programs designed to verify effects prediction, the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the need for any remedial measures, should they be necessary. Site-specific impacts and mitigation measures for individual environmental features, ESAs, and SAR will be assessed during the EA process. Mitigation measures will also be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities, stakeholders and other interested parties. The EA will also consider climate change adaptation and mitigation and cumulative effects in the evaluation and assessment of alternatives and the preferred undertaking.


8. Commitments and Monitoring

Hydro One is committed to environmental protection and responsible environmental management. The Project will be carried out in compliance with environmental legislation, Hydro One corporate policies, BMPs, and corporate environmental procedures. The EA document will provide information so that facilities will be designed, constructed and operated in a manner that makes efficient use of resources, prevents pollution and reduces environmental effects to the extent that is reasonably achievable. Hydro One strives for the continual improvement in its management system, processes, activities and services. The EA document will provide information to address commitments and monitor the Project in the following ways:

• identify, assess, and manage potentially significant environmental risks and integrate environmental considerations into decisions;

• incorporate Indigenous community consultation; • inform employees and contractors so that they understand their roles, responsibilities and Hydro

One’s environmental requirements and have the skills, knowledge and resources necessary to perform their duties;

• promote continual improvement by setting environmental objectives and targets, monitoring performance and taking corrective and preventive actions when required;

• work cooperatively with governments, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders to develop programs that contribute to the achievement of Hydro One’s environmental objectives and targets; and,

• support the investigation and use of new methods of environmental protection that will help achieve Hydro One’s business objectives.

The Hydro One Environmental Policy and Environmental Commitment forms the overarching foundations for commitments made in the EA. Environmental protection plans and strategies will be developed during and post- EA process to guide Project construction and will be made available for Indigenous community, government agency and public review. An environmental specialist will be assigned to support and monitor construction activities. As noted, construction and operational studies will be carried out to confirm Project compliance, the accuracy of environmental effects predictions, the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the need for any remedial action. In accordance with Section 5.2.8 of the Ministry’s Code of Practice, a monitoring framework will be developed during the EA and will consider all phases of the proposed undertaking.

8.1 Project Effects Monitoring

Effects monitoring are activities carried out by the proponent after approval of the undertaking to determine the environmental effects of the undertaking. During the later stages of the EA process, an


effects monitoring program will be developed. The effects monitoring program (to be included in the EA) will describe the Project environmental management system that will monitor the environmental effects of the Project and ensure compliance with all environmental requirements (e.g., terms and conditions of EA approval and other legislation). Both physical and risk based monitoring of the effects and associated mitigations will be employed where appropriate.

Construction and operational monitoring will identify actual effects, assess the effectiveness of the mitigation/restoration/enhancement measures to reduce or eliminate these effects, and evaluate the need for any additional action to ensure commitment realization.

8.2 Compliance Monitoring

Compliance monitoring is the assessment of whether an undertaking had been constructed, implemented and/or operated in accordance with commitments made during the EA and the conditions of EA approval. During the planning and design processes, compliance with EA process commitments will be regularly reviewed prior to Project implementation. External notification and engagement/consultation will be consistent with EA commitments. Hydro One will provide a monitoring strategy that sets out how and when all commitments made in the EA will be fulfilled and how Hydro One will report to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks about compliance.

The EA process monitoring program (to be included in the EA) will describe the Project environmental management system that will ensure compliance with all commitments set out in this assessment made during the EA process, plus other environmental requirements (e.g., terms and conditions of EA approval and other legislation).

Compliance monitoring will be reflected in study documentation. The duration of the monitoring and follow-up programs will vary and will depend on the conditions of permits and approvals granted by regulatory agencies.

8.3 Commitments

In accordance with Section 5.2.8 of the Ministry’s Code of Practice, the EA will include a comprehensive list of commitments made by Hydro One during the ToR process, and where or how they have been dealt with in the EA. Furthermore, the EA will include a comprehensive list of commitments made by Hydro One during the EA process; including but not limited to, all commitments relating to impact management measures, additional works and studies to be carried out, monitoring, consultation and contingency planning, and documentation and correspondence. Commitments made during the ToR consultation period are tabulated in Appendix 3.


9. Consultation

Effective consultation for both the ToR and EA is a vital part of the Project lifecycle. Interested parties can raise concerns about the Project during the ToR and EA process so that Project planning can resolve issues before they arise. Consultation can result in mitigation of impacts to individuals and communities, fewer conflicts and delays and helps to improve transparency around the ToR, EA and Project planning process.

The objectives of the consultation plans are to:

• consult with all potentially affected and interested stakeholders and Indigenous communities; • provide sufficient information in a user-friendly format; • provide opportunities for input before decisions are made; • provide appropriate, flexible and convenient opportunities for consultation that meet the needs

of stakeholders and Indigenous communities; • be responsive by listening to comments, giving them careful consideration, making necessary

changes to Project proposals where appropriate and providing a rationale where no change is made;

• document the consultation program as well as the issues raised by stakeholders and Indigenous communities and provide written responses to key issues; and,

• evaluate the effectiveness of the program on an ongoing basis and make changes for improvement.

Meaningful consultation lasts the life of Project development/construction; through the operating period, and into decommissioning. Figure 2 outlines the EA process and consultation activities are available throughout. Specific consultation activities are described below in Figure 7.


Figure 7 – Consultation activities in relation to the EA process

-Notice of Commencement of the ToR -EA planning activities pre-ToR approval

-Proposed ToR for review

Steps Specific Consultation Activities

-Community Information Centres -Meetings with property owners, Indigenous communities, public, stakeholders, government agencies and interest groups. -Public, Indigenous community and government agency review of Draft ToR

-Further meetings and comments from Indigenous communities and stakeholders incorporated into the ToR -Public, Indigenous community and government agency review of Proposed ToR

-Notice of Submission of EA to the public -Distribution of final EA document for public, Indigenous community and government agency review

Ongoing Consultation

Activities

Website – Com

munity Inform

ation Centres– Hotline - Stakeholder M

eetings– Education Material

-Draft EA for review

-Draft ToR for review

-Notice of Commencement of EA

-Approval of ToR

-Final EA submitted

-Community Information Centres -Meetings with property owners, Indigenous communities, public, stakeholders, government agencies and interest groups. -Public, Indigenous community and government agency review of Draft EA

-Public and Indigenous community inspection of Ministry Review

-Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks final EA review and decision


9.1 Principles and Approach

Consistent with the MECP Code of Practice and best practices in Indigenous community, public and stakeholder consultation and engagement, a number of key principles underpin the consultation approach for the Project, including:

• early, ongoing, clear, timely and respectful communication and dialogue with all stakeholders and Indigenous communities;

• keep elected officials apprised of Project developments by providing advance copies of information being circulated in the public domain as early as possible;

• provision of multiple and ongoing opportunities for all affected and interested parties to communicate with members of the Project team and to provide input in a way that meets their needs;

• open, transparent, and flexible planning and decision-making processes; and, • thorough documentation of input received during the consultation process and follow-up with

all participants on how their input was incorporated into Project plans, or an explanation of why it could not be incorporated.

The Lake Superior Link team will approach communication and consultation with:

• a focus on building local relationships by communicating with the residents and officials, media and interest groups in the immediate Project area and identifying opportunities for face-to-face meetings;

• a commitment to ongoing engagement with communities along the route, including Indigenous communities, about what tangible benefits we can bring to the region; and,

• dedicated property agents to communicate personally with property owners adjacent to the proposed corridor (two agents for the permanent rights and one for temporary rights).

Hydro One recognizes that consultation has been undertaken for other similar projects in the region. Hydro One will utilize existing public records of consultation to inform its own consultation processes and to identify and mitigate previously raised concerns.

In support of this ToR a Record of Consultation (RoC) has been prepared (refer to Section 9.3.3). The RoC identifies and details all of the consultation and engagement activities undertaken during the preparation of the ToR. Section 2 of the RoC provides an overview of the consultation and engagement activities that were completed over the course of development of the ToR with stakeholders (e.g. government agencies, municipalities and the public). Comments and concerns received from stakeholders and Indigenous communities over this period are summarized in Sections 4 and 5 of the RoC. In addition, a summary of Indigenous community engagement activities is provided in Section 3 of the RoC. The summaries below in Sections 9.3 provide a brief overview of some of the activities (i.e. CICs) completed during the preparation of the ToR.


9.2 Duty to Consult with Indigenous Peoples

It is the responsibility of the Crown to determine whether a Duty to Consult has been triggered and, if so, the appropriate depth of consultation to be undertaken. Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, on behalf of the Crown, formally delegated procedural aspects of consultation to Hydro One and provided a list of communities to be consulted for the environmental assessment process on March 2, 2018. The Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines also notified the communities of this delegation.

The courts have established that the constitutional duty to consult rests with the Crown. However, government can delegate some of the procedural aspects of the duty to consult upon project proponents. Also, government may coordinate consultation activities of agencies and proponents. Project proponents are obliged under the EA Act to consult with all interested parties. In addition, the public consultation process is also open to the Indigenous communities.

The courts have established that the constitutional duty to consult rests with the Crown, arises from the principle of the honour of the Crown, and is a tool for reconciling the prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. The Supreme Court of Canada in Haida Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation has stated that consultation in relation to established Aboriginal and treaty rights requires the intention of substantially addressing Indigenous concerns. The Crown has a duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate with regard to potential impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights. The duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate is part of a process of reconciliation. Hydro One is committed to considering and discussing appropriate accommodation measures, where appropriate. The list of the 18 Ministry of Energy (now Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines) identified First Nation and Métis communities are:

• Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishnaabek First Nation ; • Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek First Nation; • Biigtigong Nishnaabeg; • Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek • Fort William First Nation; • Ginoogaming First Nation; • Long Lake #58 First Nation; • Michipicoten First Nation; • Missanabie Cree First Nation; • Ojibways of Batchewana; • Ojibways of Garden River; • Pays Plat First Nation; • Pic Mobert First Nation; • Red Rock Indian Band (Lake Helen); • Red Sky Métis Independent Nation;


• MNO (Métis Nation of Ontario) Greenstone Métis Council; • MNO Superior North Shore Métis Council; and, • MNO Thunder Bay Métis Council.

In addition to the 18 delegated First Nations and Métis, the following communities were included during consultation efforts.

• Métis Nation of Ontario - North Channel Métis Council; • Métis Nation of Ontario – Historic Sault St. Marie Métis Council; • Jackfish Métis Association (Independent of the MNO); and, • Ontario Coalition of Indigenous Peoples

Hydro One acknowledges that there may be additional Indigenous communities, not included in the preceding list that may come forward with information on the potential effects of the Project upon their section 35 section 35 Constitution Act, 1982 Aboriginal and treaty rights (section 35 rights). Hydro One will advise the Crown and seek a determination as to whether the Duty to Consult has been triggered and if so, the depth of required consultation.

Hydro One is committed to working closely with the Crown to ensure that the duty to consult with potentially affected Indigenous communities is fulfilled. Engagement and relationship between Indigenous communities and Pukaskwa National Park will be considered. Engagement and relationship between Indigenous communities, provincial and federal agencies will also be considered. Hydro One will develop an engagement and consultation plan for executing its responsibilities during the course of the Environmental Assessment and other processes undertaken by the Crown. Hydro One will work directly with Indigenous leadership to disseminate clear and concise information to their communities. Consultation on a draft Indigenous consultation plan for the EA will occur with all identified Indigenous communities

9.3 Consultation on the ToR

Hydro One developed and followed a detailed consultation plan for the ToR. It involved keeping all potentially interested stakeholders and Indigenous communities informed of the Project and soliciting their input at key points. The following describes the public and Indigenous consultation activities undertaken in relation to the preparation of the ToR. Refer to Section 2 of the Record of Consultation for additional details on consultation undertaken and Section 4 of the Record of Consultation for comments received and responses provided by Hydro One. Refer to Appendix 3 for a list of commitments made during the ToR process.


9.3.1 Government Agency and Public Consultation

Community Information Centres (CICs) were held in March and June 2018 in nine communities to introduce the Project and to let people know that Hydro One was applying for OEB Section 92 approval to build the transmission line between Lakehead TS and Wawa TS.

Hydro One published the Notice of Commencement of ToR and invitation to Community Information Centres in French and English the week of May 28 and June 4, 2018 in the Thunder Bay Source, Nipigon Red Rock Gazette, Terrace Bay Schreiber News, Marathon Mercury, Wawa Algoma News Review, mywawa.ca and the Thunder Bay Chronicle.

A community flyer, double-sided in French and English, was delivered to 39,000 subscribers and non- subscribers of the Thunder Bay Chronicle. Over 5,000 households in communities east of Thunder Bay to Wawa received the flyer via Canada Post unaddressed Ad mail.

Radio advertisements publicizing the Project and CICs ran the week of June 4 and June 11 on the following radio stations CFNO (Marathon, also covering Red Rock and Nipigon); CJSD, CKPR, CKTG and CJUK (Thunder Bay, also covering Schreiber and Dorion); and WJWA (Wawa, covering White River and Wawa).

Government Review members and stakeholders were sent the NoC and the draft ToR. Property owners were sent letters to notify them of the NoC, the CIC and the draft ToR. A series of nine CICs were held the week of June 11, 2018 to consult on the ToR. The sessions are as follows:

Monday, June 11, 2018 Thunder Bay 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. Valhalla Inn – Viking Room Nipigon 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. Royal Canadian Legion Branch 32

Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Schreiber 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. Schreiber Municipal Gym Marathon 2:00 - 7:00 p.m. Marathon Centre Mall

Tuesday, June 12, 2018 Red Rock 12:00 0 2:00 p.m. Royal Canadian Legion Branch 226 Dorion 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. Dorion Community Centre Terrace Bay 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. Terrace Bay Cultural Centre

Thursday, June 14, 2018 White River 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. White River Community Centre Wawa 5p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Royal Canadian Legion Branch 429

The draft ToR was available for review and comment at the CICs, at the local Municipal offices and on the Hydro One website from June 11 to July 26, 2018.


On-going meetings have been held with a number of government agencies including MECP, MNRF and Parks Canada. Government Agencies that were identified as being potentially interested in the Project were phoned on June 8, 2018 and asked if they would like to discuss the Project and notified that the Draft ToR was being released for comments on June 11. This was followed up on June 11 by an e-mail to the stakeholder list with a link to the draft ToR on the Hydro One Projects webpage. The comments received from government agencies and the public were diverse and numerous. Residents of the Loon Lake area wrote in to oppose the proposed reference route alternative through Loon Lake. In discussions at CICs members of the public raised the issues of employment, the decision for the OEB Leave to Construct, waste management and access roads. Government agencies primarily flagged potential issues around agency-specific permitting requirements, Indigenous consultation, sensitive areas and parks, herbicides, proposed mitigation measures for potential environmental impacts and provided additional information on site specific locations in and around the proposed corridor. MECP staff provided important review of the ToR document and ensured regulatory compliance in moving forward into the EA process. These matters will be addressed as part of the Individual EA and the ToR has been modified where appropriate. Hydro One recognizes that additional engagement will be required to ensure public and government agencies concerns are identified and considered throughout the EA process and in the development of permitting strategies, effective mitigation and monitoring measures for the Project.

9.3.2 Indigenous Communities

Hydro One acknowledges the importance of conducting consultation through a process that is in alignment with community values, culture and protocols and is prepared to work with Indigenous communities to make necessary revisions to this Plan to ensure that it is respectful of community consultation protocols. Hydro One commits to ensuring that all regional and community protocols will be respected.

Hydro One recognizes the importance of engaging the Indigenous communities regarding the Project. In delegating procedural aspects of consultation, the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines has identified 14 First Nations and four Métis Groups as having a potential interest in the Project which are listed in Section 9.2. All eighteen Indigenous communities that were in the delegation letter from the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines were sent the NoC. An additional 4 Indigenous communities were identified during the consultation process. Follow-up phone calls were, and continue to be, made offering to meet and discuss the Project.

Consultation on the development Draft ToR has been undertaken with Indigenous communities. Hydro One has offered capacity funding to all Indigenous communities to support their review of the ToR. The administration offices of all eighteen Indigenous communities received a hard copy of the draft ToR for their review and comment between June 11 and July 26 2018. A subsequent revised draft ToR was


provided to communities on August 3, 2018 and the proposed ToR was submitted to MECP for a 12 week review period on September 7, 2018. Hydro One has attempted to contact each office to arrange to meet and discuss the Project and the ToR. As of January 16, 2019, the following Indigenous communities have responded with written comments on the ToR:

• Batchewana First Nation • Biigtigong Nishnaabeg (Ojibways of the Pic River First Nation) • Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek First Nation (Rocky Bay) • Garden River First Nation • Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) • Pic Mobert First Nation • Red Rock Indian Band • Red Sky Métis Independent Nation

Throughout consultation with communities, Indigenous communities have been solicited for comments on the ToR, the Project as a whole, as well as asked to provide specific criteria and indicators important to their communities. These criteria and indicators have been incorporated into Appendix 1 and Indigenous consultation has identified as an information source. CICs have been scheduled in Indigenous Communities to provide community members with Project details, inform them of the ToR, and provide an opportunity for comment. Past Indigenous community CIC schedule includes:

Host Date Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek First Nation

(Rocky Bay) June 13, 2018

Red Rock Indian Band June 18, 2018 Biigtigong Nishnaabeg (Ojibways of the Pic River

First Nation) June 25, 2018

Pic Mobert First Nation June 26, 2018 Fort William First Nation September 10 , 2018

Jackfish Métis October 15, 2018 Pays Plat First Nation October 16, 2018

Ginoogaming First Nation October 22, 2018 Métis Nation of Ontario - North Superior Métis

Community ( MNO Region 2)- Thunder Bay November 5, 2018

Métis Nation of Ontario - North Superior Métis Community (MNO Region 2) - Terrace Bay

November 6, 2018

Métis Nation of Ontario - Sault St. Marie and Environs Métis Community (MNO Region 4) -

SSM

November 20, 2018

Ojibways of Garden River November 22, 2018

Section 5 of the Record of Consultation identifies responses to each of the Indigenous community comments received on the draft ToR. All comments received have been addressed and changes, where


appropriate, have been made within the ToR. Hydro One has shared responses to comments received with Indigenous communities who provided comments during the three review periods. Hydro One will continue to engage and consult with Indigenous communities throughout the EA process.

Many of the Indigenous community comments received on the draft ToR pertained primarily to matters to be evaluated during the Individual EA and construction phase of the Project. Comments received focused on effects evaluation, baseline studies, specific mitigation measures, impacts to traditional land use (i.e. trapping), traditional knowledge, cultural heritage (archaeology) and Indigenous community participation (i.e. monitors). These matters will be addressed as part of the Individual EA and the ToR has been modified where appropriate. Hydro One recognizes that additional engagement will be required to ensure Indigenous community concerns are identified and considered throughout the EA process and in the development of effective mitigation and monitoring measures for the Project.

Refer to Section 3 of the RoC for additional details of engagement with Indigenous communities and Section 5 for comments received and responses provided by Hydro One.

9.3.3 Record of Consultation

Hydro One has maintained a comprehensive record of consultation and track issues to document all stakeholder, public, government agency and Indigenous engagement activities material to the ToR. The Record of Consultation for the ToR has been submitted under a separate cover. The record of consultation has been used to:

• document concerns and follow-up actions and responses; • maintain a current record of staff and community representatives; and, • maintain a record of all communications (including phone calls and e-mails) and information

provided to interested parties as well as consultation events/activities with each community.

The record of consultation has been updated to reflect each communication and activity. A copy of the aggregate consultation record of all communication activities will be provided to regulators as required by the regulator and each Indigenous community will be provided with a copy of the record of consultation pertaining to that community concurrent with the submission to regulators. The record of consultation has included the following information relating to each engagement and consultation event or activity:

• date on which the communication, event or activity occurred; • method of communication: e.g. letter, e-mail, phone call, face-to-face; • identification of initiator and recipient of communication or in the case of a meeting, organizer

and participants attending at the meeting; • copy of or link to communication in the case of written communication as well as copy of/or link

to any other relevant documentation provided or generated as part of the communication,


including all regulatory information provided, notices for community meetings, draft versions of all materials prepared for EA, summary of any resources and/or funding offered, requested/provided to the Indigenous community by Hydro One;

• summary of communication or in the case of a meeting, meeting notes; and, • identification of issues raised or discussed and any follow-up action or undertaking.

9.4 Consultation Plan for the EA

The Consultation Plan for the EA will apply the same consultation principles as used in the ToR and will take into account feedback from Indigenous communities, stakeholders, and the public.

9.4.1 Stakeholder Identification

There are a wide range of interests, Indigenous communities and stakeholders. Interactions with stakeholders and Indigenous communities will be compiled and consultation commitments will be tracked. The following stakeholders and Indigenous communities will be consulted throughout the EA process:

• owners and occupants (tenants) of property within the proposed transmission corridor; • residents within the area of the transmission line route; • non-government organizations and groups with an interest in the Project; • government agencies with an interest in the Project including the Government Review Team; • municipalities affected by the Project; • trappers and other resource users (trail groups, baitfish, Bear Management Areas (BMAs), SFL

holders, etc.; • Indigenous communities as identified by the Crown via the Ontario Ministry of Energy,

Northern Development and Mines; • visitors to Pukaskwa National Park; and, • interested members of the public.

Early in the Project planning stage a Government Review Team Master Distribution List was obtained from the MECP. This list is used to ensure that the distribution of Project materials is directed to the appropriate Federal, Provincial and Municipal government agencies. Stakeholders, interest groups, Indigenous communities and members of the public have been identified in various ways. Geographical Information System data was used to identify directly and potentially impacted property owners. A third party realty team was used to gather names, addresses and contact information through publicly available sources. Stakeholders and interest groups were identified through research and previously completed publicly available environmental assessment information. In


delegating procedural aspects of consultation, the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines has identified 14 First Nations and four Métis Groups as having a potential interest in the Project. The duty to consult is discussed further in Section 9.2. A comprehensive contact list is being maintained from the outset of the Project. Hydro One is committed that the comprehensive Project contact list is continually reviewed and updated during the EA process as contacts change and new contacts are identified through consultation activities.

9.4.2 Consultation and Engagement Activities

The following outlines the specific consultation activities that are planned for members of the public, government agencies and Indigenous communities during the EA. A flowchart of specific consultation activities in relation to key EA milestones can be found in Figure 7:

• Notice of Commencement – The Notice will announce the initiation of the ToR and the EA. The Notice of Commencement will be published in local newspapers and include a brief explanation of the Project, key contact information. This activity is a mandatory requirement of the ToR and EA process.

• Community flyers – Community flyers will continue to be produced at key decision points to keep stakeholders up to date on the progress of the EA and to invite them to consultation opportunities. Community flyers will be made available on the Project website and will be mailed to directly affected property owners within the Project routing area and others on the contact list. Community flyers will be produced and distributed via newspaper insert and unaddressed ad mail.

• Issues Workshops – Workshops provide an opportunity for interested members of the public to assist in the EA process. Workshops may be held as appropriate with property owners to confirm and develop design alternatives, apply evaluation criteria and establish the relative importance of criteria. If specific issues are identified during the EA process, workshops may be utilized to address the issues.

• Community Information Centres (CICs) – The purpose of the CICs will be to provide an opportunity for face-to-face discussion among municipal officials, affected property owners, interested individuals, interest groups and the Project team. A series of CICs will be held in the fall of 2018 in the same communities as for the ToR. These CICs will be widely advertised with similar methods used for the ToR. Comment forms will be distributed at the CICs to acquire responses to specific questions and to allow an opportunity for participants to provide further comments on the proposal. CIC panels and any handouts available at the CICs will also be posted on the Project web site for review by those unable to attend the CICs. This series of CICs will allow members of the public to provide input on the proposed Project, design (towers design and location, access road location and construction), mitigation and effect management, as well as review draft EA documents.

• Meetings with trappers - meetings with trappers to discuss potential impacts the Project may have on traplines, as well as mitigation and avoidance measures. Where the impacts to trapping can be demonstrated as a result of the Project, Hydro One will consider a damage/compensation claim or alternative resolution where applicable.


• Meetings with property owners – Property agents and EA team members will meet with directly affected property owners where environmental effects have been identified to provide updated information on the Project, identify issues and discuss the property acquisition process. This will provide another opportunity for affected property owners to meet face-to-face with Project staff and identify any outstanding issues and concerns. Property owners will also be notified directly of upcoming CICs and that the draft EA document is available for review through a mailing. The mailings will include a Project newsletter informing affected landowners of dates and locations of scheduled CICs and where and when they can review the draft EA and EA.

• Interest group meetings –Key interest groups may request meetings with the Project team during the EA process and Hydro One will discuss the Project and take into account the feedback from these meetings. Key interest groups will also be provided with a copy of the draft EA and EA for review.

• Presentations to Councils and municipal organizations – Upon request, members of the Hydro One Project team will appear before local Councils and municipal organizations to share Project information, seek feedback on what tangible benefits mean to each community, and continue in a meaningful dialogue with each municipality.

• Public Notice of Submission of EA to MECP – Hydro One will notify affected property owners and others on the mailing list by mail that the EA document has been submitted to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for approval. The Notice will be published in local newspapers along the route. The Notice will also indicate that a government and public review has been initiated, the length of the minimum review period, and the date that comments are to be submitted to the MECP Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch (EAPB) contact.

• Review of a Draft EA document – Hydro One will notify stakeholders, government agencies, Indigenous communities and other interested parties on the contact list that the Draft EA document is available for review.

It is important to keep people up-to-date about what is happening on the Project and inviting input from stakeholders. The following on-going consultation activities are planned for the Project:

• Website – A dedicated Project website will continue to be updated throughout the EA process and will offer visitors access to Project information and the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The purpose of the website is to provide a widely accessible venue for a large number of stakeholders to obtain and download a wide range of information in a timely manner throughout the life of the Project. However, internet access is not universally available and thus, alternative options for obtaining information will be available. The website can be found at https://www.hydroone.com/lakesuperiorlink. An email address [email protected] is available on the website for comments and questions to be submitted to the Project team;

• Hotline – The Project hotline, 1-877-345-6799, will provide 24 hour voicemail access throughout the life of the Project. This will give stakeholders another opportunity to leave comments or request information regarding the Project;

• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – A list of FAQs has been posted to the Project web site and will be updated periodically to reflect new issues and concerns;

https://www.hydroone.com/lakesuperiorlink

mailto:[email protected]


• Media – Media will be provided with project information, including a letter, contact card, newsletter, FAQs and technical briefings if needed; and,

• Documents distributed and posted in public places –Hydro One will make documents available locally for review by members of the public, government agencies and Indigenous communities. Documents will also be available for download from the Project website for those with internet access.

9.4.3 Indigenous Community Consultation

The standalone Consultation Plan is intended to enable Hydro One to carry out its responsibility as described under section 4.1(a) of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with the Provincial Crown (Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines) on the legal duty to consult. In addition, the standalone document, the Consultation Plan, is also intended to satisfy any consultation requirements which may be imposed on a proponent through the operation of legislation or policy, including those contained in the provincial Environmental Assessment Act, the applicable Policies and Codes of Practice issued by MECP and Hydro One’s Indigenous Relations Policy. Hydro One will advise the relevant Crown representatives/agencies of the results of the ongoing engagement with the Indigenous communities and will work cooperatively with all involved to reach appropriate solutions.

The Consultation Plan will also provide a process to facilitate constructive Project-related consultation dialogue between Hydro One and potentially affected Indigenous communities. Such a process will assist in the identification of potential adverse effects of the Project upon the asserted and established Aboriginal and Treaty rights (‘section 35 rights’) of Indigenous communities as identified from the Crown and enable Hydro One to work together with those communities to develop avoidance and mitigation measures to reasonably mitigate and/or accommodate for potential adverse effects where appropriate. The Consultation Plan will be aligned with the EA process in order to ensure meaningful opportunities for review and comment by the Indigenous communities throughout the development and construction of the Project.

The individual consultation plan for Indigenous communities will clearly set out the steps Hydro One intends to take with respect to consultation activities. This document will include, but is not limited to, consideration of the following:

• how Indigenous communities will be notified and consulted. This includes a description of the consultation activities planned (i.e. notifications, information sharing opportunities, open houses, individual meetings with the community etc.);

• milestones during the EA process when rounds of engagement with Indigenous communities will occur; and how Hydro One will provide opportunities for Indigenous participants to communicate with Hydro One about any issues or concerns about the Project during the period of engagement;

• methods that will be used to consult with Indigenous communities;


• identify the decisions that Indigenous communities can provide input to and what role Indigenous communities play when the proponent makes decisions; and,

• how Traditional Knowledge will be incorporated.

Hydro One acknowledges the importance of conducting consultation through a process that is in alignment with community values, culture and protocols and is prepared to work with Indigenous communities to make necessary revisions to this Plan to ensure that it is respectful of community consultation protocols. Hydro One commits to ensuring that all regional and community protocols will be respected. If requested, Hydro One will develop tailored consultation plans for specific Indigenous communities. In addition to the tailored consultation approach for Indigenous communities, all public consultation processes and specific consultation activities outlined in 9.4.2 and throughout Section 9 will be available to Indigenous communities.

Consultation undertaken by Hydro One pursuant to this Plan will be guided by the following principles:

• ensuring that the consultation process is culturally appropriate and developed and implemented in collaboration with the Indigenous communities;

• ensuring meaningful engagement with potentially affected Indigenous communities; • ensuring sufficient reasonable funding for fully informed and meaningful participation by

Indigenous communities; • ensuring that potentially affected Indigenous communities are provided with relevant,

understandable and accessible Project-related information in a timely and culturally appropriate manner;

• ensuring that potentially affected Indigenous communities have sufficient opportunity to identify and formulate and express their views on the potential adverse impacts of the Project upon their section 35 rights; and,

• ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable step to avoid or mitigate/accommodate, as appropriate, the adverse effects of the Project upon section 35 rights.

Hydro One’s process for Indigenous consultation is designed to provide information on the Project to the Indigenous communities in a timely manner. Hydro One will respond to and address issues, concerns or questions raised by the Indigenous communities in a clear and transparent manner throughout the completion of the regulatory approval processes (e.g., the EA process). The process with Indigenous communities will address the following objectives:

• to provide opportunities for information sharing between Hydro One and potentially affected Indigenous communities as identified by the Crown, including information about the Project and associated review and regulatory processes;

• to identify the potential adverse impacts of the Project (including social, environmental, economic, health and culture) upon section 35 rights;

• to work with potentially affected Indigenous communities as identified by the Crown to identify measures to mitigate or avoid those potential adverse effects;


• provide Project-related information which is comprehensive and accessible to assist Indigenous communities to effectively identify their concerns, and any possible effects of the Project on their existing or asserted treaty or Aboriginal rights;

• advise of the various provincial approvals that may be required; • seek Traditional Knowledge information applicable to the study area from the Indigenous

communities that is considered by them to be of cultural, spiritual, historical and community significance;

• seek input from Indigenous communities on environmental studies to be conducted by Hydro One in the course of the Project;

• offer information centers or meetings with Indigenous communities to provide Project-related information and to address any concerns, issues or questions about the Project (by way of example this may include but not be limited to: Issues workshops and/or presentations to community leadership or members);

• provide information, where requested, on the OEB regulatory process and the EA process regarding the Project;

• address all issues and concerns raised by Indigenous communities and to how the Project may affect Aboriginal and Treaty rights and clearly communicate the results;

• address issues in relation to Project land usage within First Nation Reserves; • focus consultation on areas not already assessed and verifying publicly available information; • Hydro One will also work with Indigenous communities along the route to explore benefits and

opportunities including, but not limited to, capacity building to participate in the engagement process, procurement and sub-contracting opportunities, job training, employment and equity participation; and,

• record all forms of engagement with Indigenous communities, including the creation of a list of concerns and issues raised regarding the Project and Hydro One’s responses.

Indigenous communities may have different approaches and preferences for the sharing of Traditional or Indigenous Knowledge, and this will be honoured by Hydro One. Traditional Knowledge is an input to physical, socio-economic, cultural heritage, biological and human components of the environment. Hydro One will consider, and incorporate as appropriate, Indigenous consultation and knowledge in:

• methodology for and description of baseline conditions (e.g., study areas; environmental components; resources, species, other values of importance; timing of baseline studies, etc.);

• evaluation of alternatives and assessment of the preferred undertaking (e.g., criteria and indicators of relevance to Indigenous communities for all environmental components);

• development of mitigation measures and monitoring commitments; and • the conclusions of the EA, including any residual adverse effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights

In order to achieve the consultation objectives, Hydro One will:

• provide Indigenous communities with timely notice of the Project so that they can consider possible impacts on their section 35 rights;


• provide Indigenous communities with information about the Project and the applicable regulatory and approval processes on an ongoing basis;

• meet with and take into consideration any communications from Indigenous communities in order to identify any concerns that the communities may have regarding the potential adverse impacts of the Project upon section 35 rights;

• where appropriate, discuss with an Indigenous community measures to address potential adverse impacts of the Project upon its section 35 rights;

• maintain a timely, open and transparent dialogue with potentially affected Indigenous communities through phone calls, face to face meetings, e-mails, correspondence and other means as appropriate to ensure understanding at each step in the Project’s progress;

• offer Indigenous communities assistance, including financial capacity, where appropriate for the purpose of participating in consultation on the Project;

• provide capacity for development of Traditional Knowledge studies to better inform Project components;

• provide support for community liaisons; and, • document and respond to the issues and concerns which have been expressed by Indigenous

communities to Hydro One during the EA and other regulatory processes.

9.4.4 Indigenous Traditional Knowledge

Traditional Knowledge is considered to be a holistic body of knowledge containing information and records collected by Indigenous communities that is considered to be of cultural, spiritual, historical and community significance to its members. Much of this knowledge may have been passed on from generation to generation. Each community will have its own approach to collecting, recording, sharing and using this knowledge. Hydro One is willing to enter into Traditional Knowledge Sharing Agreements with Indigenous communities that acknowledge and respect the sensitive and confidential nature of Traditional Knowledge collection and its use.

Hydro One commits to incorporate Traditional Knowledge and other information received from community members for the Lake Superior Link Project to assist in the EA process, including but not limited to:

• Defining a methodology for and description of existing (baseline) conditions e.g., study areas; natural environment conditions; social and economic conditions, cultural characteristics; community characteristics; other values of importance;

• Evaluating alternatives and assessing potential impacts of the Project (e.g., criteria and indicators of relevance to Indigenous communities for all environmental components);

• Developing mitigation measures and monitoring commitments.


9.4.5 Methodology for Obtaining and Incorporating Traditional Knowledge

Hydro One recognizes that the definition of what Traditional Knowledge comprises is unique to each Indigenous community. Similarly, it is the community that decides what information will be shared and how it should be applied. For the purposes of EA, Traditional Knowledge is considered a very important source of information that is used to:

• define the characteristics of the land, people and environment that could be affected by the Project;

• input into the design of the Project; • identify areas of concern either physical/biological or social/cultural that may require measures

that would eliminate or minimize impacts; and, • input into construction and operating methods that may help determine measures to eliminate

or minimize impacts.

The following paragraphs describe the steps and methods Hydro One intends to take to collect and use Traditional Knowledge information. The Lake Superior Link EA will clearly demonstrate the way in which Traditional Knowledge has been incorporated into the process.

1. Identifying Traditional Knowledge Information that has been Recorded by Indigenous Communities

It is recognized that not all communities have formally recorded Traditional Knowledge information. It is also recognized that not all communities will be willing to share the information that they have collected. Discussion will be held with community members, leadership and elders, to determine if information is available and if the community is willing to share the information, and any associated conditions with sharing the information.

2. Determining if the Community requires additional resources or capacity to collect, record and share Traditional Knowledge.

It is recognized that some communities may require resources, such as funding and/or technical assistance to complete the recording of Traditional Knowledge. Hydro One commits to providing sufficient financial assistance through a negotiated Capacity Funding Agreement process, to support full and effective community participation in the EA process, including with capacity support, technical support and the gathering and recording of Traditional Knowledge.

3. Identifying Community Protocols for Sharing and using Traditional Knowledge

Each community may have its own protocols and procedures, either formal or informal, to be followed in transferring Traditional Knowledge to outside parties such as Hydro One. Hydro One respects these protocols and will work with each community to understand how the information will be transferred and applied. Hydro One respects that Traditional Knowledge is “owned” and controlled by the


community. It is recognized some communities may request a Traditional Knowledge Sharing Agreement/Non-Disclosure (Confidentiality) Agreement.

4. Utilizing Traditional Knowledge in the EA and Design Process

Traditional Knowledge may be provided in a variety of formats such as maps, written descriptions or oral stories. Often mapping is provided in a GIS computer-based mapping format. However, where information has not been recorded in GIS format, and hard-copy mapping must be shared, Hydro One understands that these maps must be treated with respect.

In addition to respecting ownership of the information, it is understood that Traditional Knowledge provided by the community must be protected. For example, where a sacred site has been identified, the Hydro One database will not provide a specific map reference that could lead a third party to the specific location. Typically this type of information is also “buffered” by applying an area of protection around the feature so that the specific location cannot be identified. Such buffers will be used where identified as necessary by Indigenous communities. Hydro One will also refrain from specifically identifying/labeling an area of community importance that could be of interest to outside parties but could impact the community, such as high quality harvest areas, areas with traditional medicines, etc.

In addition to receiving guidance from the community as to how the information will be used and published, Hydro One commits to incorporating community input into the development of the analysis framework and addressing impacts through mitigation and accommodation, as appropriate, through the EA process.

It is recognized that physically avoiding an area may not be enough to eliminate impact. Areas, sites, etc., that may be impacted will be discussed with community members and measures that could be applied to further mitigate the impact or where appropriate accommodate for the impact, will be identified.

It is recognized that Traditional Knowledge will not be limited to physical or spatial features. Information about using the land and community culture will also be an important aspect. This information will be treated similar to physical/spatial features. The potential for impact from the Project will be discussed with community members as well as measures to mitigate, and/or where appropriate, accommodate for the impact. It is also important that community values and respect for the land are incorporated into the impact analysis as well as Project design and operations.

5. Working with Communities that do not have Traditional Knowledge formally recorded

It is recognized that:

• some communities will not have formal Traditional Knowledge records; • some communities may prefer oral methods of sharing information rather than written records;


• some communities may wish to share only a summary or portion of the Traditional Knowledge information they have gathered that is pertinent to the EA in order to protect sensitive information; and,

• some communities may wish to formally record Traditional Knowledge but may not be ready or may not have sufficient time to record the information within the schedule for the Lake Superior Link EA, even if the community has accessed the Capacity Funding process to obtain financial assistance.

Where a community does not have, or is not likely to have formal records, but is willing to share Traditional Knowledge information orally or by some other means, Hydro One will discuss with community members the most appropriate way to facilitate this method of sharing. This could involve meetings with land users, elders, trappers, etc. Sitting together, Hydro One would provide community members the opportunity to share information and stories that would then be recorded by Hydro One for use in the EA impact analysis. The records developed from these meetings would be verified with the community who will have the opportunity to add any necessary information, details or perspective before the information is incorporated. It is acknowledged that these records, similar to more formal Traditional Knowledge records, are in the ownership of the community, and will only be used, shared and published under the terms outlined in the Traditional Knowledge Sharing agreement.

Hydro One fully respects those communities which choose not to share their Traditional Knowledge. How the community chooses to participate in the EA process will be discussed with the leaders of these communities during consultation.

6. Reconciling Differences between Traditional Knowledge and Western Science

Western Science and Traditional Knowledge approach environmental evaluation differently. Where western science often relies on deduction and inference to reach conclusions, information from Traditional Knowledge adds an experiential understanding of the land that goes back many, many generations. Where Western science relies on gauges and modeling it is, however, often based on limited historical data. Community members have generations of historical knowledge that may be shared. This information is extremely helpful. Traditional Knowledge will be used to enhance Western science. Where Traditional Knowledge is found to conflict with Western science both will be brought forward for consideration in the evaluation of criteria and indicators and treated with equal weight.

7. Reconciling Differences in Traditional Knowledge between Communities

Differences between Traditional Knowledge information from one community to another will be addressed between Hydro One and the affected communities, as they are identified. It is recognized that experiential information may be somewhat different between communities for a common parcel of land; and it is also recognized that there are overlaps in traditional territories.

Hydro One recognizes the importance of acknowledging, reconciling and addressing any differences that are identified. Expecting that the information from both records is verified, Hydro One would aggregate the information and assess impacts and mitigation acknowledging both records. Whether the


differences are discussed between the communities would be at the discretion and the direction of members from each of the communities. As mentioned earlier, sacred or significant sites/areas are typically not labeled, and are typically “buffered” with a protection zone to ensure confidentiality where this is considered important by the community members. Where differences are considered to conflict, Hydro One will work with each of the communities to identify a collaborative process for working through the differences towards an outcome for EA analysis that is acceptable to both communities.

8. Identifying, Discussing and Confirming Mitigation Measures/Accommodation

An important aspect of EA impact analysis and the incorporation of Traditional Knowledge information is the identification and confirmation of mitigation measures and where appropriate accommodation. Using western science and Traditional Knowledge information, Hydro One can conduct an initial analysis of potential impacts and identify initial measures to avoid or reduce the impact. The initial conclusions of this analysis are discussed with the community. From input received by the community during subsequent consultation/engagement, measures can be changed or additional measures added, resulting in a refinement of the impact analysis. Although Hydro One may not agree with every suggested change, it is well understood that the process of discussing and resolving differences and the potential of a mutually acceptable resolution is a fundamental aspect of consultation and the EA process.

Hydro One recognizes that not all communities have the resources or capacity available to conduct a detailed review of the EA impact analysis they feel is necessary to adequately reflect and incorporate community values and Traditional Knowledge to the extent desired. Hydro One is offering assistance through a Capacity Funding Agreement process whereby funding is provided to communities to assist with capacity development, gathering and recording of Traditional Knowledge, and EA review.

9.4.6 Government Agency Consultation Plan

The purpose of the government agency consultation is to:

• identify concerns and opportunities and collect information related to the Project; • identify issues related to the Project, and where appropriate, proposed mitigation; • identify provincial and federal government agency jurisdiction; • facilitate the development of a list of all required approvals, licenses or permits; • identify relevant guidelines, policies and standards; and, • list all the commitments/obligations and responsibilities of the proponent.

Following the Notice of Commencement of the EA, a government agency consultation package will be sent to all government agency stakeholders from the federal, provincial and municipal governments and conservation authorities soliciting their input and feedback on the Project. The consultation package


will include a letter describing the Project, a map of the Project area and a feedback form for completion.

Follow-up communications will occur with those government agencies that request further meetings/involvement to discuss their input. Hydro One will be available to meet with government agencies regularly to discuss issues that arise and provide progress reports as requested. The feedback forms will capture general comments, while the meetings, if necessary, would allow probing of specific issues in greater detail. Government agencies will also be notified when the draft EA is available for review.

Other consultation activities are as follows:

• Newsletter – Newsletters will be made available on the Project web site and will be e-mailed to all government agency stakeholders;

• Issues Workshops – Workshops may be held as appropriate with agencies, interest groups and municipal staff to confirm and develop design alternatives, apply evaluation criteria and establish the relative importance of criteria. If specific issues are identified during the EA process, workshops may be utilized to address the issues;

• Review Draft EA and EA- Government Agencies and the Government Review Team will be given copies of the Draft and EA for review; and,

• Notice of Submission of EA to MECP – Hydro One will notify government agencies by e-mail that it has submitted the EA to the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks for approval.

Aside from the arranged meetings/interviews, government agency consultations will also dovetail with CIC events as avenues for further input to the process. Engagement with the various stakeholders is expected to be ongoing throughout the EA and into the Project implementation process. All government agency submissions and meetings will be documented and included in the Record of Consultation.

9.4.7 Record of Consultation

Hydro One will maintain a comprehensive record of consultation for the EA to track issues and document all stakeholder, public, government agency and Indigenous engagement activities. The record of consultation will be used to:

• document concerns and follow-up actions and responses; • document and track mitigation measures developed by the Proponent to prevent, mitigate or

otherwise address potential effects of the Project upon s. 35 rights; • maintain a current record of staff and community representatives; and,


• maintain a record of all communications (including phone calls and e-mails) and information provided to interested parties as well as consultation events/activities with each community.

The consultation record will be updated to reflect each communication and activity. A copy of the aggregate consultation record will be provided to regulators as required by the regulator and each Indigenous community will be provided with a copy of the record of consultation pertaining to that community concurrent with the submission to regulators. The consultation record will include the following information relating to each engagement and consultation event or activity:

• date on which the communication, event or activity occurred; • method of communication: e.g. letter, e-mail, phone call, face-to-face; • identification of initiator and recipient of communication or in the case of a meeting, organizer

and participants attending at the meeting; • copy of or link to communication in the case of written communication as well as copy of/or link

to any other relevant documentation provided or generated as part of the communication, including all regulatory information provided, notices for community meetings, draft versions of all materials prepared for EA, summary of any resources and/or funding offered, requested/provided to the Indigenous community by Hydro One;

• summary of communication or in the case of a meeting, meeting notes; and, • identification of issues raised or discussed and any follow-up action or undertaking.

The Record of Consultation for the ToR and EA will be submitted under separate cover.

9.5 Documentation and Issues Resolution Strategy

Hydro One will develop an issues resolution strategy for the EA. Consultation/engagement with the various stakeholders and Indigenous communities is expected to be on-going throughout the EA and into the Project implementation phase. All comments and input received from the public, government agencies, and Indigenous communities will be documented in a summary table and included in the EA document as part of the Record of Consultation. The summary table will provide a response to each issue and how the issue was addressed. Where resolution of issues has not been possible, this will be noted along with a record of all attempts to resolve the issue. The EA will also include a consultation summary and a detailed record of comments received, and how HONI proposes to reasonably address any issues raised, how the relevant Indigenous community proposes to address it, the extent to which HONI and such community agree on how to address the issue, and any measures taken to date to address the issue. Such issues include any potential impacts on established or asserted Aboriginal or Treaty rights, as well as materials and documentation distributed to stakeholders.


10. References

CEAA, and MECP. 2007. “Federal/Provincial Environmental Assessment Coordination in Ontario.” June 2007. https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/ED4330AB-54FD-448B-B523-38B00187D618/Federal_Provincial_Guide_6260e.pdf.

Cieslewicz, Stephen R. 2004. “Regulating Utility Vegetation Management Activities.” http://www.ecosync.com/tdworld/Regulating%20UVM%20Activities%20-%20UAA%20Op-Ed%20Final%20(5).pdf.

DFO. 2007. “Overhead Line Construction.” 2007. http://registry.mvlwb.ca/Documents/MV2010L1-0001/MV2010L1-0001%20-%20Overhead%20Line%20Construction%20-%20May12-10.pdf.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017. “Lake Superior Drainage Basin Map.” Maps. 27 2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/great-lakes-protection/maps/lake-superior-drainage-basin.html.

Fitzsimmons, Kaley, and Maria Naccarato. 2010. “Riparian Zone Protocol.” http://acer-acre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Riparian-Zone-Protocol.pdf.

Hydro One. 2009. “Environmental Guidelines for the Construction and Maintenance of Transmission Facilities.”

IESO. 2013. “Achieving Balance Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan.” www.energy.gov.on.ca/fr/files/2014/10/LTEP_2013_English_WEB.pdf.

IESO. 2015. “Assessment of the Rationale for the East-West Tie Expansion Third Update Report.” www.rds.oeb.ca/HPECMWebDrawer/Record/519575/File/document.

IESO. 2017a. “Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan 2017.” 2017. https://files.ontario.ca/books/ltep2017_0.pdf.

IESO. 2017b. “Updated Assessment of the Need for the East-West Tie Expansion.” https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/Updated-Assessment-East-West-Tie-Expansion%20Dec%201-2017.pdf.

Ministry of Energy. 2016. “Order in Council EWT Project Priority.” Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA). 2011. “Places to Grow - Growth Plan for Northern Ontario.” 2011.

https://www.placestogrow.ca/images/pdfs/GPNO-final.pdf. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2014. “Provincial Policy Statement 2014.”

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10679.aspx. MNR. 1990. “Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings.”

https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/2782/access-roads-watercrossing.pdf. MECP. 1995. “Guidelines for Evaluating Construction Activities Impacting on Water Resources.” 1995.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/b-6-guidelines-evaluating-construction-activities-impacting-water-resources.

MECP. 2011. “Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects.” January 2011. https://www.ontario.ca/page/guide-environmental-assessment-requirements-electricity-projects.

MECP. 2014. “Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario.” January 2014. https://www.ontario.ca/page/preparing-and-reviewing-terms-reference-environmental-assessments-ontario.

MECP. 2015. “Air Quality in Ontario 2015 Report.” https://www.ontario.ca/document/air-quality-ontario-2015-report.


MECP. 2016. “Environment Assessment Process, Submission and Evaluation.” 2016. https://www.ontario.ca/document/preparing-and-reviewing-environmental-assessments-ontario/environment-assessment-process-submission-and-evaluation.

MECP. 2017. “Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources,” February. https://files.ontario.ca/management-approaches-for-industrial-fugitive-dust-sources.pdf.

Morissette, Julienne. 2014. “Best Management Practices for Wetland Crossing.” http://www.canards.ca/assets/2015/09/BMP_hydrolwaterqualitysynthesis_Final-1.pdf.

Northern Policy Institute. 2014. “Northern Policy Institute - Is Northern Ontario’s Population Aging, or Is It Just Getting Less Young?” 2014. http://www.northernpolicy.ca/article/is-northern-ontario%E2%80%99s-population-aging-or-is-it-just-getting-less-young-286.asp.

OEB. 2010. “Framework for Transmission Project Development Plans.” August 26, 2010. https://www.oeb.ca/oeb/_Documents/EB-2010-0059/Framework_Transmission_Project_Dev_Plans_20100826.pdf.

Ontario Biodiversity Council. 2010. State of Ontario’s Biodiversity 2010: Highlights Report : A Report of the Ontario Biodiversity Council. Toronto: Ontario Biodiversity Council.

OPA. 2011. “Long Term Electricity Outlook for the Northwest and Context for the East-West Tie Expansion.” https://www.oeb.ca/OEB/_Documents/.../EWT_OPA%20_Report_20110630.pdf.

Phair, C., Henson, B.L., and Brodribb, K.E. (2005). Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Aquatic Biodiversity. Volume 2: Tertiary Watershed Summaries.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2014. “Debris Removal for Culvert Maintenance.” January 27, 2014. https://trca.ca/app/uploads/2016/02/Debris_Removal_for_Culvert_Maintenance___Exemptions_-_Jan_27_2014.pdf.


Appendix 1 – List of Preliminary Criteria and Indicators


Environment Criteria Indicators Preliminary Potential Effects

Rationale for Selection of

Indicator

Data Source

Natural Environment

Wetlands, Watercourses and Water bodies

Area of Provincially Significant, Non-provincially significant and Unevaluated Wetlands crossed

Sedimentation / Erosion Fish injury and mortality Changes to habitat connectivity Riparian habitat degradation Changes to hydrology

Provincial designation Potential for short and long-term effects on wetland habitats

MNRF NHIC Desktop studies Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge Field studies if required

Natural Environment

Fish and Aquatic habitat

Number of watercourses crossed Species types

Sedimentation / Erosion Fish injury and mortality Changes to habitat connectivity Riparian habitat degradation Changes to hydrology

Potential for short and long-term effects on aquatic habitats


Natural Environment

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs)

Area of Provincially Significant ANSIs crossed

Alteration or degradation of habitat quality Contravention of regulator policy

Provincial designation Potential for short and long-term effects on natural features


Natural Environment

Species at risk (SAR)

Number and type of SAR including regionally and locally rare species

Changes to SAR populations Loss of important SAR habitat

Provincial designation Potential for short and long-term effects on SAR or their habitat

MNRF NHIC Desktop studies Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge Field studies if required.


Natural Environment

Terrestrial wildlife and wildlife habitat

Area of significant wildlife habitat crossed Area of greenfield impacted

Changes to wildlife populations Loss, availability and fragmentation of wildlife habitat Changes to movement corridors Injury, mortality or displacement of wildlife Fragmentation/linear disturbance

Potential for short- and long-term effects on significant wildlife habitat

MNRF NHIC Desktop studies Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge Field studies if required Eco Region Criteria Schedules 3E and 3W

Natural Environment

Forests, vegetation and woodlands

Areas of forest management units, woodlots, and vegetation assemblages. Area of greenfield impacted Forest Management Plans

Changes to vegetation community assemblages Changes to fringe habitat areas Invasive species in succession areas Reduction of treed areas Fragmentation/linear disturbance

Potential for short- and long-term effects on forests, vegetation and woodlands


Natural Environment

Hazard lands Area of Hazard Lands crossed

Damage to assets Danger to individuals

Potential for project effects on natural heritage features

Lakehead Region Conservation Authority MNRF Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge Desktop studies Field studies if required


Natural Environment

Migratory birds Areas of migratory bird flyways, feeding habitat and resting areas.

Reduction of habitat for migratory birds Changes to migratory bird flyways Interaction between Project infrastructure and migratory birds

Potential for short- and long-term effects on migratory birds and their habitat

NHIC MNRF MECP Bird Studies Canada ECCC Desktop studies Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge Field studies if required.

Natural Environment

Air Quality Vehicle emissions Dust emissions Greenhouse gas emissions

Changes to local air quality Cumulative effects on air-quality

Potential for short and cumulative effects on air quality

MECP Desktop studies Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge

Natural Environment

Parks and Conservation Reserve areas

Area of Federal, Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Area of local parks Number and area of conservation areas

Disruption of recreational users Compatibility with park and conservation policies.

Identify and protect natural and recreational features

MNRF MECP Parks Canada Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge Municipalities Lakehead Region Conservation Authority Desktop studies


Socio-Economic Environment

Existing land use and development

Existing uses and types Sub-division and development plans

Land use compatibility. Land use compatibility. Compatibility with sub-division and development plans

Municipal planning and zoning information Stakeholder consultation Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge MNRF MMAH MTCS Parks Canada Desktop studies


Commercial activities

Tourism related activities Local employment

Disruption to commercial activities Increased commercial activity due to construction Increased employment opportunities

Potential to disrupt or displace tourist attractions and remote tourism businesses Potential to increase competition for skilled employees

Stakeholder engagement Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge MNRF MTCS Business Operators MMAH Parks Canada Desktop studies



Potential effect on Mineral and aggregate resources

Area of significant aggregate deposits Area of mines within the study area (Ha) Number of mining claims within the study area Area of pits/quarries within the study area (Ha)

Availability of electricity for mining and aggregate industries Disruption to mining and aggregate operations

Potential effects may occur on existing aggregate deposits Potential effects may occur on mining operations Potential effects may occur on the mineral exploration industry. Potential effects may occur on pits/quarries operation

Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines (MENDM) MNRF Ontario's Land Information Directory (OLID) database Owners Desktop studies Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge


Community profile Number of potential property removals (buyouts) Number of potential diagonal severances of properties Number of potentially affected properties

Displacement of people Displacement of businesses Disruption of property usage Trail systems (i.e. canoe routes, snowmobile, hiking, etc.)

Hydro One Policy prohibits homes or family residences from being located within the proposed widened ROW. Diagonal crossings are considered more disruptive because they limit other uses of land Crossings of properties are disruptive to family residences and businesses

Hydro One Real Estate GIS shape files Desktop studies Site visits if required Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge



Community services

Number of health care facilities Number of educational facilities Number of other important community facilities

Increased usage of community services Usage of waste management services

Potential for Project to disrupt or displace facilities Potential for Project to disrupt or displace educational facilities Potential for Project to disrupt or displace facilities.

Local health department School boards Local road mapping Site visits if required Desktop studies Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge


Landscape and visual assessment

Number of residences, farm residences within EA prescribed distance from the ROW or as required for viewscape analysis. Number of trails, waterways, and roads crossed

Impacts to visual quality Proximity of the widened ROW to residents and recreational users (of scenic landscapes/features) could potentially affect viewer expectations in the vicinity of the lines.

MNRF Lakehead Region Conservation Authority Municipalities Heritage Advisory Committees Stakeholder Consultation Site visits if required Desktop studies Indigenous Consultation and Traditional Knowledge


Recreational facilities (camp ground, park, sport field, golf course)

Number of trails (segments)Number of recreational facilities

Disruption of recreational users Disruption of recreational facilities and lands

Identify and protect natural recreational features

MNRF MECP Municipalities Lakehead Region Conservation Authority Desktop studies Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge


Cultural and Built Environment

Cultural Heritage Resources

Archaeological assessments Built heritage Cultural heritage landscape Churches and cemeteries

Damage or loss to cultural heritage resources.

MTCS requirements Potential effects on cultural heritage resources.

MTCS database Existing cultural heritage assessments Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge Archaeological report Municipal heritage groups Heritage planners Desktop studies

Cultural and Built Environment

Traditional/Indigenous Land Use

Use, identification of, and access to, traditionally important land uses by Indigenous communities Number of First Nation reserves crossed

Disruption to traditional land uses Disruption of First Nation reserve lands

Potential effects on traditional and Indigenous land use.

Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge

Technical Considerations

Safety and Reliability

Duration and impacts of line outages Compliance with codes Compatibility with existing network

Duration and impacts of line outages Safety of new infrastructure

Safety and reliability are primary technical and social concern for all infrastructure

Hydro One safety standards Energy regulators



Constructability Linearity Terrain and soil stability Local design considerations

Potential effects on construction timeline Potential effects on construction budget Potential effects on construction design and feasibility

Constructability is a key technical consideration for the Project

Engineering and design Industry standards Energy regulators


Budget Land costs Construction capital costs Operations and maintenance cost

Potential effects on cost Providing value to ratepayers is a significant technical consideration.

Hydro OneEnergy regulators


Location Alternative methods to the undertaking Utilization of existing ROWs Length of route Minimizing direction changes

Potential effects on environment Potential effects on budget

Location impacts people, environment and business.

Hydro One Energy regulators Stakeholder consultation


Access Access roads Aerial access Property rights

Potential delays in schedule and additional cost Potential impacts to material and labour supply

Access informs constructability, budget, location and operations and maintenance.

Hydro One Engineering and design



Interactions with other infrastructure

Number of natural gas pipelines Number of roads crossed Number of railways crossed (segments) Number of airports within EA prescribed distance of the ROW centerlineNumber of transmission circuits crossed

Increased crossings of Infrastructure Disruptions to infrastructure during construction Infrastructure compatibility

Potential effects on utility pipelines operations and maintenance Potential effects on the driving public, aesthetic and visual Potential effects can occur on railway lands and crossings due to the widened ROW towers, span and overhead clearance Transport Canada requirements for distance separation between transmission routes and runways

Utility companies GIS shape files Rail company Municipalities Site visits if required Local municipalities Private airport operators Transport Canada


Appendix 2 – OEB - OPA - IESO Supporting Documentation

https://www.hydroone.com/abouthydroone/CorporateInformation/majorprojects/lakesuperiorlink/Documents/Hydro%20One%20LSL%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20OPA-IESO-OEB%20Supporting%20Documentation.pdf

https://www.hydroone.com/abouthydroone/CorporateInformation/majorprojects/lakesuperiorlink/Documents/Hydro%20One%20LSL%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20OPA-IESO-OEB%20Supporting%20Documentation.pdf


Appendix 3 – Commitments Made During ToR Consultation Period

Agency No. Agency Comment Hydro One Commitment Commitment Status

Category

Algoma District School Board

40 “The Terms of reference did not disclose the precise location of the transmission lines and its proximity to ADSB’s schools. ADSB needs to know the proposed location of the transmission line relative to our schools.”

Hydro One will, during the Environmental Assessment, evaluate the location of ADSB schools relative to the project footprint and consult with ADSB on the matter.

In Progress Socio-Economic, Stakeholder Engagement

Dorion Township

32 “Dorion Council and a committee appointed by Council, the Dorion Concerned Citzens Committee [DCCC], met several times over the past four years with Nextbridge to agree upon a route [The “Dorion Bypass”] that would have minimal impact on our community, compared to a line parallel to an existing line, which would have a negative impact on our residential and agriculture area.”

Hydro One, in the Environmental Assessment, will be considering all consultation that has been undertaken with the Township of Dorion and the Dorion Concerned Citizens Committee.

In Progress Stakeholder Engagement

Dorion Township

33 “We are pleased that Hydro One’s preferred route follows the route that the Township and Nextbridge agreed upon.”

Hydro One’s reference route (preferred route) follows the “Dorion Bypass” and will be carried forward into the Environmental Assessment.

In Progress Alternatives Assessment

Dorion Township

34 “We are concerned that the line paralleling the existing line through our community is now being studied as a new Reference Route Alternative. This would negatively affect at least 22 landowners and will put our residents at risk.”

Comment is noted. In response to concerns raised during the draft Terms of Reference review it was determined that the Reference Route Alternative requires further study during the Environmental Assessment to better evaluate route alternatives.


Dorion Township

35 “We have attached a 2014 municipal resolution outlining the reasons why we do not want a transmission line going through our community.”

The 2014 municipal resolution will be included in the Record of Consultation of the Terms of Reference and will be considered in the Environmental Assessment.


Dorion Township

36 “In summary, the Reference Route is acceptable to the affected property onwers and the Dorion Council, not only for the present but for the long term; the Reference Route Alternative is not.”

Comment is noted and included in the Record of Consultation of the Terms of Reference and will be considered in the Environmental Assessment.


Environment & Climate Change Canada

31 “ECCC’s review is focused on components of the project that cross federal lands. We are able to provide input to the proponent on baseline surveys for wildlife, and would like review the draft EA Report and final EA Report.”

Comment is noted. Hydro One will continue to consult with Environment & Climate Change Canada moving forward through the Environmental Assessment.


Environment and Climate Change Canada

ECCC - 1 Existing Environmental Conditions in the Study Area (page 51 of the draft ToR), it is explained that Hydro One will use the information from the East-West Tie EA where there is an overlap of study area. This section goes on to advise that Hydro One has performed a gap analysis to identify where there is a need to verify or collect data to complete the existing environmental description, and field studies are underway to fill in the identified gaps. To complement the gap analysis and work being undertaken as a result, ECCC recommends that Hydro One complete the necessary environmental field studies in relation to migratory birds and species at risk that have not been completed by NextBridge, in particular with respect to the First Nation reserve lands (specifically Pays Plat and Michipicoten First Nations) being crossed by the project.

Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the project, Hydro One will not duplicate these studies, but instead use publicly available information to inform assessment efforts. Hydro One will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements. The current preliminary focus of field surveys includes Pukaskwa National Park, the transmission corridor between Wawa and Marathon, the Dorion area, temporary and permanent access roads, laydown areas, fly yards and any additional areas identified as a concern. Hydro One will continue to engage regulators to ensure the baseline data is adequate for the EA. Studies of migratory birds and species at risk with respect to the First Nation reserve lands (specifically Pays Plat and Michipicoten First Nations) proposed to be crossed by the Project will be conducted based on a gap analysis of available data and consultation agreement with First Nations. The data gathered would be used to satisfy CEAA 2012 and ISC requirements.

In Progress Data Collection


ECCC – 3 We also note that in Appendix 2 – List of Preliminary Criteria and Indicators, it is important to include engagement of the First Nation communities as a data source where appropriate.

Engagement of Indigenous communities as a data source has been added where appropriate including identifying Criteria and Indicators of importance to communities for the assessment of potential project effects.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation


ECCC – 4 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it is mentioned that the Project may require federal approvals or authorizations where the transmission route crosses federal lands. Please be advised that a permit may be required from ECCC under the Species at Risk Act for the works occurring on the First Nation reserve lands. It is further stated on page 21 that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) does not apply to the project, as it is not considered a designated project. However, further down it is acknowledged CEAA 2012 does apply as Parks Canada will require “completion of either a Basic or Detailed Impact Assessment under Section 67 of the CEA Act” ECCC advises that Section 67 of CEAA 2012 would also apply should the project require ECCC to issue a SARA permit, and will also be required by Indigenous Services Canada to support their authorization for the use of First Nation reserve lands.

Hydro One will continue to engage federal agencies throughout the project to ensure all required permits and authorizations are obtained in a timely manner. The text has been revised to acknowledge Section 67 authorizations will be required from Parks Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, as well as ECCC should a SARA permit be required for works on Federal lands.

In Progress Permitting


ECCC – 5 It is also stated in Section 7 – Effects Evaluation and Mitigation, on page 62, that “the EA will recommend pre- and post-operational monitoring programs designed to verify effects prediction, the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the need for any remedial measures, should they be necessary”. ECCC wishes to stress the importance that these monitoring programs, once developed, focus on the individual species as well as the surrounding landscape.

Comment noted; no change required. Environmental monitoring programs will be developed and implemented by Hydro One to verify the effects predicted, the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the need for any remedial measures, if necessary. Specific and focussed monitoring programs may also be developed for species at risk, where permits are required under federal and/or provincial legislation (i.e. Species At Risk Act).

In Progress Environmental Monitoring

Lakehead Region Conservation Authority

26 “The proposed project is within the Township of Dorion and the Municipality of Shuniah, which are both member municipalities of the Authority.” “In general, any development (i.e. temporary or permanent water crossings) within or adjacent to the shore-zone and/or river or creek bank may require a permit under the Authority’s Regulations, within the Area of Jurisdiction of the Lakehead Region Conservation Authortity”

Comments are noted. Lakehead Region Conservation Authority will be consulted with during the Environmental Assessment process


MECP – EAPB Special Project Officer

MECP – EAPB Special Project Officer - 88

MECP – 88 Section 9.3.1, page 92-94 of the final ToR: • Please include a summary of the results of consultation with members of the public and government agencies. Although the results of this consultation can be found in the Record of Consultation, it is important to bring a summary forward into the main body of the ToR. In particular, you should highlight any commitments made with members of the public and government agencies during the preparation of the ToR. Section 9.3.2, page 94-95 of the final ToR: Were there any commitments made with Indigenous communities during the preparation of the ToR? If so please include those commitments in section 9.3.2 of the final ToR document. In general, all commitments made during the preparation of the ToR should be contained within the ToR document because it is this document that the Minister will make a decision. One option could be to include a table that lists all commitments. The table format is an efficient and effective way of keeping track of the commitments for future reference.

A summary of consultation has been added to Section 9.3.1. A summary of commitments made to Indigenous communities has been added to Section 9.3.2. A commitments table will be developed for the ToR following completion of the public review period.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Commitments

MECP – Indigenous Consultation AdvisorMECP – Sault Ste. Marie Area Office Environmental Officer

MECP – Sault Ste. Marie Area Office Environmental Officer - 1

Permit to Take WaterA Permit to Take Water (PTTW) under Section 47.1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) may be required should dewatering and the taking of water for construction activities that result in the taking of water in excess of 50,000 litres per day. Some construction activities may fall under the EASR (Environmental Activity and Sector Registry) permitting. The operation of a batch concrete plant may also require a PTTW (in addition to other permitting (Air and Industrial Sewage)

Water requirements for construction will be further assessed during the EA. Hydro One will obtain the necessary approvals should a PTTW be required.

In Progress Water, Permitting

MECP – Northern Region EA Coordinator.

MECP – Northern Region EA Coordinator - 1

Acoustic Environment: Section 5.3.9 Noise generation from transformer facilities is a common objection from the public. The complaints are based on volume and frequency of noise. With the remoteness of some parts of this project, ambient noise levels are typically very low and any new noise source appears amplified. A commitment to monitor noise levels in sensitive land use areas beyond daytime periods (given that some work could potentially occur during night time and weekend hours, [section 4.2.1, pg. 40]) should be made.

Mitigation measures for the acoustic environment will be developed for all phases of the Project during the EA process.

In Progress Noise, Mitigation Measures

MECP – Northern Region EA Coordinator.


Economy, Resource, Commercial and Industrial Activities: Section 5.4.2 The EA should address the potential effects of this project on the sectors mentioned in this section in terms of land use compatibility. Guideline D-1 applies when a new facility is proposed by an existing sensitive land use that may be within the facility’s potential influence area. A “sensitive land use” is defined broader than residences and may. Include: facilities where people sleep or institutions such as hospitals, schools, camp grounds; agricultural operations; and bird/wildlife habitats or sanctuaries (Procedure D-1-3). Procedure D-1-1 refers to “distances from sensitive land use(s) and/or all existing and committed sensitive land use within the facilities influence area or potential influence area” (sec. 1.3.2 b i). The proponent is responsible for evaluating the impacts before and after mitigation. The types of studies and potential for any exemptions are outlined in Procedure D-1-1, section 2 and Procedure D-1-2.

Land use compatibility is listed as a under existing land use and development. The EA will assess compatibility of development and land use with surrounding socio-economic and natural environments.

In Progress Land Use

MECP – Northern Region EA Coordinator


[in response to MECP 4] Please indicate whom the inquiries were made to. Please indicate, in the EA, which local landfills and waste management companies will be handling this volume of additional waste.

Inquiries for metal recycling capacity on the order of approximately 500MT were submitted to Harbour Metals Recycling Ltd. and Triple M Metal. Waste management locations and procurement will be further developed in the EA.

In Progress Waste Management

MECP – Sault Ste. Marie Area Office Environmental Officer

MECP – Sault Ste. Marie Area Office Environmental Officer - 3

Waste The management of solid non-hazardous waste should be well considered prior to the start of the project. As several of municipal waste site locations within the project area are experience capacity issues, arrangements with municiaplities should be conducted prior to the start of construction activities. Also, vehicles transporting solid non-hazardous waste to the municipal sites may require registration on the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR). If dealing with hazardous or liquid industrial wastes, registration on the Ministry’s Hazardous Waste Information Network (HWIN) will be required, as will the proper storage, transport and disposal of hazardous and liquid industrial waste. Furthermore, the establishment of a Spills Prevention and Contingency for the

Waste management will be assessed during the EA and will address management and transportation of hazardous and non-hazardous materials.

In Progress Waste management

project should be undertaken.

Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade

MEDJCT - 2 In the final paragraph on page 66, it is noted:“Nothern Ontario communities rely on a resource extraction economy with a focus on forestry and mining. These sectors are dominated by large industrial employers in the region. These industrial complexes rely on a consistent supply of electricity.”Hydro One may wish to consider expanding on this statement by highlighting the fact that these large resource industry complexes draw on supply chains that extend to Southern Ontario, for structural materials and products, machinery, equipment, engineering and financial services, among other inputs.

Relationships between commercial and industrial activity in the Project region and other areas such as Southern Ontario will be further assessed and described during the EA process

In Progress Socio-economic

Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines

28 Mine Hazards Comments are noted, provided to appropriate lines of business within Hydro One and will be further considered during the Environmental Assessment process.



29 "…the proponent must obtain consent to the dispositions of the surface rights from the claim holder and provide the ministry with such consent…”

All appropriate consents and approvals will be obtained by Hydro One and necessary information provided to MENDM.



30 Geology and Mineral Resource Potential The information provided by MENDM will be integrated into the Environmental Assessment. In Progress ToR/EA Documentation


MENDM – 1 The Ministry’s Regional Economic Development Branch (REDB) has been working with Supercom, a group of First Nations that have partnered with NextBridge on their proposed East- West Tie transmission line. REDB has supported Supercom in negotiating funding through the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development for training for Supercom communities in preparation for the opportunities associated with the construction and the spin-off business development opportunities of the East-West tie development. If the Ontario Energy Board approves Hydro One’s proposal the training for the communities will remain relevant. As well, the ministry expects that a partnership with Supercom would be facilitated by Hydro One. REDB would continue to support the communities’ needs related to economic development and training through programming and partnerships with other ministries.

Hydro One is committed to engaging all 18 Indigenous communities throughout the Project to discuss training, economic and employment opportunities that may be available.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Economics


MENDM – 2 MENDM has identified 21 Abandoned Mine Information System (AMIS) sites (with 61 associated mine hazard features) under the jurisdiction of the Mining Act within 1 km of the study area. There are also two (2) AMIS sites (with three (3) associated AMIS features under the jurisdiction of the Aggregate Resources Act. All of these sites are classified as Type C sites (see Attachment 1). Within a 2-4 km buffer of the study area there are an additional 50 AMIS sites (with 132 associated mine hazard features)

Hydro One will assess the data provided to confirm all abandoned mines that may be located within the vicinity of the project study area. Mitigation and/or avoidance measures will be identified in the EA, if required, to avoid any potential known or unknown mine hazards that may pose a serious risk to public safety, human health and the environment.

In Progress Mining

under the jurisdiction of the Mining Act and two (2) AMIS sites (with two (2) associated mine hazard features) under the jurisdiction of the Aggregate Resources Act. Known and unknown mine hazards have the potential to pose a serious risk to public safety, human health and the environment.


MENDM – 3 The ministry’s review of MLAS indicates that there is an unpatented mining claim located within the proposed withdrawal area. Overall, the ministry has no objections to the withdrawal as long as the necessary consent(s) are obtained from the claim holder(s) pursuant to Section 51 of the Mining Act.Therefore the proponent must obtain consent to the dispositions of the surface rights from the claim holder and provide the ministry with such consent.

Hydro One has identified and notified all potentially directly impacted property owners of the proposed project. Directly impacted property owners will be offered the choice of Hydro One acquiring either an easement or the fee simple interest in the lands required for the Project. Should consent to the disposition of surface rights from the claim holder be provided to Hydro One, the Ministry will be informed of such consent.

In Progress Mining, Real Estate


MECP - 1 Supporting documentation is needed to confirm or validate any statements or conclusions made in the draft ToR.

Supporting document package to be provided with ToR. Complete ToR/EA Documentation


MECP - 2 No Record of Consultation was provided with the draft ToR for the ministry’s review. Record of consultation will be provided with the ToR. Complete ToR/EA Documentation


MECP - 3 No executive summary was provided in the draft ToR. Please include an executive summary at the beginning of the final ToR document.

Executive summary has been provided with the ToR document. Complete ToR/EA Documentation


MECP - 5 please include a commitment in the ToR that specifies the EA will consider climate change (adaptation and mitigation) and cumulative effects in the evaluation and assessment of alternatives and the preferred undertaking.

The EA will consider climate change adaptation and mitigation and cumulative effects in the evaluation and assessment of alternatives and the preferred undertaking.

In Progress Climate Change


MECP - 65 In accordance with Section 5.2.5 of the Code of Practice, the “Do Nothing” alternative should always be considered. It acts as a starting point for the comparison of alternatives.

The Do Nothing alternative will be considered. Text has been revised to reflect this approach. In Progress Alternative Assessment


MECP – 78 Section 4.7.2, general The heading for this section should include “Maintenance” (i.e. operation and maintenance). Does the Transmission Vegetation Management Program apply to this project? If so please provide further information. Revise heading accordingly. Please provide any additional information in this section of the ToR.

A Transmission Vegetation Management Program developed within Hydro One will apply to the operation and maintenance of the corridor.

In Progress Environmental Plan


MECP – 86 Section 5.2, page 39 These bullet points are describing the consultation and engagement activities planned for the project during the EA process. To improve clarity and flow of the ToR document, it would be more appropriate for this information to be moved and incorporated into to the list in Section 5.5.1. In addition, the last bullet point should remove reference to “draft and final ToR”. Any consultation and engagement activities related to the preparation of the Terms of Reference should be described in Section 5.4. Also, the last bullet should specify that documents will be made available to government agencies and Indigenous communities for review, in addition to the public. Revise this section accordingly.

Draft and final ToR and EA documents will be distributed to government agencies, key interest groups, and municipal officials and staff of communities along the project route

In Progress ToR/EA Documentation


MECP – 89 Section 5.5.1, page 45 The review of a draft EA document should be its own separate bullet point. Revise this section accordingly.

Review of a Draft EA document – Hydro One will notify stakeholders, government agencies, Indigenous communities and other interested parties on the contact list that the Draft EA document is available for review.



MECP - 100 Section 6.1.8, generalPlease specify that potential project emission sources will be evaluated against regulatory standards in the EA.Revise text accordingly.

Potential Project emission sources will be evaluated against regulatory standards in the EA. In Progress Air Quality


MECP - 101 Section 6.1.9, general Please specify that potential noise emission sources will be evaluated against regulatory standards in the EA. Revise text accordingly.

Potential noise emission sources will be evaluated against regulatory standards in the EA. In Progress Noise


MECP - 104 Section 6.2.5, general Refer to comments from Peter Brown, Indigenous Consultation Advisor, Client Services and Permissions Branch, MECP. Indigenous community-specific criteria and indicators may be required for the evaluation of alternatives and assessment of the preferred undertaking. Please include a commitment in the ToR that specifies criteria and indicators of relevance to Indigenous communities will be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities. Revise text accordingly.

Criteria and indicators of relevance to Indigenous communities will be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities.

In Progress Criteria and Indicators, Indigenous Consultation


MECP - 118 Section 8, general In accordance with Section 5.2.8 of the ministry’s Code of Practice, the ToR must include a statement that the EA will include a comprehensive list of commitments made by the proponent during the ToR process, and where or how they have been dealt with in the EA. Furthermore, the EA will include a comprehensive list of commitments made by the proponent during the EA process; including all commitments relating to impact management measures, additional works and studies to be carried out, monitoring, consultation and contingency planning, and documentation and correspondence. As such, consider incorporating a new subsection in Section 8 of the ToR that speaks to ‘commitments’ and references these requirements. Revise this section accordingly.

Added section on commitments: In accordance with Section 5.2.8 of the Ministry’s Code of Practice, the EA will include a comprehensive list of commitments made by Hydro One during the ToR process, and where or how they have been dealt with in the EA. Furthermore, the EA will include a comprehensive list of commitments made by Hydro One during the EA process; including all commitments relating to impact management measures, additional works and studies to be carried out, monitoring, consultation and contingency planning, and documentation and correspondence.



MECP - 122 Please also indicate that consultation on a draft Indigenous consultation plan for the EA will occur with all identified Indigenous communities

Consultation on a draft Indigenous consultation plan for the EA will occur with all identified Indigenous communities.



MECP - 126 Commitments to consider Traditional or Indigenous Knowledge for each environmental component are not clear. Indigenous community- specific criteria and indicators may also be required to address specific concerns or requests. This is an important part of the EA process and requires further clarification.

In Appendix 1, Indigenous consultation is listed as an information source for the criteria and indicators. Clarified throughout the document that Indigenous consultation is a key component of evaluation of alternatives, mitigations and assessment of the environment throughout the EA process. Information obtained through consultation will be used in developing indicators and measures for effects on all criteria and indicators.

In Progress Criteria and Indicators, Indigenous Consultation


MECP - 129 Section 7.1 Within the section of evaluation of potential effects on the natural environment, air quality was not included. There is a potential air quality effects during the construction of the project due to construction activities, especially for the fugitive dust. Consider the potential air quality effects from the construction activities, especially for the potential receptors near the transmission line, air quality impact assessment should be conducted and included in the environment assessment.

Dust and noise from construction are controlled with appropriate mitigation measures and environmental best management practices. Potential air quality effects from construction activities, especially for the potential receptors near the transmission line will be considered. Air quality impact assessment will be conducted and included in the environment assessment.

In Progress Noise, Air Quality


MECP - 130 Appendix 2 Air quality was not included in the list of preliminary criteria and indicators. Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions should be considered and included in the list of criteria and indicators to assess the environmental impacts of the project.

Appendix 1 has been modified to include air quality and greenhouse gases. In Progress Air Quality, Criteria and Indicators


MECP - 132 Soil Contamination (Sec. 7.1, pg. 62; Sec. 7.3, pg. 66):Please provide an approach for determining if and when assessing or managing soil contamination may be considered. While this may not be a significant concern, a complete assessment should consider the potential for soil contamination concerns and outline how they may be addressed. The Guide on Site Assessment, the cleanup of Brownfield Sites and the Filing of Record of Site Condition can provide some direction.

The issue of soil compaction and measures to mitigate effects on soil permeability, drainage and hydraulic balance will be addressed in the EA. The potential for soil contamination will be considered and the Guide on Site Assessment, the cleanup of Brownfield Sites and the Filing of Record of Site Condition will be consulted to determine the most appropriate course of action.

In Progress Soil, Contamination


MECP - 134 Human Health (Sec. 6.2.6, pg. 59):Please provide detail on how noise, air and water quality will be assessed and managed either by linking these to other sections of the ToR (Sec. 6.1.8, Sec. 6.1.9, Sec. 6.1.2) or by adding details into this section. This section commits to only providing baseline conditions and potential effects for EMF’s. There are other human health issues that need to be addressed.

Human Health concerns will be addressed in the EA. In addressing potential health issues, Hydro One looks to the scientific expertise of Health Canada to assess the scientific studies and provide advice and guidance. Potential changes in surface water, air quality and noise due to Project activities can act as pathways to potential effects on human health. These criteria will be drawn upon to inform human health concern assessments in the EA.

In Progress Health


MECP - 137 The study area in the EA should include 500 m on either side of the Reference Route and Alternative Routes. Project-specific potential environmental effects on groundwater resources are likely to occur within this area. For locations where extensive blasting is required, this distance may need to be increased.

The Study Area can be broken up into three components: the Project Study Area (PSA), Local Study Area (LSA) and Regional Study Area (RSA). For the general purposes of Lake Superior Link, PSA is 500 m on either side of the ROW for reference route and alternative routes; LSA is 1 km from Reference Route boundary/ROW; and the RSA is approximately 5 km from the boundary of LSA. However, LSAs and RSAs aren’t always consistent for each environmental factor. For example, study areas for the socio-economic assessment will be defined by criterion-specific LSAs and RSAs. A more detailed description of the study area and how the study area boundaries were determined will be provided in the EA.

In Progress Study Area


MECP - 139 To reduce risk to groundwater, a desktop study and door-to-door survey should be conducted prior to construction to determine local groundwater conditions, and location of water supply wells. Should the study reveal shallow groundwater conditions, or water supply wells located within the vicinity of the transmission corridor, mitigation measures should be proposed to avoid potential negative effects.

Wellhead protection areas, intake protection zones, highly vulnerable aquifers and significant groundwater recharge areas, source water protection documentation and relevant policies will be reviewed. The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with field work, where required, for characterization of groundwater quality, or measurements of water levels or drawdown of water wells.

In Progress Groundwater


MECP - 140 The EA should include a spill prevention and response plan, a waste management plan, and a blast management should blasting be required. The use of ammonium nitrate explosive in the vicinity of water supply wells should be avoided.

Commitments on blasting, spills, waste management and blast management are outlined in Section 6.5.

In Progress Spills, Blasting, Waste


MECP - 141 Section 7, page 61. The EA should identify potential effects, assess them, and recommend mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potential negative effects. Project activities which may impact groundwater resources such as during construction, operation and maintenance should be assessed. Including but not limited to, impact to water supply wells, potential contaminant discharges, disturbing pre-existing shallow contaminated soils, leaching of herbicides, managing precipitation and runoff, effects from dewatering, blasting, and artesian conditions.

Project activities which may impact groundwater resources such as during construction, operation and maintenance should be assessed. Including but not limited to, impact to water supply wells, potential contaminant discharges, disturbing pre-existing shallow contaminated soils, leaching of herbicides, managing precipitation and runoff, effects from dewatering, blasting, and artesian conditions. The issue of soil compaction and measures to mitigate effects on soil permeability, drainage and hydraulic balance will be addressed in the EA.

In Progress Groundwater


MECP - 142 The environmental impacts to surface water quantity and quality from transmission line construction are generally limited to access road construction and RoW clearing. The potential long-term operational impacts are related primarily to increased erosion and sedimentation as well as short-term increases in water level or “flashy” stream flows due to access roads and the cleared RoW. There is also the potential that removal of tree cover in the RoW and changes in stream flows and water levels may increase concentrations of certain chemical constituents, stream temperature and suspended solids in receiving water. However, most, if not all, operational impacts to surface water quantity and quality may be mitigated by utilizing best management practices (BMPs) during the construction phase of the Project and by the inclusion of riparian vegetation buffer strips and erosion control measures along streams that intersect the RoW to attenuate runoff from the RoW, reduce sedimentation and erosion and provide shade cover thereby reducing stream temperature.

Detailed mitigation measures for potential effects on surface water will be developed during the EA and are addressed in Section 7.

In Progress Surface Water


MECP - 143 As the Lake Superior Link project moves forward, uncertainty can be reduced by making conservative assumptions, planning implementation of effective mitigation and monitoring measures and using available adaptive management measures to address potential unforeseen circumstances should they arise. Mitigation measures need to be based on proven and recognized best management practices, standard protocols for stream crossings, land clearing and/or working near water with machinery that are well understood and have been applied to road (and transmission line) construction projects throughout northern Ontario.

Detailed mitigation measures for potential effects on surface water will be developed during the EA and are addressed in Section 7.



MECP - 144 The Project must be carried out in compliance with the best management practices for road construction and operation and will be constructed in accordance with the guidelines listed on page 63 of the Draft LSL ToR as well as Crown Land Bridge Management Guidelines (MNR 2008), Northern Land Use Guidelines – Access: Roads and Trails (INAC 2010) and Fish-Stream Crossing Guidebook (B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, B.C. Ministry of Environment and Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012). It is recommended that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Water Quality Guideline for the Protection of Aquatic Life for suspended sediment and turbidity be followed where bankside, in- stream and/or dewatering work is required. Trigger/threshold values should be established and sampling should occur in potential sensitive receivers before, during and after such work is undertaken. It is also recommended that the following Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications be included to the requirements related to road, bridge and ancillary area construction: • Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS 805) – Construction Specifications for Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures • Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS 182) – General specifications for Environmental Protection for Construction in Waterbodies and on Waterbody Banks • Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS 518) – Construction Specifications for Control of Water from Dewatering Operations

All of the mentioned best management practices, guidelines, standards and guidebooks have been implemented into Section 6.5. Sediment and erosion control measures will be identified and addressed in the EA document. This includes identification of areas where soil or other factors could affect the effectiveness of those measures. Trigger/threshold values will be established for suspended sediment and turbidity be followed where bankside, in-stream and/or dewatering work is required. Sampling will occur in potential sensitive receivers before, during and after such work is undertaken.

In Progress Surface Water, Aquatic Environment

Ministry of MECP - 90 Section 9.4.2, page 90-93 of the revised draft ToR: If requested, Hydro One will develop tailored consultation plans for specific Indigenous In Progress Indigenous

Environment, Conservation and Parks

· To improve clarity, please include a statement that the standalone Consultation Plan will be developed and refined in consultation with Indigenous communities and the Plan will be submitted to MECP for review prior to initiating the EA. · In addition, please include a statement that if requested, Hydro One may need to develop individual consultation plans that are tailored to specific Indigenous communities.

communities. In addition to the tailored consultation approach for Indigenous communities, all public consultation processes and specific consultation activities outlined in 9.4.2 and throughout Section 9 will be available to Indigenous communities.

Consultation, Consultation Plan


MECP - 123 The response is insufficient. Please include in Section 9.3 a summary of issues (comments, questions, concerns) raised by Indigenous communities (e.g., from meetings, written comments, etc.) and how they are or will be addressed. The complete record of consultation can be appended to the ToR, but a summary should be included in the main body of the ToR (see original July 26, 2018 comments).

Text has been added to 9.3 to address consultation and summary of issues. In Progress ToR/EA Documentation


MECP - 132 In addition to those guidelines and BMPs listed in Section 6.5.1, Hydro One commits to consulting with the Guide on Site Assessment, the cleanup of Brownfield Sites and the Filing of Record of Site Condition to determine the most appropriate course of action.

Hydro One has committed to taking into account Site Assessment into the EA. In Progress Contaminated Sites


MECP - 133 Hydro One has committed to verify existing noise sensitive land uses in the EA, including through ground-truthing, if required.

Hydro One has committed to assessing noise in the EA. In Progress Noise


MECP - 134 Hydro one has committed to addressing all aspects of Human Health concerns and will seek the expertise of Health Canada to assess the scientific studies and provide advice and guidance.Please discuss issues that may arise from potential changes in surface water, air quality and noise due to project activities, and assess in the EA. This section should reflect on more than solely EMFs, and their impacts on human health.

Comment noted. In Progress Human Health


MNRF - 2 General – Aggregate Impacts from Aggregate extraction should be mentioned in the EA under Environmental and Socio-Economic considerations. If the undertaking will require aggregate permits/licences to support infrastructure requirements the impacts, alternatives and mitigation should be presented within the EA. It should be noted that when planning locations for supporting infrastructure such as storage yards, laydown areas, construction offices etc. Existing Aggregate Permits are not to be selected as these are incompatible uses. Private Land in areas located in Wawa and Thunder Bay Districts is designated under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) necessitating a Licence under the ARA to operate a pit or quarry on private land in these areas. The EA must consider aggregate sources required for construction of the proposed undertaking. Through assessment of aggregate requirements a determination that new aggregate permits/licences is needed, it is advised that description and assessment of the quantities of material, area of aggregate sites (size) and locations of proposed sites occur at the EA stage. Within Tables 7-9, aggregate extraction should be identified under project activity to ensure that the EA addresses and assesses impacts and potential effects to Socio-Economic, Natural and Cultural & Built environments as part of the proposed undertaking. MNRF is available to further discuss ARA requirements and considerations if required.

Comment noted. The requirement for aggregate extraction is yet to be determined and will be further assessed during the EA process and construction planning. Hydro One will comply with regulations such as the Aggregate Resources Act and land rights around aggregate extraction.



MNRF - 3 General – SAR When planning and developing the EA, consideration of species at risk and their habitat is required at the EA stage. Please take into consideration disturbances on the landscape (linear, access, maintenance etc.), avoidance alternatives assessment and impacts to Caribou and other species at risk. The EA should provide understanding as to how these species and their habitats were assessed and considered within the design of the proposed undertaking.

Comment noted. The EA process will develop specific mitigations and construction scheduling that will take into account habitats and life cycles for SAR.

In Progress SAR, Mitigation Measures


MNRF - 4 General – Forestry Sustainable Forest Licence (SFL) holders as Crown land licence holders should be contacted early in project planning and included in consultation and engagement activities for this project. Consideration to the following permit and approval requirements within the ToR consultation requirements and Table 1:- All Sustainable Forest Licence (SFL) holders have first right of refusal to harvest wood within their Forest Management Units (FMU), and first right of refusal to utilize wood within their FMU. MNRF requires that SFL holders are consulted and in agreement with wood harvest/clearing prior to MNRF approving licencing/agreements to clear trees. Patent Lands (i.e. private property) may have reservations on title (e.g. trees reserved to the Crown), the proponent should ensure they investigate patent land reservations on title when planning for vegetation/tree clearing activities; an MNRF licence to harvest trees reserved to the Crown (private property) would be required if the clearing these areas.- Wood Scaling Agreements will also be required with the MNRF to ensure proper measurement and invoicing of harvested forest resources.- Timber Salvage Plan should be considered and developed to identify wood utilization and management. A component of timber management is also how “slash” from clearing activities will be managed. Slash management activities (e.g. mulching, burning etc.) must ensure compliance to the Forest Fire Prevention Act (FFPA). If burning is a consideration for managing slash, a burn plan with Aviation and Forest Fire and Emergency Services (AFFES) will be required.- A plan to move harvested wood to central locations for transportation requirements should be developed; iftemporary central wood storage areas are required as part of tree clearing activities, an MNRF Concentration Yard authorization would be required and possible occupational authority (e.g. Land Use Permit (PLA)) requirements. MNRF is available to further discuss Forestry requirements and considerations.

Comments are noted. Hydro One will enter discussions with Sustainable Forest License (SFL) holders to consult on the harvest of wood within the SFL Forest Management Units (FMU), wood scaling agreements, handling of wood, land title restrictions, and timber salvage plans.

In Progress Forestry


MNRF - 5 Section 2.1.5. Page 25 “It may not be practicable to complete all required surveys in relation to other approvals prior to submission of the EA document” – Please provide further context, rationale and understanding as to what is meant by “practicable” as well as the proponents understanding of “all required surveys” for the preparation of the EA. - Similar wording in section 2 on page 19. Several MNRF guidelines and policies have not been mentioned under this section. – Please consider the use of Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA) when developing the EA for current land use management direction. Suggested wording changes to reflect policies and guidelines which aren’t listed in the ToR, however are relevant to the project permitting and approvals requirements and EA development.- “Hydro One will identify and describe all necessary permits, approvals, acts, policies and guidelines that may be required during EA development, planning and construction.”

The EA document will contain baseline data collected from surveys and from the review of secondary source information to allow for an assessment and characterization of environmental conditions and potential environmental effects. These data sources in some cases may not be sufficient to obtain all applicable permits and approvals. As such, some permits and approvals may require further surveys and/or more detailed engineering and design information than is presented in the EA document (e.g. water crossings, species at risk). Hydro One will continue to conduct the required studies necessary to support those approvals following the completion of the EA. Hydro One will also work with regulators (e.g. MNRF) to ensure appropriate data is collected to meet all permitting and approval requirements. It is common practice that additional surveys and data collection is required following the approval of the EA in support of permits and approvals required for construction (e.g. water crossings).

In Progress Permitting, Data Collection


MNRF - 6 Section 3.0. Page 29-31“EA will not include a description and rationale of alternatives as it has already been extensively studied by OPA and IESO and the preferred alternative has already been identified. However, EA will include a description of and statement of rationale for the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking such as route alignment, design considerations and location refinement;” Additional detail is requested on what the EA will include for descriptions and rationale of alternative methods and assessments for the proposed undertaking. For example the EA should provide an assessment and comparison of twinning options on either side of the existing transmission line to arrive at the preferring routing location.The focused EA approach mentions that there will be no assessment for “alternatives to” but will include a “DoNothing” alternative. MNRF is of the opinion that the EA should consider alternatives for the ROW locations in terms of consideration to Twinning and Upgrading existing line in addition to the “Do Nothing” alternative.In MNRF letter dated July 20, 2018 in response to the Draft ToR for the Lake Superior Link project it was stated that the proponent should consider “a full consideration of alternatives assessment and rationale for current route selection; specifically in the Dorion Area/Loon Lake greenfield route.”Through adoption of a focused EA methodology; it will be difficult to address the requirements for future permitting requirements without consideration of alternatives analysis. Clarification of the depth of environmental assessment to be undertaken for alternative methods analysis and assessment and understanding of how criteria and indicators will be considered is required to understand how MNRF’s mandate will be considered and addressed within the EA.

Hydro One will consult with the MNRF during the EA to better determine how the MNRF’s mandate will be considered and addressed by the EA



MNRF - 8 Section 4.1.2. Page 37. It would be beneficial to provide some context toward the amount of instances where the LSL project will intersect other transmission lines and provide more understanding of the T1M example mentioned in this section. Further understanding of the “areas that may be impacted” is required to understand the scope of the EA assessment being implemented in these situations.

The EA will describe and assess Project interactions with other transmission lines and other infrastructure will be assessed. Where the Lake Superior Link Project crosses other transmission lines (such as T1M), some existing transmission infrastructure such as poles or towers may need to be relocated to accomodate the Project. Those areas that may be impacted will be assessed as part of the EA process.

In Progress T1M, Interactions with other transmission lines


MNRF - 9 Section 4.1.7. Page 39 What is meant by “Temporary Construction Easement”? What legislation would this type of tenure be issued under? This is not a term or (tenure) occupational authority used by MNRF.

Temporary construction easement refers to a real estate agreement allowing for the temporary occupation of lands for the purposes of construction. Where work will occur on private lands, a temporary easement allowing construction for a defined period of time will be obtained from property owners. This easement will allow for the legal occupation of private lands for the duration of construction. For construction work required on Crown land, Hydro One will obtain the necessary authorizations under the Public Lands Act to.

In Progress Real Estate, Permitting


MNRF - 11 Section 4.2. Page 40 Consideration to add a section or paragraph for a pre-construction phase which speaks to flagging protective vegetation buffers and site reconnaissance for species at risk, un-mapped streams and other sensitive features/values.

Added paragraph to 4.2.1 Construction to discuss pre-construction activities. Pre-construction activities will include activities such as identification and delineation of vegetation buffers, site reconnaissance for species at risk, un-mapped streams and other sensitive features/values.

In Progress Mitigation Measures


MNRF - 12 Section 4.2.1. Page 40It is advised that when planning and developing the construction phase of the project; consideration toward sufficient aggregate resources required to construct project infrastructure are planned for. It is advised that the EA provide proper documentation, consideration and EA coverage for any aggregate permits/licences required as part of the undertaking.Please consider fisheries timing windows, species at risk timing windows as well as other operational considerations when developing commitments within the ToR and EA such as; “avoid clearing of vegetation during migratory bird nesting season.”Understanding of impacts and locations, decommissioning methods and restoration of temporary supportive infrastructure (e.g. access roads, watercourse crossings, laydown yards, and construction camps) must to be considered in the EA.

Mitigation measures for the construction phase such as timing windows, monitoring, sediment and erosion control, decommissioning of temporary infrastructure and other construction activities will be developed during the EA process.

In Progress Mitigation Measures, Monitoring, Sediment and Erosion Control


MNRF - 13 Section 4.2.2. Page 41 This section states “A Transmission Vegetation Management Program developed within Hydro One will apply to the operation and maintenance of the corridor.” This proposed plan should be a provided within the EA to allow for agency and public commenting. Consideration to vegetation management should apply to all phases (pre-construction to decommissioning) of the project (i.e. value/feature vegetative setbacks, water crossings, access road etc.). MNRF suggests consideration toward completing transmission line maintenance programs for existing EWT and LSL simultaneously to minimize environmental impacts.

Hydro One manages approximately 29, 000 circuit kilometers of overhead transmission line. As a result, Hydro One has a comprehensive Transmission Vegetation Managment Program (TVMP). The EA will discuss this program and how it applies to the project. The EA will also consider proposed vegetation management during the lifecycle of the project including all pre-, during and post-construction phases. Hydro One’s TVMP includes many factors including opportunities to reduce environmental impact.

In Progress Vegetation Management.


MNRF - 14 Section 4.2.3. Page 41-42 Page 42 as presented with the Terms of Reference is blank. Is there missing information from section 4.2.3 – Decommissioning in the ToR? “The project will be operated for an indeterminate time period and retirement (or decommissioning) is not anticipated. Should decommissioning activities eventually be considered for some or all Project components, decommissioning will be planned and conducted in accordance with the relevant standards and regulatory requirements in effect at the time. If decommissioning activities are required, a detailed review of the potential environmental effects and mitigation measures will be provided. “ - Uncertain when the expected timelines for details on decommissioning for componentsof the project would be provided. It will be a requirement for MNRF to understand the lifecycle of project components (e.g. laydowns, roads and water crossings etc.) in order to provide approvals and appropriately evaluate the consideration of impacts. Additionally, these locations will require consultation and notification in advance of receiving permits and approvals. It is suggested that consideration toward the permanency or temporary nature of supporting infrastructure be considered throughout EA development as well as description and consideration of project lifecycle (i.e. pre-construction, decommissioning, maintenance and monitoring) phases be addressed within the EA.

Temporary supporting infrastructure such as waterbody crossings, temporary access roads, laydown yards, fly yards and construction camps will be decommissioned and remediated following the completion of construction. The duration of the construction phase will be defined in the EA document. Hydro One will also clearly identify and indicate which infrastructure will be temporary and permanent within the EA document. This will include the identification of mitigation and monitoring measures, where appropriate. Hydro One acknowledges that it will need to consult provincial and federal agencies, local stakeholders and Indigenous communities as part of the process to obtain approvals and permits for certain project components.

In Progress Access roads, ancillary infrastructure, decommissioning,


MNRF - 15 Section 5. Page 43“The biophysical and socio-economic baseline environmental conditions of the reference route alternative and much of the reference route have been recently studied.”….”Hydro One will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements.”Clarification is required to understand when Hydro One will determine “appropriate studies” and “information needed to satisfy the EA requirements”. It is not clear how this will be implemented and the methodology or analysis used to assess and determine EA study gaps and what is meant by “appropriate studies”.

Hydro One will not duplicate studies where detailed biophysical and socio-economic studies have already been conducted within the study area for the preferred route. , Instead the use of the publicly available information will be used to assist in assessments for the Project. Hydro One will also conduct its own studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements and/or to verify existing data from others or fill known data gaps. The current preliminary focus of field surveys includes Pukaskwa National Park, the transmission corridor between Wawa and Marathon, the Dorion area, temporary and permanent access roads, laydown areas, fly yards and any additional areas identified as a concern. Hydro One will continue to engage regulators to ensure the baseline data is adequate for the EA.Hydro One will leverage all existing sources of knowledge throughout the EA process to minimize duplication of effort, including available reports and similar proposed projects in the study areas.



MNRF - 16 Section 5.2. Page 44-45 “Maternity roost habitat” should be corrected to specify “Bat maternity roost habitat”. For all field methods described in this section of the ToR , specify which survey protocols will be used as guidelines to determine the study framework of the EA, such as: - Winter aerial wildlife surveys: should specify which species will be searched for - Birds/amphibians: in addition to methods outlined, consider setting up a song meter (Wildlife Acoustics) to record calls. Consideration to the addition of Wetland Evaluation to field methods for un-evaluated wetlands to assess Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW), EIS (or comparable study) and evaluation of form and function for wetlands which may be impacted as a result of the proposed undertaking.

The suggested correction has been made throughout the document. Additional information and detail on survey protocols has been provided in Section 5.2. All work plans will be shared and discussed with regulators (e.g. MNRF) to ensure appropriate survey protocols and methodologies are applied. The MNRF has been provided with the Hydro One Work Plans for the biological surveys, which detail the survey protocols to be utilized, but have not received comments to date. The evaluation of wetlands will be considered.



MNRF - 17 Section 5.2.1. Page 46. MNRF - “Bat Survey Protocol for Treed Habitats (2017)” – Please contact MNRF before using this protocol. Unsure what version of the protocol is being referred to. Many of these sources of information do not determine “existing” conditions of environmental components, but are sources of information on particular components. For example, MNRF’s Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, written in 2000, recommends approaches to describe, identify, and prioritize significant wildlife habitat (e.g., consult MNRF biologists to locate moose late winter habitat).

Additional information on survey methods and protocols is provided in Section 5.2. The MNRF has been provided with the Hydro One Work Plans for the biological surveys, which detail the survey protocol to be utilized for bats, but have not received comments to date. Hydro One will continue to engage the MNRF to confirm the appropriate survey protocols are used for data collection.



MNRF - 18 Section 5.3.2. Page 47-48. Consideration toward describing and assessing value/importance of ground water resources toward significant wildlife habitat (i.e. Brook Trout Spawning) and potential impacts, avoidance or mitigation within the EA. “Wellhead protection areas, intake protection zones, highly vulnerable aquifers and significant recharge areas, source water protection documentation and relevant policies will be reviewed.” – The MNRF Dorion Fish Hatchery is in close proximity to the project; consultation with the hatchery during planning to determine any concerns or impacts in relation to natural water supplies and aquifers the facility relies on is required.

Comment noted. The Dorion Fish Hatchery will be consulted to determine and mitigate potential impacts to operations.



MNRF - 19 Section 5.3.3. Page 48.“Study area also intersects or is situated nearby the following ANSIs” - Magpie River/Terraces Candidate ANSI is missing from the list.Additional clarification and understanding of sources/criteria used to define and delineate “Regional EnvironmentalSensitive Area” is required within the ToR and EA. This section also states “the reference route intersects through or near the following…” – Provide further clarification and parameters of what is meant by “near” in this context.Wetlands should be added as consideration within the context of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) as the project traverses both evaluated and un-evaluated wetlands, due to their nature, all wetlands should be considered sensitive features. – MNRF acronym for ESA exists as Endangered Species Act, consideration toward different terminology in this instance to avoid potential confusion.

The Magpie River/Terraces Candidate ANSI has been added to the list.Section 5.3.3 has been revised to remove the term “Regional” from Environmentally Sensitive Area. Environmentally sensitive areas are defined as areas with unique environmental qualities that require protection. For example, provincial parks and conservation reserves are environmentally sensitive areas which have been provided protection based on unique wildlife, biological and/or landscape features. The ToR contains a preliminary set of ESAs identified. Further refinement to the list identified will occur in the EA and may also include water bodies, wetlands, rare vegetation communities, and significant wildlife habitats.The term “near” refers to features that are located within the Local Study Area, but are not directly intersected or crossed by project infrastructure. For example, Ouimet Canyon Provincial Park is located near the proposed transmission line, but no portion of the line or any supporting infrastructure is located within the park. It is important to both identify features directly impacted by the proposed project and those nearby which may be indirectly impacted (e.g. noise).Hydro One will consider inclusion of both evaluated and un-evaluated wetlands as sensitive features (ESA). The ESA acronym will be used to define Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the EA. To avoid confusion, the Endangered Species Act will be spelt out and italicized.

In Progress Sensitive Areas, Wetlands


MNRF - 22 Section 5.3.5. Page 51-53 “In order to characterize and assess impacts to vegetation communities along the proposed sections of the PSA, vegetation classification field surveys will be carried out in order to characterize the vegetation communities within 1 kilometer of the proposed works.” This section also lists rare species located within various watersheds, however, this section does not describe intent for management and consideration of rare plant species within the EA. – Clarify how these species will be identified, inventoried and considered within the proposed undertaking. The statement “There are no records of rare or significant vegetation species in this area” is used several times in this section with reference to “(Phair et al.2005)” however, it is probable that there are records in NHIC’s Provincially Tracked Species Observations identified in the project area. – Please provide clarification as to how these statements will be verified.

The purpose of the ToR is to provide a high level summary of existing environmental conditions based on available primary and secondary sources. The verification of data and species occurrences is completed during the EA through baseline data collection and additional review of available primary and secondary sources. The identification of potential species occurrences through desktop review does not mean species will be encountered in the field. Where rare plant species are identified during surveys, they will be inventoried and considered within the effects assessment. The EA will describe appropriate mitigation and/or avoidance measures to ensure significant environmental effects to any rare plant species identified are minimized and/or avoided, if required. Section 5.3.5 has been revised to clarify that the field program will include “the identification of plant species of conservation concern, including species ranked as S1-S3 by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) or listed by Species at Risk Act or on the Species at Risk list of Ontario”. As noted in Section 5.2, Hydro One will review all available data sources, including NHIC, during the EA to identify occurrence records for rare and/or protected species in the Project study area. The completion of field surveys will further help to verify the presence of potential rare species that may or may not be listed.

In Progress SAR, Data Collection


MNRF - 23 Section 5.3.6. Page 53-54The ToR and EA should reference/map all known thermal regimes for watercourses including cool water. - Add cool water to the following sentence “The EA will map known coldwater and warm water watercourses”.Clarification is required toward meaning of the following statements. “Targeting of a representative cross section of aquatic habitat community types.” - Provide rationale on sampling efforts (i.e. why some locations weren’t sampled), understanding of fisheries values protection and mitigation of impacts within the EA (e.g. BMP, timing windows etc.).“Most of the larger watercourses within the study area provide fish habitat.” – This statement implies that smaller watercourses do not or may not supply fish habitat. This statement should be changed or removed as regardless of size, watercourses support fish populations directly at various times of the year, provide the conditions to connected waters which support fish populations etc.“Any significant fish habitat (e.g. Sanctuary Areas) will be identified and described.” – The Fisheries Act doesn’t measure fish habitat in terms of “significance”. Fish habitat is described as areas that fish depend on directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes (e.g. spawning grounds, nursery areas, rearing, food supply and migration areas). – Please consider this when describing fish habitat or attempting to assign significance to fish habitat in the EA.“Representative watercourse locations will be field inspected prior to construction to confirm presence/absence of fish habitat and fish species present.” It is MNRF’s expectation that all watercourses where work below the high water mark will occur will be field inspected. It is preferable that this information be made available in the EA in order to adequately assess the potential impacts to aquatic resources; that preference notwithstanding, review of work permit applications for water crossings will require site-specific assessment.

The suggested revision has been adopted.The targeting of a representative cross section of aquatic habitat community types is proposed to be applied where no direct impacts to fish and/or fish habitat will occur (i.e., no access road crossings). For these non-directly affected waterbodies, representative sampling of waterbodies may occur (using rapid habitat assessment technique and fish sampling) to inform on the indicators for fish and fish habitat (e.g. habitat availability, abundance and distribution, and community composition) to be used to describe and characterize change (quantitatively or qualitatively) in the effects assessment.The statement “Most of the larger watercourses within the study area provide fish habitat” has been removed. The sentence has been revised to state “protected” fish habitat rather than “significant”. Based on the habitat features observed and documented, as part the assessment, overall aquatic habitat value/habitat in each water body will be rated as Nil, Low, Moderate or High.Hydro One will assess all watercourses where work below the high water mark will occur (e.g., access road waterbody crossings). Where possible, watercourses will be assessed during the EA if crossing locations are known and confirmed at that time. However, as the study detail progresses Hydro One will carry out further required studies as necessary to support water body crossing approvals following the completion of the EA.

In Progress Aquatic Habitat, Data Collection


MNRF - 24 Section 5.3.7. Page 59Section only speaks to mapping locations of known SAR, but does not outline how impacts to species at risk by this project will be addressed within the EA. It is important that the EA describe impacts to SAR as this information is required to inform any Endangered Species Act (ESA) permits if impacts cannot be avoided.Not addressing ESA information needs within the EA may result in delays of ESA permitting requirements which could result in additional information or study requirements. It is recommended that the EA include considerations to impacts, alternatives, mitigation, and beneficial actions for SAR species; this information can be used to inform ESA permitting requirements.For each Threatened and Endangered species The EA needs to:- Identify where SAR and their habitat exist within the Study Area (e.g. Category 1 Caribou Habitat)- How the Construction, operation/maintenance will impact SAR and their habitat- Where impacts have been identified, consideration of alternatives that would avoid these impacts.- Where avoidance isn’t possible, outline mitigation/minimization and possible beneficial actions for each SAR impacted. This information can then be used to inform ESA permit applications.

Section 5.3.7 has been revised to clearly state an effects assessment on SAR will be included within the EA. This will also include the identification of avoidance and mitigation measures. Hydro One will engage MNRF to determine and confirm any permitting requirements under the Endangered Species Act for the Project.

In Progress SAR, Effects Assessment


MNRF - 27 Section 5.4.5. Page 68 Additional clarification and understanding toward the criteria and indicators of visual assessments and aesthetic considerations is required within the ToR and EA. Who will be consulted with on these matters? Which areas are being considered for visual assessments? Etc.

Ongoing consultation with all stakeholders during both the ToR and the EA will be used as input to identify areas of visual concern. The EA will go into detail in regards to rationale for visual location selections, as well as criteria and indicators used.

In Progress Visual, Stakeholder Engagement


MNRF - 28 Section 5.6.1. Page 72. Mitigation measures should explicitly mention considerations toward impacts to wetlands and considerations to effects of the project. It is uncertain what is meant by “etc.” when used in the following sentence “Transmission towers will not be constructed in streams, rivers etc.”; consideration to stating “…will not be constructed in water courses or waterbodies including streams, wetlands etc.” Additionally, requirement to develop a Fire Prevention and Preparedness Plan and a Blast Management Plan with consideration toward potential road closures, public notification, safety/signage and consultation with stakeholders etc. This section should also speak toward the development of best management practices and mitigation approaches when conducting vegetation clearing activities around sensitive values, features, areas and significant wildlife habitat. As well as provide some understanding of consideration and mitigation of habitat fragmentation/connectivity as a result of the proposed undertaking.

Section 5.6.1 has been modified accordingly: Transmission towers will not be constructed in water courses or waterbodies including streams, wetlands etc. Development of best management practices and mitigation approaches when conducting vegetation clearing activities around sensitive values, features, areas and significant wildlife habitat will also be developed and take into account habitat connectivity. The EA will include a spill prevention and response plan, a waste management plan, and fire prevention and preparedness plan. A blast management plan may be preparedshould blasting be required. The blast management plan would consider road closures, public notification, safety/signage and consultation with stakeholders.

In Progress Surface Water, Sensitive Areas, Mitigation Measures, Vegetation Management, Wildlife, Spill Plan, Waste Plan, Fire Plans, Blast Plan.


MNRF - 31 Section 6.1.4. Page 54 The proponent should consider carrying-out Bumble Bee Surveys recognizing that current species distributions overlap the proposed project footprint of Species at Risk list of Ontario species: Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Endangered) listed in 2015 and Yellow-banded Bumble Bee (Special Concern) listed in 2017.

Hydro One will consider conducting Bumble Bee surveys for the EA. Further discussion with the MNRF during the EA is proposed to clarify the need for surveys.

In Progress Bumble Bees


MNRF - 35 Section 7. Page 84.It is important for natural environment features, particularly wetlands, ANSIs, SAR, and Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) to have site specific mitigation developed and discussed in the EA where values are expected to be impacted.The Natural Heritage Reference Manual, Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Support Tool can provide guidance and best management practices. This section should speak to intent of mitigation/remediation through assessment of impacts and project effects and intentions to monitor throughout lifecycle of the project (decommissioning, maintenance etc.).

Natural Heritage Reference Manual, Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Support Tool have been added to Section 5.6.2. Development of site-specific mitigation measures for natural environment features such as wetlands, ANSIs, SAR, and Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) will be assessed during the EA process.

In Progress Sensitive Areas, Mitigation Measures


MNRF - 37 Section 8. Page 86. Clarification required on intent of “environmental specifications”. Text in this section states “An Environmental Specification will be prepared to guide project construction.”- Will this document be prepared as part of the EA or is the proponent considering this a requirement after the EA has been approved? It would be beneficial to have this information in the EA

Environmental protection plans and strategies will be developed during and post- EA process to guide project construction.

In Progress Environmental Plans


MNRF - 38 Section 8.1. Page 86. “The effects monitoring program will describe the project environmental management system that will monitor the environmental effects of the project…” Please clarify in this section the intent of Project Effects Monitoring Program as well as approaches/methods of monitoring (e.g. physically monitor the effects, risk based monitoring etc.).

The effects monitoring program (to be included in the EA) will describe the project environmental management system that will monitor the environmental effects of the Project and ensure compliance with all environmental requirements (e.g., terms and conditions of EA approval and other legislation). Both physical and risk based monitoring of the effects and associated mitigations will be employed where appropriate.

In Progress Effects monitoring program, Mitigation Measures


MNRF - 39 Section 9.4.1. Page 96. Stakeholder Identification List speaks to stakeholders which will be consulted throughout the EA process. The list mentions “trappers”, however doesn’t mention several stakeholders and resource users for which consultation and engagement is required to meet MNRF interests. All Resource users must be consulted with such as; trail groups, baitfish, Bear Management Areas (BMAs), SFL holders etc. MNRF is available to have further discussion on resource users and stakeholders which may be impacted as a result of the proposed undertaking.

Expanded upon the list of stakeholders in Section 9.4.1 to include the proposed list: All Resource users must be consulted with such as; trail groups, baitfish, Bear Management Areas (BMAs), SFL holders etc.



MNRF - 40 Section 9.4.2. Page 97. Consultation and engagement should occur with Sustainable Licence Holders (SFL) as Crown Land Licence holders within each Forest Management Unit located in the project area to ensure their interests are being considered as well as the Forest Management Plans within the FMU’s which provide prescriptions for road closures and other elements which pertain to the successful implementation and planning for the proposed undertaking. The Dorion Fish Hatchery should be consulted with as the proposed undertaking is close in proximity to their operations.

Dorion Fish Hatchery has been added to the Project contact list. SFL holders will also be contacted and engaged to determine potential Project impacts.

In Progress Stakeholder Engagement, Forestry


MNRF - 41 Section 9.4.3. Page 99. Section 9.2 and 9.4.3 indicates that the proponent will develop an engagement and consultation plan for executing its responsibilities during the course of the EA and other processes undertaken by the Crown. MNRF would appreciate an opportunity to review and comment on this plan. The engagement and consultation plan should consider how information will be shared with the Indigenous communities about activities that may require MNRF authorization during the EA process (i.e. permits and approvals).

The Consultation Plan will be developed during the EA process and available for review. In Progress Consultation Plan


MNRF - 42 Table 1. Page 24. Provincial permits and approvals mentioned in the table recognizes the need for aggregate permits on Crown land; however it should also be considered that there are areas where private land is designated under the Aggregate Resources Act. This means a Licence under the Aggregate Resources Act is required to operate a pit or quarry on private land in these areas. Add Conservation Reserves (CRs) where “Provincial Parks” are mentioned or consider protected areas (Parks and CRs). Permits required within protected areas (e.g. Work Permits) will be administered under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. The table should be updated to reflect Public Lands Acts Work Permit: Regulator: MNRF, Permit/Work: Approval toconduct site alteration or infrastructure on Crown Lands (lands and waters). Table should also reflect the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as the project may require ESA permits and/or approvals (i.e. harm or harass of SAR, Damage or destroy SAR habitat, Overall Benefit etc.).

Table 1 has been modified to address all recommended inclusions. Conservation Reserves have been added to Provincial Parks. Endangered Species Act is listed under MECP authority and addressed in the table. The requirement for aggregate extraction is yet to be determined and will be further assessed during the EA process and construction planning. Hydro One will comply with regulations such as the Aggregate Resources Act and land rights around aggregate extraction.

In Progress Sensitive Areas, SAR, Aggregate Extraction


MNRF - 43 Table 3. Page 31. The table speaks to what will be described in the EA “ii) The EA will assess alternative reference routes” which seems to contradict the preceded “focused EA” statement which speaks to “no assessment for alternatives to” ROW routes. Please rectify or clarify what is meant by these statements in the ToR.

Alternatives to the Undertaking and Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking are addressed in Sections 6.1 and 6.3, respectively. The IESO has maintained that a transmission line connecting Wawa to Marathon and Thunder Bay remains the best alternative to undertake the Project and, as such, further alternatives to the undertaking would not be assessed. Assessment of alternative methods of carrying out the project would include transmission line route alternatives, local design refinements and alternative designs.



MNRF – 51 The EA should consider avoidance alternative for SAR within the planning/design The EA will consider avoidance alternative for SAR within the planning/design. From the desktop and field analyses completed an effects assessment on SAR potentially affected by the Project will be completed. This assessment will also include the identification of avoidance and mitigation measures within the planning and design phase.

In Progress SAR, Mitigation Measures


MNRF – 53 It would be beneficial to know what extent is being incorporated to address this comment.

Section 4.1.1 has been modified as follows to incorporate EA commitments for water crossings and wetland interactions: • If impacts to wetlands are anticipated or required, a proper assessment must be completed and appropriate mitigation measure applied for impacted wetlands; • Alternative Design Considerations for water crossing methods and types of infrastructure (e.g. bridges, culverts etc.) as well as supporting infrastructure requirements (e.g. access roads, laydown areas etc.) and the lifecycle of these structures (permanent/temporary) will be described, considered and assessed in the EA;

In Progress Sensitive Areas, Wetlands


MNRF – 56 This comment has not been completely addressed. Please clarify if there’s intent to describe the decommissioning process for temporary infrastructure as part of the ToR/EA.This will include the identification of mitigation and monitoring measures, where appropriate.

Section 4.2.3 has been modified to include:“Consideration toward the permanency or temporary nature of supporting infrastructure will be considered throughout EA development. In addition, a description and consideration of project lifecycle phases (i.e. pre-construction, decommissioning, maintenance and monitoring) will be addressed within the EA.”



MNRF – 57 Consideration toward appropriate studies should include CLUPA Management Guidelines. Example is G1798 located East of Pukaskwa National Park has a designated remote outpost lake (Pinei Lake). The CLUPA management direction may require amendment and should be considered throughout project design.

Section 5.4.1 has been modified to address this concern regarding Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA) Management guidelines. The following has been added: “The majority of the project is located on Crown Land and will be subject to Provincial regulations and area specific Crown land use policy and direction. These policies will inform EA studies throughout the document.”



MNRF – 58 It would be beneficial to understand the extent and method for consideration of evaltuating wetlands will be achieved in the ToR and EA.The ToR should reflect this information.

Wetlands are to be evaluated based on a determination of the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) designation similar to upland sites. This will be done in order to refine vegetative classifications found within the available Forest Resource Inventory (FRI), and previous studies data, available for the Project Study Area. It will also serve to assist in the determination of significant wildlife habitat. All vegetation assessments will be conducted in the route alignment with the Ontario Parks datasheets for Vegetation Plot Layers, and Groundcover/Substrate Plot Information. Vegetation will be assessed for species composition (percent cover) of canopy and sub-canopy trees, understory shrubs and tree regeneration, as well as dwarf shrubs, herbaceous vegetation, and moss/lichen cover. For sites where trees exceeded 10 m a representative individual of dominant species (or codominant species) will also be measured for diameter at breast height (DBH). At each sampling point a preliminary soils investigation will be conducted to establish whether soils were organic, or mineral, as well as the texture of any mineral soils. Mottling of soils, or presence of gley was noted along with depth to bedrock and water table where applicable. These were used to make a preliminary determination of moisture regime and drainage class. Groundcover will also be recorded for each site including woody debris. Based on the field data each site will be assigned a Boreal Ecosite based on the Ecosites of Ontario: Boreal Range (Banton et al. 2009), and categorized into Upland, Wetland, and Riparian ecosystem types. For example where sample sites contain wetlands these will be evaluated to ecotype - Treed Wetland (Treed Bog; Poor Conifer Swamp; Intermediate Conifer Swamp; Rich Conifer Swamp; Organic Thicket Swamp; Mineral Intermediate Conifer Swamp).

In Progress Data Collection, Sensitive Areas


MNRF – 60 Further understanding is required within the EA on access road requirements (including within the ROW) as mentioned in section 4.1.4. – Access Roads Response provided does not speak to this point.

Section 4.1.4 has been modified to better reflect that the EA will provide for ‘further understanding’ of ‘access road requirements (including within the ROW)’. This section now states: “The specific number, location, and characteristics of existing and proposed new access roads to be used for the Project will be refined through the EA process as technical design and consultation with Indigenous Communities and stakeholders progresses.”

In Progress Access Roads, Indigenous Consultation


MNRF – 61 Environmental protection plans and strategies will be developed during and post- EA process to guide project construction. Will these documents be made available for public/agency review?

Consideration will be given to make available these documents for public/agency review during the EA.



MNRF-65 Based on this comment, MNRF recommends that the ToR recognizes Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) to include the natural heritage features: Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs), Conservation Reserves, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), and Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH). MNRF recommends that for these environmental features, a site-specific evaluation of impacts and mitigation be described for each individual feature within the EA. For more information on how to consider site specific impacts to these features, MNRF recommends using the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (2010) and/or the SWH Mitigation Support Tool (2015).

The definition of ESA has been changed to include Significant Wildlife Habitat. Section 7.2 Mitigation Measures has been changed to state:“Site-specific impacts and mitigation measures for individual environmentally sensitive features, ESAs, and SAR will be assessed during the EA process.

In Progress Sensitive Areas


MNRF-67 These policies do not inform studies. These policies may be considered as guidance for natural, socio-economic, cultural/built and technical environment considerations. CLUPA is area-specific land use management policy and/or guidelines for Crown Land and is not intended to inform studies. CLUPA should be considered within the planning/design phases of the project. Please correct this statement as it implies the policies will be used to inform various studies related to this project and obscures the intent of CLUPA management policies.

Comment is noted. Section 5.4.1 has been modified to state: “These policies will be used as guidance for natural, socio-economic, cultural/built and technical environment considerations during the EA process.”



MNRF-68 Ontario’s Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System is not an evaluation system. The EA may choose to evaluate impacts to other environmental features by using ELC to first classify that landbase using an ELC product. MNRF supports the use of the Provincial Ecosites of Ontario (Boreal) for this purpose; however, for wetland boundaries, the provincial wetland layer is the definitive layer for wetland boundaries. To add to this layer, the FRI Wetland Layer and/or the Provincial Ecosites Manual may be used to enhance the classification system or to identify additional wetlands that are currently not delineated in the Provincial Wetlands Layer. MNRF recommends the ToR and/or EA defines the extent and method for wetland consideration and possible evaluation and mitigation of impacted wetlands as well as other “environmental features”.

The evaluation of wetland presence and extent within the Project Study Area will be determined based on an examination/comparison of all available MNRF GIS Provincial Wetland data layers. These datasets will be compared to the latest available aerial imagery for the Project Study Area, and existing data wetland boundaries will be adjusted, or new wetlands added accordingly. In the field, wetlands are to be typed based on a determination of the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) designation similar to upland sites. Following this process, a second review of the aerial imagery will be conducted to classify areas not observed in the field. This will be done in order to refine the available MNRF Wetland data vegetative classifications including those found within Forest Resource Inventory (FRI), and other MNRF datasets, and previous studies data available for the study area. It will also serve to assist in the addition of wetland areas not previously captured by the MNRF data and the determination of Significant Wildlife Habitat. As further clarification and in summary, the approach is to delineate wetlands within the Project Study Area and classify to type. Hydro One is not proposing to evaluate individual wetlands in accordance with the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System.

In Progress Study Area, Wetland


MNRF-69 MNRF suggests that this information should be included with the EA and made available for agency/public review

An Environmental Protection Plan will be developed during the EA and made available for Indigenous, agency and public review. This has been identified in the ToR.



MNRF-70 Previous comment response stated that “The term ‘environmentally sensitive features’ is no longer used in the ToR. The term ‘environmental feature’ is used consistently, instead and has been defined in the text as: All environmentally sensitive areas that could include among others: ESAs, water bodies, wetlands, rare vegetation communities or significant wildlife habitats”. Clarification is requested to ensure the response is speaking to the above mentioned definition “environmental feature”. If this is the case, MNRF is satisfied with the response for site specific impacts and mitigation measures of environmental features, ESA’s (as defined to include SWH) and Species at Risk (SAR).

Correct, the response is speaking to the noted definition of ‘environmental feature’ and has been modified to: “Site-specific impacts and mitigation measures for individual environmental features, ESAs, and SAR will be assessed during the EA process

In Progress Sensitive Areas


MNRF-71 As noted above in response to MNRF -1: “Site-specific impacts and mitigation measures for individual environmentally sensitive features, ESAs, and SAR will be assessed during the EA process.” As per clarification statement of MNRF-1 respnse, Comment MNRF-16 is recommending similar consideration toward impacts assessment and mitigation of wetlands specifically, and that the EA also defines the extent and method for wetlands consideration such as; avoidance, mitigation, alternatives assessment, understanding and description of existing environment, monitoring and possible evaluations within the EA. It is recommended that the proponent consider impacts to wetlands within the EA; which may include possible evaluations (EIS or equivalent) of individual impacted wetlands to understand the wetlands form and function, existing environment and develop appropriate mitigation techniques/methods. The Ontario Wetland Conservation Strategy (2017) has consideration to “no net loss” of Ontario wetlands https://files.ontario.ca/mnr_17-075_wetlandstrategy_final_en-accessible.pdfThe extent and method to which these environmental features will be considered, evaluated, mitigated and monitored should be stated within the EA.

Impacts to wetlands will be addressed in the EA, which may include consideration to conduct possible evaluation of individual wetlands that may be impacted.This response will be further discussed with the MNRF at a planned meeting in early December currently being coordinated.

In Progress Wetlands, Sensitive Areas


MNRF - 1 There are sensitive watercourses south of Greenwich Road in the Dorion area. Will the access routes avoid this area?

Preliminary access roads for the Project are currently being identified by Hydro One and will be considered in the EA, including opportunities/options to avoid crossing of sensitive watercourses, where feasible.

In Progress Access Roads


MNRF - 2 A representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry suggested that Hydro One consider an alternative route that avoids the loop around the community of Dorion. Specifically, either a twinning of the existing East – West Tie corridor or tower replacement like that proposed at PNP.

Hydro One has included the additional route alternative to the Tor and EA. In Progress Alternative Assessment


MNRF – 1 A full consideration of alternatives assessment and rationale for current route selection; specifically in the Dorion Area/Loon Lake greenfield route.

Hydro One is committed to undertaking a full alternatives assessment, including rationale for route selection. This alternatives assessment will include the reference route alternative through Dorion.

In Progress Alternative Assessment


MNRF – 2 Understanding of the origin for the current route selection presented as well as alternative analysis completed.

Hydro One is committed to undertaking a full alternatives assessment, including rationale and original of route selection. This alternatives assessment will include the reference route alternative through Dorion.

In Progress Alternative Assessment


MNRF – 3 Complete understanding of criteria and indicators used to complete alternatives analysis for all project infrastructure/impacts.

Hydro One will utilize identified criteria and indicators in the alternatives analysis throughout the EA to objectively complete alternatives analysis for all project infrastructure/impacts.

In Progress Alternative Assessment, Criteria and Indicators


MNRF – 4 Avoidance and protection considerations of known values of significant interest and protected areas and understanding of site specific mitigation measures.

The EA process will further understanding of areas of significance, protected areas and known values. Alternatives assessments will inform local design considerations and mitigation measures will be tailored to areas of significance.

In Progress Sensitive Areas, Alternative Assessment


MNRF – 5 MNRF strongly recommends the submission of a data sharing agreement application to help inform values of interest considerations within the ToR and IEA development for the Lake Superior Link project.

Hydro One will work with MNRF to collaborate on a data sharing agreement. In Progress Stakeholder Engagement


MTCS – 2 Section 5.5.1 of the Terms of Reference states that a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment (AA) will be conducted for this EA by an OHA licensed archaeologist and the AA report forwarded to MTCS for review. The archaeological assessments should be completed as soon as possible in the EA process as their results may impact project design. Specific commitments to the timing of the archaeological assessments to be undertaken should be identified within the Terms of Reference. In addition, the specific areas where Stage 1 and 2 assessment will be undertaken should be identified.

Section 5.5.1 modified. Stage I assessment will be conducted along the corridor during the EA process. Stage II archaeology assessment will be conducted pre-construction. The locations of the assessment will be determined using Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists for work in Northern Ontario.

In Progress Archaeology


MTCS - 3 In Section 5.5.1 please clarify the specific studies for cultural heritage evaluation to be undertaken referenced (i.e. Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) or Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER)). Reference is currently made to “cultural heritage studies” and “a background historical study”. It should be noted that technical cultural heritage studies (such as CHAR, CHERs and/or HIAs) should be completed by a qualified person. The technical studies shall be submitted to MTCS and the local municipalities for review and comment. The Terms of Reference should also identify the specific timing of the cultural heritage reporting to be undertaken. These reports (ie. CHAR) should be completed as soon as possible in the EA process as their results may impact project design and may require additional assessment (ie. CHER, HIA).

Section 5.5.1 modified. A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and/or Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) may be conducted for cultural heritage resources not previously assessed. The requirement for the development of these documents will be identified early in the EA process.

In Progress Cultural Heritage


MTCS - 5 In Section 5..5.1, the sentence beginning “if human remains are identified during the EA study…” should be replaced with the following language: “If undocumented archaeological resources are impacted by project work, all activities impacting these resources must cease immediately, MTCS must be notified, and a licensed archaeologist is required to carry out an archaeological assessment in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act and the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. If human remains are encountered, all activities must cease immediately and the local police as well as the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services must be contacted. In situations where human remains are associated with archaeological resources, MTCS should also be notified to ensure that the site is not subject to unlicensed alterations which would be a contravention of the Ontario Heritage Act.”

Modified Section 5.5.1 with the proposed commitments. In Progress Archaeology


MTCS - 6 As previously stated in our comments from July 13, 2018, MTCS also recommends that a response protocol be developed with relevant aboriginal groups to manage any accidental discovery of archaeological and/or human remains. We also suggest that First Nations and Métis be consulted for information on any archaeological, built heritage and cultural heritage landscape resources in the study area.

Added to Section 5.5.1 A response protocol will be developed with relevant aboriginal groups to manage any accidental discovery of archaeological and/or human remains. Indigenous communities will also be consulted for information on any archaeological, built heritage and cultural heritage landscape resources in the study area. Hydro One will continue to consult with MTCS and to provide the relevant technical heritage studies.

In Progress Archaeology, Indigenous Consultation


MTCS - 7 All technical heritage studies and their recommendations are to be addressed and incorporated into EA projects. Please advise MTCS whether any technical heritage studies will be completed for your EA project, and provide them to MTCS before issuing a Notice of Completion/commencement of work on-site. If your screening has identified no known or potential cultural heritage resources, or no impacts to these resources, please include and supporting documentation in the EA report

Hydro One will continue to consult with MTCS and to provide the relevant technical heritage studies.



MTO - 1 Various permit and approval requirements. Hydro One will consult with MTO for permit requirements and for interactions with MTO infrastructure.



MTCS - 8 More clarity should be provided regarding the proposed timing of the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments. As previously noted, both AA’s should be completed as early in the EA process as possible as their results may impact detailed design, or necessitate addiutional assessment (ie. Stage 3 & 4 AA). To avoid potential dlays, firm commitment to undertake the Stage 1 and 2 AA’s early in the EA process should be provided.

Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments are currently well underway. Summer and early fall 2018 was used as a field season to conduct Stage 2 work with report writing occurring late fall 2018. This will help direct successive Stages of AA’s, if required, for 2019. At minimum, Stage 1 information will be included within the EA report and Hydro One will ensure that the necessary successive Stages of AA’s will be completed prior to the commencement of applicable construction activities.

In Progress Archaeology


MTCS - 9 A Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) should be completed for the entire study area to identify existing conditions and provide preliminary identification of potential cultural heritage resources. The CHAR should be completed as soon as possible in the EA process. Should potential cultural heritage resources be identified then Cultural Heritage Evaluations Reports (CHER) should be completed to evaluate the cultural heritage significance of each individual resource and identify preliminary potential impacts of the project on those resources. If a resource is identified as having cultural heritage significance, then a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) should be conducted for the resource to fully evaluate the potential impacts of the project on the resources, and oidentify mitigation measures for the identified impacts.

Clarification provided is appreciated. Hydro One is commited to preparing the necessary heritage components (CHAR/CHER/HIA) as early as is practicable including a CHAR early in the EA process. Hydro One is currently securing a contract with a Heritage Consultant. Once a consultant has been secured a meeting will be requested with the MTCS to discuss the details of completing each heritage component as it pertains to the Lake Superior Link Project. It is hoped that this meeting could be arranged for mid-November. Hydro One will follow up with the MTCS.



MTCS – 2 We recommend that a response protocol be developed with relevant aboriginal groups to manage any accidental discovery of archaeological and/or human remains. We also suggest that First Nations and Métis be consulted for information on any archaeological, built heritage and cultural heritage landscape resources in the study area.

ARA will work with Indigenous communities to ensure a response protocol is in place should any accidental discovery of archaeological and/or human remains occur. This protocol will also ensure compliance with provincial legislation and/or regulations that may be applicable.



MTCS – 5 The TOR should commit that all technical heritage studies and their recommendations are to be addressed and incorporated into EA project.

Hydro One acknowledges that any technical cultural heritage studies (CHAR, CHER, HIA) will be completed by a qualified person and submitted to the MTCS and the local municipalities for their review and comment.


Ontario Ministry of Transportation

37 MTO provided information on: Entrance Permit, Building and Land Use Permit, Encroachment Permit, Sign Permit, set backs and future highway plans to 4-lane highway 11/17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon.

Comments are noted. The MTO will continue to be consulted with during the Environmental Assessment.


Ontario Parks (Northwest Parks Zone)

5 Figure 1. Figure 1 should show all provincial parks and conservation reserves not just Pukaskwa NP.

Figures 4 and 5 show provincial parks, conservation reserves and ANSIs. A more detailed Figure 1 with this information can be produced for the EA report.



6 Table 1 Provincial permits and approvals. The proponent only includes Ontario Parks approval for “…work within provincial park”. They have gone to the extent of listing as many scenarios/instances as they can where they may need approval. It should be clear that this includes (as per section 22 of PPCRA): (a) the construction, expansion or placement of any building, structure or thing; (b) the construction of any trail or road; (c) the clearing of any land; (d) the dredging or filling of any shore lands; or, (e) any activity permitted under section 17, 18, 19 or 20 that causes, results or is expected to result in a major disruption or impairment of the ecological integrity of a provincial park or conservation reserve.

Permits and approvals for construction, operation and maintenance will be further explored in the EA process. Construction activities will be refined and described in greater detail and will take into account PPCRA requirements.



7 Section 2.1.2 Other Applicable Provincial EA Processes. PPCR class EA should reference new ministry MECP rather than MNRF.

PPCR class EA will reference the proper ministry in the EA. In Progress ToR/EA Documentation


8 Section 4.1.1 Design Considerations.Bullet list of alternative design considerations should reference sections 20 and 21 of PPCRA regarding crossing of PPS and CRs.

Alternative design considerations in the EA will reference Sections 20 and 21 of PPCRA for the assessment of routing within Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves.



9 Section 4 Description of the Undertaking. The section through Pukaskwa National Park is highlighted where no corridor widening will be required as they will add two new circuits on new quad-circuit structures. Shouldn’t this approach be considered for provincial park and conservation reserves as well?

Technical considerations, constructability and reliability in regards to the utilization of quad-circuit towers elsewhere in the Project will be assessed during the EA and through the technical requirements of the IESO and OEB.

In Progress Technical Considerations


10 Section 4.1.4 Access Roads. New access roads should avoid crossing PPS and CRs.

Location of access roads, mitigation measures and local design considerations for sensitive environmental receptors will be further assessed in the EA.

In Progress Access Roads, Technical Considerations


11 Section 4.1.4 Access Roads. See comment work permits above (table 1 comment)

Permits for access roads will be further refined during the EA process. See response #10. In Progress Access Roads, Technical Considerations


12 Section 4.1.5 Storage, Laydown and Fly Yards. Reference to transporting materials by helicopter for Pukaskwa NP should be expanded to include PPS and CRs where corridor crosses PPs/CRs.

Method of access for construction, local design considerations and mitigations will be further assessed in the EA process for work in and around Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves.



13 Section 4.1.7 Temporary Construction Easements. These should be limited to locations outside of PPs and CRs as much as possible and should have very strong rational supporting creation/use within a PP or CR boundary.

Mitigation measures and local design considerations (i.e. specific routing) will be assessed for temporary construction easements in and around Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves.

In Progress Provincial Parks, Local Design Considerations, Mitigation Measures


14 Section 4.1.7 Temporary Construction Easements. Temporary construction easements should avoid crossing PPS and CRs.

See comment #13 above. In Progress Provincial Parks, Local Design Considerations, Mitigation Measures


15 Section 4.2.1 Construction. There is no mention of blasting in the list of activities.

Blasting is discussed further in Section 5.6 and 5.6.1. Further refinement of construction activities will occur during the EA process.

In Progress Blasting


16 Section 4.2.2 Operation and Maintenance. Vegetation management should include reference to herbicide application and manual treatments.

Vegetation management including herbicide usage will be developed as part of the construction and operation plans during the EA process.

In Progress Vegetation Management


17 Section 4.2.3 Decommissioning. Should reference requirement under PPCRA section 20 (3). Requirement to close and prevent use as well as remove infrastructure.

Decommissioning will be planned and conducted in accordance with the relevant standards and regulatory requirements in effect at that time.

In Progress Decommissioning


18 Section 5.1 Study Area.Should reference PPs, CRs Lake Superior NMCA and Pukaskwa NP.

Provincial Parks, Conservation Reserves and National Parks/Marine Conservation Areas are discussed in Section 5.3.3 and will be further refined during the EA process.



19 Section 5.3.3 Environmentally Significant Areas. Conservation reserves need to be included in the list of ESAs and also included on Figures 4 and 5.

Amended figures including more detailed overview of Provincial Parks and inclusion of other conservation areas will be included in the Environmentally Significant Areas EA report.



20 Section 5.3.3 Environmentally Significant Areas. Conservation Reserves are not mentioned anywhere in the document. There must be some CRs involved. They should be listed with provincial parks under section 5.3.3 (Environmentally Significant Areas p.48). On that list (p.49) Black Sturgeon River should have Provincial Park in its name.

Conservation Reserves are discussed in Section 2.1.2 and included in Table 1. More detailed overview of Provincial Parks and inclusion of other conservation areas will be included in the Environmentally Significant Areas EA report. Conservation Reserves within 1km of the Project have been identified as the following: • Kwinkwaga Ground Moraine Uplands Conservation Reserve • Kama Cliffs Conservation Reserve • Gravel River Conservation Reserve • South Michipicoten River-Superior Shoreline Conservation Reserve These will be included in the EA report.



21 Section 5.3.5 Vegetation, Forest Resources and Wetlands. In section 5.3.5 the Ontario Parks datasheets are identified. For clarity, these should be identified as part of the Ontario Parks Inventorying and Monitoring (OPIAM) Program. In addition to the vegetation plot layers and groundcover/substrate plot information, OPIAM standards should also be used for breeding bird point count surveys, amphibian call counts, and all incidental flora/fauna observations (either at plots or across the study area). There is an opportunity for the proponent to directly enter their data into OPIAM and Ontario Parks can query out their data for them. This way Ontario Parks have a copy of the raw data in a preferred format.

OPIAM will be taken into consideration during the data collection and dissemination of Project data during the EA process.



22 5.6.2 Guidelines and Best Management Practices. The bullet list should include the Ontario Invasive Plant Council (OPIC) Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry.

Mitigations and BMPs will include OIPC when they are further developed during the EA process.

In Progress Mitigation Measures


23 Table 10. Conservation areas should be changed to Reserves.

Conservation areas will be correctly named Conservation Reserves. In Progress ToR/EA Documentation

Pukaskwa National Park

PNP – 5 “Authorization for works within Pukaskwa National Park will be required from Parks Canada. Hydro One currently has a License of Occupation for its existing infrastructure and this license is currently being renewed, remaining in effect until such renewal is complete. Upgrades to existing infrastructure within the Park are allowable within the existing license agreement as they are not considered new development. The completion of either a Detailed Impact Assessment will be necessary to fulfill Section 67 of the CEAA 2012 legal requirement for the section of the Reference Route which passes through Pukaskwa National Park.

The text has been updated to acknowledge a Detailed Impact Assessment will be necessary to fulfill Section 67 of CEAA 2012 for the section of the transmission line which passes through Pukaskwa National Park. In addition, the text acknowledges that a land use permit or equivalent authorization under Section 28(2) of the Indian Act to use federal lands (i.e. to allow for crossing of First Nation reserves) may be required by Indigenous Services Canada.

In Progress DIA, Permitting, Indigenous Consultation

Pukaskwa National Park

PNP – 10 “Hydro One is committed to working closely with the Crown to ensure that the duty to consult Indigenous communities and groups is fulfilled”. Engagement and relationship between indigenous communities and Pukaskwa National Park should be considered.

Engagement and relationship between Indigenous communities and Pukaskwa National Park will be considered.


Township of White River

38 No commitment has been made to the community of White River. The new route for the line is not close to White River, so the community is set to lose out on any economic impact.

Hydro One is committed to meeting with the Township of White River to further discuss concerns surrounding economic impacts, employment opportunities and procurement prospects. Hydro One has reached out to the CAO of White River and both have agreed to arrange a meeting for after the election at the end of October.

In Progress


39 No mention of the economic loss that having the lines not through the community will have. The community will lose major expansions/developments if the lines are not located in the community. The Township of White River, residents and First Nations neighbours were not in favour of the line going through Pukakswa National Park, but preferred the route to go through the community of White River. Many reasons for the preference were cited in our original comments but not addressed here.

The Environmental Assessment (EA) will study both a Reference Route and a Reference Route Alternative. Hydro One, through the EA process will consult with the Township of White River and others to collect socio-economic impact data associated with both alternatives. The consultation process will give the Township of White River an opportunity to express concerns and work with Hydro One on these and any other issues important to the community.



39-2 No comments have been made regarding the negative impact this development will have on Pukaskwa Park.

Work within Pukaskwa National Park is subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012). As such, Hydro One is working with Parks Canada to complete a Detailed Impact Asessment. Parks Canada has commited to work with Hydro One to ensure that only work within Pukaskwa National Park that does not have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental effects is approved.

In Progress DIA

Transport Canada

3 “…Transport Canada does not require receipt of all individual or Class EA related notfications” “Projects that will occur on federal property prior to exercising a power, performing a function or duty in relation to that project, will be subject to a determination of the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects, per Section 67 of the Candaian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.”

Authorizations from Transport Canada under the Navigation Protection Act and Aeronautics Act are anticipated for the Lake Superior Link project. The extent of authorizations required will be further assessed during the Environmental Assessment. CN Rail has been identified as a property owner affected by the project. Therefore, it is anticipated that portions of the new transmission line may require an overhead crossing of a CN Rail line. Hydro One has communicated project updates to CN Rail and will continue to engage CN Rail staff to ensure any potential impacts to existing rail lines, if affected, are avoided or minimized. As more information becomes available during the Environmental Assessment and the transmission line route is refined in the detail design stage, Hydro One will notify the appropriate Transport Canada contacts identified to ensure all permits and approvals are obtained. Moving forward, Hydro One will direct inquiries to the appropriate contacts.

In Progress Permitting, Stakeholder Engagement

White River 4 “NextBridge Infrastructure has worked over the past couple of years to develop a plan that is consistent with the values and preferences of the community of White River and our region.” “Laying new lines near White River is important to stakeholders in White River.” Our residents, businesses and elected officials are concerned that, unlike NextBridge Infrastructure, Hydro One Networks is not listening to the needs and preferences of our region or of this community.”

Where practical, Hydro One will look to draw upon local communities for employment and procurement.

In Progress Economic

Public No. Public Comment Hydro One Commitment Commitment Status Category

Dave & Marguerite 20

“The need for the line is not explained.” “…natural disasters such as forest fires could cripple the grid system.” “The structure being used through Pukaskwa Park, why not use it for the whole system?” “When are they [Gull Bay and Armstrong] going to be connected to the grid to reduce the Ontario’s carbon footprint?” “How is Hydro One going to supply power to the Ring of Fire?”

When Hydro One undertakes development of a new transmission line we must take into consideration a variety of factors including environmental effects, reliability and design. We are confident our plan is the best option to meet the electricity needs of Ontario. Natural disasters are a factor we must be aware of when building and maintaining our equipment across the province. Where possible we take extra precautions in the design of our assets to minimize the potential effect a natural disaster may have on the reliability of the system. Forest fires do pose a serious risk to our infrastructure and in the event of a large forest fire our crews work closely with first responders to determine how to safely protect or repair any damage done to the transmission and distribution systems in the affected area. In Progress


Mr. Chris Mortimer 5 Section 2.2.2 Does project need special approval/permits to cross Federal "Crown Land"?

Land Use Permits will be required for corridors within First Nations Reserves under the Indian Act. A License of Occupation Agreement is currently held by Hydro One for the lands within Pukaskwa National Park. Hydro One will be working with the appropriate agencies to secure these approvals. In Progress

Indigenous Consultation, Permitting

Mr. Chris Mortimer 8

Section 2.2.5, Permits, How is the public kept informed of all relevant Permits taken out and the public's ability to view permits and details of permits?

Some permits such as an Overall Benefit Permit under the Ontario Endangered Species Act are posted for public review on the Environmental Registry of Ontario https://ero.ontario.ca/ . Typically most permit applications to regulators are not required to be made available for public review and comment by proponents, but Hydro One is prepared to discuss any questions or concerns with respect to specific permits required for the Project. As well, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks and any other appropriate regulating body can be contacted to seek guidance on this matter. In Progress

SAR, Permitting


4.1.4 Access Roads, Will permanent access roads be made available to the public and who is responsible for the public's activities on Access Roads and public access along Hydro Line Corridors?

The Terms of Reference document is a framework for how the Environmental Accessment will be undertaken. Access roads will be further refined during the EA. Local design considerations, environmental sensitivities and landowner requests will be taken into account. In Progress Access Roads


Will the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and owners of existing hydro corridors address the ongoing issue of public garbage dumping along existing hydro corridors and why government services ignore the public's complaints of these issues? Waste management related to the Lake Superior Link project will be addressed during the EA. In Progress

Waste management


4.2.1 Construction, Who is responsible to ensure all the proper permits and conditions of permits are legitimate and enforced along all the different government agencies?

Proponents must comply with conditions of all approvals. As part of the EA proponents must provide annual compliance monitoring reports during the construction phase of the project to the MECP. Approvals (such as permits) are enforced by the issuing Regulator. More information on approvals and compliance monitoring will be available in the EA. In Progress Permitting


5.3, Will information collected during field programs be made available to the public? 14 year old information has been mentioned as basis of watershed species identification. Will there be any updated studies to confirm there is no concern with new legislation and research?

See response above. Relevant current and past studies will be leveraged to inform current assessment efforts during the EA process. Ground truthing, additional field studies and desktop studies are being conducted for the EA data collection process. In Progress

Data Collection


Table 6 Has the Ontario Government given up in attempting to preserve Woodland Caribou Habitat?

Rangifer tarandus (Woodland Caribou) are a threatened species and mitigation measures particular to their lifecycles and those of other species at risk will be further refined during the EA process. In Progress SAR


8.2 Compliance Monitoring. Will compliance be monitored by outside sources of Ontario Hydro? The EA will develop and provide a compliance monitoring strategy. In Progress

Compliance Monitoring

Mr. Chris Mortimer 18 Appendix 1 Will these "effects" be studied and reported after project completion?

The EA will develop an appropriate effects monitoring strategy. The duration of monitoring and follow-up programs will vary and dependent on the conditions of permits and approvals granted by regulatory agencies. In Progress

Monitoring, Permitting

Mr. Larry Hebert 1

Concerned with training and employment opportunities related to the project. Concerned with being able to go through Pukaskwa National Park.

Comments make reference to the employment agreements that have been put in place during the development phase of the project to train and employ local resources. Hydro One is committed to developing our own meaningful and lasting opportunities for employment for the people of Northern Ontario. We are also dedicated to developing partnerships with Indigenous Communities throughout the project area. To date we have hosted more than 19 community open houses in municipalities and indigenous communities between Thunder Bay and Wawa. We have had, and continue to have, meaningful conversations with the public and Indigenous Communities on how the project can benefit them in the short term and long term. In Progress

Indigenous Consultation, Economic

West Loon Lake Campers Association 19

“The WWLCA is strongly opposed to the inclusion of the Reference Route Alternative Section in the Dorion/Loon Lake areas, and believes that this study route should be removed from the ToR for the follows [following] reasons…”

Comments are noted and will be included in the Record of Consultation for the Terms of Reference and will be considered in the Environmental Assessment. Hydro One recognizes the level of consultation that occurred with community members and would like to reiterate that its preferred route remains the Reference Route that bypasses Loon Lake. Hydro One has been asked to do further study of the Reference Route Alternative during the Environmental Assessment which is why it has been included in the Terms of Reference. Hydro One will continue to consult with West Loon Lake Campers Association during the Environmental Assessment. In Progress

Stakeholder Engagement, Alternative Assessment

Indigenous Community

No. Indigenous Community Comment Hydro One Commitment Commitment Status

Category

Batchewana First Nation

BFN – 2 Section 4.1 The design should also consider the water crossings, fuelling areas, aggregate sources, and concrete production components as part of the EA.

The technical overview of the Project will take into account design considerations for specific features including those listed. Further assessment of specific project components such as aggregates and concrete production will be part of the EA process.

In Progress Local Design Considerations, Aggregate, Fueling


BFN – 5 Section 4.1.4 Identification of the number, location, and characteristics of existing and proposed new roads/trails should be completed, in consultation with contractor and stakeholders, during the EA process, as they amount to a large footprint with potential for major impacts.

Locations for ancillary infrastructure (roads, trails, laydown areas, fly yards, construction offices, etc.) are currently being ground-truthed and will be further developed and assessed as part of the EA.

In Progress Ancillary Infrastructure


BFN – 6 Section 4.1.5 The location, number and size of yards should be determined in consultation with the public and appropriate stakeholders and Indigenous communities during the EA process. These sites should also be restored at the conclusion of construction, unless needed for the operation phase.

See above. Decommissioning of temporary infrastructure will be based on consultation, regulatory requirements and/or returned to existing use post-construction.

In Progress Decomissioning


BFN – 7 Section 4.1.7 The location, number and size of temporary easements should be determined in consultation with the public and appropriate stakeholders and Indigenous communities during the EA process.

Easements will be determined through the real estate rights acquisition process. Consultation with affected parties will occur at that time.

In Progress Real Estate


BFN – 9 Section 4.1.9 The location, number and size of construction camps should be determined in consultation with the public and appropriate stakeholders and Indigenous communities during the EA process. The environmental impacts associated with the camps should be considered during the EA process. The impact on municipal infrastructure or impacts as a result of groundwater and/or septic system use to support these camps should be considered during the EA process, in consultation with the affected municipalities and utilities, public, and appropriate stakeholders and Indigenous communities. Programs to reduce the impact of these camps (e.g. recycling, waste management, etc.) should also be identified during the EA process. These sites should also be restored at the conclusion of construction, unless needed for the operation phase.

Locations for ancillary infrastructure (roads, trails, laydown areas, fly yards, construction offices, etc.) are currently being ground-truthed and will be further developed and assessed as part of the EA. Consultation on the ancillary infrastructure will occur as part of the Project as a whole during the EA process. Consultation with municipalities and identifying waste management strategies will occur during the EA to address resource capacity concerns.

In Progress Ancillary Infrastructure, Waste Management, Stakeholder Engagement


BFN – 10 Section 4.2 Comments The sequence of potential for construction impacts seems arbitrary, and potentially incorrect – are surveying activities expected to have less impact than clearing and grubbing? The Transmission Vegetation Management Program should be developed as part of the EA process, and subject to review by the public, stakeholders and Indigenous communities.

The activities are not listed in order of severity of impact. They are listed in terms of sequence of events (i.e. first surveying, next clearing, then supporting infrastructure, etc.). The vegetation management program will be developed as part of the EA process and will be part of consultation.

In Progress Vegetation Management, Indigenous Consultation


BFN – 11 Section 5The corridor section near Dorion in HONI’s reference route aligns with thepreferred route identified in NextBridge’s Amended EA for the new East-WestTie Project.Given the early stage of the new field studies, there may be some opportunity for members of the community to get involved in the environmental and cultural field studies.

Hydro One is committed to providing opportunities for Indigenous community members to participate in the studies.

In Progress Economic, Monitoring


BFN – 12 Batchewana First Nation BFN – 12 Section 5.1 It would be beneficial to have some brief explanation and rationale of the LSAs and RSAs for each environmental factor.

The study area for each natural and socio-economic study will differ. The LSA and RSA chosen for each study will be further developed in the EA.

In Progress Study Area


BFN – 13 Section 5.2 The proponent should identify additional details related to field investigations including the location of surveys, survey protocols, timing of surveys, geographical extent of surveys, level of effort, etc. The reasons for not committing to conduct reptile surveys, small mammal surveys, wildlife habitat surveys and insect surveys should be provided since the proponent has not identified these surveys in the list. More details should be provided related to what Species at Risk surveys are proposed. The proponent has screened the study area and identified numerous species at risk that may be present in Table 6 of the ToR, but provided no indication of how the presence/absence of specific species at risk will be confirmed. There is no explanation as to how the determination of the various levels of study area (PSA/RSA/LSA) have any relationship to data collection or the methods employed for each level. There is no discussion of methodology and a justification of the methods used. This section could benefit from having sub-sections for each technical study to address above noted comments, as well as more extensive lists of sources for each study.

More extensive details related to field study methodology have been added to Section 5.2. On May 23, 2018, Hydro One provided Batchewana First Nation a copy of its Natural Heritage Field Work Plans for review and comment. A component of the wildlife fieldwork program includes conducting mammal surveys and is supplemental to the Woodland Caribou winter aerial surveys completed in winter 2018. The results of these surveys, as well as those others will be described and documented in the Individual EA Report and supporting technical reports. To date no comments or feedback on the work plans has been received from Batchewana First Nation. Wildlife surveys and species at risk include reptiles, mammals, and insects.

In Progress Data Collection, Indigenous Consultation


BFN – 14 Section 5.3 Information related to data collection methods presented in this section should be moved to Section 5.2.The proponent makes no mention of plants and animals that are harvested byFirst Nations through hunting, fishing and gathering. While the TOR describes potential effects, it does not substantially elaborate on various aspects of the effects, such as magnitude, geographical extent, duration, frequency and likelihood. It should be ensured that the EA includes such consideration.The effects of the project should be considered in conjunction with other projects that are known to occur in the study areas. The NextBridge EA had identified the following projects: • Certain/Planned Projects and Activitieso Highway 11/17 Expansiono Nipigon River Bridgeo Prairie River Bridge Rehabilitation and trail loop closureo Planned Forestry Roads • Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Activitieso Whitesand First Nation Cogeneration and Pellet Mill Projecto Magino Gold Project – Prodigy Gold Incorporatedo Hardrock Gold Mine – Greenstone Gold Mines In many instances, the ToR indicates that primary source of information will be collected if necessary and that field studies will be undertaken if required. How will the need for primary research/field studies be determined?The Record of Consultation included with the ToR indicates HONI’s efforts during the development of the ToR to initiate participation from Indigenous communities in environmental field studies. Efforts to initiate or continueTraditional Ecological Knowledge studies and obtain information from communities should be done as early as possible to ensure they are appropriately accounted for in the EA process. The previous EA by NextBridge initiated these studies late in the EA process, continuing past the conclusion of the process.

Traditional land usage and traditional knowledge are both listed as information sources for the natural environment studies within Appendix 1. Consultation with Indigenous communities will occur to gather TK and be incorporated into the EA. Effects assessment such as magnitude, geographical extent, duration, frequency and likelihood is part of the effects assessment process of the EA. Cumulative effects assessment will assess Project effects interaction with planned, approved infrastructure as Batchewana First Nation has noted. Determination of field study requirements will be undertaken as part of the baseline studies. A thorough review of existing information will identify data gaps. If required, field studies will assess the data gaps with the goal of being able to inform decision making as part of the Environmental Assessment Act.

In Progress Data Collection, Traditional Land Use, Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Consultation, Effects Assessment


BFN – 15 Section 5.3.2 Radius for groundwater study should be specified.

The study area for groundwater will be further determined during the EA.

In Progress Study Area, Groundwater


BFN – 16 Section 5.3.3 None of these environmentally significant areas are labeled on Figures 4 or 5 of the ToR.

Figures 4 and 5 are intended to display high-level interactions with environmentally significant areas. The environmentally significant areas will have more detailed figures in the EA.

In Progress Sensitive Areas, ToR/EA Documentation


BFN – 17 Section 5.3.4 The wildlife habitat and wildlife assemblage found within the study area are poorly characterized in the ToR. Consideration of efforts to reverse ongoing and cumulative impacts on Species at Risk should also be included in the EA.

Wildlife and wildlife habitat will be further assessed in the EA. A more fulsome description of these natural environments will be developed. Mitigation measures for Species at Risk (SAR) will be developed. Regulatory requirements around SAR also require specific compensation measures for disturbance.

In Progress Wildlife, Species at Risk, Permitting, Data Collection


BFN – 18 Section 5.3.5The natural heritage areas identified by the proponent are typical of the designated natural heritage areas found in southern Ontario and do not necessarily apply to northern Ontario where the majority of the study area is considered “natural” and owned by the Crown. The proponent indicates that there are seven tertiary watersheds, but lists eight.Opportunities for Indigenous communities to harvest or transplant traditional plants prior to clearing of the right-of-way and access roads should be considered.

Noted. The 8th tertiary watershed has been added to the description. Additional methodology for Section 5.3.5 has been added to Section 5.2.Mitigation measures in regards to traditionally important plants can be part of consultation with Batchewana First Nation.

In Progress Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Consultation


BFN – 19 Section 5.3.6 The gaps in knowledge related to fisheries should be addressed during the EA and not deferred to “prior to construction.” The proponent does not address how fish habitat located in lakes, ponds and wetlands will be addressed during the EA in the ToR. Consideration of efforts to reverse ongoing and cumulative impacts on at risk species should also be included in the EA.

Waterbodies will be assessed during the EA process which will take place prior to construction. Aquatic habitat, waterbodies and watercourses include lakes, ponds and wetlands. These will be assessed as part of the EA process.

In Progress Waterbodies, Aquatic Habitat.


BFN – 20 Section 5.3.7 Details of the field surveys to be carried out to confirm the presence/absence of species at risk have not been provided in the ToR. Some Species at Risk identified in the NextBridge study are not included in Table 6 (e.g. Shortjaw Cisco) Consideration of efforts to reverse ongoing and cumulative impacts on Species at Risk should also be included in the EA.

Further detailed methodology has been added to Section 5.2 for SAR. Coregonus zenithicus, aka Shortjaw Cisco, is found in Table 5 with its associated Provincial SARO status and Federal SARA status. A more comprehensive list of SAR will be developed during the EA process. Effects assessment will include cumulative effects and mitigation measures will be developed to address potential impacts

In Progress Data Collection, Species at Risk, Effects Assessment.


BFN – 21 Section 5.3.8 Impacts to air quality should also account for Indigenous community values and activities (e.g. trap-lines, trap trails, campsites, recreational sites, spiritual sites, and other important sites).

Noted. Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities to include traditional land usage and TK and their interactions with potential project effects such as air quality as part of the EA process.

In Progress Traditional Land Use, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Air Quality


BFN – 22 Section 5.3.9 There are additional sources cited in the NextBridge EA, which should be included in this study. Impacts to acoustic environment should also account for Indigenous community values and activities (e.g. trap-lines, trap trails, campsites, recreational sites, spiritual sites, and other important sites).

Additional sources of noise will be further assessed during the EA process. Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities to include traditional land usage and TK and their interactions with potential project effects such as noise as part of the EA process.

In Progress Traditional Land Use, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Noise


BFN – 24 Section 5.4.2It is not clear from the ToR how the EA process will incorporate discussion on the economic participation of indigenous communities to date. For instance,given the project scope and timeline are different, how will the role of SupercomIndustries LP change? With changes in project costs, how will equity participation be restructured?Will any priority be given to qualified local Indigenous candidates for direct employment opportunities, and qualified and competitive local Indigenous businesses for procurement opportunities? If so, how will these opportunities be prioritized?

Added to Section 5.4.2.The economy includes traditional land uses by Indigenous communities including hunting, trapping, and harvesting. The Project footprint also includes areas subject to Indigenous rights and interests.Specific commitments for procurement, equity, and employment will be part of consultation with Indigenous communities.

In Progress Traditional Land Use, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Economic


BFN – 27 Section 5.4.5 Impacts to visual environment should also account for Indigenous community values and activities (e.g. trap-lines, trap trails, campsites, recreational sites, spiritual sites, and other important sites).

Consultation with Indigenous communities and the public has identified several additional visual environment assessment locations which have been assessed as part of the Visual Impact Assessment.

Complete Visual, Stakeholder Engagement, Indigenous Consultation


BFN – 28 Section 5.4.6 The EA should also identify where improvements/repairs to infrastructure will be required, how those improvements/repairs will be made, and the source of funding.

Construction plans, including assessment of existing infrastructure and access will be further assessed during the EA process.

In Progress Access, Construction Plans


BFN – 31 Section 5.5.2 With respect to Traditional/Indigenous Land Use (Section 5.5.2) there is no mention of the previous efforts made to address Indigenous concerns for much of the study area. A great deal of documentation has been previously compiled from consultation with First Nations communities potentially affected by the proposed undertaking. It would seem reasonable to use this material to initiate discussions for this EA and to confirm and amend what has been identified as concerns in the recent past. It would seem to be counterproductive for all parties concerned to initiate these discussions from the perspective that nothing had been discussed before that might be of relevance to this project. This would save a considerable amount of time and money for both the proponent and the stakeholder communities if an agreement could be reached to continue where discussions left off during the previous EA. The Record of Consultation included with the ToR indicates HONI’s efforts during the development of the ToR to initiate participation from Indigenous communities in Stage I and II archaeological assessments. Efforts to initiate or continue Traditional Land and Resource Use studies and obtain information from communities should be done as early as possible to ensure they are appropriately accounted for in the EA process. The previous EA by NextBridge initiated these studies late in the EA process, continuing past the conclusion of the process. A policy on the use of herbicides should be developed as part of the EA, in consultation with and with the consent of Indigenous communities, including BFN. This was a major issue of contention late in the previous NextBridge EA process.

Hydro One recognizes the significant work that has gone into consultation on the NextBridge Project and will leverage existing consultation records to facilitate Project review and community consultation. Hydro One is currently in the process of providing capacity to communities to initiate TK and Traditional Land Usage studies and to use these results in other aspects of the EA. Vegetation management and other mitigation measures including herbicide usage will be further developed during the EA process in consultation with Indigenous communities.

In Progress Traditional Land Use, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Vegetation Management


BFN – 34 Section 5.8Archaeology and Built Cultural Heritage Features and Cultural HeritageLandscapes are not the same things and must be addressed in substantially different ways. This section is written in such a way that it conflates all of these various cultural heritage resources and potential effects. The different classes or categories of cultural heritage resources should be specifically addressed. This would seem to be an ideal opportunity to make use of the data previously collected through earlier consultation efforts which would allow for this study to significantly expand the results of the process or to at least confirm what has been captured to date at significant cost savings to the proponent and stakeholders.Agreements with Indigenous communities on access and land use rights for theROW, access roads should be considered.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has provided the following comment:“The term “cultural heritage resources” comprises archaeology, built heritage, and cultural heritage landscapes, and are formalized in provincial legislation, regulations, guidelines, and the Provincial Policy Statement 2014. For clarity, we suggest that this terminology is used.”Hydro One recognizes the significant work that has gone into consultation on the NextBridge Project and will leverage existing consultation records to facilitate Project review and community consultation. Where appropriate, Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities in regards to rights and land usage.

In Progress Traditional Land Use, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge


BFN – 35 Section 6 It is unclear what this means with respect to cultural heritage resources. The impact of cultural/built environment on natural heritage values seems disconnected from the intent of the EA. The proposed undertaking can have adverse impacts on the cultural/built environment and/or on natural heritage values, but the connection between the cultural/built environment and natural heritage values is a pre-existing relationship that exists outside of the proposed undertaking and constitutes part of the existing conditions and environment of the study area. In the list of principles that will be applied by HONI during the EA process in the development and evaluation of alternative methods, a number of ideals are enumerated such as minimizing negative effects on agricultural lands and operations and maximizing opportunities to enhance positive effects on the natural and socio-economic environment. However, there are no principles that include minimizing negative effects on cultural heritage resources or on traditional/Indigenous land use.

The EA will assess existing conditions in the natural heritage and cultural/built environment and also determine potential effects and inter-relationships between the various components of the environment. The list of principles has been modified to include minimizing negative effects on exercise of Aboriginal rights or traditional and Indigenous Land Use and minimizing effects on cultural heritage resources.

In Progress Cultural Heritage, Traditional Land Use, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge


BFN – 36 Section 7.1There should be criteria under “Natural Environment” for plants and animals thatare harvested by First Nations through hunting, fishing and gathering (in Table10 and Appendix 1 of the ToR). There should be a climate change criterion listed under “Natural Environment” (in Table 10 and Appendix 1).Traditional Knowledge is identified as a criterion in Table 10 of the ToR, but not included in Appendix 1 of the ToR.This section provides no specifics on how the various technical studies will be utilized to identify effects and mitigation measures. Presumably, the technical studies themselves, undertaken by subject matter experts, will be directed to determine what adverse impacts may arise from the proposed undertaking and how these should be addressed prior to construction and/or monitored during construction and operational maintenance cycles. These adverse impacts would then need to be addressed accordingly and the mitigation strategies appropriately utilized in redesign, rerouting or scheduled within the project development and operational timelines.The ToR attempts to streamline sources and methodology for all disciplines; however, it may be beneficial to provide more specific and detailed information for each discipline, with input from the respective specialists. This input may also help to better organize the project schedule and coordination of milestones.

Traditional/Indigenous Land Use under Cultural/Built Environment includes plants and animals harvested by First Nations. The results of these studies, consultation and TK will inform other aspects of the EA including the Natural Environment. Appendix 1 has been updated to include additional TK data sources. Effects assessment, monitoring and mitigation measures will be further developed in the EA process. Additional information on study methodology has been added to Section 5.2.

In Progress Effects Assessment, Monitoring, Mitigation Measures,Traditional Land Use, Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Consultation


BFN – 38 Section 8 Compliance monitoring should be conducted by subject matter experts from the disciplines that produced the various technical studies. Further, it would be more preferable that an expert be selected from the relevant disciplines where monitoring is required that neither prepared any of the original studies nor conducted a peer review of any of the studies. In some instances, such as with respect to cultural heritage resources and Indigenous land use, there would be significant value in the participation of interested stakeholders in any such monitoring program so that the concerned groups can: • Provide special knowledge and inspect specific locales within the study area prior to inspection in order to confirm that there are no significant resources under threat of negative effects; and, • Accompany experts on inspections and see first-hand that appropriate measures are being taken and their interests are being safeguarded.

Monitoring and identification of traditionally important sites will be further developed during the EA process and will be part of consultation with Indigenous communities.

In Progress Monitoring, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Land Use, Traditional Knowledge.


BFN – 40 Section 9.2 The First Nations and Métis communities identified are the same as those identified in the NextBridge EA. Individual communities, or groups who have formed partnerships (e.g. Bamkushwada LP) should be engaged by HONI, and seek similar agreements on economic participation.

Economic partnerships will be further discussed during consultation with Indigenous communities.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Economic


BFN – 41 Section 9.3Engagement between HONI and Indigenous communities should continue past the EA, into construction, and operation (e.g. impact of construction and operation/maintenance on access and traditional activities).It is unclear how Indigenous community members who live off of reserve lands will be accounted for as part of the Indigenous consultations.Record of consultation• HONI is maintaining a record of consultation for the ToR withstakeholders, public, agencies, and Indigenous communities to:o Document concerns and follow-up actions and responses;o Maintain a current record of staff and community representatives;and,o Maintain a record of all communications (including phone calls and e-mails) and information provided to interested parties as well as consultation events/activities with each community.

Consultation with Indigenous communities will occur during the EA process in regards to development of operation and maintenance plans.Members who live off-reserve can receive information from their communities or through other non-Indigenous-specific Project information dissemination.

In Progress Maintenance and Operations, Indigenous Consultation


BFN – 42 Section 9.4 HONI has identified that capacity building will be part of their approach; however, they should also include additional time and resources at points of review to allow communities adequate time to retain experts and have an opportunity to review with various members and officials of the community. BFN should pursue opportunities for capacity building to participate in the engagement process, procurement and sub-contracting opportunities, job training, employment, equity participation, and offering of Traditional Knowledge early on in the EA process.

The development of a capacity funding agreement will be part of consultation with Indigenous communities to participate in the EA process.



BFN – 43 Section 9.5 It would be good to note some of the parameters of the issue resolution strategy in the ToR, as well an idea of when

Issues resolution will be further developed during the EA process.

In Progress Issues Resolution, Indigenous Consultation

the strategy will be fully developed (i.e. at what point in the EA process). Biigtigong Nishnaabeg (BN)

BN Is there going to be any disruption in any waterways? Disruption to watercourses/waterways will be limited to temporary watercourse crossings (i.e., bridges, culverts, etc.) needed for temporary access roads during the construction period for the project. Mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat, including restoration of site crossings, will be implemented in accordance industry best management practices and conditions of applicable permits/authorizations for the works.

In Progress Working in/around water, Mitigation measures, Access Roads

Biigtigong Nishnaabeg (BN)

BN Are they going to hire any of the people trained (Supercom) for this project? The training provided through the Supercom programs will continue to be relevant for the construction and maintenance of the transmission line, regardless of which proponent is awarded the Leave to Construct. Hydro One is committed to maximizing the employment of members from local Indigenous communities including those who have received or who are currently completing project related skills training.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Economics


BN Are they going to make more access roads, even when not needed? Hydro One will continue the same maintenance access for LSL as it has with the existing EWT which is largely done through helicopters. No additional permanent accesses are required. The construction will focus on using helicopters to minimize the need for these temporary access roads.



BN Are there any chemicals being used that would interfere in our land? Herbicides will not be used during the construction phase. Targeted, hand-applied herbicides may be used for vegetation control purposes during operations and maintenance but Hydro One has not aerial sprayed herbicides for close to 60 years.

In Progress Vegetation Management, Herbicides


BN - 1a Biigtigong Nishnaabeg requires HONI to thoroughly review a "do nothing" alternative within the EA. Using a "do nothing" alternative is a normal and accepted methodology in Ontario EAs. In this case, the "do nothing" alternative would likely include the existing OEB designated NextBridge EWT project proceeding to construction and operation. The existing OEB designated NextBridge EWT project is a reasonably foreseeable project that is likely to proceed. As such, the "do nothing" alternative is a reasonable and practical component for the HONI EA.

“Proceeding with the Project” will be compared to the “do nothing” alternative in the EA. This approach is proposed given that the provincial government has already analyzed options for supplying electricity for Northwestern Ontario and identified the Project (Expansion of the East-West Tie) as the preferred alternative. The “Do Nothing” alternative has historically included the use of existing infrastructure and/or the use of planned, approved infrastructure. The NextBridge project/alternative has not been approved and will therefore not be included as part of the “Do Nothing” scenario.

In Progress ToR/EA Documentation, Alternative Assessment


BN – 2a HONI must provide First Nations including BN with a seat at the decision-making table to have meaningful input and allow for a full and complete assessment of the implications of the Project alternatives.

Hydro One’s Indigenous engagement program is designed to provide relevant project information to Indigenous communities in a timely manner. The process enables affected Indigenous communities to review the project proposals, provide input on project alternatives, and raise issues, concerns and questions they may have with the Project. Hydro One has, and will continue to meet with Indigenous communities to collect information and discuss any concerns/questions/feedback communities may have on all aspects of the Project, including the alternatives assessment. Comments/concerns raised through this process will be taken into consideration during the identification and evaluation of alternatives, and changes will be made where necessary/feasible.



BN – 2b HONI must include detailed plans on the assessment of their preferred route and how they will protect traditionally important areas to BN.

The EA will document and demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of the reference route and alternative reference route(s). Avoidance of traditionally important areas (e.g., cultural and spiritual) to Indigenous communities is an element of the alternatives assessment under the socio-economic environment factor and the corresponding indicators and criteria for evaluation. Where impacts are identified, Where applicable mitigation measures will be identified to protect and/or avoid traditionally important areas to the BN. Through the CFA process, Hydro One seeks permission to utilize any available Traditional Knowledge studies that are available to help with the assessment. Hydro One will also provide assistance to BN in the development and/or completion of these studies if they are not complete at this time.

In Progress Alternative Assessment, Traditional Knowledge


BN – 3a HONI must commit in the ToR to provide a comprehensive Environmental Assessment study, while following regulatory guidelines and having sufficient time for meaningful consultation with BN and other First Nations. HONI must demonstrate how they will achieve both these goals in the tight timelines without compromising on either.

The preparation of a ToR in support of an Individual EA demonstrates Hydro One’s commitment to completing a comprehensive EA study. The LSL Individual EA will be prepared in accordance with all applicable legislation, regulations and guidelines to ensure any potential environmental effects are either avoided and/or mitigated. A critical component of this process is the engagement of Indigenous communities and other stakeholders. Hydro One is committed to full and meaningful engagement with all interested persons and Indigenous communities to ensure feedback is incorporated into the EA study in a timely manner and within the timelines prescribed by the EA Act.



BN – 5 HONI must commit in the ToR to assessing all existing towers to ensure that they meet current and future standards for reliability and structural stability in our changing climate. HONI must provide rationale for maintaining existing structures, upgrading towers or tower replacement.

Climate change will be assessed in the evaluation of alternatives as well as part of mitigation measures and integrated into engineering design.

In Progress Climate Change, Alternative Assessment


BN – 6 HONI must perform detailed assessments of water quality at each water body crossing during baseline conditions. All waterbody crossings must have at minimum an assessment of the baseline conditions for water quality including temperature, dissolved oxygen, total suspended sediments, conductivity, nutrients and metals. This data should then be used during construction monitoring to determine exceedances to baseline water quality and when to implement contingency measures.

The assessment of water quality will be conducted at select and representative waterbodies, particularly those where temporary access road crossings are proposed, to characterize baseline conditions for the impact assessment and to use during the construction monitoring program to determine effectiveness of mitigation measures and need for contingency measures. The potential to affect water quality may occur during construction through erosion, inappropriate sediment control, inappropriate vehicle maintenance practices, or fuel/lubricant spills. A component of the environmental protection plan will be the implementation of sediment and erosion control measures when working near waterbodies, the development of a vehicle refuelling and maintenance plan and procedures that prohibits such activities near waterbodies, and the availability of on-site spill kits. These and other appropriate mitigation measures and environmental operational procedures will be identified in the EA to ensure that water quality impacts during construction and maintenance periods are minimized and/or avoided.

In Progress Access Roads, Mitigation Measures


BN – 7a HONI needs to complete sufficient baseline studies of all potential water body crossings along the reference route to give BN assurance that indicators of impacts will be detected during construction or that existing exceedance can be mitigated for.

Water body crossings will be characterized to ensure sufficient baseline data is available to inform the EA and secure all other permits and/or authorizations where applicable. The focus of this work will be on those waterbodies where temporary access road crossings are proposed, and/or where substantive in-water or near work will occur during the construction phase.

In Progress Access Roads, Mitigation Measures


BN – 7b An assessment of the flow regime including mean annual flow must also be completed at each watercourse crossing. An assessment of mean annual flow at select watercourses will be conducted through the review of background information sources and field surveys. The focus of determining surface flow rates at watercourses will be to address appropriate design sizing of structures needed for temporary access road crossings and to generally characterize the hydrology in the local study area for the Reference Route.



BN – 8a HONI must commit in the ToR to provide a good characterization and understanding of the fish and fish habitat along the Project Footprint to ensure that important fish species to BN are protected and their habitat is not compromised. Fish surveys are needed to locate critical fish habitat as well as fish presence and assemblages This is especially important within the Pukaskwa National Park where no recent surveying has been completed.

Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the project, Hydro One will not duplicate these studies, but instead use publicly available information to inform assessment efforts. Hydro One will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements. The current preliminary focus of field surveys includes Pukaskwa National Park, the transmission corridor between Wawa and Marathon, the Dorion area, temporary and permanent access roads, laydown areas, fly yards and any additional areas identified as a concern. This will include aquatic habitat assessments to characterize fish community, and quality and sensitivity of fish habitat, including species at risk. Hydro One will continue to engage regulators to ensure the baseline data is adequate for the EA.



BN – 8b HONI must commit in the ToR to complete fish habitat surveys to determine fish presence in and around (upstream and downstream) of crossings and using the information to determine the crossing structures and potential mitigation measures.

Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the project, Hydro One will not duplicate these studies, but instead use publicly available information to inform assessment efforts. Hydro One will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements. The current preliminary focus of field surveys includes Pukaskwa National Park, the transmission corridor between Wawa and Marathon, the Dorion area, temporary and permanent access roads, laydown areas, fly yards and any additional areas identified as a concern. This will include aquatic habitat assessments to characterize fish community, and quality and sensitivity of fish habitat, including species at risk. Hydro One will continue to engage regulators to ensure the baseline data is adequate for the EA.

In Progress Data Collection, Fish, Surface Water


BN – 8c HONI must commit in the ToR to an Environmental Protection Plan that integrates the fish habitat survey results and mitigation measures being added to the Plan based on the field surveys.

It is recognized that the preparation of an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) is necessary to ensure impacts to water crossing areas are minimized or avoided. An EPP for the construction phase will be developed during the EA and protection and mitigation measures, including those specific to fish habitat, will be defined at that time. The EPP is expected to include compilation of environmental protection measures, contingency plans, and management plans with the objective to address known and anticipated environmental conditions or events that could occur during the construction of the Project.



BN – 9 HONI must commit in the ToR to avoid placing transmission towers in PSWs, ANSls, ESAs and in areas of traditionally importance to BN.

Effort will be made to avoid PSWs, ANSls, ESAs and areas of traditional importance, where possible. This will be a consideration in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of routing alternatives using natural, socio-economic and technical criteria and indicators. Information from Indigenous communities relating to traditional knowledge and values will be incorporated into evaluation of alternative routing and refinement of the preferred route.

In Progress Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Consultation, Alternative Assessment


BN – 10a HONI must commit in the ToR to using guidelines for riparian buffers based on slope, such as the MNRF Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales to protect adjacent waterbodies, at a minimum.

The MNRF Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales will be considered with respect to vegetation management and retention of riparian buffers at waterbodies, in addition to other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines We note that the MNRF guide provides direction for forest management planning teams and practitioners to help them plan and implement specific forest operations, and as such it is not specifically applicable to linear infrastructure developments, such as the LSL project. However, the primary objective noted in the guide of ensuring biodiversity at the stand and site scales will be considered.

In Progress Vegetation Management, Riparian Area, Forestry


BN – 10b HONI must commit in the ToR to limit removal of existing riparian buffers along the Project Footprint. Hydro One will make its best efforts to limit removal of existing riparian buffers along the Project footprint, where possible. This will be a consideration in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of project route alternatives.

In Progress Riparian Area


BN – 10c HONI must commit in the ToR to restore disturbed riparian buffers as soon as possible and look for opportunities to improve marginal riparian buffers where possible along the Project Footprint.

Hydro One will make its best efforts to restore riparian buffers that have been disturbed by construction activities, where possible.



BN – 11 HONI must commit in the ToR to providing detailed analysis on the crossing structures and flow needs of each water body crossing to determine how flow hydraulics and connectivity will be maintained.

An analysis of flow conditions at waterbody crossings will be undertaken to assess the appropriate sizing and type of structures (bridges, culverts) needed to convey hydraulic conditions in accordance with the MNRF guidelines and design criteria for temporary access road crossings of waterbodies.

In Progress Surface Water, Access Roads


BN – 12a HONI must commit in the ToR to complete all necessary baseline studies for the entire study area to show their due diligence and gain a full understanding of both the existing environmental conditions and the resulting potential effects. This will ensure that HONI is taking responsibility of the Project and its effects by ensuring that baseline data is sufficient, reliable, scientifically sound, and protective of the environment. These studies need to be thorough and multi-seasonal to account for natural temporal variability in species presence and identifiability.

Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the project, Hydro One will not duplicate these studies, but instead use publicly available information to inform assessment efforts. Hydro One will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements. The current preliminary focus of field surveys includes Pukaskwa National Park, the transmission corridor between Wawa and Marathon, the Dorion area, temporary and permanent access roads, laydown areas, fly yards and any additional areas identified as a concern. Hydro One will continue to engage regulators to ensure the baseline data is adequate for the EA.



BN – 12c HONI must commit in the ToR to incorporating traditional knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge in their baseline studies in order to determine the full extent of Project effects.

Hydro One is working toward securing Capacity Funding Agreements (CFA) with the 18 identified Indigenous communities. A component of the CFA is the sharing of Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Traditional Land Use (TLU) data that can inform the baselines studies, evaluation of alternatives and impact assessment, including the identification of avoidance, protection and/or mitigation measures. Hydro One will work closely with Indigenous communities to incorporate TK and TLU data to the extent possible, provided this data is shared with Hydro One. Through the Capacity Funding Agreement (CFA) process, Hydro One seeks permission to utilize any available Traditional Knowledge studies that are available to help with the assessment. Hydro One will also provide assistance to BN in the development and/or completion of these studies if they are not complete at this time.



BN – 12d HONI must commit in the ToR to involving First Nations communities in the execution of environmental baseline studies and fieldwork.

On May 18, 2018, Hydro One sent a letter to each of the eighteen (18) Indigenous communities to provide notice it would soon be commencing field studies in support of an EA for the LSL project, and offered each of the communities an opportunity to participate in the field program. The natural heritage field work plans were shared shortly thereafter with communities, and more specifically with BN on May 23, 2018 to allow for the review of the work plans. To date, several First Nations have expressed interest in participating in the field program and are in the process of completing CFAs to accommodate monitors. Some First Nations monitors have already participated in field work. Hydro One will continue to engage Indigenous communities to accommodate those who wish to participate, and will work to sign CFAs to provide funding for the monitors.



BN – 13a HONI must identify if new helipads will need to be created to accommodate this work, or if existing infrastructure can be used. In either case, HONI must complete thorough baseline studies in and around the areas for identified aerial works to ensure that no species of significance (both vegetative and wildlife), significant wetlands, or sensitive habitat areas will be disturbed. Appropriate setback distances and timing restrictions will need to be applied.

The Hydro One baseline studies will cover supportive infrastructure for the Project such as temporary laydown yards, construction camps, fly yards and access roads for evaluation in the EA. The environmental protection plan will guide construction activities and outline mitigations for working in and around sensitive habitat areas.



BN – 13b If helicopter work is to occur as part of the Project's ongoing operation and maintenance, HONI must commit to ensuring that no fuelling or mechanical maintenance activities will occur in or around the helipads located in Pukaskwa National Park.

No fly yards will be located within Pukaskwa National Park, and therefore no refuelling or mechanical maintenance activities will occur within the park. All required fly yards will be located outside of PNP. These plans will be further developed as part of the EA.

In Progress PNP


BN – 13c HONI will need to undertake vegetation management practices in order to maintain helipads for safe operations. HONI must identify, through a full Vegetation Management Program, how they intend to manage vegetation growth in these remote areas.

Hydro One has developed a Vegetation Management Program for its transmission facilities that will be applied to the LSL project. This program will be implemented with a goal to ensure vegetation does not interfere with the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of the transmission line, or prohibit access to the transmission line structures. Details of the vegetation management program will be discussed as part of the EA.



BN – 14a HONI must commit in the ToR to indicating the anticipated spatial extent of vegetation clearing for construction, and if it is in excess of the proposed 37-46m wide ROW. They must also indicate the extent that such site preparation is expected to occur within Pukaskwa National Park.

In Section 4.2.2 of the ToR specifies: Where the proposed transmission line is adjacent to existing East-West Tie the ROW will typically be up to 37 m wide. A ROW, typically up to 46 m wide, will be cleared of vegetation to accommodate the transmission line around the communities of Dorion and Loon Lake between Nipigon and Lakehead. For the section of line through PNP, the corridor will not be widened and as such no vegetation removals are required outside the existing ROW. Therefore, the need for vegetation clearing in excess of the proposed 37-46 m widths is not expected based on the preliminary engineering and construction assessment completed to date. In the event the proposed width requirements for the new transmission line change the EA will assess these effects. Similarly, the need for clearing outside of the ROW through PNP is not expected. Construction within PNP will be completed via helicopter to minimize impacts. The use of helicopters eliminates the need for access roads, temporary water crossings and heavy machinery traversing the ROW.

In Progress Vegetation Management, Project Design


BN – 14b HONI must commit in the ToR to completing baseline field surveys to ensure that vegetation clearing and site preparation activities will not negatively impact any ecological sensitive areas, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species-at-risk.

Baseline studies and background data collection will be completed to characterize the environmental features of the project study area and allow for the assessment of potential impacts of the preferred route. Mitigation measures will be identified in the EA to minimize and/or avoid impacts to sensitive areas, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk. Additionally, Environmental Operational Procedures for the construction phase will be developed and documented in an Environmental Protection Plan, which will include mitigation measures to minimize impacts during site preparation activities (e.g., vegetation clearing and grubbing, topsoil stripping and grading, etc.).

In Progress Data Collection, Environmental Plan, Mitigation Measures


BN – 14c HONI indicates that some construction activities will be staged to minimize potential environmental effects, such as avoiding clearing of vegetation during migratory bird nesting season. HONI must commit in the ToR to avoiding clearing of vegetation during bat hibernation and maternity roosting period, amphibian breeding and hibernation periods, and turtle nesting periods.

As part of the EA, standard mitigation measures and operational timing constraints will identified for clearing activities to protect migratory birds during their nesting period, including also bats, amphibians and other wildlife during their key life cycle periods. To address potential effects to wildlife, it is expected that vegetation clearing activities will likely be scheduled to occur in the winter to avoid impacts to ecological sensitive areas, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at -risk.

In Progress Mitigation Measures, Vegetation Management


BN – 14d HONI must commit in the ToR to explore alternative vegetation management practices, as part of the "alternative method" section of the ToR, to implement during all project phases to avoid the use of herbicides. HONI must also commit in the ToR to no aerial spraying herbicides on or off the ROW.

Hydro One has developed a Vegetation Management Program for its transmission facilities that will be applied to the LSL project. This program includes management practices to minimize and/or avoid the use of herbicides with the goal to ensure vegetation does not interfere with the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of the transmission line. In general, where herbicides are required the storage, handling, and application will comply with the Ontario Clean Water Act (2006). No aerial application of herbicides is typically undertaken on Hydro One transmission line corridors. However, the application of herbicide near rare plants or rare ecological communities, if required, will be restricted by using spot spraying, wicking, mowing, or hand picking, which are acceptable measures for weed control in these areas. Details of


the vegetation management program and practices will be discussed as part of the EA.


BN – 15 HONI must commit in the ToR to identify if there are any provincially significant wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas within the Project area and identify appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring programs to ensure that these significant areas are appropriately protected. Wetlands in and around the proposed transmission route should be delineated and evaluated using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System.

An assessment of the environmental effects of the Project on vegetation and wetlands will be described in the EA. In the EA, vegetation and wetlands, including environmental sensitive areas (e.g. Provincially Significant Wetland), will be considered at the ecosystem level (riparian, wetland, upland). Potential environmental effects and mitigation measures will be identified, including predicting the net effects and characterizing the net effects (i.e., after mitigation). Inspection and monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures during and after construction will also be identified in the EA.

In Progress Effects Assessment, Wetlands, Sensitive Areas, Mitigation Measures


BN – 16a HONI must commit in the ToR to indicating how they intend on collecting and verifying unpublished information and personal communications that will be used to compile known incidences of species at risk.

Known published data sources (e.g., Natural Heritage Information Centre, etc.,) will be utilized to inform on the presence/absence of species at risk. In addition Hydro One, as part of its baseline field studies, will be undertaking targeted species at risk surveys (e.g., bats, Eastern Whip-poor-will, etc.) throughout the corridor. Where unpublished and/or personal communication is available attempts will be made to verify the data through the fieldwork programs. In addition, anecdotal and unpublished information provided by members of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities will be reviewed, verified where possible, and incorporated into the EA.



BN – 16b Desktop studies are not sufficient for determining the presence of species at risk in the Project area, and as such HONI must commit in the ToR to including species at risk surveys as part of their baseline field studies.

On May 23, 2018, Hydro One provided Biigtigong Nishnaabeg a copy of its Natural Heritage Field Work Plans for review and comment. A component of the field program is species at risk surveys. The results of these surveys, as well as those others described in the EA. Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the project, Hydro One will not duplicate these studies, but instead use publicly available information to inform assessment efforts. Hydro One will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements. The current preliminary focus of field surveys includes Pukaskwa National Park, the transmission corridor between Wawa and Marathon, the Dorion area, temporary and permanent access roads, laydown areas, fly yards and any additional areas identified as a concern. This will include aquatic habitat assessments to characterize fish community, and quality and sensitivity of fish habitat, including species at risk. Hydro One will continue to engage regulators to ensure the baseline data is adequate for the EA.



BN – 16c HONI must commit in the ToR to indicating their proposed process for screening locations based on presence/absence of species at risk within the study area that could be directly affected by construction activities.

The screening of habitat suitability for species at risk within study area for the Project will be undertaken followed by field surveys to verify presence/ absence of species at risk, including potential effect as a result of the Project.

In Progress Effects Assessment, SAR


BN – 17a HONI must commit in the ToR to conducting baseline noise surveys in ecologically sensitive and remote areas (including Pukaskwa National Park and known habitat for sensitive birds and wildlife) that will be near construction and maintenance activities.

Information for the acoustic environment baseline will be collected from review of the existing data sources. As part of the data collection process, consideration and input from Indigenous communities, government agencies, other communities, property owners and interest groups will be sought. Baseline conditions will be determined to characterize the existing acoustic environment and identify potential human Points of Reception (or Noise Reception Points) to allow for the evaluation of potential effects, appropriate mitigation measures, and predicted net effects as result of the Project (including Pukaskwa National Park).

In Progress Noise, Data Collection, Indigenous Consultation.


BN – 17b HONI must commit in the ToR to restricting noise activities near identified habitat areas during active bat maternity roosting periods, migratory bird nesting periods, amphibian breeding periods, turtle nesting periods, and ungulate calving periods.

During the construction phase, Hydro One and its contractors will comply with the permitted hours stipulated in local municipal noise by-laws, and the MOECC Model Municipal Noise Control Bylaw (i.e., NPC-115). Noise abatement equipment on machinery will be properly maintained and in good working order. Applying the above mitigation and restrictions are anticipated to minimize noise effects to nearby identified habitat areas.

In Progress Noise, Mitigation Measures


BN – 18a HONI must commit in the ToR to avoiding the use of aerial spraying of pesticides and herbicides during construction and line maintenance.

Hydro One has developed a Vegetation Management Program for its transmission facilities that will be applied to the LSL project. This program includes management practices to minimize and/or avoid the use of herbicides with the goal to ensure vegetation does not interfere with the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of the transmission line. No aerial application of herbicides is typically undertaken on Hydro One transmission line corridors. However, the application of herbicide near rare plants or rare ecological communities, if required, will be restricted by using spot spraying, wicking, mowing, or hand picking, which are acceptable measures for weed control in these areas. Details of the vegetation management program and practices will be discussed as part of the EA.



BN – 18b HONI must commit in the ToR to include a country foods assessment and human health risk assessment in their EA studies and include input from First Nations, including BN.

The Human Heath and Risk Assessment (HHRA) will rely on available information sources with input from Indigenous communities. The assessment will evaluate the change in human health that could result from a change in environmental quality (i.e., specifically from a change in contaminant concentrations), such as groundwater quality; surface water quality; and air quality.In general, the HHRA would follow the risk assessment framework endorsed by provincial and federal regulatory agencies (MOE 2005; Health Canada 2012).

In Progress Human Health, Indigenous Consultation


BN – 19a HONI must commit in the ToR to consider preferential hiring of First Nations members for positions as Environmental Monitors or 'Guardians' to ensure that BN's traditional territories and traditional environmental values are being monitored.

Environmental Monitors/Inspectors are envisioned to be part of Hydro One’s Environmental Management Team for the Project. Employment opportunities to fulfil these monitoring roles will be provided to First Nation members.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Monitoring, Economic


BN – 19b HONI must commit in the ToR to establishing a bi-lateral agreement to provide support, capacity and training for BN to be involved in the environmental aspects of the EA, and the Project, at all phases.

Hydro One is committed to entering into Capacity Funding Agreements with Indigenous communities to provide support, capacity and training throughout the phases of the Project. It is intended that the approach to training, employment and procurement throughout all phases of the Project will be developed with input from Indigenous community


representatives. Biigtigong Nishnaabeg (BN)

BN – 19c HONI must commit in the ToR establish and provide capacity for a First Nation Environmental Management Committee with BN and other First Nations, as soon as possible in the EA process, and certainly by the next version of the Draft ToR. This Committee would ensure First Nation oversight for all environmental issues, would have direct access to review and comment on any environmental reports and regulatory applications and approvals, and would have decision making authority with respect to the environmental practices of HONI throughout the life of the project.

Hydro is committed to entering into consultation with Indigenous communities to provide support, capacity and training throughout the phases of the Project. Hydro One’s Indigenous engagement program is designed to provide relevant project information to Indigenous communities in a timely manner. The process enables affected Indigenous communities to review the project proposals, provide input on project alternatives, and raise issues, concerns and questions they may have with the Project. Hydro One has, and will continue to meet with Indigenous communities to collect information and discuss any concerns/questions/feedback communities may have on all aspects of the Project, including the alternatives assessment.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Alternatives Assessment


BN – 20a HONI must commit in the ToR to performing field monitoring studies throughout all Project phases, including during the EA, to ensure that all ecologically sensitive and significant features are identified, protected, and if necessary, remediated. These studies need to be performed directly by HONI, in collaboration with BN, for all Project areas, not just in areas that haven't been previously investigated by other proponents. These studies must be field based for all indicators to collect the most up to date and accurate information and subsequently develop the most appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring programs.

Hydro One is committed to implementing field monitoring studies throughout phases of the Project, and will work in collaborative manner to engage Indigenous communities in the collection of field data and identification of indicators and criteria that should be considered in the EA, including monitoring programs during and after construction.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Monitoring


BN – 20b HONI must commit in the ToR that it will provide funding and support for members of Indigenous communities must be part of the field monitoring teams, as third-party monitoring technicians or "Environmental Guardians", during the EA and for all other project monitoring activities, to provide important cultural insight to the monitoring activities, to ensure that significant environmental features are being considered and adequately protected, and to act as a third party environmental compliance body.

Environmental Monitors/Inspectors are envisioned to be part of Hydro One’s Environmental Management Team for the Project. Employment opportunities to fulfill these monitoring roles will be provided to First Nation members. Hydro is committed to entering into consultation with Indigenous communities to provide support and capacity for members of the communities to be engaged during the EA, including providing important cultural insight to the monitoring activities and protection of significant environmental features.



BN – 21a Monitoring prior to, during and post- construction are necessary to determine the effects of the Project in the local and regional area. HONI must commit in the ToR to doing environmental monitoring during all phases of the Project to understand impacts of the Project on the environment, and develop and implement appropriate mitigation measures and contingency plans.

Hydro One is committed to implementing field monitoring studies throughout all phases of the Project, and will work in a collaborative manner with Indigenous communities to develop and execute these programs and plans.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Monitoring


BN – 21b Once baseline conditions have been studied, monitoring construction must be completed to ensure that mitigation measures are working properly and the water bodies are not being negatively impacted by the construction. HONI must commit in the ToR for that construction monitoring activities must include Biigtigong Nishnaabeg member involvement as Environmental Monitors or Guardians.

Environmental Monitors/Inspectors are envisioned to be part of Hydro One’s Environmental Management Team for the Project. Employment opportunities to fulfill these monitoring roles will be provided to First Nation members.



BN – 21c HONI must commit in the ToR for Biigtigong Nishnaabeg member involvement third-party monitoring technicians, sometimes referred to as "Environmental Guardians", and provided training and capacity from the Proponent for involvement during the EA and all project phases.

Hydro One is committed to entering into Capacity Funding Agreements with Indigenous communities to provide support, capacity and training throughout the phases of the Project. Environmental Monitors/Inspectors are envisioned to be part of Hydro One’s Environmental Management Team for the Project. Employment opportunities to fulfill these monitoring roles will be provided to First Nation members.



BN – 23a Biigtigong Nishnaabeg has requested a thorough archeology assessment and traditional knowledge study be completed prior to any work to be done on the existing infrastructure through Pukaskwa Park. This assessment was never meaningfully done on the original line and given BN's historic ties to the land within and around Pukaskwa, we feel this is necessary. BN would also like to utilize an archaeologist of their choosing.

On June 29, 2018, Hydro One’s archaeological consultant, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA), sent an introduction and invitation to participate letter to each of the eighteen (18) Indigenous communities. Hydro One is working with Parks Canada to identify a mitigation strategy, scope and archaeological procedure for assessments within the Park. This permit will be subject to consultation with Indigenous communities. Impacts outside of the tower bases are not expected and July 20, 2018 correspondence with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has indicated that the proposed scope of the archaeological assessments centered around the bases of towers within areas of disturbance is supported. Each community was invited to participate in the planned archaeological assessments by providing information, at their discretion, regarding cultural heritage resources for inclusion in the Stage 1 report and/or participation in the Stage 2 fieldwork surveys within their Treaty and Traditional Territory. ARA and Hydro One will work with Indigenous communities to incorporate any information provided and to accommodate participation in any fieldwork surveys. No construction work will begin until it has been confirmed that work areas have no archaeological potential or all required archaeological assessments have been completed following applicable legislation and guidelines and accepted by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. It is acknowledged that the relationship between Hydro One and BN is unique and that the development of a Capacity Funding Agreement is necessary for meaningful consultation. As such, Hydro One is committed to entering into Capacity Funding Agreements with Indigenous communities to provide support and capacity for members of the communities to be engaged during the EA, including providing important cultural insight to the monitoring activities and protection of significant environmental features.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Archaeology


BN- 1a Not Addressed. While Section 6.2 provides a plan to describe a ‘Do Nothing’ alternative in the ToR, the NextBridge EWT project has been designated by the OEB and is therefore a practical “do nothing” alternative. BN will be satisfied with BOTH a combination of the ‘Do Nothing’ alternative described in the revised Draft ToR, together with the existing OEB designated NextBridge EWT project as alternatives routes. Proponent ResponseThe NextBridge EWT Project EA has not been approved. The Do Nothing assessment takes into account existing and approved infrastructure. The routing around Pukaskwa National Park (the route proposed in NextBridge’s EA) is being considered as an alternative route in the Lake Superior Link Project and will be compared against the Do Nothing assessment and the Reference Route through Pukaskwa National Park. SVS Response (2018-12-11)Partially AddressedBN will be satisfied with BOTH acombination of the ‘Do Nothing’alternative described in the revised DraftToR, together with the existing OEB designated NextBridge EWT project as alternative routes.The NextBridge EWT Project has been designated by the OEB and is therefore a reasonable alternative to consider within the alternatives assessment. While it is true that the NextBridge EWT Project EA has not yet been officially approved, it is highly likely that it will be

As noted in the ToR, in accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act, a focused EA will be prepared. The assessment of alternatives to the undertaking will take into account past IESO and OPA planning studies. As such, the need and method for the goals of the project has been clearly identified from past studies and therefore the EA will not contain an assessment of alternatives to the undertaking. Therefore, the evaluation of alternatives to the Project will assess alternative methods for carrying out the undertaking such as alternative routes between Thunder Bay and Wawa, local refinements to the reference route, alternative infrastructure designs and siting and ancillary infrastructure (access roads, fly yards, etc.). The reference route travels from the Wawa TS through Pukaskwa National Park to the Marathon TS along the existing Hydro One Right-of-Way. The approach for the assessment of routing alternatives is to clearly compare the advantages and disadvantages of the Hydro One reference route through

In Progress Alternative Assessment.

Pukaskwa National Park to the alternative route around the park (the route identified by NextBridge).


BN – 2a SVS Response (2018-12-11) Not addressed This response outlines HONI’s Aboriginal consultation plan and emphasizes opportunities for BN to identify impacts to their Aboriginal and treaty rights and communicate their concerns which will be considered by HONI. HONI also states that there will be opportunities for accommodation “where appropriate”, but this does not provide BN with the decision-making powers available with the EWT Project.

Hydro One has committed to designing and executing the consultation and engagement process with BN in respect of their own protocols. It is important for Hydro One to understand the extent of the “decision-making powers” referenced by BN in order to discuss consultation activities and procedures that reflect and/or address these intended decision-making powers and to understand how they might be incorporated into the LSL Project, where considered reasonable. However, HONI can make no commitment to include those powers in the Terms of Reference or the Environmental Assessment, nor reference those powers, without knowing what the powers are and if they are reasonable.



BN – 3a SVS Response (2018-12-11) Partially Addressed. Partially addressed pending HONI’s continued commitment to providing opportunities for full and meaningful consultation and capacity funding to complete consultation activities as needed. BN would like to reiterate the importance of providing this capacity funding despite the tight timelines.

Hydro One remains committed to providing meaningful consultation while meeting the OEB prescribed in-service date. Capacity funding through a negotiated Capacity Funding Agreement has been provided for BN to participate in these consultation activities.



BN – 4a Not Addressed.The reliability of supply affects the socioeconomicenvironment of the Project area,and therefore should be included in theIEA. There is nothing in the Ontario EA Act that prevents HONI from addressing reliability of supply impacts in the EA. These issues can, and should be, addressed in the ToR.Additionally, the LSL Detailed ImpactAssessment for Pukaskwa National Park under CEAA 2012 requires the assessment of accidents and malfunctions.Proponent’s ResponseThe summary of OEB, OPA and IESO documents included as an appendix with the ToR addresses the need, technical specifications and outlines the decision making process. This decision making process to make the expansion of the transmission system and the associated technical details outlines reliability concerns. In addition, reliability is a technical criteria consideration that is noted in Table 10 of the ToR. SVS Response (2018-12-11)Partially Addressed.BN requests that HONI address the reliability of supply within the socio-economic environment valued component (VC) of the EA, in addition to including reference to this within EA appendices.

For clarity, the issue of reliability of supply with respect to potential power interruptions to communities is part of the functional local distribution system and is not proposed to be examined in the EA. From a needs/justification perspective the Project is intended to strengthen and improve the reliability of supply for the transmission of power to northwestern Ontario, and this will be fully documented in the EA based on past planning studies conducted by the IESO. Consideration will be given to including this analysis in the federal DIA.The OEB notes that the IESO did not distinguish between Hydro One’s proposed routing through Pukaskwa National Park, which utilizes quad-circuit towers, versus the alternative route of going around Pukaskwa National Park from a reliability or quality of service perspective. Further, there was no compelling evidence filed during the proceeding to substantiate that a higher quality of service would be provided by either project. The OEB has thus considered the evidence provided by the IESO throughout the proceeding to conclude that both the NextBridge-EWT Project and the Hydro One-LSL Project are acceptable from a reliability and quality of service perspective and that there are no substantial differences between the two projects with respect to these two criteria.

In Progress Reliability


BN – 9 SVS Response (2018-12-11) Partially Addressed. It will be important to consider First Nations traditionally important areas on the same-level as PSW, ANSIs, and ESAs as they hold ecological value as well as socio-economic value. Considering this, they should be considered throughout the EA beyond the scope of the Traditional/Indigenous Land Use and socio-economic valued components.

The Natural Environment Section 5.3 has been amended to better acknowledge Hydro One’s commitment to consider Traditional Knowledge and information from stakeholders through the EA. For example, Section 5.3.5 Vegetation, Forest Resources and Wetlands has been amended to state: For the study area, the EA will describe and map vegetation communities and delineate plant species in all natural areas, such as ESA’s, wetlands, and municipally-designated significant woodlands, valleylands and wildlife habitat, based on NHIC database, published information, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation, information from stakeholders and field studies. Similar changes have been made to the other subsections of Section 5.3.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Vegetation, Sensitive Areas, Data Collection


BN – 10b SVS Response (2018-12-11) Partially Addressed. BN appreciates HONI’s commitment to considering data from traditional land use studies and areas of concern in Project design considerations. BN reiterates their desire to see detailed plans of the reference route, either through consultation meetings or through review of the EA

Hydro One is prepared to make detailed plans of the reference route available to BN, both through consultation, as well as in the EA.

In Progress ToR/EA Documentation, Indigenous Consultation


BN – 12b SVS Response (2018-12-11) Partially Addressed. HONI should provide BN with a list of target mammal species that will be scoped into its winter aerial surveys, as well as a list of mammalian species at risk (SAR) that will included in the scope of its SAR surveys.

Hydro One will provide a list of target mammal species either during consultation with BN or during the EA process.

In Progress Wildlife, Indigenous Consultation


BN – 14d Partially Addressed.HONI has not provided a commitment to restricting aerial spraying of herbicides for vegetation management.Proponent’s ResponseThe vegetation management program that will be developed during the EA process will outline herbicide usage.SVS Response (2018-12-11)Not Addressed.BN reiterates its request for HONI to completely restrict aerial herbicide application as part of LSL operations.

Comment has been noted and Hydro One has committed to developing the vegetation management program for the Lake Superior Link project with consultation during the EA process.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Vegetation management.


BN – 16a SVS Response (2018-12-11) Partially Addressed. HONI should include detailed information on its methods for verifying unpublished species at risk data in the LSL EA.

The detailed field methodologies and results of the targeted surveys for species at risk to verify occurrence data on presence/absence of species and habitat availability will be documented in the EA.

In Progress SAR, Indigenous Consultation


BN – 19c SVS Response (2018-12-11) Not Addressed. BN expects to receive similar commitments from HONI that they have received from NextBridge and this includes development of and funding for a First Nations-led Environmental Management Committee throughout the life of the Project.

During the EA process, Hydro One is prepared to discuss meaningful BN participation and environmental oversight during the LSL project and is prepared to consider governance and organizational structures suggested by BN and other Indigenous communities that are practical and realistic for all parties.

In Progress Environmental committee, Indigenous Consultation


BN – 23a SVS Response (2018-12-11) Not Addressed. HONI has provided BN with capacity funding to complete a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for segments of the LSL transmission line that run through Pukaskwa National Park under the federal DIA, however, to complete an assessment of the full scope of the LSL Project covered by the MECP EA would require additional funds and time on behalf of the community. BN will also require the opportunity to review HONI’s archaeological reports and provide comments to HONI.

Hydro One will provide BN with all archaeological reports as part of the EA document. Hydro One also looks forward to receiving any reports prepared by BN Archaeologists as per the Capacity Funding Agreement. The need for BN to conduct/participate in additional archaeological studies will be reviewed with BN and their Archaeologists during the EA process in accordance with recommendations of earlier work.



BN-26 Problem: The TOR does not fully describe the requirements of the Duty to Consult. The TOR does not adequately reference “accommodation” as part of the Duty to Consult and Accommodate, even though accommodation is always required when it is appropriate, in order to address the concerns of Indigenous peoples (which will certainly occur in this Project). It also does not reference the requirement that the Duty overall must uphold Reconciliation and the Honour of the Crown, nor does not it [sic] identify that the Duty must be carried out with the intention of substantially addressing concerns raised by Aboriginal peoples through accommodation measures, even though both of these aspects of the Duty are uncontroversial in the case law. Next steps: The TOR should not reflect the narrowest possible interpretation of the Duty or fail to include key requirements of the Duty. It must:

i. Identify the Duty as “the Duty to Consult and Accommodate” ii. Note that since HONI was delegated the procedural aspects of the Duty, the procedure must advance

Reconciliation and uphold the Honour of the Crown. iii. acknowledge that HONI must enter into consultations with the intension of substantially addressing

concerns raised by Indigenous peoples. Proponent’s Response Duty to Consult At present, the TOR refers to accommodation at 6.3.2 and 9.4.3. The TOR references mitigation throughout (including at sections 1.4, 4.2.3, 5.3, 5.3.9, 5.6, 5.6.1, 5.7, 6.3.2, 6.4, 7.2, 8, 8.1, 9, 9.3.2, 9.4.2, 9.4.3, and 9.4.4), which is a form of accommodation. In 9.4.3 in particulate, Hydro One says consultation will be guided by the principle of ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable step to avoid or mitigate/accommodate, as appropriate, the adverse effects of the Project upon section 35 rights. Hydro One is prepared, in Section 9, to expressly mention that the Crown has a duty to consult, and where appropriate accommodate, with regard to potential impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights. Hydro One is also prepared to disclose, in Section 9, that Hydro One is committed to considering and discussing appropriate accommodation measures. Reconciliation and the Honour of the Crown As described in our letter of Nov 2, 2018, the honour of the Crown exists with the Crown, and cannot be delegated. Likewise, the principle of reconciliation applies between the Crown and Indigenous peoples: “[Aboriginal] rights are aimed at the reconciliation of the prior occupation of North America by distinctive aboriginal societies with the assertion of Crown sovereignty over Canadian territory” - Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010 at para 81. Hydro One recognizes that reconciliation and the honour of the Crown are important principles which give rise to the Crown’s duty to consult. At the same time, Hydro One wishes to avoid making any statement which could be misunderstood to suggest that Hydro One is subject to the honour of the Crown or principles of reconciliation, or is capable of assessing whether the honour of the Crown or reconciliation generally has been upheld. Hydro One is prepared, in Section 9, to expand its statement regarding the duty to consult to state that “the courts have established that the constitutional duty to consult rests with the Crown, arises from the principle of the honour of the Crown, and is a tool for reconciling the prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Hydro One is also prepared, in Section 9, to say that “courts have stated that consultation in relation to established Aboriginal and treaty rights requires the intention of substantially addressing Indigenous concerns.” This language reflects the Supreme Court of Canada in Haida Nation para 40 and Mikisew Cree at para 55. Duty to Accommodation As described in our letter of Nov 2, 2018 and reaffirmed in our conversation of November 14, 2018, there is no

Duty to Consult Hydro One agrees that the Crown has a duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate. As stated in the initial response, Hydro One is prepared, in Section 9, to expressly mention that the Crown has a duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate with regard to potential impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights. There is no single ‘correct’ phrase to describe the duty. The phrase “where appropriate” is used by the SCC in Clyde River 2017 SCC 40 and Ktunaxa 2017 SCC 54. However the SCC also routinely uses the phrase “and, if appropriate”. Hydro One is prepared, as requested by BFN, to use the phrase “duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate” in the proposed addition to the TOR. BFN has expressed the desire for the phrase “and, if appropriate, accommodate” to be added to each occurrence of the phrase “duty to consult” in the TOR, expressing particular concern that the term is currently proposed for only one part of the TOR. Hydro One believes that its use of the phrase “duty to consult” is appropriate. The phrase only appears in Section 9, where the additional language, expressly describing “accommodation,” will be added. Hydro One disagrees with BFN’s assertion that the phrase “duty to consult” is legally inaccurate. The Supreme Court of Canada frequently uses the stand-alone phrase “duty to consult”. See for example, Ktunaxa 2017 SCC 54, which uses, at different times, “duty to consult” and “duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate”. In Clyde River 2017 SCC 40, the SCC mostly used the stand-alone phrase “duty to consult.” Reconciliation and the Honour of the Crown Hydro One is willing to incorporate BFN’s suggestion that reference to reconciliation be added to the TOR. In addition to providing a statement, in Section 9, to expressly mention that the Crown has a duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate with regard to potential impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, Hydro One will state that the duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate is part of a process of reconciliation. This statement echoes the language of the SCC in Haida Nation. Duty to Accommodate As noted above, Hydro One believes that it has appropriately referred to the “duty to consult”, but has made certain commitments to BFN in how the duty is described, including in relation to the honour of the Crown. Substantially Address Concerns Hydro One submits that this matter has been addressed.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Specific Section 9 ToR language subsitutions.

stand-alone duty to accommodate. Accommodation is necessary where appropriate. “Appropriate” is not determined in relation to the degree of impact alone, but rather to the entirety of the process, considering all factors. Hydro One is committed to working with Indigenous communities to identify potential impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights. In 9.4.3 in particular, Hydro One says consultation will be guided by the principle of ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable step to avoid or mitigate/accommodate, as appropriate, the adverse effects of the Project upon section 35 rights. Hydro One believes that this commitment exceeds the obligations which exist under the duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate. Substantially address concerns Hydro One is prepared, in Section 9, to say that “courts have stated that consultation in relation to established Aboriginal and treaty rights requires the intention of substantially addressing Indigenous concerns.” This language reflects the Supreme Court of Canada in Haida Nation para 40 and Mikisew Cree at para 55. In 9.4.3 of the TOR, Hydro One says consultation will be guided by the principle of ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable step to avoid or mitigate/accommodate, as appropriate, the adverse effects of the Project upon section 35 rights. In 5.5.2 of the TOR, Hydro One say that it will document concerns and identify opportunities raised with regard to land and resource use, or other socio-economic aspects and will describe how Hydro One proposes to address these concerns and opportunities. Hydro One believes that these commitments exceed the obligations which exist under the duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate. BFN Response Duty to Consult HONI has made only minor changes to reflect the law on the Duty to Consult and Accommodate and the principle of Reconciliation. More is required. HONI has agreed to include the phrase “Duty to Consult and, where appropriate, accommodate” at least once in the TOR, and to disclose its willingness to discussing accommodation. BFN accepts HONI’s suggested amendments to Section 9 in the column to the left. However, this change is insufficient. The correct terminology as established by the Supreme Court of Canada is not the “Duty to Consult” but the “Duty to Consult and Accommodate.”1 As noted above, if HONI wishes to use the full phrase, “Duty to Consult and, if appropriate, Accommodate” instead of “Duty to Consult and Accommodate,” BFN will agree to that. However, the phrase “Duty to Consult” must always include the term “Accommodate.” However, failing to use the full phrase including the term “accommodation” in all but one part of the TOR presents a legally inaccurate understanding of the Duty and is disrespectful to First Nations, who seek – and are entitled to – full recognition. Reconciliation and the Honour of the Crown BFN agrees that the Honour of the Crown belongs to the Crown. However, it is the source and standard for the Duty to Consult and Accommodate, and when the Crown delegates the procedural aspects of consultation, the procedure must uphold the Honour of the Crown; otherwise, consultation will fail.2 Leaving aside the question of the extent to which HONI can uphold or assess the Honour of the Crown, BFN accepts the changes offered by HONI to Section 9 in the column to the left, regarding the Honour of the Crown. However, BFN requires that HONI also include a statement about reconciliation. The purpose of the Honour of the Crown is Reconciliation.3 Reconciliation is also a standard for the Duty to Consult and Accommodate.4 However, Reconciliation is not only a concern of the Crown: it is between “Aboriginal societies [and] the larger Canadian society.”5

Duty to Accommodation As noted above, Accommodation is a necessary part of Consultation, and must be referenced throughout the TOR. See above. BFN strongly disagrees that HONI’s existing statements “exceed” the obligations of the Duty to Consult, for the reasons set out throughout this document. Substantially address concerns As HONI has identified in the column to the left, it is indeed a requirement of the Duty to Consult and Accommodate to have the intention of substantially addressing Indigenous concerns. Leaving aside the question of the extent to which HONI can uphold or assess the Honour of the Crown, BFN accepts the changes offered by HONI to Section 9 in the column to the left, regarding the intention of substantially addressing Indigenous concerns. BFN strongly disagrees that HONI’s commitments “exceed” the obligations of the Duty to Consult.


BN-27 BFN Response HONI should convert the EA to an “unfocussed” EA HONI has refused to address any of BFN’s concerns regarding the structure of the EA process. It has suggested this is not possible under the legislative scheme. This is not true: in the case of the Wataynikaneyap power line project, a focussed” EA was into an “unfocussed” EA so that the reference route and all possible alternatives to it could be studied equally and then compared as part of the EA, in order to arrive at a preferred route from an environmental perspective. This occurred within the terms of EAA s 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3).6 HONI has not established that such an approach could not apply here. Such an approach is not only similarly appropriate here, it is necessary. For BFN, the stakes of the choice of route are very high: Pukaskwa Park is the most “pristine” area within its traditional territory, to which it has a title claim. Any impacts to that area are severe impacts to its land rights. Therefore, all routes must be equally studied in an open-ended manner, in order to determine which is, in fact, the best route for the environment and for all impacted parties. HONI must clearly state that the route through the park is not “preferred” and that all routes are being equally compared As discussed in our phone call with HONI on November 14, the request is for HONI to explicitly state in the TOR that the “Reference Route” is not a “preferred route,” and that all routes will be assessed equally. HONI was open to this idea at the time. The fact that the term “preferred route” is not used in the TOR does not satisfy this request. For BFN (and all affected parties), it is imperative that HONI is explicit about this intention: even during our (unrelated) phone call of December 6, a HONI representative referred to this route as a “preferred” route (orally). HONI is a complex

HONI should convert the EA to an “unfocussed” EA An EA is typically referred to as an “unfocused” EA when an undertaking is early in the planning stages and will be considering ‘alternatives to’ the undertaking (i.e.: something other than building a transmission line). To apply this to the LSL project implies that the EA should consider alternatives to the undertaking - in other words an alternative to a transmission line (such as different types of generation). It has been clearly stated in the ToR that transmission has been chosen as the preferred alternative to the undertaking through the various provincial planning processes. As a result, Hydro One is moving forward with a “focused” EA, or in other words, an EA that will not fully consider alternatives to the undertaking (such as generation). Therefore, the evaluation of alternatives to the Project will assess alternative methods for carrying out the undertaking such as alternative routes between Thunder Bay and Wawa, local refinements to the reference route, alternative infrastructure designs and siting and ancillary infrastructure (access roads, fly yards, etc.). The reference route travels from the Wawa TS through Pukaskwa National Park to the Marathon TS along the existing Hydro One Right-of-Way. The approach for the assessment of routing alternatives is to clearly compare the advantages and disadvantages of the Hydro One reference route

organization made up of many actors, who have different understandings about the same project, and communicate different expectations to stakeholders. It is documents such as the TOR that set shared intentions and expectations for all affected. It is extremely important that the TOR make this intention explicit so that there is no confusion going forward. In the column to the left, HONI suggests that it already has the intention to treat the routes without preference, and to reflect that intention in the TOR. BFN strongly disagrees that this has been accomplished in the current draft and within the current group of HONI representatives, and requires that it be done explicitly. HONI must identify any and all EAs it is relying on in the TOR, including EAs by Nextbridge and federal EAs, and specify what sections of those EAs it will be relying on for what purposes / what lengths of the Project route; HONI must specify when and how the Provincial EA will incorporate information from other EAs in order to evaluate route alternatives HONI must commit to harmonizing the indicators and criteria between all EAs it is relying on, and must specify how this will be done; According to HONI’s statement in the column to the left, HONI is intending to rely on NextBridge’s EA as well as a federal EA, if possible, rather than conducting an EA for every aspect of the Project. This fact appears nowhere in the TOR. It also raises obvious logistical issues, which the TOR therefore cannot address. With respect to the federal EA, the TOR provides no basis for comparing the “reference route” through Pukaskwa (studied through a separate, federal process)7 with the “alternative” route around the park (studied in this EA). Without similar analysis in the two EAs and a full comparison of the results of each, how can the best route be identified? For stakeholders such as BFN, this is very concerning. Second, with respect to the NextBridge EA, BFN was surprised to learn of this intention when it spoke to HONI on the phone on November 14. Obviously, relying on an existing EA would change the scope of HONIs EA. This is not reflected in the TOR, nor is there any information about how the NextBridge EA would relate to the HONI EA. Would they use the same criteria and indicators? Etc. Until the phone call with HONI, BFN had no assurance that HONI had even considered these issues. It still has no assurance that HONI will address these issues in a satisfactory manner, because the TOR does not mention them. If it is HONI’s intention to rely upon other EAs, HONI must say that. It must identify the extent to which it intends to rely upon those documents (if possible), and its commitment to aligning criteria and indicators with them and establishing transparent and workable processes for comparison between them. In this document, HONI seems to suggest that it is unable to be transparent because the two EAs it would like to rely upon – the NextBridge and federal EAs – do not have “standing” yet. If it is not possible to commit to relying on those EAs yet, because they have no standing, HONI must simply be clear about what it does commit to: to exploring using those EAs if it can, to aligning parameters and indicators, and to establishing processes of comparison. There is nothing onerous about being transparent, aligning parameters and indicators, and committing to establish a good process for using data and generating new data. If HONI wishes to save costs and explore route alternatives by relying on EAs other than this one, that is simply a natural consequence of its decision. Indeed, HONI states that this is already its intention. This must be confirmed in the TOR. HONI must commit to synchronizing the timeline of all incomplete EAs that it is relying on (i.e. federal and provincial EAs) in order to allow them to be harmonized effectively Harmonized scheduling between the federal and provincial EAs is important because HONI’s intention (as stated in this document, above) is to use the same criteria and indicators for both the federal and provincial EA processes, and then compare the results. However, if one EA proceeds ahead of the other, then a question, issue, or environmental indicator could arise in the second EA only after the first EA has been completed. This would prevent the two from being harmonized, and stymie the intention to fairly compare them. BFN understands that HONI will not always have full control over the timeline: it is the regulator who maintains much of that control. Therefore, BFN asks HONI to commit to harmonizing the timelines as much as possible, and put that intention in the TOR in order to make it clear to all parties – including the regulator. This will allow HONI and the Regulator to work together to achieve the best possible comparison between federal and provincial EAs. HONI states in the column to the left that making an effort to harmonize is already its intention. This should become a commitment of the TOR that all parties can see and refer back to.

through Pukaskwa National Park to the alternative route around the park (route as identified by NextBridge). HONI must clearly state that the route through the park is not “preferred” and that all routes are being equally compared. Hydro One agrees with BFN. Hydro One has previously agreed to refer to the LSL corridor as the “reference route” in the ToR and EA. Hydro One is of the opinion that appropriate changes have been made to the ToR document. In addition, every attempt will be made in future to ensure that the Hydro One team uses consistent language, and refers to the LSL corridor as the “reference route”. HONI must identify any and all EAs it is relying on in the TOR, including EAs by Nextbridge and federal EAs, and specify what sections of those EAs it will be relying on for what purposes / what lengths of the Project route; HONI must specify when and how the Provincial EA will incorporate information from other EAs in order to evaluate route alternatives HONI must commit to harmonizing the indicators and criteria between all EAs it is relying on, and must specify how this will be done; Hydro One will rely on a number of information sources, including information contained in the Nextbridge EA. Notwithstanding that this information will be used and appropriately referenced; Hydro One is preparing its own stand-alone EA and must defend its use of third party information as well as conclusions drawn from the analysis of that information, accordingly. Hydro One is not compelled to utilize criteria and indicators adopted by others, nor is it required to rationalize differences between criteria and indicators adopted for the LSL EA and those utilized in other EA documents. The ToR document reflects the intentions of Hydro One in preparing a stand-alone and independent EA. HONI must commit to synchronizing the timeline of all incomplete EAs that it is relying on (i.e. federal and provincial EAs) in order to allow them to be harmonized effectively. Hydro One agrees to synchronize the schedules of the provincial and federal EAs to the extent that is possible and practical and to the extent that schedule is in the control of Hydro One.

BN-28 Problem: The TOR does not identify and commit to the full spate of Accommodation measures. Although the caselaw does not set this out in a clear manner yet, the Duty must logically include measures for (i) preventing impacts (ii) mitigating those impacts where prevention is not possible; (iii) compensating rights-holders for impacts that remain (It is only logical that compensation would be required for impacts that cannot be prevented or mitigated, since the purpose of the Duty is to protect Aboriginal and Treaty rights), and (iv) sharing positive benefits of the Project, through negotiated accommodation measures or an economic participation (this is essential to Reconciliation). The TOR only includes (i) and (ii), and its commitments to even those are relatively weak. Next steps: In the TOR, HONI must make substantial Accommodation commitments in its discussion of the Duty and in its discussion of the Socio-Economic situation – specifically, to:

i. commit to not only identifying but also implementing reasonable measures to prevent material impacts ii. commit to not only identifying but also implementing reasonable measures to mitigate such impacts where

prevention is not possible iii. commit to identifying and implementing compensation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. iv. commit to identifying and implementing opportunities for economic benefit sharing.

Proponent’s Response Implementing measures to prevent and mitigate impacts In 9.4.3 of the TOR, Hydro One says consultation will be guided by the principle of ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable step to avoid or mitigate/accommodate, as appropriate, the adverse effects of the Project upon section 35 rights. Hydro One believes that this commitment exceeds the obligations which exist under the duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate. Legal obligation to prevent, mitigate, and compensate Hydro One believes that the Project approach set out in the TOR exceeds the legal obligation to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate. As mentioned in your letter, consultation arises in relation to the honour of the Crown and the desire for reconciliation. Reconciliation requires a balancing (Haida Nation) of interests. As demonstrated by the Supreme Court of Canada, reconciliation does not require compensation (see for example the mitigation measures and increased risks in Chippewas of the Thames and the cultural impacts in Ktunaxa). Hydro One believes its approach meaningfully exceeds the standards applicable to the Crown within the context of the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate. Hydro One has made numerous commitments to Indigenous peoples within the TOR, including that consultation will be guided by the principle of ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable step to avoid or mitigate/accommodate, as appropriate, the adverse effects of the Project upon section 35 rights. Similarly, Hydro One has committed in Section 9.4.3 to “work with Indigenous communities along the route to explore benefits and opportunities including, but not limited to, capacity building to participate in the engagement process, procurement and sub-contracting opportunities, job training, employment and equity participation.” Through consultation, Hydro One will work with Indigenous communities to identify impacts, identify opportunities for prevention and mitigation, and identify opportunities for sharing benefits with Indigenous communities. BFN Response Implementing measures to prevent and mitigate impacts HONI has not agreed to make any changes to address this comment. Changes are needed. The first priority of consultation should be avoiding adverse impacts. Therefore, the 9.4.3 statement identified by HONI in the column to the left should read “every reasonable step to avoid or – if avoidance is not possible – mitigate…”. Identifying that avoidance is the priority over mitigation is an important distinction. Also, 9.4.3 of the TOR only commits HONI to this principle in consultations that take place under individualized Consultation Plans will be guided by this principle. As noted at BN-30, it is not guaranteed that all consultation will be carried out under such consultation plans. Therefore, HONI should make this a general commitment by stating that “all consultation about the Project will be guided by the principle of ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable

Implementing Measures to Prevent and Mitigate Impacts Hydro One reiterates its commitment in 9.4.3 of the TOR, which states that consultation will be guided by the principle of “ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable step to avoid or mitigate/accommodate, as appropriate, the adverse effects of the Project on Section 35 rights.” Hydro One believes that this principle provides an appropriate basis for undertaking consultation and exceeds the requirements of the duty to consult. Hydro One believes that the consultation process itself is the appropriate forum for determining whether avoidance, mitigation, other measures, or no measures are appropriate in the particular circumstances. The TOR principle outlined above will be applicable for the Stand Alone Consultation Plan. It does not, as stated by BFN, only apply to “consultation that takes place under individualized Consultation Plans.” Legal Obligations to Compensate and Share Upside Benefits As outlined in Hydro One’s initial response, the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate, does not include a requirement for compensation. Accommodation, where appropriate, is subject to the balancing of interests (Haida Nation). See Chippewas of the Thames and Ktunaxa for recent examples from the SCC of where adverse impacts were not compensated. While compensation may be necessary when there is an infringement of Aboriginal title, Delgamuukw makes clear that such a determination is context-driven and applies only to proven Aboriginal title. While compensation is not a requirement pursuant to the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate, Hydro One has made commitments which exceed such duty, including a commitment in Section 9.4.3 to “work with Indigenous communities along the route to explore benefits and opportunities including, but not limited to, capacity building to participate in the engagement process, procurement and sub-contracting opportunities, job training, employment and equity participation.”

step…” Legal obligation to compensate and share upside benefits Compensation of a First Nation for impacts to rights is required where they are appropriate as an accommodation measure. In some cases, consultation itself may require financial compensation.8 It will usually always be required where there is an infringement of Aboriginal title.9 Compensation is required in order to address impacts that remain after avoidance and mitigation have been exhausted as measures of accommodation. Otherwise, a First Nation would suffer harms and damages affecting its constitutional rights and entitlements removed without any remedy. This is something that the law does not allow. Upside financial benefits promote reconciliation. Here, compensation and upside benefits are clearly appropriate: there is a strong Aboriginal title claim, and the project is a large scale electricity development which is intended to generate profit.


BN-29 Problem: The TOR does not include specific commitments to Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples not addressed in the “Commitments & Monitoring” chapter, and HONI has asserted that it will not commit to negotiate. It is disrespectful not to make specific commitments to Indigenous communities, but just treat them as a component of the EA process. Moreover, contrary to HONI’s assertions, the Supreme Court has said that consent may be required in some cases, especially where Aboriginal title is in play, so partnership with First Nations is required. Further, if HONI has the intention of consulting fully, including Indigenous people in monitoring programs including in staff positions, and negotiating agreements in good faith with the aim of co-generating agreements, it should commit to such measures in the TOR; otherwise, they will continue to cause problems between the parties. Next steps: In the TOR, HONI must turn its intentions into commitments to Indigenous peoples, specifically to:

i. consulting with the intent of substantially addressing concerns ii. avoiding potential impacts where possible

iii. working with Indigenous communities to co-develop compliance monitoring programs iv. staffing compliance monitoring programs with Indigenous persons v. entering into good-faith negotiations with the intention of reaching consent on individualized consultation

plans vi. entering into good-faith negotiations with the intention of reaching consent on project development

agreements, if and when applicable

Proponent’s Response Substantially address concerns Hydro One is prepared, in Section 9, to say that “courts have stated that consultation in relation to established Aboriginal and treaty rights requires the intention of substantially addressing Indigenous concerns.” This language reflects the Supreme Court of Canada in Haida Nation para 40 and Mikisew Cree at para 55. In 9.4.3 of the TOR, Hydro One says consultation will be guided by the principle of ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable step to avoid or mitigate/accommodate, as appropriate, the adverse effects of the Project upon section 35 rights. In 5.5.2 of the TOR, Hydro One say that it will document concerns and identify opportunities raised with regard to land and resource use, or other socio-economic aspects and will describe how Hydro One proposes to address these concerns and opportunities. Hydro One believes that these commitments exceed the obligations which exist under the Crown’s duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate. Avoiding potential impacts where possible In 9.4.3 of the TOR, Hydro One says consultation will be guided by the principle of ensuring that Hydro One takes every reasonable step to avoid or mitigate/accommodate, as appropriate, the adverse effects of the Project upon section 35 rights. Hydro One believes that this commitment exceeds the obligations which exist under the duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate.

Substantially Address Concerns Hydro One submits that it has appropriately addressed BFN’s request for incorporating the language of the SCC regarding the duty to consult. Substantially Address Concerns Please see Hydro One’s reply under BN-28. Working with Indigenous Communities to Co-Develop Compliance Monitoring Programs No comments provided by BFN. Hydro One submits that this matter has been resolved. Staffing Compliance Monitoring Programs with Indigenous Persons Hydro One, in its initial response, has committed to discussing opportunities for participation by Indigenous community members within the monitoring component of the Project. Hydro One submits that the need for continuing engagement, if any, after the EA is approved, is a matter to be determined during the EA process. Entering into Good-Faith Negotiations with the Intention of Reaching Consent on Individual Consultation Plans. Hydro One has made a number of statements in its original response which describe its commitment to working with Indigenous communities to develop a consultation plan. Hydro One has not stated that it will require individualized consultation plans. Instead, Hydro One has stated in 9.4.3 of the TOR that it will prepare a standalone Consultation Plan and will prepare tailored consultation plans for specific Indigenous communities where requested. For greater certainty, an Indigenous community that does not request an individualized Consultation Plan will be covered by the process for a standalone Consultation Plan described in the TOR. Hydro One reiterates that BFN may use the stand alone Consultation Plan or request an individual Consultation Plan. Hydro One does not believe that consultation plans should

Working with Indigenous communities to co-develop compliance monitoring programs. Monitoring programs will be further developed during the EA process. These programs will be developed and informed through consultation with Indigenous communities. Staffing compliance monitoring programs with Indigenous persons Opportunities for participation by Indigenous community members within the monitoring component of the project will be discussed and developed during consultation Entering into good-faith negotiations with the intention of reaching consent on individual consultation plans In Section 9.4.3 of the TOR, Hydro One acknowledges the importance of conducting consultation through a process that is in alignment with community values, culture and protocols and confirm that it is prepared to work with Indigenous communities to make necessary revisions to the consultation plans to ensure that it is respectful of consultation protocols. Hydro One also commits to ensuring that the consultation process is developed and implemented in collaboration with the Indigenous communities [9.4.3]. Hydro One looks forward to working with Indigenous communities to develop a consultation plan that reflects community values, culture and protocols [9.4.3]. Entering into good-faith negotiations with the intention of reaching consent on project development agreements, if and when applicable Hydro One has not referred to “project development agreements” within the TOR. Hydro One has committed to a meaningful and rigorous process of consultation, including as set out in Section 9.4.3. Commitments to Indigenous peoples may arise through the process of consultation. Hydro One has committed in Section 9.4.3 to “work with Indigenous communities along the route to explore benefits and opportunities including, but not limited to, capacity building to participate in the engagement process, procurement and sub-contracting opportunities, job training, employment and equity participation.” Hydro One has committed, in TOR Section 9.4.3, to consulting with Indigenous communities in a rigorous and meaningful manner, including through exploring opportunities for benefits. Hydro One believes that this approach reflects a broad view of the duty to consult. BFN Response Substantially address concerns As noted above, BFN accepts this change in Section 9 to include the requirement of having an intention of substantially addressing Indigenous concerns. BFN strongly disagrees that HONI’s commitments “exceed” the obligations of the Duty to Consult. BFN suggests that the language of “having an intention of substantially addressing” be added to the other sections that HONI identifies

require agreement between the parties. Except where an individualized Consultation Plan is requested, Indigenous parties will be included in the shared Stand Alone Consultation Plan. The effectiveness of the consultation process as a whole will be considered during the regulatory process. Hydro One also notes that its processes have resulted in agreement, including in relation to the Consultation Agreement negotiated and agreed to between Hydro One and BFN. Entering into good-faith negotiations with the intention of reaching consent on Project Development Agreements, if and when Applicable Hydro One has committed to a meaningful and rigorous process of consultation, including as set out in Section 9.4.3, and as outlined in its initial response. Hydro One disagrees with BFN’s statement that Hydro One “must commit to following the law by attempting to seek consent”. As previously discussed, the SCC has been clear that consent is not required as part of the duty to consult:

There is no duty to reach agreement.1 This process does not give Aboriginal groups a veto over what can be done with land pending final proof of the claim. The Aboriginal “consent” spoken of in Delgamuukw is appropriate only in cases of established rights, and then by no means in every case [emphasis added].2 While the hope is always that s. 35 consultation will lead to agreement and reconciliation of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interests, Haida Nation makes clear that in some situations this may not occur, and that s. 35 does not give unsatisfied claimants a veto over development. Where adequate consultation has occurred, a development may proceed without the consent of an Indigenous group [emphasis added].3 As emphasized in Haida Nation, consultation will not always lead to accommodation, and accommodation may or may not result in an agreement [emphasis added].4 Where accommodation is required in making decisions that may adversely affect as yet unproven Aboriginal rights and title claims, the Crown must balance Aboriginal concerns reasonably with the potential impact

1 Haida Nation, supra at para 10. 2 Ibid, at para 48. 3 Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54 [Ktunaxa] at para 83. 4 Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69 [Mikisew] at para 66.

in the column to the left. Avoiding potential impacts where possible See BFN’s reply under BN-28. Working with Indigenous communities to co-develop compliance monitoring programs. Staffing compliance monitoring programs with Indigenous persons The TOR is intended to provide a shared framework that will guide the EA process going forward. For BFN and other affected parties, it is extremely important that there be ongoing engagement after the EA is approved, which is associated with ensuring that the EA is implemented. This means the co-development and co-supervisions of compliance monitoring programs, in order to ensure ongoing communication around and the safety of the project. The temporal scope of the process established by the EA should be agreed to in the TOR. It should reference a commitment to at least exploring the co-development of compliance monitoring program, and staffing them with members of affected communities. Entering into good-faith negotiations with the intention of reaching consent on individual consultation plans HONI’s stated intention in this document is to put as much as possible of the consultation requirements into individualized consultation plans with each First Nation. Therefore, HONI must state its commitment to do those Plans by agreement. Individualized plans that are not agreed to would pose a great burden to individual First Nations. Because HONI’s intention is to enter into individualized consultation plans, the current TOR does not contain any back up for what sort of consultation process will be available to a First Nation which does not have a consultation plan. Therefore HONI must commit to making absolute best efforts to reach agreement on consultation plans with every affected First Nation. Entering into good-faith negotiations with the intention of reaching consent on project development agreements, if and when applicable BFN requires that HONI explore a “project development agreement” with itself, and knows that other First Nations have the same requirement. The Supreme Court has recognized the Consultation will sometimes require consent, and where consent is not required, a balancing of interests must still be sought.10 More recently, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that proponents ought to seek consent first, before consulting – especially where Aboriginal Title is engaged (as it is here).11 HONI must commit to following the law by attempting to seek consent. It should make a public commitment to that intention. Otherwise, the Duty to Consult will be more difficult to meet and may be found not to have been upheld.12 At BN-30, below, HONI states or suggests that this is its intention: “Through consultation, Hydro One will work with Indigenous communities to identify impacts, identify opportunities for prevention and mitigation, and identify opportunities for sharing benefits with Indigenous communities.” This central shared intention to uphold the constitution in a certain way through the EA process must be stated in the TOR, otherwise it could be forgotten or abandoned, and some First Nations could be left unaware that such a possibility exists.

of the decision on the asserted right or title and with other societal interests.5

For greater certainty, the Supreme Court of Canada did not say in Tslihqot’in Nation that “proponents ought to seek consent first, before consulting – especially where Aboriginal title is engaged.” Hydro One notes that Haida Nation provides meaningful guidance on the Crown’s consultation obligations where Aboriginal title has been asserted but not proven. BFN has requested that Hydro One must expressly state its intention to, through consultation, work with Indigenous communities to identify impacts, identify opportunities for prevention and mitigation, and identify opportunities for sharing benefits with Indigenous communities. Hydro One submits that it has made express commitments to these matters in the TOR, including: 9.4.3 “ensuring that potentially affected Indigenous communities have sufficient opportunity to identify and formulate and express their views on the potential adverse impacts of the Project upon their section 35 rights” 9.4.3 “The process with Indigenous communities will address the following objectives: …to identify the potential adverse impacts of the Project (including social, environmental, economic, health and culture) upon section 35 rights.” 9.4.3 “The process with Indigenous communities will address the following objectives:… to work with potentially affected Indigenous communities as identified by the Crown to identify measures to mitigate or avoid these potential effects” 9.4.3 “Hydro One will… “where appropriate, discuss with an Indigenous community measures to address potential adverse impacts of the Project on section 35 rights.” 5.4.2 “Hydro One will work with Indigenous communities to discuss economic participation throughout the EA process where appropriate.” 9.4.3 “Hydro One will also work with Indigenous communities along the route to explore benefits and opportunities including, but not limited to, capacity building to participate in the engagement process, procurement and sub-contracting opportunities, job training, employment and equity participation”

5 Haida Nation, supra at para 50.

BN-30 BFN Response The purposes and requirements of the Duty and the four types of Accommodation must be clear in the TOR (see above) and included in all consultation agreements; See BFN’s reply at BN-26 and BN-28, above. The minimum requirements for Consultation agreement must be included in the TOR and identified in all consultation agreements – specifically, the points of engagement and issues for consultation, how HONI will provide information and respond to concerns, how an on-site archeologist will be chosen, etc. (Although the specifics of exactly how this will occur will be identified in a community specific way and will therefore vary from agreement to agreement, the TOR should require that such topics are clearly addressed in every consultation agreement, and even in the absence of an agreement) BFN’s point is not that the details of each consultation agreement needs to be established in the TOR – obviously, that is not what the TOR is for. What the TOR is for is setting guidelines and parameters for the entire EA process – including how consultation will be carried out within that framework. Therefore, simple guidelines and parameters for consultation agreements falls very much within its scope. As noted above, the TOR does not contain any back up for what sort of consultation process will be available to a First Nation which does not have a consultation plan, or a baseline for the sort of consultation that a First Nation would receive if it is unable to direct resources towards negotiating a good deal with HONI about the substance of its consultation plan. If the TOR relies upon consultation plans that are not part of the TOR, the Crown is responsible for that reliance. Therefore, the Crown must either ensure there are satisfactory parameters for those consultation plans (and for consultation outside of plans, for First Nations who do not have them), or it must make sure that all of those consultation plans are, individually, satisfactory. (The latter would require them all to be signed before the TOR is approved and include provisions about what will happen to consultation if that agreement if the agreement fails.) Otherwise, the TOR will have failed to set out parameters for consultation within the EA process, and will be incomplete. Specific suggestions about the parameters that should be set for consultation plans have been provided to HONI, and are provided again here by way of foot note. 13 13 The standalone Indigenous Consultation Plan should be developed alongside the TOR, and completed prior to the TOR being approved, and be outlined in the TOR. At a minimum, the TOR must include the following parameters for the standalone Indigenous Consultation Plan: The standalone Indigenous Consultation Plan will be mutually developed in conjunction with potentially affected Indigenous communities and finalized prior to the EA beginning; Information acquired through consultations, following the standalone Indigenous Consultation Plan, will be applied to all relevant aspects of the EA; In addition, the parameters of the Indigenous Consultation Plan should be fleshed out as follows, in 9.4.3:13 Revised version: This document will include, but is not limited to, consideration of the following: o How Indigenous communities will be notified and consulted early in the project and throughout the EA, construction, and operation. This includes a description of the consultation activities planned (i.e. notifications, information sharing opportunities, open houses, individual meets with the community, etc) in order to seek input on rights, interests, and potential effects; o Points in the EA process when rounds of engagement with Indigenous communities will occur, be consulted; and how Hydro One will provide opportunities for Indigenous participants to communicate with Hydro One about any issues or concerns about the project on an on-going basis; o Methods that will be used to consult with Indigenous communities, including how Hydro One will provide Indigenous communities with transparent and easy-to-understand information in a timely and culturally sensitive manner; o Identify the decisions that Indigenous communities can provide input to, including the identification of criteria, indicators and measures to be used in various disciplines of the EA and how potential impacts will be mitigated and

The purposes and requirements of the Duty and the four types of Accommodation must be clear in the TOR (see above) and included in all consultation agreements; Hydro One refers BFN to responses provided in BN-26 and BN-28. Consultation Agreement Content in the TOR Hydro One wishes to clarify that Indigenous parties that do not request a tailored consultation plan will be subject to the stand alone Consultation Plan described in the TOR. Hydro One submits that it has provided an appropriate degree of detail regarding the stand alone consultation plan within the TOR, and notes in particular that the stand-alone consultation plan will be a “living document”, subject to change based on the consultation process itself. Hydro One believes that this is an appropriate process for advancing effective consultation, which the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly described as “talking together for mutual understanding.” Hydro One also notes that BFN and Hydro One have also entered into a separate Consultation Agreement, negotiated by the parties, in order to advance effective consultation. Timeline for Completing Consultation Plans As noted above, Hydro One wishes to clarify Indigenous parties that do not request a tailored consultation plan will be subject to the Stand Alone Consultation Plan described in the TOR. Hydro One submits that it has provided sufficient information regarding the Stand Alone Consultation Plan in the TOR. Exploring Benefit Sharing Please see Hydro One’s comments in BN-28 and BN-29 above. Hydro One has included several explicit references to opportunities to discuss benefit sharing in the TOR, including: 5.4.2 “Hydro One will work with Indigenous communities to discuss economic participation throughout the EA process where appropriate.” 9.4.3 “Hydro One will also work with Indigenous communities along the route to explore benefits and opportunities including, but not limited to, capacity building to participate in the engagement process, procurement and sub-contracting opportunities, job training, employment and equity participation” Consultation Record Hydro One submits that the consultation record, as described in 9.3.3 of the TOR, will be capable of recording relevant materials and discussions, including in relation to avoidance/mitigation (accommodation) measures.

accommodated, and what role Indigenous communities play when the proponent makes decisions; o Provide opportunities and parameters to ensure that Hydro One responds coherently and appropriately to issues and concerns; o How traditional knowledge will be incorporated alongside Western science in the EA. o How Indigenous communities can become involved in and benefit from the project through community and socio-economic development initiatives, where possible; […] Consultation undertaken by Hydro One pursuant to this Plan will be guided by the following principles: o […] o Ensuring meaningful engagement with potentially affected Indigenous communities in order to reach consent; o Ensuring sufficient funding for fully informed and meaningful participation by Indigenous communities; o Ensuring full accommodation, including prevention, mitigation, compensation, and potential benefits sharing. This may be done in part through the Duty to Consult and Accommodate and in part through economic participation agreement. Please notice that these are not the final details that would be worked out in individual plans, but rather a list of issues that an individual plan would have to address as a minimum. The timeline for completing consultation plans (they should be complete either before the TOR is approved or before the EA begins, otherwise the EA cannot rely on them) As noted above, if the TOR relies upon consultation plans that are not part of the TOR, the Crown is responsible for that reliance. Therefore, the Crown must either ensure there are satisfactory parameters for those consultation plans (and for consultation outside of plans, for First Nations who do not have them), or it must make sure that all of those consultation plans are, individually, satisfactory. Ideally, both would occur. That HONI will identify to Indigenous communities how communities can explore benefit sharing; Please see BFN’s comments regarding compensation and upside benefits at BN-28 and project benefit agreements at BN-29, above. Financial provisions are clearly appropriate Accommodation measures in these circumstances. This intention to uphold the constitution in a certain way through the EA process must be stated in the TOR, otherwise it could be forgotten or abandoned, and some First Nations could be left unaware that such a possibility exists. That the Consultation record will include a stronger commitment to address concerns raised and accommodation measure that are identified during consultations The consultation record does not currently create transparency around the development of accommodation measures. Yet consultation about accommodation measures is a central part of the consultation process. To assist all parties, the consultation record should provide a record of which accommodation measures have been proposed, considered, and either adopted or rejected at various points – and when, and by whom.


BN-31 BFN Response BFN requires that this new provision include an acknowledgement that, due to concerns about freedom of information legislation, a community may choose to provide only a summary of findings as they are relevant to the EA to HONI, or to provide information only in person with no written record. This is important to allow BFN to voice its concerns and share its knowledge without losing legal control over sensitive information. In addition, the new provision must address how science and TK will be treated if they do not support the same conclusion. While BFN agrees that these two sources of knowledge often do support the same conclusion, BFN requires that the TOR address this eventuality by stating that: science and TK will be weighed equally within the EA process if they do not support each other. Finally, the provision must include a requirement that Traditional knowledge collected pursuant to individualized Indigenous Consultation Plan will be demonstrably incorporated into the EA alongside Western science.

In addition to Hydro One’s initial response, Hydro One notes that it has negotiated and entered into a Consultation Agreement with BFN which addresses the use of information shared with Hydro One. An additional bullet has been added to Section 9.4.5, Item 5, as follows: It is recognized that… • Some communities may wish to share only a summary or portion of the Traditional Knowledge information they have gathered that is pertinent to the EA in order to protect sensitive information. Section 9.4.5 has been revised as follows: Item 6, paragraph 2 has been revised as follows: Where Traditional Knowledge is found to conflict with western science data, both will be brought forward for consideration in the evaluation of criteria and indicators and will be treated with equal weight. Section 9.4.5, paragraph 2 has been revised to include the following statement: The Lake Superior Link EA will clearly demonstrate the way in which Traditional Knowledge has been incorporated into the process.

In Progress


BN-32 BFN ResponseThe specific request here seems to have been misunderstood or overlooked. BFN’s request is for HONI to study impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights as part of the study of each environmental value or indicator. In other words, each of the environmental values that are studied should be further studied for impacts to that value will impact Indigenous values. The TOR does not currently require this. This is necessary to identify the full extent of impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, and the full range of potential accommodation, including specific mitigation measures. Without a fulsome study of effects in this way, consultation will be based on incomplete information and will, itself, be incomplete. For example, where a particular plant species is studied and impacts on that plant are identified, then HONI must study the impacts of that environmental change on Aboriginal and Treaty rights and interests. In order to carry this out, HONI must ensure that all of the steps indicated in BFN’s comment in the second column to the left are carried out with respect to each environmental value or indicator that is studied. Please refer to the list in the column to the far left.

Hydro One believes that its process for identifying asserted and established Aboriginal and treaty rights, and studying the direct impact of the Project on those rights, as described in the TOR and its initial response, provides an effective method for addressing consultation obligations. BFN’s request, that impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights be understood in relation to effects on environmental values, will be addressed through the process set out in the TOR. Hydro One has committed to a process which will allow for sharing of relevant information necessary for identifying effects and mitigation or avoidance measures, including: • Providing opportunities for information sharing between Hydro One and potentially affected Indigenous communities as identified by the Crown, including information about the Project; • Identifying potential adverse impact of the Project upon section 35 rights; and • Working with potentially affected Indigenous communities as identified by the Crown to identify measures to mitigate or avoid those potential adverse effects. The process proposed by Hydro One is consistent with the consultation process approved of by the Supreme Court of Canada in Chippewas of the Thames. It allows the proponent to share relevant information and solicit feedback from potentially impacted Indigenous parties, including feedback on how their rights may be affected. Hydro One has, in previous

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Effects Assessment

correspondence, emphasized that effective consultation is not a one-way process. Copied below is an excerpt from that correspondence: The proposed language suggests that HONI has an obligation to identify all potential effects on established and asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights. The desire to identify potential effects on established and asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights is reasonable, and a goal of reconciliation. However, identifying potential effects cannot be fulfilled by HONI alone. ‘[C]onsultation’ in its least technical definition is talking together for mutual understanding.” In Chippewas of the Thames, the SCC approved of a process that provided Indigenous parties with “adequate information about the project” and provided Indigenous parties with an “opportunity to share their views about the project.” HONI will share Project information, but Indigenous parties must identify to HONI how the Project will impact Aboriginal and treaty rights. Suggesting that HONI is solely responsible for identifying each potential effect on established and asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights misstates the law, places HONI with an obligation that it cannot unilaterally fulfill, and sets a standard that is materially different from a process of “talking together for mutual understanding.” For the reasons set out above, HONI does not believe that the proposed principle will appropriately reflect HONI’s obligation under the TOR. Hydro One is confident that the process set out in the TOR will allow for an effective consultation process between the parties, including sharing of relevant Project information by Hydro One, and allowing Indigenous parties to share concerns, including with regard to how the Project may impact their asserted and established Aboriginal and treaty rights.


BN-34 BFN Response BFN accepts HONI’s commitment to revise the text of s 5.5.2, per the column to the left. In addition, it is important that someone with knowledge of First Nations archeology be present during the construction. Otherwise, archeological resources may not be recognized, so an archeologist will not be contacted, and the resources would be destroyed. Again: section 5.5.1 should require an archaeologist selected by or approved by Indigenous communities along the route as well as at least one person designated by and from such communities will be on site or available during construction.

Hydro One submits that this has been addressed. An Archaeologist of BN’s choosing is participating in the archaeological assessment. Further, Hydro One has committed to discussing monitoring/employment opportunities during consultation/EA with Indigenous communities.

In Progress Archaeology, Indingeous Consultation, Monitoring, Economic.


BN-36 BFN Response BFN disagrees that this change is sufficient but copies it here to ensure the regulator requires it to be included in the revised TOR. Engagement is required throughout a project. This should be reflected by 9.4.3 stating that the and/or 9.5 (which should state that “consultation /engagement with the various stakeholders and Indigenous communities is expected to be will be ongoing throughout the EA and into the project implementation phase including ongoing operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities” per the comment made on October 2, 2018 on page 12.

Hydro One refers BFN to Hydro One’s initial response where Hydro One noted that any consultation obligation extending past the Crown’s decision regarding the Project will be determined through the consultation process.



BN-38 If this is intended and confirmed, it should be stated in the ToR, for the reasons stated and reiterated above: otherwise it could be forgotten or abandoned, and some First Nations could be left unaware that such a possibility exists.

For further clarity Section 9.4.3 has been amended as follows: “offer information centers or meetings with Indigenous communities to provide project-related information and to address any concerns, issues or questions about the project (by way of example this may include but not be limited to: Issues workshops and/or presentations to community leadership or members).”

In Progress Indigenous Consultation.

Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek

BZA 1, BZA 2

BZA welcomes further community consultation in Rocky Bay. To ensure CIC’s are meaningful, effective and conforming to the Code of Practice, future CIC’s must follow the recommendations provided in BZA’s IR 1 – namely: Consultation must be in appropriate, plain language sessions that explains the project in a meaningful way and context including the full recognition of the role of TK to the project and how it will be effectively integrated within the EA and that demonstrates to the participants that their input is valued and will influence the analysis and choices made by Hydro One. Time and resources to participate and review information and develop appropriate information requests or responses based on materials presented or documents provided. Hydro One commit to providing effective, plain language consultation with the RBFN throughout the project including at future CICs or other discussion fora and that these meetings encourage participation by following community practices for community meetings (e.g. refreshments, food, proper notice, appropriate time, overall respect for traditional practices) and ensure that time and resources are adequately provided to allow RBFN and their advisors to attend and prepare responses to the information session or documents. Hydro One should focus on their review on issues related to the EA process and how they relate to RBFN and their TK and the traditional way of life while not trying to create negative

Generally, Hydro One’s CICs use an informal open-house style in which subject matter experts aim to use plain language to address concerns. These sessions encourage two-way dialogue to document and address concerns in consultation with RBFN members. Hydro One will work with RBFN to format and tailor community events specific to the needs of the community. RBFN and Hydro One are currently working toward agreeing to a Capacity Funding Agreement (CFA). The CFA provides capacity to review documentation and to assist with identification of TK to inform the EA studies and processes.



BZA 3 BZA would like further information prior to starting on the EA on how information from community consultation and TK will be developed and included into the EA, as the response does not provide sufficient detail. BZA appreciates consultation, information sharing and TK will vary from community to community, however it is unclear how the differences will be resolved and how this information will be incorporated and/or reconciled. Additionally, the ToR should clarify how Hydro One will reconcile the different TK provided by the different Indigenous groups.

Hydro One has been in contact with RBFN to arrange a meeting to discuss matters such as TK in greater detail. This meeting is expected to occur in the coming days. How TK is collected will be raised as part of this initial discussion with RBFN. Hydro One is committed to having further discussions with RBFN to discuss these concerns and to address them at any time.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge


BZA 4 BZA would like further information before the EA starts on how information from community consultation and TK will be developed and included into relevant studies which may be used to obtain permits.

How TK information will be incorporated and/or reconciled will be part of consultation with knowledge holders and the communities that provide this information. Hydro One can enter into non-disclosure agreements with communities in regards to TK if there are concerns about proprietary knowledge being made public. Hydro One has been in contact with RBFN to arrange a meeting to discuss matters such as TK in greater detail. This meeting is expected to occur in the coming days.



BZA 7 Hydro One’s response does not address the issues raised in BZA’s comments on the ToR. Additionally, The Consultation Plan, developed through a robust consultation process with BZA, should be finalized prior to the EA, rather than during the EA, to ensure that the EA is conducted in accordance with the Consultation Plan.

The Consultation Plan for RBFN will be developed in consultation with RBFN. This consultation plan, if requested, can be developed at any time to work with each community to ensure consultation is conducted in a manner that fits each Indigenous community’s unique position. Hydro One has been in contact with RBFN to arrange a meeting to discuss matters such as developing a tailored consultation plan in greater detail. This meeting is expected to occur in the coming days.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Consultation Plan


BZA 13 BZA would like the amendment suggested in comment 13 to be included in the ToR. Section 5.8.1 states: Hydro One will engage with Indigenous communities to identify criteria and indicators for identifying potential impacts and mitigation measures. Section 7.2 states: Mitigation measures will also be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities, stakeholders and other interested parties

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Mitigation Measures, Criteria and Indicators


BZA 14

Consultation on the Vegetation Management Program must be effective and meaningful and comply with the Consultation Plan developed with BZA.

Hydro One will consult with BZA on the vegetation management program based on agreed upon consultation principles.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Vegetation Management


BZA 16 Section 4.1.1 of the ToR states: Changes to project design may be made to accommodate landowner and Indigenous community concerns if it is practicable to do so without negatively affecting other landowners, environmental features (all environmentally sensitive areas that could include among others: ESAs, water bodies, wetlands, rare vegetation communities or significant wildlife habitats) or significantly negatively affecting overall project costs. Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities throughout the EA on the Project.

Section 4.1.1 of the ToR states: Changes to project design may be made to accommodate landowner and Indigenous community concerns if it is practicable to do so without negatively affecting other landowners, environmental features (all environmentally sensitive areas that could include among others: ESAs, water bodies, wetlands, rare vegetation communities or significant wildlife habitats) or significantly negatively affecting overall project costs. Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities throughout the EA on the Project.

In Progress Local Design Considerations, Indigenous Consultation, Sensitive Areas


BZA 17 BZA would like the ToR to include the amendments requested in the comments provided: Input/feedback from Indigenous consultation, including Traditional Knowledge must be included/provided for in the Study Area (5.1) and all parts of the Data Collection methodology (5.2). Input/feedback from Indigenous Consultation, including Traditional Knowledge, must be included when data is collected for all aspects of 5.3 (Natural Environment) and 5.4 (Socio- Economic Environment). Rather than be listed as a data source in Appendix 1.

Section 5.2 is the most appropriate section to include the following statement: Traditional knowledge from Indigenous communities will be incorporated into aspects of the EA, subject to consultation with traditional knowledge holders and communities. Hydro One will work with RBFN to identify TK and how to incorporate it into the EA.



BZA 18 Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek and Hydro One discussed CIC sessions in the community during a conference call on November 16th, 2018.Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek and Hydro One are also in the process of negotiating a Capacity Funding Agreement. Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek has provided Hydro One with a Consultation Protocol and the parties discussed the development of the Consultation Plan. Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek is committed to engaging in meaningful and productive consultation with Hydro One.As these agreements have yet to be formalized, Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek again submits that:“Consultation must be in appropriate, plain language sessions that explains the project in a meaningful way and context including the full recognition of the role of TK to the project and how it will be effectively integrated within the EA and that demonstrates to the participants that their input is valued and will influence the analysis and choices made by Hydro One. Time and resources to participate and review information and develop appropriate information requests or responses based on materials presented or documents provided. Hydro One commit to providing effective, plain language consultation with the RBFN throughout the project including at future CICs or other discussion fora and that these meetings encourage participation by following community practices for community meetings (e.g. refreshments, food, proper notice, appropriate time, overall respect for traditional practices) and ensure that time and resources are adequately provided to allow RBFN and their advisors to attend and prepare responses to the information session or documents. Hydro One should focus on their review on issues related to the EA process and how they relate to RBFN and their TK and the traditional way of life while not trying to create negative issues.”

Hydro One thanks Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek for this comment. Hydro One commits to working with Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek throughout the project to develop consultation that is meaningful and is in appropriate plain language. Hydro One also commits to working with Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek a Capacity Funding Agreement that, among other things, provides for time and resources for Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek to participate.



BZA-19 Hydro One committed to drafting language for the ToR arising from this discussion. Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek has not had an opportunity to review this language as of yet but we understand that Hydro One will be filing it with MECP.

Hydro One appreciates Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek comments regarding TK and has amended section 9 of the ToR with the following section:9.4.4 Indigenous Traditional KnowledgeTraditional Knowledge is considered to be a holistic body of knowledge containing information and records collected by Indigenous communities that is considered to be of cultural, spiritual, historical and community significance to its members. Much of this knowledge may have been passed on from generation to generation. Each community will have its own approach to collecting, recording, sharing and using this knowledge. Hydro One is willing to enter into Traditional Knowledge Sharing Agreements with Indigenous communities that acknowledge and respect the sensitive and confidential nature of Traditional Knowledge collection and its use. Hydro One intends to use Traditional Knowledge and other information received from community members for the Lake Superior Link Project to assist with several key elements of the EA process: • Defining a methodology for and description of existing (baseline) conditions e.g., study areas; natural environment conditions; social and economic conditions, cultural characteristics; community characteristics; other values of importance; • Evaluating alternatives and assessing potential impacts of the Project (e.g., criteria and indicators of relevance to Indigenous communities for all environmental components); • Developing mitigation measures and monitoring commitments. 9.4.4.1 Methodology for Obtaining and Incorporating Traditional KnowledgeHydro One recognizes that the definition of what Traditional Knowledge comprises is unique to each Indigenous community. Similarly, it is the community that decides what information will be shared and how it should be applied. For the purposes of Environmental Assessment (EA), Traditional Knowledge is considered a very important source of information that is used to: • define the characteristics of the land, people and environment that could be affected by the Project; • to input into the design of the Project; • to input into construction and operating methods that may help determine measures to eliminate or minimize impacts. The following paragraphs describe the steps and methods Hydro One intends to take to collect and use Traditional Knowledge information. 1. Identifying Traditional Knowledge Information that has been Recorded by Indigenous CommunitiesIt is recognized that not all communities have formally recorded Traditional Knowledge information. It is also recognized that not all communities will be willing to share the information that they have collected.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Effects Assessment, Data Collection, Alternative Asessment, Mitigation Measures, Monitoring

Discussion will be held with community members, leadership and elders, to determine if information is available and if the community is willing to share the information, and any associated conditions with sharing the information. 2. Determining if the Community requires additional resources or capacity to collect, record and share Traditional Knowledge.It is recognized that some communities may require resources, such as funding and/or technical assistance to complete the recording of Traditional Knowledge. Hydro One is offering assistance through a Capacity Funding Agreement process whereby funding is provided to communities to assist with capacity development and the gathering and recording of Traditional Knowledge. 3. Identifying Community Protocols for Sharing and using Traditional KnowledgeEach community may have its own protocols and procedures, either formal or informal, to be followed in transferring Traditional Knowledge to outside parties such as Hydro One. Hydro One respects these protocols and will work with each community to understand how the information will be transferred and applied. Hydro One respects that Traditional Knowledge is “owned” and controlled by the community. It is recognized some communities may request a Traditional Knowledge Sharing Agreement/Non-Disclosure (Confidentiality) Agreement. 4. Utilizing Traditional Knowledge in the EA and Design ProcessTraditional Knowledge may be provided in a variety of formats such as maps, written descriptions or oral stories. Often mapping is provided in a Geographic Information System (GIS) computer-based mapping format. However, where information has not been recorded in GIS format, and hard-copy mapping must be shared, Hydro One understands that these maps must be treated with respect.In addition to respecting ownership of the information, it is understood that Traditional Knowledge provided by the community must be protected. For example, where a sacred site has been identified, the Hydro One database will not provide a specific map reference that could lead a third party to the specific location. Typically this type of information is also “buffered” by applying an area of protection around the feature so that the specific location cannot be identified. The need for and extent of such a buffer will be discussed with community members. Hydro One will also refrain from specifically identifying/labelling an area of community importance that could be of interest to outside parties but could impact the community, such as high quality harvest areas, areas with traditional medicines, etc. In addition to receiving guidance from the community as to how the information will be used and published, Hydro One will also seek guidance from community members about the extent to which the transmission project might affect/impact an area of importance and ways to avoid or reduce the effect on the area. It is recognized that physically avoiding an area may not be enough to eliminate impact. Areas, sites,

etc., that may be impacted will be discussed with community members and measures that could be applied to further mitigate the impact or where appropriate accommodate for the impact, will be identified. It is recognized that Traditional Knowledge will not be limited to physical or spatial features. Information about using the land and community culture will also be an important aspect. This information will be treated similar to physical/spatial features. The potential for impact from the Project will be discussed with community members as well as measures to mitigate, and/or where appropriate, accommodate for the impact. It is also important that community values and respect for the land are incorporated into the impact analysis as well as Project design and operations. 5. Working with Communities that do not have Traditional Knowledge formally recordedIt is recognized that: • Some communities will not have formal Traditional Knowledge records; • Some communities may prefer oral methods of sharing information rather than written records; • Some communities may wish to formally record Traditional Knowledge but may not be ready or may not have sufficient time to record the information within the schedule for the Lake Superior Link transmission Project EA, even if the community has accessed the Capacity Funding process to obtain financial assistance; Where a community does not have, or is not likely to have formal records, but is willing to share Traditional Knowledge information orally or by some other means, Hydro One will discuss with community members the most appropriate way to facilitate this method of sharing. This could involve meetings with land users, elders, trappers, etc. Sitting together, Hydro One would provide community members the opportunity to share information and stories that would then be recorded by Hydro One for use in the EA impact analysis. The records developed from these meetings would be verified with the community members before the information is incorporated. It is acknowledged that these records, similar to more formal Traditional Knowledge records, are in the ownership of the community, and will only be used, shared and published under the terms outlined in the Traditional Knowledge Sharing agreement.Hydro One fully respects those communities which choose not to share their Traditional Knowledge. How the community chooses to participate in the EA process will be discussed with the leaders of these communities during consultation. 6. Reconciling Differences between Traditional Knowledge and Western ScienceFrom previous experience utilizing both Traditional Knowledge and western science to conduct EA impact analysis and Project design, it is unusual for differences to be in conflict. It is more typical that Traditional Knowledge complements western scientific analyses through the addition of values and information not typically assessed using western

scientific methodologies. Where western science often relies on deduction and inference to reach conclusions, information from Traditional Knowledge adds an experiential understanding of the land that goes back many, many generations. Where western science relies on gauges and modelling it is, however, often based on limited historical data. Community members have generations of historical knowledge that may be shared. This information is extremely helpful. 7. Reconciling Differences in Traditional Knowledge between CommunitiesDifferences between Traditional Knowledge information from one community to another are expected to be uncommon, but will be addressed between Hydro One and the affected communities, as they are identified. It is recognized that experiential information may be somewhat different between communities for a common parcel of land; and it is also recognized that there are overlaps in traditional territories. Hydro One recognizes the importance of acknowledging, reconciling and addressing any differences that are identified. First, the information provided by each community would be verified with members from each of the communities. Expecting that the information from both records is verified, Hydro One would aggregate the information and assess impacts and mitigation acknowledging both records. Whether the differences are discussed between the communities would be at the discretion and the direction of members from each of the communities. As mentioned earlier, sacred or significant sites/areas are typically not labelled, and are typically “buffered” with a protection zone to ensure confidentiality where this is considered important by the community members. Where differences are considered to conflict, Hydro One will work with each of the communities to identify a collaborative process for working through the differences towards an outcome for EA analysis that is acceptable to both communities. 8. Identifying, Discussing and Confirming Mitigation Measures/AccommodationAn important aspect of EA impact analysis and the incorporation of Traditional Knowledge information is the identification and confirmation of mitigation measures and where appropriate accommodation. Using western science and Traditional Knowledge information, Hydro One can conduct an initial analysis of potential impacts and identify initial measures to avoid or reduce the impact. The initial conclusions of this analysis are discussed with the community. From input received by the community during subsequent consultation/engagement, measures can be changed or additional measures added, resulting in a refinement of the impact analysis. Although Hydro One may not agree with every suggested change, it is well understood that the process of discussing differences and disagreements is a fundamental aspect of consultation and the EA process. ContinuedHydro One recognizes that not all communities have the resources or capacity available to conduct a detailed review of the EA impact

analysis they feel is necessary to adequately reflect and incorporate community values and Traditional Knowledge to the extent desired. Hydro One is offering assistance through a Capacity Funding Agreement process whereby funding is provided to communities to assist with capacity development, gathering and recording of Traditional Knowledge, and EA review.


BZA - 23 Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek would like to emphasize that there are certain issues to be addressed by Hydro One which may be outside the scope of the Terms of Reference and will have to be addressed in the language of any Capacity Funding Agreement, Consultation Plan, or Traditional Knowledge Sharing Agreement negotiated by the parties. Reference: Hydro One response to BZA 1, 2: A Consultation Plan will be required and will necessarily include that any CIC’s will require Hydro One to demonstrate to participants that their input will influence the analysis and choices made by Hydro One. Hydro One will have to focus on issues related to the EA process and how it will relate to Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek and their traditional way of life, while trying not to create negative issues.

Comments have been noted. Hydro One agrees that there are issues that are better addressed outside the ToR. Hydro One is committed to working with Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek to develop a tailored consultation plan to the needs of the community.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Consultation Plan


BZA-26 What will happen if there are irreconcilable differences between the positions of different communities? Item #7 of Section 9.4.4.1 states “Where differences are considered to conflict, Hydro One will work with each of the communities to identify a collaborative process with the objective of working through the differences towards an outcome for EA analysis. Hydro One is willing to work with BN outside the ToR process regarding the Capacity Funding Agreement, the associated workplan and budget needed.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation.


BZA - 27 Hydro One commits to incorporate intends to use Traditional Knowledge and other information received from community members for the Lake Superior Link Project to assist in with several key elements of the EA process, including but not limited to:

he following changes are accepted:Hydro One commits to incorporate Traditional Knowledge and other information received from community members for the Lake Superior Link Project to assist in the EA process, including but not limited to:

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge.


BZA-28 Identify problem areas either physical/biological or social/cultural that would have to be overcome in order to proceed or develop alternatives.

Hydro One agrees to use the following modified wording in section 9.4.4.1: “Identify areas of concern either physical/biological or social/cultural that may require measures that would eliminate or minimize impacts.”

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Effects Assessment


BZA - 29 It is recognized that not all communities have formally recorded Traditional Knowledge information. It is also recognized that not all communities will be willing to share the information that they have collected or may want to put conditions on how the information is shared. Discussion will be held with community members, leadership and elders, to determine if information is available and if the community is willing to share the information, and any associated conditions with sharing the information.

Hydro One is willing to enter into Traditional Knowledge Sharing/non-disclosure agreements with communities to outline how TK is shared and used.



BZA - 30 It is recognized that some communities may require resources, such as funding and/or technical assistance to complete the recording of Traditional Knowledge. Hydro One is offering commits to providing sufficient financial assistance through a Capacity Funding Agreement process whereby funding is provided to communities to assist support them to participate fully and effectively in the EA with capacity development, technical support and the gathering and recording of Traditional Knowledge.

Hydro One commits to providing sufficient financial assistance through a negotiated Capacity Funding Agreement process, to support full and effective community participation in the EA process, including with capacity support, technical support and the gathering and recording of Traditional Knowledge. The CFA/Consultation Agreement allow for provisions for discussions around additional funding as follows: “Indigenous Party may request funds in addition to the funds set out in this Agreement, or request amendments to the budget and Work Plan, and Hydro One shall consider such requests in good


faith and approve those it reasonably considers are commercially reasonable and necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Agreement.”


BZA - 32 In addition to respecting ownership of the information, it is understood that Traditional Knowledge provided by the community must be protected. For example, where a sacred site has been identified, the Hydro One database will not provide a specific map reference that could lead a third party to the specific location. Typically this type of information is also “buffered” by applying an area of protection around the feature so that the specific location cannot be identified. The need for and extent of Such buffers will be used where identified as necessary by Indigenous communities discussed with community members. Hydro One will also refrain from specifically identifying/labelling an area of community importance that could be of interest to outside parties but could impact the community, such as high quality harvest areas, areas with traditional medicines, etc.

Changes accepted as proposed. In Progress Mitigation Measures, Indigenous Consultation.


BZA - 33 In addition to receiving guidance from the community as to how the information will be used and published, Hydro One will also seek guidance from community members about the extent to which the transmission project might affect/impact an area of importance and will take necessary steps ways to avoid or reduce the effect on the area.

In addition to receiving guidance from the community as to how the information will be used and published, Hydro One commits to incorporating community input into the development of the analysis framework and addressing impacts through mitigation and accommodation, as appropriate, through the EA process.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Mitigation Measures.


BZA - 35 It is recognized that Traditional Knowledge will not be limited to physical or spatial features. Information about using the land and community culture will also be an important aspect. This information will be treated similar to physical/spatial features. The potential for impact from the Project will be discussed with community members as well as measures to mitigate, and/or where appropriate, accommodate for the impact. It is also important that community values and respect for the land are incorporated into the impact analysis as well as Project design and operations.

See BZA-33. Hydro One continues to commit to work with communities to identify and mitigate or accommodate, where appropriate, impacts to Section 35 rights.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Mitigation Measures.


BZA - 36 Where a community does not have, or is not likely to have formal records, but is willing to share Traditional Knowledge information orally or by some other means, Hydro One will discuss with community members the most appropriate way to facilitate this method of sharing. This could involve meetings with land users, elders, trappers, etc. Sitting together, Hydro One would provide community members the opportunity to share information and stories that would then be recorded by Hydro One for use in the EA impact analysis. The records developed from these meetings would be verified with the community members who will have the opportunity to add any necessary information, details or perspective before the information is incorporated. It is acknowledged that these records, similar to more formal Traditional Knowledge records, are in the ownership of the community, and will only be used, shared and published under the terms outlined in the Traditional Knowledge Sharing agreement.

These changes have been implemented in 9.4.5 as presented. In Progress Indigenous Consultation


BZA – 37 From previous experience utilizing both Traditional Knowledge and western science to conduct EA impact analysis and Project design, it is unusual for differences to be in conflict. It is more typical that Traditional Knowledge complements western scientific analyses through the addition of values and information not typically assessed using western scientific methodologies. Western Science and Traditional Knowledge approach environmental evaluation differently. Where western science often relies on deduction and inference to reach conclusions, information from Traditional Knowledge adds an experiential understanding of the land that goes back many, many generations. Where western science relies on gauges and modelling it is, however, often based on limited historical data. Community members have generations of historical knowledge that may be shared. This information is extremely helpful.

Changes proposed are accepted with the following modification by Hydro One to address the note in the margin: Western Science and Traditional Knowledge approach environmental evaluation differently. Where western science often relies on deduction and inference to reach conclusions, information from Traditional Knowledge adds an experiential understanding of the land that goes back many, many generations. Where western science relies on gauges and modelling it is, however, often based on limited historical data. Community members have generations of historical knowledge that may be shared. This information is extremely helpful. Traditional Knowledge will be used to enhance western science. Where Traditional Knowledge is found to conflict with western science both will be brought forward for consideration in the evaluation of criteria and indicators and treated with equal weight.



BZA - 39 An important aspect of EA impact analysis and the incorporation of Traditional Knowledge information is the identification and confirmation of mitigation measures and where appropriate accommodation. Using western science and Traditional Knowledge information, Hydro One can conduct an initial analysis of potential impacts and identify initial measures to avoid or reduce the impact. The initial conclusions of this analysis are discussed with the community. From input received by the community during subsequent consultation/engagement, measures can be changed or additional measures added, resulting in a refinement of the impact analysis. Although Hydro One may not agree with every suggested change, it is well understood that the process of discussing discussing resolving differences and the potential of a mutually acceptable resolution is a fundamental aspect of consultation and the EA process.

Changes accepted as follows: Although Hydro One may not agree with every suggested change, it is well understood that the process of discussing and resolving differences and the potential of a mutually acceptable resolution is a fundamental aspect of consultation and the EA process.



BZA - 41 Reference: Hydro One response to BZA 7: Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek believes the Consultation Plan should be finalized prior to the Environmental Assessment process to ensure that the Consultation Plan is followed for the entire Environmental Assessment.

In the ToR, Section 9.4: Consultation Plan for the EA serves as the general consultation plan for the Environmental Assessment. In this consultation plan Hydro One has committed to developing tailored community specific consultation plans with those communities that request them. These tailored consultation plans can be completed at anytime.



BZA - 43 Schedule “A” Design Considerations Reference 4.1.1 first paragraph “Changes to project design will be made to accommodate landowner and Indigenous Community concerns if it is practicable to do so without negatively affecting other landowners, traditionally sensitive areas, culturally sensitive areas, and environmental features or significantly negatively affecting overall project costs. Hydro One will document landowner issues and consider TK and traditionally and culturally sensitive areas, in documenting how these decisions were made, and the results. Design considerations are applicable to all alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking.”

Changes made in 4.1.1 as presented. In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Mitigation Measures


BZA - 44 Constructionreference: 4.2.1, second sentence:“Construction activities will continue year-around, with some construction activities being staged and implemented to avoid or minimize potential effects on traditionally sensitive areas, culturally sensitive areas, and environmentally sensitive areas or life cycle periods of wildlife, such as avoiding clearing of vegetation during the migratory bird nesting season”.

Changes accepted as proposed. In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Mitigation Measures


BZA - 45 Operations and Maintenance reference: 4.2.2, third sentence: “A transmission Vegetation Management Program, developed with consultation from Indigenous communities, will apply to the operation and maintenance of the corridor.”

Changes accepted as proposed. In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Mitigation Measures


BZA - 46 Study Area reference: 5.1, insert the following before the last sentence in the first paragraph: “The project also crosses the traditional territory of Indigenous groups”. reference: 5.1, third paragraph, first sentence: “Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and there is agreement with the Indigenous communities that they apply to the project, Hydro One will not be duplicating these studies, but will use publicly available information and information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation to inform assessment efforts.”

Hydro One partially accepts changes proposed as follows: Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the project, Hydro One will not be duplicating these studies, but will use publicly available information and Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation to inform assessment efforts. Hydro One will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Mitigation Measures


BZA - 47 “Desktop studies and information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation will be used to determine the state and pertinence of knowledge of the listed environmental factors. The knowledge will serve to inform preliminary Project design and direct efforts for further assessment of the environment. Information used for the purpose of documenting existing natural heritage conditions will be gathered from background information provided by the government agencies, information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation and other stakeholders, as well as

This paragraph has already been modified to state: Desktop studies will be utilized to determine the state and pertinence of knowledge of the listed environmental factors. This knowledge will serve to inform preliminary Project design and direct efforts for further assessment of the environment.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Data Collection, Traditional Knowledge, Mitigation Measures

published and unpublished data sources.” reference: 5.2, paragraph 5, first sentence: “Where necessary, primary sources of information such as field work and further consultation with Indigenous communities will be conducted to supplement the data gathering effort. reference: 5.2 paragraph 6: “These primary field methods will include, but are not limited to, the following: - Consultation with Indigenous communities and agreements with the programs; - Winter aerial wildlife surveys; etc.”

Information used for the purpose of documenting existing natural heritage conditions will be gathered from background information provided by government agencies and other stakeholders, as well as published and unpublished data sources. Traditional knowledge from Indigenous communities will be incorporated into aspects of the EA, subject to consultation with traditional knowledge holders and communities. Changes proposed to Section 5.2 paragraph 5 accepted with modification as follows: If necessary, primary sources of information, such as field work or further consultation with Indigenous communities and other stakeholders will be conducted to supplement the data gathering effort. Changes proposed to Section 5.2 paragraph 6 are partially accepted as follows: These primary field methods will include, but are not limited to, the following: • Consultation with Indigenous communities and other stakeholders


BZA - 48 Natural Environment reference: 5.3, third sentence: “All information collected as part of the natural environment field programs and through TK studies and additional consultation with Indigenous communities will be used in the EA to identify potential effects and practicable mitigation measures, and to fine tune the location of towers, access roads and water crossings (where appropriate).”

Changes proposed accepted with modification as follows: All information collected as part of the natural environment field programs and through Traditional Knowledge studies and consultation with Indigenous communities and other stakeholders will be used in the Environmental Assessment to identify potential effects and practicable mitigation measures, and to fine tune the location of towers, access roads and water crossings (where appropriate).



BZA - 49 Geology, Soils and Physical Environmentreference: 5.3.1 paragraph 3:“The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with field work and with information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation, where required, for visual identification or characterization of geological formations or structures, terrain or soil characteristics.”

Changes proposed are accepted with modification as follows:The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented, where required, with field work, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders for visual identification or characterization of geological formations or structures, terrain or soil characteristics.



BZA - 50 Groundwater and Surface Water reference: 5.3.2 third paragraph from the bottom: “The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with field work and with information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation for flows or water quality characterization of streams or water bodies.” reference: 5.3.2 last paragraph, second sentence: “The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with fieldwork and with information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation, for characterization of groundwater quality, or measurements of water levels or drawdown of water wells.”

Changes proposed to Section 5.3.2 third paragraph are accepted with modification as follows: The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with field work for flows or water quality characterization of streams or waterbodies, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders. Changes proposed to Section 5.3.2 last paragraph are accepted with modification as follows: The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with fieldwork for characterization of groundwater


quality or measurements of water levels or drawdown of water wells, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders.


BZA - 51 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat reference: 5.3.4, first paragraph, last sentence: “Preliminary desktop studies to assess current levels of knowledge will be conducted for wildlife and wildlife habitat and used on conjunction with information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation to better understand species incidences.” reference: 5.3.4 paragraph 2, second sentence: “The baseline data resulting from this field program will be used in conjunction with information/TK gathered through indigenous consultation to support baseline studies for this project, conduct and environmental impact assessment as part of the EA process for the Project and will inform potential permitting.”

The following will be placed at the end of Section 5.3.4 to address the intent of the changes proposed: Desktop and field studies will be supplemented by Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Data Collection, Traditional Knowledge


BZA - 51 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat reference: 5.3.4, first paragraph, last sentence: “Preliminary desktop studies to assess current levels of knowledge will be conducted for wildlife and wildlife habitat and used on conjunction with information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation to better understand species incidences.” reference: 5.3.4 paragraph 2, second sentence: “The baseline data resulting from this field program will be used in conjunction with information/TK gathered through indigenous consultation to support baseline studies for this project, conduct and environmental impact assessment as part of the EA process for the Project and will inform potential permitting.”

The following will be placed at the end of Section 5.3.4 to address the intent of the changes proposed: Desktop and field studies will be supplemented by Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Data Collection, Traditional Knowledge


BZA - 52 Vegetation, Forest Resources, and Wetlandsreference: 5.3.5, paragraph 1, first sentence:“The study area includes forested areas, woodlots, open fields, wetlands, and other vegetated habitats.For the study area, the EA will describe and map vegetation communities and delineate plant speciesin all natural areas, such as ESA’s ANSI’s wetlands, and municipally-designated significant woodlands, valleylands and wildlife habitat, based on the NHIC database, published information, information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation and field studies.”reference: 5.3.5 paragraph 5, first sentence:“In order to characterize and assess impacts to vegetation communities along the proposed sections of the PSA, vegetation classification field surveys will be carried out in and used in conjunction with information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation in order to characterize the vegetative communities within 1 kilometer of the proposed works.”

Changes proposed to Section 5.3.5 first paragraph are accepted with modification as follows:For the study area, the EA will describe and map vegetation communities and delineate plant species in all natural areas, such as ESA’s, wetlands, and municipally-designated significant woodlands, valleylands and wildlife habitat, based on NHIC database, published information, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation, information from stakeholders and field studies.Changes proposed to Section 5.3.5 paragraph 5 are declined. The changes are out of context. The intent of the proposed changes is captured by the previous changes to the first paragraph of Section 5.3.5 (above).

In Progress Vegetation, Sensitive Areas, Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Consultation.


BZA - 53 Water Bodies, Fish Habitat and Aquatic Ecosystems reference: 5.3.6 paragraph 1, third sentence: “The EA will map well known coldwater and warm watercourses, as well as list fish species present in the watercourses in the study area based on previous regional EA studies, MNR Field Collection Records, Conservation Authority databases, published information, information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation and supplemental field surveys, where required.” reference: 5.3.6 paragraph 2, first sentence: “Existing aerial/satellite imagery, along with other background information, such as information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation will be sued to establish survey locations prior to execution of the field program.”

Changes proposed to Section 5.3.6 paragraph 1 are accepted with modification as follows: The EA will map well known coldwater and warm watercourses, as well as list fish species present in the watercourses in the study area based on previous regional EA studies, MNR Field Collection Records, Conservation Authority databases, published information, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation, information from stakeholders and supplemental field surveys, where required. Changes proposed to Section 5.3.6 paragraph 2 are accepted with modifications as follows: Existing aerial/satellite imagery, along with other background information will be used to establish survey locations prior to execution of the field program. Their selection will also be informed by previous studies. Sample locations will be determined as design progresses, Traditional Knowledge is gathered through Indigenous consultation and pertinent information from stakeholders is obtained. Specific focus of sampling locations will also be on areas where clearing is required.

In Progress Fish, Aquatic Habitat, Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Consultation,


BZA - 54 Species at Riskreference: 5.3.7 paragraph 1:“The EA document will map the general locations of known incidences of species at risk (SAR), endangered and threatened species, and species of special concern in the study area. This informationwill be based on the MNRFF’s “Species at Risk in Ontario List”, the Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada (WOSEWIC) list, Environment Canada species at risk search tool(http://www.registrelep-sararegistr.gc.ca/) and Environment Canada, CWS and NHIC databases, as well as known locations based on published and unpublished information such as information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation, and personal communications.”reference: 5.3.7 paragraph 2:“In addition to desktop studies, field work and information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation will be used to supplement SAR information in tandem with other studies such as vegetation and wildlife assessments to identify rare plants and at risk wildlife.”

Changes to 5.4.7 paragraph 1 accepted with the following modification:...NHIC databases, as well as known locations based on personal communications, published and unpublished information, such as Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders. Changes to 5.4.7 paragraph 2 accepted with the following modification:Desktop studies, field work, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders will be used to supplement SAR information in tandem with other studies such as vegetation and wildlife assessments to identify rare plants and at risk wildlife.

In Progress


BZA - 55 Air Quality reference: 5.3.8, second last sentence: “The project will evaluate existing studies of air quality, potential project emission sources and identification of receptors and information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation.”

Changes to 5.3.8 accepted with the following modification: The project will evaluate existing studies of air quality, potential project emission sources, identification of receptors, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders

In Progress


BZA - 56 Population, Demographics reference: 5.4.3 paragraph 2, second sentence: “This information will be documented through statistics, plans, stakeholder and Indigenous community engagement, and other sources.

Change made in Section 5.4.3. In Progress Socio-Economic, Indigenous Consultation


BZA - 57 Visual reference: 5.4.5, second sentence: “This assessment will focus on valued viewpoints by the public and Indigenous communities and those identified by the project team as contributing to the aesthetic character of an area (e.g. ESA’s and river valleys

Change made in Section 5.4.5 In Progress Visual, Indigenous Consultation


BZA - 58 Cultural Heritage Environment reference: 5.5.1 paragraph one, sentence one: “To describe and assess potential effects on heritage resources and archaeology in the study area, the EA will draw upon the results of archaeological assessments, cultural heritage resource studies and information/TK gathered through Indigenous consultation.

Changes to 5.5.1 accepted with the following modification: To describe and assess potential effects on heritage resources and archaeology in the study area, the EA will draw upon the results of archaeological assessments, cultural heritage resources studies, Traditional Knowledge gathered through Indigenous consultation and information from stakeholders.

In Progress Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Consultation.


BZA-20 During the November 16th, 2018 conference call, Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek and Hydro One discussed a further meeting between the parties concerning the Consultation Plan. Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek is committed to engaging in meaningful and productive consultation with Hydro One and to negotiating the Consultation Plan. However, Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek reiterates that the Consultation Plan should be finalized prior to the EA, rather than during the EA, to ensure that the EA is conducted in accordance with the Consultation Plan.

Hydro One acknowledges the importance of conducting consultation through a process that is in alignment with community values, culture and protocols and believes in working with Indigenous communities throughout the Project to make necessary revisions to the consultation plans to ensure that it is respectful and flexible as changes arise (i.e. such as an election).


Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek Rocky Bay First Nation (RBFN)

BZA – IR - 1

Record of [Consultation]Appendix E – Community Information Centre Materials Issue Detail in Report:See entire document containing the Community Information Centre (CIC) Materials Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency:Hydro One held a CIC at the Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek (BZA) Community Centre (referred to here as Rocky Bay First Nation). It is noted that the function consisted of a drop-in session with display panels. Presumably the display panels were comparable to or identical to the panels provided in Appendix E. Based on a review of these panels it is not surprising that there were no comment forms returned. The Code of Practice states that “Any documentation prepared for review by the public should avoid technical jargon in order to facilitate understanding and promote useful and informed feedback” and “consultation should be accessible both in terms of availability to interested persons and in plain language. To be effective, consultation must be tailored to the unique needs of the project and community involved.” Some clear deficiencies in these respects are noted below: • Panel 2 talks about what the purpose of the CIC is before the project is explained in Panel 3 so it would be difficult to understand the purpose of the ToR; • The communities were likely previously consulted on earlier proposals to build the East-West Tie Line. The history of how Hydro One got to where they were in the CIC should have been explained in clearer and simpler terms; • No connection is made to Traditional Knowledge (TK) and the need for the project to consider input from Indigenous communities (other than commenting on the ToR, attending CICs, and reviewing the EA as per panel 5) and that TK could play an important part in the EA; • No effort is made in the panels to “Reassure participants that their input is valued and will influence the analysis and choices made by the proponent” (Code of Practice, p. 39); and, • Panel 8 describes the environmental field surveys and conspicuously excludes any reference to TK, traditional land uses and culturally important habitat and species (for example, sacred grounds, areas of medicinal plants or other species important to RBFN) and thus there is a failure to demonstrate the value of the participants input. Information Request: Hydro One needs to commit to effective communication with RBFN.In the event that the ToR is not approved by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), Hydro One and their consultants should commit to revisiting the RBFN with an appropriate, plain language session that explains the project in a meaningful way and context including full recognition of the role of TK to the project and how it will be effectively integrated within the EA;If the ToR is approved, RBFN requests that Hydro One and their consultants revisit the community with an appropriate, plain language session that explains the project in a meaningful way and context including full recognition of the role of TK to the project and how it will be effectively integrated within the EA and that demonstrates to the participants that their input is valued and will influence the analysis and choices made by Hydro One;In either case, RBFN requests that Hydro One provide funding such that RBFN can fully participate and review the information provided in future CICs or other consultation fora and allow the community time and resources to develop appropriate information requests or responses based on the material presented or documents provided; and,Hydro One commit to providing effective, plain language consultation with the RBFN throughout the project including at future CICs or other discussion fora and that these meetings encourage participation by following community practices for community meetings (e.g. refreshments, food, proper notice, appropriate time, overall

Comments are noted. Hydro One is committed to consulting with RBFN and will extend an invite to provide another CIC session for the community.


respect for traditional practices) and ensure that time and resources are adequately provided to allow RBFN and their advisors to attend and prepare responses to the information session or documents.


BZA – IR - 2

Record of [Consultation]Section 3.4 Community Information Centre Summary Issue Detail in Report:“On June 13, 2018, Hydro One held a CIC at the Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek (BZA) Community Centre from 1:00-5:00 pm to discuss the project and draft ToR. The CIC was a drop-in style session, where display panels were presented providing information on the Project and ToR process. Staff from Hydro One and its design and construction partner SNC-Lavalin were available to discuss and provide responses to any questions or concerns raised by participants at the session. A copy of the draft ToR was made available at the CIC for review by attendees. A total of fourteen (14) community members attended the session. No comment forms were received at the event. A number of questions were asked regarding why BZA First Nation was being consulted given how far the community is from where the transmission line would be built.” ( p. 29) Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency:The Hydro One comment seems to infer that some attendees from RBFN were not interested in this project because they were so far away. A rationale was not provided to the community in the panels to link their location and activities to the project. This is a responsibility of the proponent and clearly the presentation was not tailored to the community as recommended by the Code of Practice. Notwithstanding, the RBFN is interested in the way this EA process will proceed and continue to want the opportunity to comment on the project. Information Request:Hydro One should focus their review on issues related to the EA process and how they relate to RBFN and their TK and the traditional way of life while not trying to create negative issues. Specifically, Hydro One should commit to providing effective, plain language consultation with the RBFN throughout the project including at future CICs or other discussion fora, that these meetings encourage participation by serving food or refreshments and ensure that provisions are made with respect to time and resources to allow RBFN to respond appropriately to the information sessions or document related presentations.

Comments are noted. Hydro One is committed to consulting with RBFN and will extend an invite to provide another CIC session for the community.

In Progress


BZA – IR - 3

Record of [Consultation]4.1 Government Agency Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference 4.1.1 Government Agency Comments Table 4.1-2: Government Agency Comments Received During the 30-day Review Period MECP – 2Issue Detail in Report: • MECP: “it is the ministry’s expectation that the Record of Consultation will:….. Describe how Indigenous communities were identified and how they were consulted” Hydro One: “Information contained within the comment will be submitted as part of the RoC. It will include: Describe how Indigenous communities were identified and how they were consulted.” (p. 33,34) Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency:The RoC does list the notifications, meetings, and response information but does not outline how this information will be added into the EA, how TK information will be developed, how the TK information will be combined with the western science information and then be used to determine the EA results. Information Request:Hydro One should provide more details on its consultation plan including how this information will be added into the EA, how TK information will be developed, how the TK information will be combined with the western science information and then be used to determine the EA results.

Comments are noted. Hydro One will provide capacity for traditional knowledge studies to communities through a Capacity Funding Agreement (CFA). TK is community and individual specific and the information shared will be subject to consultation on how to implement the information in the EA. Specific information gained from consultation will supplement relevant studies.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Economic, Traditional Knowledge


BZA – IR - 4

Record of [Consultation]4.1 Government Agency Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference 4.1.1 Government Agency Comments Table 4.1-2: Government Agency Comments Received During the 30-day Review Period MECP – 18 Issue Detail in Report:• MECP: “It will be necessary to initiate some permit and approval activities or applications during the EA process including any required consultation activities with members of the public, municipalities, agencies, and Indigenous communities and groups.” Hydro One: “the suggested revisions have been incorporated into the document.” (p. 42,43) Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency:The ToR , in Section 2.1.5 does repeat that “It will be necessary to initiate some permit and approval activities or applications during the EA process including any required consultation activities with members of the public, municipalities, government agencies, and Indigenous communities”. However, there is no indication of how this will be done, how often, how it will be incorporated into the permitting process or how TK will be incorporated.

Comments are noted. Hydro One will provide capacity for traditional knowledge studies to communities through a Capacity Funding Agreement (CFA). TK is community and individual specific and the information shared will be subject to consultation on how to implement the information in the EA. Specific information gained from consultation will supplement relevant studies. These studies which may incorporate TK will then be used to satisfy permit requirements.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Economic, Traditional Knowledge, Permitting

Information Request:Hydro One should provide more detail on how the consultation plan for permits occurring after the EA is complete will be undertaken and how TK will be incorporated.


BZA – IR - 5

Record of [Consultation] 4.1 Government Agency Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference 4.1.1 Government Agency Comments Table 4.1-2: Government Agency Comments Received During the 30-day Review Period MECP – 67 Issue Detail in Report: Hydro One: “Large portions of the proposed corridor have been previously studied and significant public and Indigenous consultation has gone into identifying the proposed route alternatives.” and “A thorough screening of route alternatives will be provided in the EA”. Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency: While RBFN agrees there was consultation, we do not believe there was “significant” consultation with Indigenous peoples by Hydro One or in the earlier EA studies nor do we feel our input led to the justification of the selected alternative routes. Hydro One does not make it clear how TK will be utilized in the screening of the route alternatives. Information Request: Hydro One should not imply that their route selection was based on Indigenous concurrence and needs to commit to integrating TK into the process by which alternative routes are screened within the EA.

Comments are noted. Hydro One will provide capacity for traditional knowledge studies to communities through a Capacity Funding Agreement (CFA). TK is community and individual specific and the information shared will be subject to consultation on how to implement the information in the EA. Specific information gained from consultation will supplement relevant studies. This information will then be used to assess alternative methods in the EA process. Hydro One has reviewed previous consultation records for the proposed corridor, environmental studies, policy planning documents and technical feasibility to propose the current route. Consultation on the reference route and reference route alternative sections has and will occur with Indigenous communities.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Economic, Traditional Knowledge, Alternative Assessment


BZA – IR - 6

Record of [Consultation]4.1 Government Agency Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference 4.1.1 Government Agency Comments Table 4.1-2: Government Agency Comments Received During the 30-day Review Period MECP – 86 Issue Detail in Report:MECP: “Also, the last bullet should specify that documents will be made available to government agencies and Indigenous communities for review, in addition to the public.” Hydro One: “Draft and final ToR and EA documents will be distributed to government agencies, key interest groups, and municipal officials and staff of communities along the project route.” (p. 72,73) Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency:Was the deletion of Indigenous communities by Hydro One intentional? Given that MECP had to request this of Hydro One, how can RBFN be assured that opportunities to review documents in a meaningful will be provided? Information Request:Hydro One should assure RBFN that they fully recognize that EA documents are to be reviewed by Indigenous communities and that Hydro One is required to support the capacity of First Nations such that they can undertake a meaningful review of technical documents.

Comments are noted. Hydro One has made EA documents available to Indigenous communities for review, including this ToR. Hydro One is committed to consulting with RBFN, including through this EA document review process. The last bullet point in the ToR in Section 9.4.2 has been accurately modified per MECP comments to include Indigenous communities.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, ToR/EA Documentation


BZA – IR - 7

Record of [Consultation]4.1 Government Agency Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference 4.1.1 Government Agency Comments Table 4.1-2: Government Agency Comments Received During the 30-day Review Period MECP – 90Issue Detail in Report:MECP: “The EA consultation plan for Indigenous communities should clearly set out the steps a proponent intends to take with respect to consultation activities. It should include, but not limited to, consideration of the following: • How Indigenous communities will be notified and consulted. This includes a description of the consultation activities planned (i.e. notifications, information sharing opportunities, open houses, individual meetings with the community etc.). • Points in the EA process when Indigenous communities will be consulted. Methods that will be used to consult with Indigenous communities. • Identify the decisions that Indigenous communities can provide input to and what role Indigenous communities play when the proponent makes decisions. • How traditional knowledge will be incorporated. Consultation plans should be developed and refined in consultation with Indigenous communities. Each community may have different approaches and/or preferences with regard to consultation and engagement. As such, some communities may prefer to have individualized plans. Other Items Please specify in this section that Indigenous communities are welcome to participate in the public consultation activities, in addition to the ones planned specifically for Indigenous communities. Please remove the word “groups” from all references to “Indigenous communities and groups”. The appropriate reference is just “Indigenous communities” Revise this section accordingly.” Hydro One: “Text outlining that the EA consultation plan for Indigenous communities will clearly set out the steps Hydro One intends to take with respect to consultation activities. Added text for clarification: In addition to the tailored consultation approach for Indigenous communities, all public consultation processes and specific consultation activities outlined in Section 9.3.1 and throughout Section 9 will be available to Indigenous communities.” (p. 73,74) “The standalone Consultation Plan will be developed and refined in consultation with Indigenous communities and the Plan will be submitted to MECP for review prior to initiating the EA. This document will include, but is not limited to, consideration of the following: • How Indigenous communities will be notified and consulted. This includes a description of the consultation activities planned (i.e. notifications, information sharing opportunities, open houses, individual meetings with the community etc.). • Points in the EA process when Indigenous communities will be consulted. • Methods that will be used to consult with Indigenous communities. • Identify the decisions that Indigenous communities can provide input to and what role Indigenous communities play when the proponent makes decisions. • How traditional knowledge will be incorporated.” (ToR Section 9.4.3 p. 99 and 100) Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency:The MECP requested Hydro One to clearly set out the steps intended for Indigenous consultation. Hydro One say they have done it in Section 9.3.1 of the ToR. However, in Section 9.4.3 Hydro One state that a standalone Consultation Plan will be prepared in consultation with Indigenous communities prior to initiating the EA. Why wasn’t this plan produced as part of the ToR. Section 9.3 of the ToR does not discuss Indigenous consultation. Section 9.4 states that the “Consultation Plan for the EA will apply the same consultation principles as used in the ToR and will take into account feedback from Indigenous communities”. RBFN does not feel that the consultation for the ToR was as comprehensive as it should have been. Now we are in the situation of using a less than complete consultation plan methodology to review the consultation plan to be used for the EA. Information Request:Hydro One should commit to a more robust Indigenous consultation and provide sufficient funding to provide proper Indigenous input. Whether part of this Consultation Plan or through some other process, much more discussion needs to be undertaken on how TK will be handled and funded.

Comments are noted. There are many communities and Nations and consultation approaches with each community will differ. Hydro One will work with RBFN to develop consultation guidelines and a capacity funding agreement so that RBFN can meaningfully participate in the EA process. The standalone consultation plan will be further developed during the EA.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Consultation Plan, Economic


BZA – IR - 8

Record of [Consultation]4.1 Government Agency Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference 4.1.1 Government Agency Comments Table 4.1-2: Government Agency Comments Received During the 30-day Review Period MECP – 104 Issue Detail in Report:MECP: “Indigenous community-specific criteria and indicators may be required for the evaluation of alternatives and assessment of the preferred undertaking. Please include a commitment in the ToR that specifies criteria and indicators of relevance to Indigenous communities will be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities. Revise text accordingly.” Hydro One: “Criteria and indicators of relevance to Indigenous communities will be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities. Section 5.3.2 has been revised.” Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency:There is no mention of Indigenous communities in Section 5.3.2. Information Request:Hydro One should confirm that a commitment will be made that specifies criteria and indicators of relevance to Indigenous communities will be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities. Some indication of how this will be done should also be provided.

Comments are noted. Appendix 1 states that data sources for all natural environment studies will incorporate Indigenous community consultation and traditional knowledge.Hydro One will provide capacity for traditional knowledge studies to communities through a Capacity Funding Agreement (CFA). TK is community and individual specific and the information shared will be subject to consultation on how to implement the information in the EA. Specific information gained from consultation will supplement relevant studies



BZA – IR - 9

Record of [Consultation] 4.1 Government Agency Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference 4.1.1 Government Agency Comments Table 4.1-2: Government Agency Comments Received During the 30-day Review Period MECP – 109 Issue Detail in Report: MECP: “Please include a statement that the preliminary list of features/considerations will be developed and refined during the EA process in consultation with the public, government agencies, Indigenous communities, and any other interested persons.” Hydro One: “Section 7 has been revised accordingly.” (p. 83,84) Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency: Section 7 does not contain a statement that the preliminary list of features/considerations will be developed and refined during the EA process in consultation with the Indigenous communities. Information Request: Hydro One should commit to providing a statement that the preliminary list of features/considerations will be developed and refined during the EA process in consultation with the Indigenous communities. Hydro One should also clarify how TK will be integrated with the western science data being collected.

Comments are noted. The preliminary list of criteria and indicators will be developed and refined during the EA process in consultation with the public, government agencies, Indigenous communities, and any other interested persons.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Stakeholder Consultation


BZA – IR - 10

Record of [Consultation]4.1 Government Agency Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference 4.1.1 Government Agency Comments Table 4.1-2: Government Agency Comments Received During the 30-day Review Period MECP – 124 Issue Detail in Report:MECP: “Each community may have different approaches and preferences for the sharing of Traditional or Indigenous Knowledge and this should be also honoured by Hydro One. Please note that Indigenous Knowledge should be an input to most physical, biological and human components of the environment. Please state a commitment to consider, and incorporate as appropriate, Indigenous consultation and knowledge”Hydro One: “Expanded on Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge as suggested in the comment. Section 9.4.2 has been revised.” (p. 92,93) Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency:Section 9.4.2 does not mention TK and that each community can use different approaches to sharing its TK. Section 9.4.3 of the Terms of Reference does state that: “Hydro One acknowledges the importance of conducting consultation through a process that is in alignment with community values, culture and protocols and is prepared to work with Indigenous communities to make necessary revisions to this Plan to ensure that it is respectful of community consultation protocols. Hydro One commits to ensuring that all regional and community protocols will be respected. If requested, Hydro One will develop tailored consultation plans for specific Indigenous communities.”RBFN is not clear what is meant by “community consultation protocols” but wishes to indicate that as an Indigenous community we are interested in and request that Hydro One develop a tailored consultation plan for RBFN. Further, RBFN requests that Hydro One commits to providing effective, plain language consultation with the RBFN and that community meetings encourage participation by following community practices including holding meetings at acceptable times and with adequate notice, encouraging participation with refreshments or meals, and overall respect for traditional practices and ensure that time and resources are adequately provided to allow RBFN and their advisors to attend and prepare responses to the information session or documents. Information Request:RBFN wishes to take advantage of the Hydro One commitment and requests a tailored consultation plan be developed for their community through discussions with and input from the community and that this plan recognize community practices with respect to meetings and presentations.Hydro One should also outline some suggested alternative methods that can be used for sharing the information and an indication of how the TK will be used in the EA and provide reassurance to the participants that their input is valued and influences the analysis and choices to be made within the EA.

Comments are noted. Hydro One will provide capacity for traditional knowledge studies to communities through a Capacity Funding Agreement (CFA). TK is community and individual specific and the information shared will be subject to consultation on how to implement the information in the EA. There are many communities and Nations and consultation approaches with each community will differ. Hydro One will work with RBFN to develop consultation guidelines and a capacity funding agreement so that RBFN can meaningfully participate in the EA process



BZA – IR - 11

Record of [Consultation]4.1 Government Agency Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference 4.1.1 Government Agency Comments Table 4.1-2: Government Agency Comments Received During the 30-day Review Period MECP – 126 Issue Detail in Report:MECP: “Commitments to consider Traditional or Indigenous Knowledge for each environmental component are not clear.” Hydro One: “Section 7.0 has been modified.” Issue, Concern or Information Deficiency:Section 7 only mentions TK in Table 10. Table 10 only lists TK under Natural Environment. Under Cultural/Built Environment, Traditional Indigenous land use is mentioned but not TK which would seem to be essential to “Cultural Heritage Resources. TK is not identified for Socio-economic Environment. Overall, it is treated as a separate criterion rather than integrating it as part of each of the other criteria. Information Request:Hydro One should confirm its commitment to consider TK for each of its environmental components (e.g., air, water, biota, etc.) and commit to work with and fund the Indigenous communities to develop proper ways to incorporate TK into the EA.

Comments are noted. Appendix 1 states that data sources for all natural environment studies will incorporate Indigenous community consultation and traditional knowledge.



BZA – 12 Reference - 4.11 of the ToR: This section should clarify that changes should also be made to accommodate Indigenous communities, not just landowners.

Section 4.1.1 has been modified to include Indigenous communities, not just landowners.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Local Design Considerations

Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek Rocky Bay First

BZA – 13 Reference – 4.2.1 of the ToR: “Traditionally sensitive areas and culturally sensitive areas “should be added after “environmentally sensitive areas” to ensure construction will be staged to minimize affects in these areas as well.

Consultation with Indigenous communities will seek to identify traditionally and culturally sensitive areas. Mitigation measures will be further developed during the EA process.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Land Use, Traditional Knowledge, Mitigation Measures

Nation (RBFN)


BZA – 14 Reference – 4.2.2 of the ToR: The Vegetation Management Program will be developed with consultation from Indigenous Communities.

Indigenous communities will have the opportunity to consult on the vegetation management program.



BZA – 15 Reference – 5.1 of the ToR: The “traditional territories of Indigenous communities” should be referenced in the description of the Study Area.

Section 5.1 has been revised to include traditional territories. In Progress Study Area, Traditional Territory


BZA – 16 The ToR should provide for Indigenous consultation to take place with respect to the Design Considerations (4.1.1) and Project Phases (4.2).

Indigenous community consultation will be used to inform design considerations and project phases.

In Progress Local Design Considerations, Indigenous Consultation


BZA – 17 Input/feedback from Indigenous consultation, including Traditional Knowledge must be included/provided for in the Study Area (5.1) and all parts of the Data Collection methodology (5.2). Input/feedback from Indigenous Consultation, including Traditional Knowledge, must be included when data is collected for all aspects of 5.3 (Natural Environment) and 5.4 (Socio- Economic Environment).

Traditional knowledge and Indigenous consultation is listed as a data source for natural and socio-economic environments in Appendix 1.



BZA Footnote

In addition to these responses, BZA would like to review the workplan for the EA. The Terms of Reference (ToR) provides the overall framework for the planning and decision making process that will be followed during the Environmental Assessment (EA). Hydro One is committed to consultation with RBFN and can provide regular updates on planned EA activities and milestones as the EA process progresses. Hydro One has been in contact with RBFN to arrange a meeting to discuss matters such as this in greater detail. This meeting is expected to occur in the coming days. Hydro One can work with RBFN to identify and provide the information required.

In Progress Indigenous Consultaton, Tor/EA Documentation

Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek

3 “…BNA has no comments at this time on the Lake Superior Link Proposal.” Comments are noted. Hydro One will continue to consult with Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek during the Environmental Assessment.


Garden River First Nation

GRFN – 14 If the gap analysis is complete, GRFN reiterates it requests that those gap filling studies be identified. These should have been identified as part of Section 5 of the ToR. Providing them as part of the EA is too late for appropriate consideration.

To address this concern Section 5.0 has been modified as follows: Hydro One is conducting field surveys to characterize the biophysical environment in the areas identified in the gap analysis as mentioned in the above paragraph, in compliance with the requirements of the MECP, Parks Canada, MNRF and other government agencies to complete the Individual EA Study. These field surveys include aquatic, vegetation, wildlife and species at risk studies to identify and document the existing biological conditions present. These are initial studies and additional studies may be required as the EA process unfolds.



GRFN We are pleased to see the repetition of this statement with regard to TK; however, find the general lack of specificity within the ToR as to how Hydro One will effectively achieve this consultation to be an ongoing concern. At the moment, it appears to be an after-thought! GRFN looks forward to developing a standalone Consultation Plan that develops a partnership that effectively integrates TK and culturally important species into the EA and ensures that GRFN will have input to plans and decisions within the EA.

Hydro One looks forward to working with GRFN on a consultation plan.



GRFN – 15 Thank you for this response but the repetition of the term “Indigenous Consultation” and the final sentence (“The development of specific study areas for the natural environment will be further refined in the EA based on published data collection guidelines and previously conducted studies” with no mention of TK or consultation with Indigenous communities gives us little assurance that the natural environment studies are really going to address GRFN concerns. Again, we request a commitment from Hydro One that that the assessment of potential habitat and or the presence of identified species at risk will not be strictly limited to the boundary of the local study area and will incorporate specific, relevant, linked habitats within the regional study area with full and effective consideration of TK and traditional land use.

To address this concern Appendix 1 has been modified to indicate that consultation with Indigenous communities and traditional knowledge will inform all natural environment studies, including species at risk, as an additional data source during the EA process

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Species at Risk


GRFN – 16 GRFN is interested in and requests that Hydro One develop a tailored consultation plan for RBFN. Further, GRFN requests that Hydro One commits to providing effective, plain language consultation and that community meetings encourage participation by following community practices including holding meetings at acceptable times and with adequate notice, encouraging participation and overall respect for traditional practices. Further, Hydro One is expected to provide participant support to GRFN to ensure that time and resources are available to permit GRFN and their advisors to attend and prepare responses to the information session or documents.

Hydro One and GRFN are currently in the process of scheduling a community information centre (CIC) that will aid in informing the GRFN community about the project. Hydro One will continue to work with GRFN to ensure logistics work for the community whenever arranging meetings or activities. Hydro One will endeavor to provide information in plain language and make available Project staff to have plain language discussions around the Project and to discuss concerns that are raised. Hydro One and GRFN are currently working to secure a capacity funding agreement to support GRFN to participate in the EA process.



GRFN-17 Hydro One to amend Appendix 1 in the ToR to include criteria and indicators to enable the assessment of Project impacts to Aboriginal and Treaty rights and community well-being.

Hydro One has amended Appendix 1 such that all Natural Environment, Socio-economic and Cultural and Built Environment criteria and indicators include, as a data source, Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Consultation.



GRFN-18 Hydro One and the Crown to develop an analysis framework that outlines the factors it will consider in assessing impacts to Aboriginal and Treaty rights including: • Spatial extent; • Likelihood; • Duration/Frequency/Reversibility; • Livelihood (values, practices, traditional spirituality); • Stewardship/Nationhood & community thresholds; and, • Impact inequity (including future generations) This framework should be referred to in the TOR; however, it can be developed subsequent to the finalization of the ToR.

Hydro One has committed to undertake a consultation process which will seek to identify impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights. • Through discussions with Indigenous communities, Hydro One will attempt to determine the extent and nature of any interests in the project as well as any potential effects on Aboriginal interests and treaty rights [5.8.1]; • Using the consultation plan to facilitate consultation and identification of potential adverse effects of the Project upon the asserted and established Aboriginal and treaty rights [9.4.3]; • The consultation plan will follow the principle of ensuring that potentially affected Indigenous communities have sufficient opportunity to identify and formulate and express their views on the potential adverse impacts of the Project upon their Section 35 rights [9.4.3]; • The process of consultation will address the objective of identifying the potential adverse impacts of the Project (including social, environmental, economic, health and culture) upon section 35 rights [9.4.3]; • The process of consultation will address the objective of providing project-related information which is comprehensive and accessible to assist Indigenous communities to effectively identify their concerns, and any possible effects of the project

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Effects Assessment, Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, Consultation Plan

on their existing or asserted treaty or Aboriginal rights [9.4.3]; • The process of consultation will address the objective of seeking information from the Indigenous communities that may be applicable to the study area, including information on Aboriginal interests and treaty rights including archaeological sites, and sacred sites and burial grounds [9.4.3]; and • Hydro One will meet with and take into consideration any communications from Indigenous communities in order to identify any concerns that the communities may have regarding the potential adverse impacts of the Project upon section 35 rights [9.4.3]. Hydro One cannot make commitments on behalf of the Crown. With regards to Hydro One’s relationship with the Crown, Hydro One has a MOU with the Ministry of Energy that outlines roles and responsibilities of the Crown and Hydro One with respect to Consultation on Projects, and provides mechanisms for effective communication and coordination between the Crown and Hydro One relating to consultation on projects. As per section 5 of the MOU, Hydro One is required to provide the Ministry of Energy with updates on its consultation activities related to the project. The MOU will be added as a ToR appendix. Hydro One will consult with GRFN on the development of the analysis criteria during the EA process.


GRFN -19 Hydro One to amend the ToR to ensure that the Consultation Plan includes consideration of relevant Traditional Knowledge into aspects of the Project EA and decision-making, provide a rationale for instances where relevant Traditional Knowledge was not considered, and ensure that relevant Traditional Knowledge is given the same weight as relevant western scientific knowledge in the EA process.

Hydro One, in response to similar comments from other communities, has revised the ToR to include a section regarding Traditional Knowledge that states the following: 9.4.4 Indigenous Traditional KnowledgeTraditional Knowledge is considered to be a holistic body of knowledge containing information and records collected by Indigenous communities that is considered to be of cultural, spiritual, historical and community significance to its members. Much of this knowledge may have been passed on from generation to generation. Each community will have its own approach to collecting, recording, sharing and using this knowledge. Hydro One is willing to enter into Traditional Knowledge Sharing Agreements with Indigenous communities that acknowledge and respect the sensitive and confidential nature of Traditional Knowledge collection and its use. Hydro One intends to use Traditional Knowledge and other information received from community members for the Lake Superior Link Project to assist with several key elements of the EA process: • Defining a methodology for and description of existing (baseline) conditions e.g., study areas; natural environment conditions; social and economic conditions, cultural characteristics; community characteristics; other values of importance; • Evaluating alternatives and assessing potential impacts of the Project (e.g., criteria and indicators of relevance to Indigenous communities for all environmental components); • Developing mitigation measures and monitoring commitments.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Effects Assessment, Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, Consultation Plan

9.4.4.1 Methodology for Obtaining and Incorporating Traditional KnowledgeHydro One recognizes that the definition of what Traditional Knowledge comprises is unique to each Indigenous community. Similarly, it is the community that decides what information will be shared and how it should be applied. For the purposes of Environmental Assessment (EA), Traditional Knowledge is considered a very important source of information that is used to: • define the characteristics of the land, people and environment that could be affected by the Project; • to input into the design of the Project; • to input into construction and operating methods that may help determine measures to eliminate or minimize impacts. The following paragraphs describe the steps and methods Hydro One intends to take to collect and use Traditional Knowledge information. 1. Identifying Traditional Knowledge Information that has been Recorded by Indigenous CommunitiesIt is recognized that not all communities have formally recorded Traditional Knowledge information. It is also recognized that not all communities will be willing to share the information that they have collected. Discussion will be held with community members, leadership and elders, to determine if information is available and if the community is willing to share the information, and any associated conditions with sharing the information. 2. Determining if the Community requires additional resources or capacity to collect, record and share Traditional Knowledge.It is recognized that some communities may require resources, such as funding and/or technical assistance to complete the recording of Traditional Knowledge. Hydro One is offering assistance through a Capacity Funding Agreement process whereby funding is provided to communities to assist with capacity development and the gathering and recording of Traditional Knowledge. 3. Identifying Community Protocols for Sharing and using Traditional KnowledgeEach community may have its own protocols and procedures, either formal or informal, to be followed in transferring Traditional Knowledge to outside parties such as Hydro One. Hydro One respects these protocols and will work with each community to understand how the information will be transferred and applied. Hydro One respects that Traditional Knowledge is “owned” and controlled by the community. It is recognized some communities may request a Traditional Knowledge Sharing Agreement/Non-Disclosure (Confidentiality) Agreement. 4. Utilizing Traditional Knowledge in the EA and Design ProcessTraditional Knowledge may be provided in a variety of

formats such as maps, written descriptions or oral stories. Often mapping is provided in a Geographic Information System (GIS) computer-based mapping format. However, where information has not been recorded in GIS format, and hard-copy mapping must be shared, Hydro One understands that these maps must be treated with respect.In addition to respecting ownership of the information, it is understood that Traditional Knowledge provided by the community must be protected. For example, where a sacred site has been identified, the Hydro One database will not provide a specific map reference that could lead a third party to the specific location. Typically this type of information is also “buffered” by applying an area of protection around the feature so that the specific location cannot be identified. The need for and extent of such a buffer will be discussed with community members. Hydro One will also refrain from specifically identifying/labelling an area of community importance that could be of interest to outside parties but could impact the community, such as high quality harvest areas, areas with traditional medicines, etc. In addition to receiving guidance from the community as to how the information will be used and published, Hydro One will also seek guidance from community members about the extent to which the transmission project might affect/impact an area of importance and ways to avoid or reduce the effect on the area. It is recognized that physically avoiding an area may not be enough to eliminate impact. Areas, sites, etc., that may be impacted will be discussed with community members and measures that could be applied to further mitigate the impact or where appropriate accommodate for the impact, will be identified. It is recognized that Traditional Knowledge will not be limited to physical or spatial features. Information about using the land and community culture will also be an important aspect. This information will be treated similar to physical/spatial features. The potential for impact from the Project will be discussed with community members as well as measures to mitigate, and/or where appropriate, accommodate for the impact. It is also important that community values and respect for the land are incorporated into the impact analysis as well as Project design and operations. 5. Working with Communities that do not have Traditional Knowledge formally recordedIt is recognized that: • Some communities will not have formal Traditional Knowledge records; • Some communities may prefer oral methods of sharing information rather than written records; • Some communities may wish to formally record Traditional Knowledge but may not be ready or may not have sufficient time to record the information within the schedule for the Lake Superior Link transmission Project EA, even if the community has accessed the Capacity Funding process to obtain financial assistance; Where a community does not have, or is not likely to have formal records, but is willing to share Traditional Knowledge information orally or by some other means, Hydro One will

discuss with community members the most appropriate way to facilitate this method of sharing. This could involve meetings with land users, elders, trappers, etc. Sitting together, Hydro One would provide community members the opportunity to share information and stories that would then be recorded by Hydro One for use in the EA impact analysis. The records developed from these meetings would be verified with the community members before the information is incorporated. It is acknowledged that these records, similar to more formal Traditional Knowledge records, are in the ownership of the community, and will only be used, shared and published under the terms outlined in the Traditional Knowledge Sharing agreement.Hydro One fully respects those communities which choose not to share their Traditional Knowledge. How the community chooses to participate in the EA process will be discussed with the leaders of these communities during consultation. 6. Reconciling Differences between Traditional Knowledge and Western ScienceFrom previous experience utilizing both Traditional Knowledge and western science to conduct EA impact analysis and Project design, it is unusual for differences to be in conflict. It is more typical that Traditional Knowledge complements western scientific analyses through the addition of values and information not typically assessed using western scientific methodologies. Where western science often relies on deduction and inference to reach conclusions, information from Traditional Knowledge adds an experiential understanding of the land that goes back many, many generations. Where western science relies on gauges and modelling it is, however, often based on limited historical data. Community members have generations of historical knowledge that may be shared. This information is extremely helpful. 7. Reconciling Differences in Traditional Knowledge between CommunitiesDifferences between Traditional Knowledge information from one community to another are expected to be uncommon, but will be addressed between Hydro One and the affected communities, as they are identified. It is recognized that experiential information may be somewhat different between communities for a common parcel of land; and it is also recognized that there are overlaps in traditional territories. Hydro One recognizes the importance of acknowledging, reconciling and addressing any differences that are identified. First, the information provided by each community would be verified with members from each of the communities. Expecting that the information from both records is verified, Hydro One would aggregate the information and assess impacts and mitigation acknowledging both records. Whether the differences are discussed between the communities would be at the discretion and the direction of members from each of the communities. As mentioned earlier, sacred or significant sites/areas are typically not labelled, and are typically “buffered”

with a protection zone to ensure confidentiality where this is considered important by the community members. Where differences are considered to conflict, Hydro One will work with each of the communities to identify a collaborative process for working through the differences towards an outcome for EA analysis that is acceptable to both communities. 8. Identifying, Discussing and Confirming Mitigation Measures/AccommodationAn important aspect of EA impact analysis and the incorporation of Traditional Knowledge information is the identification and confirmation of mitigation measures and where appropriate accommodation. Using western science and Traditional Knowledge information, Hydro One can conduct an initial analysis of potential impacts and identify initial measures to avoid or reduce the impact. The initial conclusions of this analysis are discussed with the community. From input received by the community during subsequent consultation/engagement, measures can be changed or additional measures added, resulting in a refinement of the impact analysis. Although Hydro One may not agree with every suggested change, it is well understood that the process of discussing differences and disagreements is a fundamental aspect of consultation and the EA process. ContinuedHydro One recognizes that not all communities have the resources or capacity available to conduct a detailed review of the EA impact analysis they feel is necessary to adequately reflect and incorporate community values and Traditional Knowledge to the extent desired. Hydro One is offering assistance through a Capacity Funding Agreement process whereby funding is provided to communities to assist with capacity development, gathering and recording of Traditional Knowledge, and EA review.


GRFN-21 Hydro One must amend the ToR to explain whether and how the cumulative effects of impacts from modifications to the transformer stations and the Project impacts will be assessed in the Project EA, and the extent to which the cumulative effects of regional development are being assessed in the Project EA.

The Environmental Assessment will consider potential cumulative effects of the incremental net effects of the Lake Superior Link Project in combination with reasonably foreseeable future activities that have been or will be carried out within the defined spatial and temporal boundaries for the Project : This would include work proposed on the transformer stations.

In Progress Effects Assessment


GRFN-22 "…discuss having a TEK study done, and a TEK group funded in Garden River First Nation to help complete a TEK study.” GRFN still do not have a capacity agreement or consultation agreement with Hydro One and wanted that to be on the record.

Hydro One is currently working with GRFN to finalize a Capacity Funding Agreement. Hydro One is committed to providing funding for the development and collection of Traditional Knowledge specific to Garden River as it relates to the Lake Superior Link Project. Hydro One is prepared to discuss and implement the necessary measures, such as a Traditional Knowledge Sharing/non-disclosure agreement, in order to begin the Traditional Knowledge process as soon as possible.



GRFN - IR 4

5.3.1 Geology, Soils and Physical Environment “The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with field work, where required, for visual identification or characterization of geological formations or structures, terrain or soil characteristics.” (p. 48) Geological characteristics including tectonics, structural features and stratigraphic units and the effects of glaciation, regional soils and physical geology of the project study area will be described and assessed for the EA using existing knowledge bases and mapping resources is standard; however, the simple presentation of this information is of little value to the EA. Rather, the information must be synthesized such that it is relevant to evaluating potential impacts. For example, integrated mapping of slopes and soil types and vegetative cover would be useful in understanding erosion and sedimentation potential and their impact on the environment during construction of access roads, preparation of the ROW and construction. Erosion and sedimentation risk assessments will assist in the identification of specific areas where advanced mitigation measures or enhanced restoration may be required. Avoidance, if practicable, due to a high risk may be necessary. Risk should also be evaluated relative to sensitive receptors such as wetlands, watercourses or other valued ecosystem components. Please: i) Elaborate on how the basic natural environment information will be used to effectively evaluate the possible impacts on the environment as a result of the project thereby contributing significantly to the EA; and, ii) Outline how this synthesized natural environment information will be used with the EA and how it will be combined with TK to assist in the development of appropriate and effective mitigation measures and monitoring programs.

Development of mitigation measures in relation to topography, sedimentation and erosion control will be part of the EA process. The studies conducted during the EA process including physical environmenta and TK will inform the development of construction plans to mitigate potential effects on the environment.

In Progress Mitigation Measures, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Sediment and Erosion, Data Collection

Garden River First Nation (GRFN)

GRFN – 1 Section 2. Regulatory Framework for the Project “It may not be practicable to complete all required surveys in relation to other approvals prior to submission of the EA document, but Hydro One will commit to continue the collection of necessary information following the completion of the EA to secure all other related permits and approvals for the Project.” (p. 20) This seems to be the only mention of the possibility that Hydro One will not be able to complete all required surveys prior to the submission of the EA. There is no indication as to what these surveys might specifically be, what their relevance will be to effective documentation of the EA, and how any of this relates to Traditional Knowledge (TK). The only commitment is that Hydro One commits to the collection of necessary information. What happens if the delayed information is the TK? It is also not clear how the TK from potentially 18 First Nations including GRFN will be consolidated and used and how it will be combined with the scientific survey data. There is no indication as to how this scientific information will be considered in relation to TK or to traditional use of the area or their specific concerns with the project. This leaves potentially a large opening for material information to be delayed until after the submission of the EA with no or limited recourse for the GRFN and other Indigenous communities to understand this information and comment on it effectively as part of the EA process. Please: i) Expand on the types of information these surveys are anticipated to incorporate and what their relative importance will mean to a full and effective completion of the EA; ii) Provide a specific commitment to list the specific surveys that will not be completed in time for the EA at an early stage of the EA and to share this list and the potential impact on the EA with Indigenous communities prior to submission of the Draft EA document to GRFN; iii) Indicate how TK will be incorporated into this process, and, iv) Provide a commitment within the ToR to fully share with GRFN the outcomes of the surveys when they are completed and commit to permitting the GRFN to review and comment on the additional information derived from these surveys in an effective manner.

On May 23, 2018, Hydro One provided GRFN a copy of its Natural Heritage Field Work Plans for review and comment. A component of the wildlife fieldwork program includes conducting mammal surveys and is supplemental to the Woodland Caribou winter aerial surveys completed in winter 2018. The results of these surveys, as well as those others will be described and documented in the Individual EA Report and supporting technical reports. Hydro One is committed to fulfilling the requirements of the EA process by adequately assessing the environment through field studies, desktop studies and through consultation. A more fulsome picture of individual study timing will be further developed during the EA. This information will be available to GRFN through consultation. Traditional knowledge and traditional land usage will be incorporated into all facets of the EA studies. TK will take many forms and Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities and TK providers to determine how best to integrate the TK.

In Progress Data Collection, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge


GRFN – 2 Sect. 2.1.5 Other Relevant Provincial Legislation, Permits and Policies “It should be noted that some permits and approvals typically rely on more detailed engineering and design information than is available during the EA process. In this event, Hydro One will carry out required studies necessary to support those approvals following the completion of the EA.” (p. 28) This is related to IR# 1. The GRFN understand that information specifically related to permits and approvals may not be fully available at the time of the EA. This information should not have direct bearing on the outcome of the EA as the surveys referred to in IR#1; however, the GRFN consider that such information is a relevant part of the consultation process and requests that Hydro One commit to providing the GRFN with the opportunity for consultation on these studies as part of the ongoing process, even if after the completion and approval of the EA. Please: i) Please provide a commitment that TK will be incorporated with the additional information collected. ii) Please provide a commitment that information developed after completion of the EA that is relevant to permits and approvals will become part of an ongoing consultation process with an opportunity for the GRFN to review and comment.

Traditional knowledge and traditional land usage will be incorporated into all facets of the project. TK will take many forms and Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities and TK providers to determine how best to integrate the TK. Hydro One is committed to consulting and engaging GRFN throughout the project.



GRFN – 3 Sect. 5. Existing Environmental Conditions in the Study Area “Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the Project, Hydro One will not be duplicating these studies, but use publicly available information to inform assessment efforts. Hydro One will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements. Hydro One performed a gap analysis of the existing environmental study information to identify the need of verification or collection of data to complete the environmental description and include the area of the reference route through Pukaskwa National Park and the Park approaches as well as the corridor section near Dorion, west of Nipigon through Lakehead TS.” (p. 44) As this gap analysis has evidently been completed in advance of the issue of the ToR, the GRFN are concerned that the results of the gap analysis have not been made available as an appendix to the ToR so that they are able to have an understanding of the ongoing work. Based on the outline of the work to be conducted in the remainder of Section 5 of the Report, the GRFN are concerned that there may be additional gaps that are not being addressed. Section 9.2 and 9.4.3 provide clarification on the approach to the stand alone Consultation Plan and imply that input to all aspects of the EA (including existing conditions) will benefit from TK and input. The omission of any reference to incorporation of TK and Indigenous consultation throughout Section 5 raises a concern that this work will be undertaken based solely on documented primary information sources. Previous and ongoing studies may effectively provide knowledge on the Project Study Area (PSA) and even the Local Study Area (LSA) but it is a much more complex task to document conditions and thus evaluate potential impacts at the Regional Study Area (RSA) level which extends to 6 km (including the LSA) beyond the ROW. As one example, the use of helicopters will have a much larger noise/disturbance footprint than land vehicles but how will Hydro One evaluate the potential impact and sensitivity of the environment within the 6 km wide study area without a thorough understanding of the natural environment. Understanding and documentation of potentially impacted sensitive habitats will clearly benefit from the years of experience on the land provided by Indigenous personnel. Please: i) Provide a list of the studies that are being undertaken as a result of the gap analysis completed by Hydro One including how the information is being collected, the area covered by the study, how TK is being incorporated and the anticipated completion date of each of the studies; and, ii) Identify how the Indigenous communities of the GRFN will be consulted with respect to the contribution of traditional knowledge to these baseline studies.

Studies undertaken will be identified in the EA. The EA will also provide clarity as to how information used was collected and the area covered by the information. Appendix 1 lists TK/Indigenous consultation as a data source for all Natural Environment studies as well as other studies. Traditional knowledge and traditional land usage will be incorporated into all facets of the EA studies. TK will take many forms and Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities and TK providers to determine how best to integrate the TK. Assessment of study area effects is an integral part of the EA process. Study results, consultation and TK will all inform the effects assessment for the Project area.

In Progress Study Areas, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Data Collection


GRFN – 5 5.3.1 Geology, Soils and Physical Environment “The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with field work, where required, for visual identification or characterization of geological formations or structures, terrain or soil characteristics.” (p. 48) Geological characteristics including tectonics, structural features and stratigraphic units and the effects of glaciation, regional soils and physical geology of the project study area will be described and assessed for the EA using existing knowledge bases and mapping resources is standard; however, the simple presentation of this information is of little value to the EA. Rather, the information must be synthesized such that it is relevant to evaluating potential impacts. For example, integrated mapping of slopes and soil types and vegetative cover would be useful in understanding erosion and sedimentation potential and their impact on the environment during construction of access roads, preparation of the ROW and construction. Erosion and sedimentation risk assessments will assist in the identification of specific areas where advanced mitigation measures or enhanced restoration may be required. Avoidance, if practicable, due to a high risk may be necessary. Risk should also be evaluated relative to sensitive receptors such as wetlands, watercourses or other valued ecosystem components. Please: i) Elaborate on how the basic natural environment information will be used to effectively evaluate the possible impacts on the environment as a result of the project thereby contributing significantly to the EA; and, ii) Outline how this synthesized natural environment information will be used with the EA and how it will be combined with TK to assist in the development of appropriate and effective mitigation measures and monitoring programs.

Development of mitigation measures in relation to topography, sedimentation and erosion control will be part of the EA process. The studies conducted during the EA process including physical environmenta and TK will inform the development of construction plans to mitigate potential effects on the environment.

In Progress Mitigation Measures, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Sediment and Erosion, Data Collection


GRFN – 6 5.3.7 Species at Risk “In addition to desktop studies, field work will be used to supplement SAR information in tandem with other studies such as vegetation and wildlife assessments to identify rare plants and at risk wildlife. All general locations within the study area that would be directly affected by construction activities will be screened to confirm presence/absence of any species at risk (if practicable) and evaluate habitat potential to support species at risk. Regionally and locally rare species will be considered as an indicator for the EA, based on information obtained from NHIC, MNR, local conservation authorities and field observation.” (p. 60) This section identifies a number of species that are Species at Risk (SAR) and have potential habitat in the Local Study Area (Table 6) that are culturally and traditionally important to the GRFN. The ToR indicates only that NHIC, MNR, local conservation authorities and field observation will be used to in the consideration of indicators for the EA. No recognition is given in this section with respect to the use of TK to assist in identification of appropriate habitat for SAR. This information source should be recognized and documented within the ToR including providing a commitment that it will be utilized as a part of the EA process especially for example for eastern cougar, eastern wolf, woodland caribou, bald eagle and sturgeon. Also, Table 6 indicates that there is “potential habitat in the local study area” (LSA). There is no indication that specific, relevant, linked habitats relevant to species at risk beyond the LSA (which is limited to 1 km from the reference route ROW boundary) will be incorporated into the EA. The GRFN are concerned that limiting the study to the LSA may miss key sensitive habitats for SAR beyond the LSA. Section 5.5.2 Traditional/Indigenous Land Use indicates that “…the EA will document concerns and identify opportunities raised with regards to land and resource use, or other relevant socio-economic aspects.” The GRFN request a more specific and more detailed commitment be made. Similarly, sections 9.2 and 9.4.3 provide some clarification on the approach to the stand alone Consultation Plan and imply that input to all aspects of the EA will benefit from TK and Indigenous input; however, no specific reference is made to species at risk and their habitat. The GRFN are concerned that the omission of any reference to the incorporation of TK and consultation with Indigenous communities throughout Section 5 and in particular in Section 5.3.7 raises a concern that this work will be undertaken based solely on documented primary information sources and field studies conducted by or on behalf of Hydro One. Please: i) Provide within the ToR a specific commitment that Hydro One will effectively integrate TK of species at risk and their habitat into the baseline study of species at risk so that the potential effects of the project on these valued components can be properly assessed within the EA; and, ii) Clarify in the ToR that the assessment of potential habitat and or the presence of identified species at risk will not be strictly limited to the boundary of the local study area and will incorporate specific, relevant, linked habitats within the regional study area. The sensitivity of these habitats mandates a broader geographic assessment when required.

Appendix 1 lists TK/Indigenous consultation as a data source for SAR studies. Traditional knowledge and traditional land usage will be incorporated into all facets of the EA studies. TK will take many forms and Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities and TK providers to determine how best to integrate the TK. The development of specific study areas for the natural environment will be further refined in the EA based on published data collection guidelines and previously conducted studies

In Progress Data Collection, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Species at Risk, Study Areas


GRFN – 7 5.3.9 Acoustic Environment “The NPC-300 guideline defines PORs as sensitive land uses with human activity, including dwellings, campsites or campgrounds, sensitive institutional uses (e.g., educational, nursery, hospital, healthcare, community centre, place of worship or detention centre), or sensitive commercial uses (e.g., hotel or motel).” (p. 66) The discussion associated with noise impacts is clearly focused on the built environment and proximity to sensitive receivers or points of reception (PORs). There is no recognition that GRFN may use certain areas within the local and regional study areas for traditional land uses including trapping, fishing camps, hunting camps and culturally significant locations. While these sites may only be used at certain times of the year and for relatively short periods, the impact from project related noise may be significant. There is no indication in the ToR that traditional uses and culturally important sites will be considered in the assessment of noise impacts as PORs. The GRFN consider that a commitment should be made within the ToR that TK with respect to sensitive noise receptors will be accessed within the EA to fully evaluate potential PORs and, if necessary, mitigation measures will be considered. Section 5.5.2 Traditional/Indigenous Land Use indicates that “…the EA will document concerns and identify opportunities raised with regards to land and resource use, or other relevant socio-economic aspects.” The GRFN request a more specific and detailed commitment be made. Similarly, Section 9.2 and 9.4.3 provide some clarification on the approach to the stand alone Consultation Plan and imply that input to all aspects of the EA will benefit from TK and Indigenous input; however, no specific reference is made to the potential impacts of noise. The GRFN is concerned that the omission of any reference to incorporating TK and consultation with Indigenous communities throughout Section 5 and in particular in Section 5.3.9 raises a concern that this work will be undertaken based solely on structures that have been conservatively considered as “potential” points of reception (PORs). Please: i) Provide within the ToR a specific commitment that Hydro One will effectively integrate TK of traditional use areas that may be sensitive to noise and that these potential PORs will be effectively considered as part of the EA.

Hydro One will consult with GRFN to determine potentially sensitive noise receptors in the Project area. Added to 5.3.9:Other potential receptors may be determined through consultation with Indigenous communities to identify potential noise impacts to areas of traditional usage.

In Progress Noise, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Land Use


GRFN – 8 6.4 Evaluation of Alternative Methods “The alternatives evaluation will also examine the differences in net effects and costs associated with alignment configurations. These following general principles will be applied by Hydro One … Other factors will be considered depending on stakeholder and Indigenous community input. For consistency and reliability, data sets will rely on secondary source data readily available to Hydro One, supplemented, as appropriate, by primary data collected from interest groups, agencies, utilities, members of the public, Ministries, Indigenous communities and field studies.” (P. 81 and 82) Hydro One needs to be more proactive with respect to obtaining primary data from Indigenous communities. Many FNs including the GRFN are hesitant to share their primary knowledge and information regarding natural heritage features (e.g. calving areas or winter feeding grounds of Woodland Caribou, trap lines or areas of culturally important plants) due the risk that this information may be used inappropriately or shared inappropriately. Access to this proprietary information could ultimately have a much greater impact on traditionally important sites than just the construction of the power line (e.g. snowmobile access to and disturbance of over-wintering or calving sites of woodland caribou). Consequently, it is critically important for Hydro One to develop proper ways to secure this information owned by First Nations including GRFN, which is highly relevant to the EA, through means that the First Nations and GRFN will accept. For example, Hydro One needs to make a commitment to the GRFN that they will cooperate with the GRFN and develop individual data sharing and non-disclosure agreements that will permit appropriate information to be shared with Hydro One while protecting sensitive information or data to the satisfaction of the data owners. Please: i) Provide a commitment in the ToR that Hydro One recognizes that GRFN may have extensive data and information that is considered proprietary and sensitive but nevertheless may be highly relevant to the EA; and, ii) That Hydro One commits to developing a method of data sharing and non-disclosure agreements, as may be required, in order to access this information such that it can be utilized effectively within the EA.

Traditional knowledge and traditional land usage will be incorporated into all facets of the EA studies. TK will take many forms and Hydro One will consult with Indigenous communities and TK providers to determine how best to integrate the TK. Confidentiality of information will be discussed to protect sensitive information.



GRFN – 9 6.4 Evaluation of Alternative Methods “The principles for evaluating alternative methods are intended to minimize significant environmental effects. Modifications to the project design will occur throughout the project planning in conjunction with discussions with stakeholders and Indigenous communities. Evaluation methodologies will be fully documented within the EA. The EA will consider climate change adaptation and mitigation and cumulative effects in the evaluation and assessment of alternatives and the preferred undertaking.” (p. 81) The GRFN note that “cumulative effects” are mentioned only four times in the entire document (here on p. 81 and again on p. 86 and twice in Appendix 1). No discussion is provided as to how cumulative effects will be evaluated or considered in the overall EA. Consideration needs to be given to the additional effects of the expanded opportunities that may be derived from this project. Examples of activities that may result in cumulative impacts include new businesses, mining and aggregate industries, increased population, increased traffic and increased access to remote areas previously limited to traditional land uses. The ToR needs to provide a commitment to undertake and outline a process for the assessment of cumulative effects as part of the EA such that the GRFN can accept that the broader impacts of the project will be effectively considered. Please: i) Provide a clear commitment to undertake a cumulative effects assessment of the project that will consider planned and potential projects and traditional land use within the project area; and, ii) Provide an outline of the approach that the EA will undertake to assess cumulative effects including the identification of the possible impact on traditional land uses.

The effects assessment process will include potential, residual and cumulative effects assessment. Potential effects are those identified prior to the application of mitigation measures. Residual effects are those that remain after mitigation measures. Cumulative effects will take into account residual effects from the Project and other planned, approved infrastructure. This process will occur during the EA after baseline data has been collected and assessed.



GRFN – 10 2.2 Notices and Invitations “Table 2.2-1: Notice of Commencement and CIC Invitation Newspaper Outlets and Publish Dates” (p. 12) GRFN has been included as one of the 18 Indigenous Communities identified. However, when notices are sent out in newspapers and radio none of the outlets selected by Hydro One cover the area where the GRFN members reside. Please: i) Provide a clear commitment for future notifications to include newspaper and radio outlets that are in the area where the GRFN members reside.

Hydro One’s newspaper and radio advertisement strategy focused on the communities adjacent to the new line. Consultation with GRFN, providing information and materials on the Project, community CICs and the Project website are information sources available to the community.



GRFN – 11 2.3 Project Website and Frequently Asked Questions (Appendix C was not provided) “The current FAQs addressed on the webpage are:” (p. 14) There are no FAQs listed for issues of specific interest to Indigenous peoples such as those dealing with TK, traditional land use, etc. Please: i) Provide a clear commitment to include issues of specific interest to Indigenous peoples such as those dealing with TK, traditional land use, etc. on the Project Website

The website will be updated with Indigenous-specific FAQs. In Progress Indigenous Consultation


GRFN – 12 2.5 Agency and Municipal Consultation “Parks Canada reconfirmed that a Detailed Impact Assessment would be required to meet Section 67 requirements under CEAA 2012. (p. 18) Hydro One has indicated that a Detailed Impact Assessment (DIA) will be undertaken. However, information on how the timing and results of the DIA will be integrated with the ToR content and schedule are not provided. Also, no information is provided on how TK and Indigenous issues will be incorporated into the DIA. Please: i) Provide clarification on how the information in the ToR and DIA will be integrated. ii) Provide information on what areas in addition to the Park will be included in the DIA. iii) Provide clarification on how TK and Indigenous issues will be incorporated into the DIA.

A separate DIA ToR is currently with Parks Canada for review. Similarly to the ToR for the EA, the DIA ToR will outline the studies and consultation activities to satisfy CEAA requirements for the portions of the Project within Pukaskwa National Park. Ongoing consultation with Federal regulators will ensure that the DIA will satisfy both provincial and federal requirements.

In Progress Permitting.


GRFN – 13 3.3 Community Meetings and Discussions “Hydro One has been in constant contact with each of the eighteen (18) communities at the onset of the Project in order to communicate updates and provide opportunities to discuss different aspects of the project.” (p. 27) Hydro One should not exaggerate the level of communications with Indigenous groups. There has not been constant contact with GRFN since the onset of the Project. Please: i) Provide a commitment for a higher level of communication to GRFN. ii) Provide GRFN with sufficient funding so that it can properly respond to Hydro One and that it can properly disseminate this information to Chief, council, elders and other members in accordance with Hydro One’s commitment to develop Capacity Funding Agreements with each community.

Hydro One has provided GRFN a draft CFA to provide capacity to participate in the consultation for the EA process. Hydro One will continue to consult with GRFN and is happy to discuss how best to communicate with GRFN throughout the EA process.


Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO)

MNO – 1 1.2 Background on the East-West Tie Expansion Page 15 “In response to the OEB request, the Long-Term Electricity Outlook for the Northwest and Context for the East-West Tie Expansion” …provides insight and recommendations for Project planning, in-service date requirements, scope of the Project… can be found in Record of Consultation and a summary of reports can be found in Appendix 2.” MNO was not involved in the Project planning. As such, the Proponent missed an opportunity for the MNO to inform the guiding documents of the Project including the proposed reference route and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the draft TOR.

Hydro One is committed to consulting with MNO during the ToR and EA process on the Lake Superior Link Project. Needs assessment and technical specification documents for the project are the purview of the IESO, OEB and, at the time, OPA. Consultation on guiding documents should be directed to those regulatory agencies.



MNO – 3 2.2.2 Section 67 of CEAA 2012.Page 27“The completion of a Detailed ImpactAssessment will be necessary to fulfill Section67 of the CEAA 2012…of the reference routewhich passes through Pukaskwa NationalPark…support their authorization for the use ofFirst Nation reserve lands.”When and how will the Detailed Impact Assessment be undertaken to fulfill the requirements under Section 67 of the CEAA 2012? Will the Proponent conduct a separate assessment for that purpose? Or will the determination of the completion of the Detailed Impact Assessment be madefollowing the final Environmental Assessment to the MECP?Please clarify and specify the process in the TOR.

A Detailed Impact Assessment (DIA), as required by section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012), will be prepared for the works proposed only within Pukaskwa National Park. The DIA will be prepared concurrently with the Ontario Individual Environmental Assessment (EA). Hydro One will be working with Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) to ensure that federal requirements under CEAA 2012 for works on two First Nation reserves is fulfilled. This is separate from the DIA for Pukaskwa National Park.

In Progress Permitting, Indigenous Consultation


MNO – 5 Page 36 “Changes to project design will be made to accommodate landowner concerns if it is practical to do so without negatively affecting other landowners, environmental features or significantly affecting over project costs.” The alternative design should also accommodate Indigenous groups’ concerns, in particular issues and concerns identified by the MNO. These considerations may include: access roads (temporary and permanent access), vegetation management plan, construction timing, tower siting and locations.

Section 9.4.3 of the Terms of Reference addresses this concern. Hydro One is committed to consulting with MNO during the ToR and EA process on the Lake Superior Link Project.

In Progress Local Design Considerations, Indigenous Consultation


MNO – 6 Page 41 “A Transmission Vegetation Management Program developed within Hydro One will apply to the operation and maintenance of the corridor.” Is the expansion of the transformer station included in the corridor? Does the expansion require vegetation clearing and grubbing? Please provide further information. What types of herbicide will be used and how will they be used? MNO is concerned about the use of herbicides especially near water, drinking water, riparian vegetation, fish, berries and medicines. MNO input should be sought in the further development of the Transmission Vegetation Management Program.

The expansion of transmission stations and the Lake Superior Link Transmission Project are separate projects. Information regarding the expansion of the transformer stations can be found on Hydro One’s project websites at: https://www.hydroone.com/about/corporate-information/major-projects Herbicide use for the Lake Superior Link Project will be determined through the Environmental Assessment process including through consultation. A Vegetation Management Program specific to the Lake Superior Link Project will be developed post-EA and will be based on studies and consultation completed during the EA. For more information on Hydro One’s general vegetation management strategy across the province you can visit: https://www.hydroone.com/about/corporate-information/vegetation-management



MNO – 7 Page 43“PSA is 500m on either side of the ROW…LSAis 1km from Reference Route boundary/ROW and RSA is 5 km from the boundary of LSA”.In accordance with Section 5.2.6 of the Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (“Code of Practice”), Indigenous communities and the public reply upon the description of study area to determine whether the proposed undertaking and its alternatives may impact Indigenous rights, interests and way of life. It is unclear how the definition of the preliminary study area will or will not restrict MNO-specific valued components/criteria once identified.Please provide further information on how the Proponent plans to incorporate Indigenous input, specifically input from the MNO, in defining the spatial boundaries for each criterion through the EA process.Further, the Code of Practice provides that “a map of the study area should be included within the TOR”. Please further include a detailed map of the study area.

Due to the large area of the project and map scales, specific maps of study area buffers are not included in the ToR. More detailed study area maps will be available with the respective studies and a rationale for study area will be further refined during the EA process and through consultation. Study areas will vary based on type of study and in accordance with public, government and Indigenous community consultation. How input from the MNO will be incorporated in defining the spatial boundaries will depend on the input received.

In Progress Study Areas, Indigenous Consultation


MNO – 8 Page 43 “where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the project, Hydro One will not be duplicating these studies, but use publicly available information to inform assessment efforts. Hydro one will conduct the appropriate studies where information is needed to satisfy the EA requirements”. As per MECP Comment #60, Hydro One’s Lake Superior Link Project is considered a new undertaking for the purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act. As such, Hydro One is required to complete the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act including preparing technical studies for analysis and evaluation and consultation requirements. However, the Proponent intends to use studies/information completed earlier and will not be duplicating these studies. What specific studies is the Proponent referring to? This description is too vague in terms of the applicability and nature of the “existing studies” and what “appropriate studies” the Proponent is to conduct. The Proponent should commit in the TOR that these studies need to be multiseasonal to account for natural temporal variability in species presence. Further, will Hydro One undertake a project specific MNO traditional land use and evaluation criteria (valued components) study? Please provide clarity and revise the text accordingly.

Hydro One will consult with MNO and Capacity Funding Agreements will include a budget for MNO to provide Traditional Knowledge to inform Project assessment. Conducting a desktop review of available data and information about the Project area is part of the EA assessment process. Other proposed Projects in the area such as the NextBridge East-West Tie Project have recently studied the Project corridor. Hydro One will not repeat previous publicly available assessment efforts but will focus on data gaps and other novel information. The timing of these studies is based on study methodology, life cycle timing, site accessibility and permit conditions



MNO – 9 Page 44 As MNO was not involved in the development of the draft TOR, MNO specific information was not received by the Proponent as part of the TOR consultation program. This highlights the importance of MNO completing a traditional land use and evaluation criteria (valued components) study (“MNO Study”) to ensure the Proponent has sufficient and appropriate information in describing the baseline condition and in the subsequent effects assessment.

Hydro One will consult with MNO and Capacity Funding Agreements will include a budget for MNO to provide Traditional Knowledge to inform Project assessment.



MNO – 10 Page 44“If necessary, primary sources of informationsuch as field work will be conducted tosupplement data gathering efforts…the scopeand intensity of the study and its associated datacollection methodology will be further refinedduring EA process throughout consultation withIndigenous communities…”While the Proponent mentions that the study will be further refined through consultation with Indigenous communities, the Proponent does not specify if and how traditional knowledge will be considered and incorporated into the data collection and results analysis. Please commit and identify opportunities for MNO participation in the field work.

How traditional knowledge will be considered and incorporated into data collection and results analysis is dependent on individual community interests and concerns. These interests and concerns differ between communities and are best addressed during consultation. Hydro One will consult with MNO and Capacity Funding Agreements will include a budget for MNO to provide Traditional Knowledge to inform Project assessment. Traditional knowledge will be considered and incorporated into the data collection and results analysis during the EA process as is practicable.



MNO – 11 Page 47-48 To ensure the baseline information is complete and accurate, the description of this section in the EA should include specifics on how watercourses within the reference route and alternatives are used by the MNO Citizens including waterway travel route and exercise of Métis harvesting rights to ensure the baseline information is complete. Please revise the wording accordingly in the TOR and include the description in the EA.

It is expected that through consultation during the EA the MNO will provide necessary information pertaining to how MNO Citizens use watercourses within the reference and alternative routes. Traditional Land Usage and Traditional Knowledge based on consultation with MNO and other Indigenous communities will inform the assessment of the socio-economic and natural environment.



MNO – 12 Page 48 The baseline information in this section should include a description of MNO Citizens’ use of the various parks in exercising their rights and way of life. Please include such wording in the TOR.

It is expected that through consultation during the EA the MNO will provide necessary information pertaining to this matter. Appendix 1 specifies that data sources for proposed studies include Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge. This consultation will outline specific usage of Project components by Indigenous communities and this information will be taken into account in the EA process.



MNO – 13 Page 51 “Studies of migratory birds and species at risk with respect to the First Nation reserve lands…will be conducted based on a gap analysis of available data and consultation agreement with First Nations”. The baseline information of this section should include wildlife species that are of importance to the exercise of Métis rights and interests as well as Métis traditional knowledge related to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Please identify and include wildlife species important to the exercise of Métis rights and way of life in this section.

Consultation with MNO during the EA will work to identify wildlife species important to the exercise of Métis rights and way of life in this section.



MNO – 14 Page 51 This section does not mention any traditional knowledge or Indigenous input in the selection of the study area and types and species of the vegetation communities. Critical vegetation species harvested by MNO Citizens in the exercise of Métis rights should be identified and described in the baseline conditions for the vegetation. Please identify and include vegetation species used for the exercise of Métis rights and way of life in this section.

Appendix 1 specifies that data sources for proposed studies include Indigenous consultation and Traditional Knowledge. This consultation will outline specific usage of Project components by Indigenous communities and this information will be taken into account in the EA process.



MNO – 15 Page 53Fish species of importance to the MNO harvesters in the exercise of Métis rights should be identified and described in the baseline conditions for the Fish Habitat and Aquatic Ecosystems. Please identify and include fish species important to the exercise of Métis rights and way of life in this section.

Consultation with MNO during the EA will work to identify fish species important to the exercise of Métis rights and way of life in this section

In Progress Fish, Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge


MNO – 16 Page 65 “The project will evaluate existing studies of air quality, potential project emission sources and identification of receptors.” Air quality is an important component of MNO Citizen’s sense of place when exercising their rights. MNO is concerned about the potential negative effects on air quality as a result of blasting activities. The identification potential receptors should be identified with input from MNO Citizens who exercise their rights and way of life in the Project area. Please include MNO Citizens as potential receptors in the TOR and further in the EA.

Blast management and air quality management will be assessed and developed during the EA process. These will identify potential receptors. Consultation with the MNO during the EA will contribute to this.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Blasting, Air Quality


MNO – 17 Page 65 “The potential Point of Reception in the acoustic environment will be identified in accordance with the MECP NPC-300 noise guidelines… Point of Reception…including sensitive institutional uses…Existing noise sensitive land uses will be verified in the EA including through groundtruthing methods.” The acoustic environment is critical to the exercise of the Métis harvesting rights. The potential affected noise receptors should be identified with input from the MNO. The potentially affected receptors may include MNO Citizens and wildlife. Please revise the TOR accordingly.

Noise management will be assessed and developed during the EA process. These will identify potential receptors. Consultation with the MNO during the EA will contribute to this.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Noise


MNO – 18 Page 66 “the Project will pass through many current land uses…In addition to these previously mentioned official plans, crown land use policies, district land use guidelines, forestry management, land claims and rights and other land uses will be assessed in the EA.” Given the majority of the Project is located on Crown land, the baseline information should describe areas of importance for the exercise of Métis rights based on input from the MNO. Further, it is essential that the development of a Project specific access management plan should be discussed in the TOR and the subsequent EA. This plan should discuss how access for exercising Métis rights and way of life can be maintained, including any potential access restrictions and resource use. Please revise the wording accordingly.

Maintenance of access will be discussed as part of local considerations for mitigation of Project effects. Hydro One will work with stakeholders and Indigenous communities, including the MNO, to identify and mitigate access concerns where possible.

In Progress Access, Indigenous Consultation


MNO – 19 Page 67“Consultation with Indigenous communities andpotential employment economic benefits…where appropriate Hydro One will work with Indigenous communities to discuss economic participation throughout the EA process where appropriate.”While the Proponent suggested discussing economic participation with Indigenous communities, it does not establish the baseline information necessary for characterizing the effects on the socio-economic components of the exercise of Métis rights and interests. There is no description of components necessary to identify effects to Métis rights and way of life. Please provide a separate description of baseline condition of the socio-economic aspects of Métis rights and way of life in the TOR and the subsequent EA, such as Indigenous employment and economic activities.

Effects of socio-economic components are part of the effects assessment portion of the EA process. Consultation will work to identify Métis rights and way of life and incorporate them into the socio-economic assessment.



MNO – 20 Page 67 “This information will be documented through government statistics, plans, stakeholder engagement, and other sources”. There is no mention of how MNO specific information will be collected and included.

Population, demographics and community profile use will take into account Indigenous consultation. Indigenous consultation has been added to the list of information sources in Section 5.4.3.



MNO – 21 Page 67 There is no mention of Indigenous health in this section. To ensure a fulsome baseline information of Human Health, we suggest the following wording: “any health concerns identified by Indigenous communities or groups resulting from the Project specifically on their traditional lifestyle and overall health and well-being”.

Statement in regards to Indigenous health has been added to section 5.4.4.



MNO – 23 Page 70 “The EA will document concerns and identify opportunities raised with regards to land and resource use, or other relevant socio-economic aspects…will describe indigenous communities, their traditional uses of the land and their established and asserted claims.” MNO notes that the characterization of the Project effects to the exercise of Aboriginal rights as “concerns and opportunities with regards to land and resource use or relevant socio-economic aspects” is inaccurate and inappropriate. This section should include a description of asserted and established Aboriginal and treaty rights in the Project area. Please reword this section to improve clarity and to ensure the appropriate assessment.

The EA wil include a description of asserted and established Indigenous and treaty rights in the Project area.



MNO – 24 Table 7, Page 71-72 This section does not link any effects related to Aboriginal/Métis rights or Indigenous land use. This section should be amended to reflect a fulsome assessment of potential effects to the exercise of Métis rights and way of life.

This section relates to effects on the natural environment. The socio-economic effects assessment during the EA will further expand on effects on Indigenous land use in Table 8.

In Progress Traditional Land Use


MNO – 25 Page 72 This section discusses several preliminary mitigation measures on the Natural Environment. However, no preliminary mitigation measures are found for the socioeconomic environment and cultural/built environment. It is also confusing to read this section in conjunction with section 7.2 Mitigation Measures.

Mitigation measures for socio-economic and cultural/built environment will be further developed during the EA process.

In Progress Mitigation Measures, Indigenous Consultation


MNO – 26 Table 8, page 74As mentioned in earlier comments regarding section 5.4.1 to 5.4.5, potential effects on these socio-economic aspects of the exercise of Métis rights and way of life should be specifically considered. Please include the wording accordingly in this section of the TOR.

The socio-economic effects assessment during the EA will further expand on effects on Indigenous land use in Table 8.

In Progress Traditional Land Use, Indigenous Consultation


MNO – 27 Page 76 “…Hydro One will attempt to determine the extent and nature of any interests in the projects as well as any potential effects on Indigenous interests and treaty rights…Hydro One will also consider any information Indigenous communities provide on protection of plant and animal species which have traditional value.” Appendix 1 List of Preliminary Criteria and Indicators The wording “Indigenous interests and treaty rights” should be amended as “Indigenous interests including Aboriginal and treaty rights”. Further, MNO notes that “information on protection of plant and animal species which have traditional value” is restrictive. Traditional knowledge and Indigenous input should be broadly considered by the Project. Effects to Metis rights and way of life should be assessed and accommodated, a consideration of how to protect species of value is not sufficient in this regard. The list of preliminary criteria and indicators does not include Métis-specific valued components/criteria. While the Proponent states that “information obtained through consultation will be used in developing indicators and measures for effects on all criteria and indicators”, detailed information on Métis-specific valued components/criteria and indicators should be developed by conducting a MNO Study following the provision of capacity to the MNO. Such information should then be included in the List of Criteria and Indicators and considered in the subsequent EA.

Hydro One is committed to consulting with MNO to develop critieria and indicators that are reflective of Métis rights and way of life. Capacity Funding Agreements will include a budget for the MNO to provide Traditional Knowledge to inform Project assessments. Indigenous interests including Aboriginal and treaty rights has been added to Section 5.8.



MNO – 28 Page 81-82 “these following general principles will be applied by Hydro One during the EA process in the development and evaluation of alternative methods…Other factors will be considered and depending on stakeholders and Indigenous community input.” Aboriginal rights or traditional While the Proponent states that “other factors will be considered and depending on stakeholders and Indigenous community input”, the principles proposed by the Proponent for evaluating the alternative methods do not specifically include “minimizing negative effects on exercise of and Indigenous Land Use”. Please include this as part of the principles.

“Minimizing negative effects on exercise of Aboriginal rights or traditional and Indigenous Land Use” has been added to the list of principles.

In Progress Traditional Land Use


MNO – 29 Page 84“Table 10 identifies the preliminary environmental features and criteria that will be assessed in the evaluation of potential environmental effects. Preliminary criteria and indicators have been developed for the potential environmental effects evaluation utilizing the general principles detailed in section 0 and further expanded upon in Appendix 1.”It is unclear what section 0 is referred to herein. Please clarify. It is unclear why “Traditional Knowledge is included as a criterion for the natural environment” in Table 10. Please clarify. Further, as per the earlier comments including Métis-specific species, activities, receptors and socio-economic aspects of Métis rights and way of life, the effects assessment should specifically include assessment of these components to ensure a fulsome assessment of the effects to Métis rights and way of life.

Traditional knowledge has been removed as a criterion. It will remain a data source to inform the development of criteria and indicators. Consultation with MNO will further refine Métis-specific species, activities, receptors and socio-economic aspects of Métis rights and way of life as Project components.



MNO – 30 Page 85 Please specify that mitigation measure will be developed and described in the EA during all phases of the Project including construction, operation and maintenance. Further, the development of the mitigation measures and contingency plans should also consider Indigenous input through consultation activities, traditional land use studies and effects assessment studies to ensure proper consideration and mitigation of the potential effects to the exercise of Métis rights and way of life. Please revise the wording in this section accordingly.

Mitigation measures will be developed and described in the EA to avoid or minimize negative effects on the natural, socio-economic and cultural/built environments as well as technical considerations during all phases of the project (construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning). Mitigation measures will also be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities, stakeholders and other interested parties. This has been reflected in Section 7.2.

In Progress Mitigation Measures, Indigenous Consultation


MNO – 32 Page 87 Please include a commitment with respect to Indigenous participation and input in the development and implementation of any monitoring programs, including a MNO environmental monitor and participation in environmental field work.

Where practicable, Hydro One will provide opportunities for members of Indigenous communities to act as monitors during construction and field studies.

In Progress Economic, Monitoring


MNO – 34 Page 102 “In order to achieve the consultation objectives, Hydro one will…” An MNO Study should be conducted for the Project to ensure a fulsome understanding and assessment of the potential Project effects to Métis-specific valued components/criteria. Please add this to the list.

Comment is noted. MNO will be able to raise discussions on such a study during the EA process and through consultation.



MNO -36 It is understood that the OEB Section 92 is a separate process form [sic] the EA process. The TOR section 2.1.3 states that “the OEB considers adequate stakeholder [sic] and Indigenous consultation as part of the process for review of the application.” Please provide further clarifications as to the consultation activities undertaken with the MNO. Please provide rationale if no consultation with MNO was undertaken.

As originally stated and acknowledged by the commenter, the OEB process is separate to the EA process. As such, this topic is not able to be discussed in the detail being requested through this form. However, the concerns were raised internally and Hydro One will contact the MNO to discuss this matter. In addition, the MNO is welcome to contact Hydro One’s Indigenous Relations department at any time to discuss the matter further.



MNO -37 Please confirm in the ToR that the potential impacts to the exercise of Metis rights and way of life will be considered in the DIA.

Please note that there are two separate ToR’s: one for the provincial EA and one for the Federal DIA. The comment provided by the MNO suggests that a commitment be made in the provincial ToR in relation to the Federal DIA. As such, the comment is being noted and will be considered when the Federal Terms of Reference for the Detailed Impact Assessment (ToR DIA) is prepared.



MNO- 39 The ToR does not state that the Vegetation Management Program specific to the Lake Superior Link Project will be developed based on studies and consultation completed during the EA. MNO requests that the ToR should clearly specify that further input from MNO should be sought to inform the development of the Lake Superior Project specific Vegetation Management Program.

The Terms of Reference is a high level framework for how the EA will be developed. The ToR does not identify details such as construction or operational plans that are meant to be identified, developed and refined during the EA process. The ToR commits to consultation with Indigenous communities during the EA process (refer to Section 9.4). It is this consultation process that will provide the MNO an opportunity to further discuss all issues including those as specific as vegetation management. Hydro One believes this adequately addresses MNOs concern as it relates to the purpose of the ToR. Hydro One looks forward to further discussions on the topic with the MNO during consultation on the EA.

In Progress Vegetation Management, Construction and Operation, Indigenous Consultation


MNO -40 MNO requests details on how Hydro One will consult on the spatial boundaries for VCs of importance to the MNO. The acronym ‘VC’ is being understood as ‘valued component’ or, in relation to the terms used in the ToR, ‘criteria and indicators’. Hydro One will engage with Indigenous communities to identify criteria and indicators for identifying potential impacts and mitigation measures. Hydro One will also consider any information Indigenous communities provide on protection of plant and animal species which have traditional, cultural, social or economic value. Although consultation will dictate how criteria and indicators important to the MNO are best identified some opportunities for Hydro One include discussions on Traditional Knowledge with community members and meetings with specific groups such as trappers. Resources, such as detailed mapping with information of interest will be provided to assist consultation.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation,


MNO-43 MNO understood from Hydro One at the hearing that the EA would be submitted by March 8, 2019. MNO is concerned about the meaningful incorporation of MNO traditional knowledge and information given this compressed timeline. Further, it is unclear what would be interpreted and considered “as is practicable” in terms of incorporating traditional knowledge.

Hydro One recognizes the compressed timeline. Hydro One is committed to working with the MNO throughout the EA process to consult and provide capacity funding via the signed Capacity Funding Agreement to enable MNO to engage Hydro One fully in the Lake Superior Link project. “as is practicable” was stated to recognize that Traditional Knowledge may contain a component of confidentiality. Hydro One recognizes that not all aspects of Traditional Knowledge may be made public and as such is prepared to respect communities by entering into non-disclosure agreements as required. Details such as this is expected to be identified and addressed during consultation during the EA.



MNO -46 Noted. However, this section only mentions First Nations. Please include Metis communities in this section. Section 5.3.4 has been revised as follows to be more all encompassing with respect to consultation: Studies of migratory birds and species at risk with respect to the First Nation reserve lands (specifically Pays Plat and Michipicoten First Nations) proposed to be crossed by the Project will be conducted based on a gap analysis of available data and consultation.

In Progress Data Collection,


MNO -47 Please include MNO Citizens as potential receptors in the ToR and further in the EA. Comment is noted and will be brought forward to the EA. In Progress Indigenous Consultation


MNO -48 Please include MNO Citizens and wildlife as potential receptors in the ToR and further in the EA. Comment is noted and will be brought forward into the EA. In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Wildlife


MNO-52 Please include such wording in this section of the ToR. In Section 5.5.2 Hydro One has removed the original wording and replaced with: “Hydro One will document existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights, including traditional and current Indigenous land uses and other socio-economic aspects. Such information will be acquired through methodologically sound traditional use studies for Indigenous communities. These will be assessed during the effects assessment process during the EA. This information will be integrated into all relevant aspects of the EA, but the data will remain proprietary to the communities that provide it. Consultation will occur during the EA to discuss how to address those concerns.”

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Land Use, Traditional Knowledge, Effects Assessment


MNO -56 Noted. Please explicitly include such commitment under this section. Hydro One believes it has already committed in the ToR to Indigenous input in mitigation and monitoring in Section 9.4.3 by stating: “Hydro One will consider, and incorporate as appropriate, Indigenous consultation and knowledge in: [itemized list] development of mitigation measures and monitoring commitments…” Hydro One believes it has already committed in the ToR to Indigenous participation, that would include participation in monitoring and environmental field work, in Section 9.4.3 by stating: “the process with Indigenous communities will address the following objectives: [itemized list] Hydro One will also work with Indigenous communities along the route to explore benefits and opportunities including, but not limited to, capacity building to participate in the engagement process, procurement and sub-contracting opportunities, job training, employment and equity participation…”

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Monitoring, Mitigation Measures, Economic


MNO -57 MNO notes that engagement activities such as common business practices may not be suitable for MNO. Further, for the sake of clarity, Indigenous consultation activities should be disaggregated from the other stakeholders and be discussed separately in section 9.4.3.

In the event MNO is concerned that the engagement activities proposed by Hydro One is not suitable for the MNO Hydro One has stated in Section 9.4.3: “If requested, Hydro One will develop tailored consultation plans for specific Indigenous communities.” Hydro One believes that section 9.4.3 is sufficient disaggregation of Indigenous specific community consultation for the ToR. Hydro One, in section 9.4.3, further states that: “In addition to the tailored consultation approach for Indigenous communities, all public consultation processes and specific consultation activities outlined in 9.4.2 and throughout Section 9 will be available to Indigenous communities.”



MNO – 59 The relevant wording in the TOR reads as: “A Transmission Vegetation Management Program developed within Hydro One will apply to the operation and maintenance of the corridor.” While MNO acknowledges Hydro One’s commitment to further discuss this topic during the EA process, the current wording appears to limit the development of the Transmission Vegetation Management Program to Hydro One internally and does not reflect the potential incorporation of the studies and consultation results to be completed during the subsequent EA. The MNO requests that this be clarified in the ToR.

The Transmission Vegetation Management Program developed within Hydro One will apply to the operation and maintenance of the corridor. Specific vegetation management strategies for sensitive areas will be subject to consultation discussed



MNO – 62 While MNO acknowledges this change made by Hydro One, MNO notes that the criteria and indicators in Appendix 1 do not cover Indigenous employment and economic activities. Please further add Indigenous employment and economic activities as indicator in Appendix 1.

Local employment is an indicator under Commercial activities. Consultation for employment and economic participation will occur with MNO.



MNO – 63 As mentioned in the earlier comment, the indicators for landscape and visual assessment do not include impacts to Indigenous users or the intangible aspects of the exercise of their rights. In Appendix 1, please further add Indigenous use as indicator for the assessment.

Indigenous users are included in the assessment of preliminary potential effects such as impacts to visual quality. Indigenous consultation is a data source for impacts to Indigenous users. Hydro One will consult with MNO to identify potentially sensitive areas.

In Progress Visual, Indigenous Consultation


MNO – 64 Studies and consultation results related to the Transmission Vegetation Management Program for the entire Project area should be considered.

Correct. Studies and consultation results for the whole project area will be considered in the development of the Projects Vegetation Management Program.



MNO – 60 In addition to the identification of the MNO criteria and indicators for assessing potential impacts and mitigation measures, MNO notes that MNO input should also be sought in defining appropriate spatial boundaries.

Hydro One will discuss spatial boundaries with MNO during the EA Process.

In Progress Study Area, Indigenous Consultation

Michipicoten First Nation

MICH – 1 We note that diesel fuel will be used for different activities. There is the mention of the possibility of utilizing low sulphur diesel to reduce impact on air emissions. Can the contractor(s) confirm that they will use low sulphur diesel? ELM Comment: Low sulphur diesel may reduce air emissions. It would be preferred by MFN if this fuel is used by the contractor(s) in compliance with the Diesel Fuel Regulations currently in place.

The draft ToR does not detail specific fuel types. Fuel and emissions management will be addressed in the respective EA chapter. Contractors will abide by regulations and best management practices for emissions including diesel fuel. If possible, low sulphur diesel will be used. Best management practices will be further refined through the EA process.

In Progress Fuel


MICH - 2 MICH – 2 The term “Grey Water” is used for water discharges from the construction camps. May we have a chemical analysis of just how grey water is defined. We are concerned about discharges. ELM Comment: There will likely be water discharges from construction camps however, there should be no discharge of grey water into the environment. We recommend on-site treatment to be used where possible when municipality services are not available.

The term grey water is not used or defined in the draft ToR. Discharges from construction will be subject to Permits under the Section 53 for water taking or discharge, dewatering under the Ontario Water Resources Act. Best management practices for water management will be employed throughout the Project. Permits will be further refined through the EA process.

In Progress Wastewater


MICH – 3 How many water crossings are there? Please identify all the water crossings. As a caveat to this question, field inspections during June 2018 revealed a range of crossings in the different sections of the hydro line, often in the range of 10 per linear kilometre. Some of these crossing represent ephemeral drainage while others are established creeks. In contrast, some areas were one large wetland.Waterbody crossings should be sited and mitigation strategies designed in association with MFN comment across the Reserve lands. Decommissioning of temporary workspaces, access roads and waterbody crossings should be completed in association with MFN on Reserve lands. Project site clean-up and reclamation should be completed in association with MFN on Reserve lands. ELM Comment:Many water crossings were apparent during the June 2018 inspection of the reserve land and proposed corridors. Many of these may be seasonal. The majority of these crossings are not mapped and pose risk to the connecting watershed should something spill or with the increased sediment caused by construction. The term “water body crossing” should be more accurately defined so small or seasonal streams are not missed. Follow up is required.

The number of water crossings is being refined based on the EA studies and local design considerations. Crossings will take into account Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings. All information collected as part of the natural environment field programs will be used in the EA, to identify potential effects and practicable mitigation measures, and to fine tune the locations of towers, access roads and water crossings (where appropriate), including consultation with MFN.It is recognized that the preparation of a plan is necessary to ensure impacts to water crossing areas are minimized or avoided. A plan for the construction phase will be developed during the EA and protection and mitigation measures, including those specific to fish habitat, will be defined at that time. The plan is expected to include compilation of environmental protection measures, contingency plans, and management plans with the objective to address known and anticipated environmental conditions or events that could occur during the construction of the Project.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Access Roads, Surface Water, Mitigation Measures


MICH – 5 MFN lands will be directly impacted. MFN has to play a direct role in mitigation on these lands ELM Comment: MFN should make use of the resources provided by OPG to assure the needs for mitigation on the reserve and traditional lands are fully served. This could include funding for tree replanting and bat boxes for SAR following the completion of construction activities.

Hydro is committed to entering into consultation with Indigenous communities to provide support, capacity and training throughout the phases of the Project. Hydro One’s Indigenous engagement program is designed to provide relevant project information to Indigenous communities in a timely manner. The process enables affected Indigenous communities to review the project proposals, provide input on project alternatives, and raise issues, concerns and questions they may have with the Project. Hydro One has, and will continue to meet with Indigenous communities to collect information and discuss any concerns/questions/feedback communities may have on all aspects of the Project.



MICH – 6 Michipicoten is only now undertaking meaningful consultation with potentially affected citizens. Michipicoten will require time to complete this meaningful consultation on the project that also includes a Traditional Land Use Study. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Michipicoten First Nation (MFN) and Ontario Power Generation (OPG), for engagement in consultation regarding the proposed Superior Link Project (Project), should be executed.Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land and Resource Use data from MFN should be used as part of EA studies. These studies should be completed prior to completion of EA. ELM Comment:Michipicoten should continue to use resources provided by OPG while sharing findings with OPG to create a finalized and amended EA. Experts in Traditional Ecological Knowledge should continue to be involved in further collection of data for the amended EA to address the weaknesses that may exist.

Hydro One is committed to entering into consultation with Indigenous communities to provide support, capacity and training throughout the phases of the Project. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land and Resource Use will be incorporated into the EA through consultation.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Land Use.


MICH – 7 We are concerned about soil contamination. OPG only undertook a desk top study within the EA. What work has been under taken for the publication of the EA in terms of field verification regarding soil contamination? ELM Comment: Field observations during June 2018 identified some evidence of soils contamination along the corridor, associated with existing hydro towers. Specifically, soil is likely contaminated around areas where plants have been sprayed with herbicides. This provides additional evidence why no herbicide should be sprayed in the future on MFN lands. This review is not able to assess soil contamination that may arise from construction activities.

OPG (Ontario Power Generation) and Hydro One are two separate entities. Hydro One is the proponent for the Project. The EA will be prepared following the approval of the ToR. The potential for soil contamination will be considered and the Guide on Site Assessment, the cleanup of Brownfield Sites and the Filing of Record of Site Condition will be consulted to determine the most appropriate course of action.

In Progress Contaminated Sites


MICH – 9 We are concerned about the impacts of blasting and would like to study the issue further Given that blasting will be used as part of the construction process, a communication protocol between OPG, its contractor(s) and MFN should be established in coordination with all parties. This protocol should take into consideration not only residents near to blasting activities but also community members that may be making use of lands and waters nearby these activities, both on and off the Reserve. The protocol should also be designed to provide effective methods of notification. ELM Comment: It is expected that Best Practices will be used in cases of blasting. Blasting has the potential to create large amounts of dust and sediment. We recommend the use of silt and sediment fences around water crossings to help limit the impacts to fish and other wildlife species downstream. As discussed in MICH-03, there are many unidentified and unmapped water crossing visible while walking the land, mitigation strategies are expected to be implemented in these cases as well. Blasting is discussed further in MICH-20 and MICH-40.

The EA will include a spill prevention and response plan, a waste management plan, and a blast management plan. Should blasting be required, best management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures specific to explosives management and use will be implemented.

In Progress Spill Management Plan, Blasting Management Plan, Waste Management Plan


MICH – 10 We are concerned about dust and air emissions from blasting and in general.ELM Comment:Impacts of blasting are discussed in MICH-09, MICH-20 and MICH-40. Additionally, it is inferred that the proper use of equipment will reduce air emissions, as described in MICH-01

See MICH-09. Dust and noise from construction are controlled with appropriate mitigation measures and environmental best management practices. Potential air quality effects from construction activities, especially for the potential receptors near the transmission line will be considered. Air quality impact assessment will be conducted and included in the environment assessment.

In Progress Noise, Air Quality


MICH – 11 We are concerned about chemical or hazardous waste spills. Refueling should typically be restricted to specific refueling areas, with spill prevention and emergency response equipment and appropriately trained staff in close proximity. A distance of at least 30 m should be maintained between surface waters, wetlands and refueling areas. Specific areas should be identified for vehicle/equipment wash off, where discharges can be controlled and carried out in compliance with the conditions and requirements of registration on the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR), a PTTW, and/or Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). We are also concerned about the accidental transport of non-native species to the hydro line corridor from equipment used outside of MFN territory. There is the potential for large fuel spills given the quantities to be stored on site (up to 5,000 L for equipment, and up to 25,000 L for helicopters if used/required). Concrete pads and drainage controls (with sump/oil-water separator) may be used. These precautions should definitely be used. For equipment cleaning, also refer to MICH-77. ELM Comment: Potential areas for equipment storage and refueling must be identified. In case of spills, these areas cannot have the potential to reach ground water or travel down the watershed causing large scale water contamination. As discussed in MICH-03, there are many unidentified and unmapped water crossing visible while walking the land that have the potential for this to occur. Additionally, the lay down areas of equipment should be identified as these areas will suffer incredible ground compression and will require mitigation in the future to support vegetation regrowth. In addition, we recommend no refueling activities within 30 metres of any surface water in case of spills.

Specific management plans in relation to fueling, spills, and water discharge will be developed during the EA process. The EA should include a spill prevention and response plan, a waste management plan, and a blast management plan should blasting be required. Hydro One has vegetation management standards that will be applied to the LSL project. These standards include management practices to minimize and/or avoid the use of herbicides with the goal to ensure vegetation does not interfere with the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of the transmission line. Part of the standards will include invasive species and practices will be discussed as part of the EA. Hydro One has not specified fuel quantities or cleaning protocols. These will be further developed during the EA.

In Progress Spill Management Plan, Blasting Management Plan, Waste Management Plan, Vegetation Management


MICH – 13 We are concerned about surface water and question the EA’s assertion that any waste water discharge will have no impact. Water quality monitoring will need to be completed around points of discharge to ensure compliance with the Ontario Water Resources Act and associated permits. MFN may wish to request that the monitoring results/reports for locations within the Gros Cap No. 49 Reserve, and locations outside of the reserve where downstream flows will pass through the reserve, be provided to MFN as completed., or that MFN be notified whenever provincial limits have been exceeded. ELM Comment:The discharge of waste water will have definite impacts to the concentrations of suspended solids in water bodies. It is also noted that while likely reversible, water quality monitoring in compliance with the Ontario Water Resources Act may occur. However, monitoring should be completed at points of discharge as well as downstream from these discharge points. Mitigation strategies should be implemented to minimize to changes to area and preserve the habitat for fish and other wildlife downstream and overall water quality

Hydro One was unable to identify the section of the draft ToR that states that wastewater discharge will have no impact as determining effect or impact is not the purpose of the ToR. Discharges from construction will be subject to Permits under the Section 53 for water taking or discharge, dewatering under the Ontario Water Resources Act. Best management practices for water management will be employed throughout the Project. Required permits will be further refined through the EA process. Environmental monitoring, including sampling of watercourses, will be further refined during the EA process.

In Progress Wastewater, Permitting, Monitoring


MICH – 14 We are concerned about particulate matter and suspended solids and chemicals amassing in the water due to construction. OPG has currently made no conclusions. This is related to MIC-13 ELM Comment: Construction activities may cause increased amounts of particulate matter, suspended solids and chemicals to accumulate in the waterbodies. This scenario could cause probable impacts to receiving bodies of water. This is further discussed in MICH-09

Sediment and erosion control measures will be identified and addressed by Hydro One in the EA document. This includes identification of areas where soil or other factors could affect the effectiveness of those measures. Trigger/threshold values will be established for suspended sediment and turbidity be followed where bankside, in-stream and/or dewatering work is required. Sampling will occur in potential sensitive receivers before, during and after such work is undertaken.

In Progress Sediment and Erosion, Monitoring


MICH – 16 We are most concerned about the taking of water for construction purposes. In the EA, it does not identify the quantity or locations for the proposed taking of water. What is the current baseline for groundwater in the study area. Have background studies been prepared to support the future submission of applications to take water? What are the cumulative impacts on taking water on adjacent wetlands, creeks, or lakes? To our knowledge, no hydrogeology study has been completed to assess potential impacts. Where do estimated changes to groundwater level/radius of impact come from? Changes to groundwater quantity for water well users involve assessment of a 100 m radius to identify potentially impacted wells. This radius should be 500 m, as per the MOECC PTTW application form (5046e02) requirement. This could encompass several additional wells and change the scale of potential impacts. ELM Comment:Based on a review, MFN feels no hydrogeology studies have been completed. Also, this review indicated that past similar studies do show that there may potential impacts and/or changes to the water levels in areas with large taking of ground water. Hence, MFN should be informed of candidate locations and quantities of water that may be possibly taken in the future. This information will help MFN understand the possible local changes to hydrology, even small ones have potential to impact ecosystems during both the short and long term. For example, there were numerous Black Spruce swamps recorded during our inspection of the land. If water is drained from these areas it may impact the habitat of SAR Canada Warbler. Additionally, such water taking also has the capability to affect the quantity and quality of water wells within the area. If water wells are impacted, will there be compensation provided by OPG?

Hydro One is currently at the Terms of Reference phase of the Project. The EA will provide a description of surface and groundwater resources including groundwater levels, yields and quality based on MECP water well records and Permit to Take Water published information. A questionnaire will be provided which requests information on the location of any wells near the construction areas. Consultation will include information on construction activities which will take place on each individual property. This site-specific information will be used to augment the information provided by MECP in their wells database. Wellhead protection areas, intake protection zones, highly vulnerable aquifers and significant groundwater recharge areas, source water protection documentation and relevant policies will be reviewed. The description will be conducted via desktop studies and supplemented with field work, where required, for characterization of groundwater quality, or measurements of water levels or drawdown of water wells.

In Progress Water, permitting, groundwater


MICH – 17 Please confirm silt fencing will be used to prevent sediment from entering water bodies along the hydro line corridor. The CEPP notes that temporary sediment barriers will be installed before or immediately after the ground is disturbed. Sediment barriers should be installed before any construction activity that may disturb the ground occurs, in the appropriate areas. Additional sediment controls should only be installed immediately after the ground is disturbed in cases where the original controls have or may fail, or there is an unexpected disturbance. ELM Comment: We feel the use of silt – sediment erosion fences are essential for large areas. Erosion and the use of silt fencing is also noted in MICH-15.

Hydro One has not provided a CEPP for this Project as it is still in the ToR development phase. Sediment and erosion control measures will be identified and addressed in the EA document. This includes identification of areas where soil or other factors could affect the effectiveness of those measures. Trigger/threshold values will be established for suspended sediment and turbidity be followed where bankside, in-stream and/or dewatering work is required. Sampling will occur in potential sensitive receivers before, during and after such work is undertaken. Erosion and sediment control are discussed in Section 6.5.

In Progress Sediment and Erosion


MICH – 18 Have contractors identified specific areas where discharges can be controlled and carried out in compliance with either EASR, a PTTW, or ECA? MFN may wish to be informed of these locations and the results of water quality monitoring. MFN may wish to be informed about possible changes in water levels from the project.ELM Comment:MFN should be informed of chosen locations for possible discharge, once the areas have been identified. Thus, MFN should have the opportunities to further monitor these chosen areas for discharge, to assess the possible changes to water quality or water levels.

Water usage and dewatering strategies will be developed according to Best Management Practices, permit requirements and local regulations. These will be further developed during the EA process. Permits for discharge are discussed under Section 2.1.5 and Section 6.5.

In Progress Water, permitting, wastewater


MICH – 23 In terms of air emissions, is it possible to eliminate the burning of slash from clearing activities? What are the alternatives/options to burning slash? Can OPG make a commitment to using mulch as a first choice, and using burning only when it is required, to reduce overall smoke production? ELM Comment: Mulching timber may contribute less to air emission than the burning of slash. OPG should mulch what is possible and burn only when required and with required permits.

Specific timber management plans will be developed during the EA as well as in conjunction with the successful contractor and landowners. Assessment and feasibility of mulching will be determined through this plan.

In Progress Forestry


MICH – 24 OPG did not undertake any study or make any estimates regarding Greenhouse Gasses. We think that in today’s Canada, making an estimation on GG is the responsible thing to do. Refer also to MICH-01 for further discussion. ELM Comment: An estimate of GHG emissions should be provided in the EA report. Best Practices should be followed in order to minimize GG releases.

Greenhouse gases are listed in the criteria and indicators table in Appendix 1 as part of the air quality assessment. Best management practices for emissions should be employed throughout the project.

In Progress Greenhouse Gas


MICH – 27 The installation of foundations not was assessed or quantified. Please also see MICH-26. ELM Comment: This should be discussed in the upcoming EA report. Refer to MICH-26 for further discussion.

See response to MICH-26. The EA will assess the Project area and impacts associated with the installation of foundations. The ToR provides the outline for the study of the environment.



MICH – 28 We are concerned with the impacts on wetlands as most bogs, swamps and fens are unevaluated in terms of impacts. We note that not evaluating wetlands may be because there are significant wetlands that, if evaluated, would be subject to a full provincial enforcement of environmental buffers etc. We would like clarity and more study on this issue. While mitigation measures outline means to reduce short- and long-term impacts, there will be permanent loss of these ecosystems, and potential impacts from ongoing maintenance work and potential use of herbicides. Have compensation wetland areas been considered? The Natural Heritage Reference Manual for the Provincial Policy Statement states that adjacent lands for PSWs extend to 120 m as a minimum to capture the majority of impacts on the wetland from development. Please explain the basis for establishing a 30 m (or 100m) setback from PSWs when there is a reasonable probability that the impacts of development extend well beyond 30 m (or 100m). ELM Comment:Due to past development of the hydro line corridor, wetlands were disturbed. These wetlands have recovered during recent decades. The proposed activity will likely result in additional disturbance to these wetlands. Since the wetlands found in proximity to the existing hydro line were disturbed in the past, it follows that the new hydro line will result in additional disturbance of these wetlands if suitable buffers are not established. Due to the expected disturbance, compensation wetlands should be considered for installation. Alternatively, rehabilitation of disturbed wetlands should also be added to the mitigation actions.

Hydro One has not specified riparian setbacks of 30m in the ToR and is not sure from which document Michipicoten First Nation (MFN) is quoting these specifications.Hydro One will consider opportunities for habitat improvements including streamside buffers within the proposed reference route including any selected route refinements. This will be done in consultation with affected property owners, interested Indigenous communities, conservation authorities, provincial ministries and affected municipalities.Transmission towers will not be constructed in streams, rivers, etc. Similarly, no dewatering, filling in, and/or relocating of watercourses are anticipated. Efforts will be made to prevent any short term stream flow interference (i.e. culvert crossing installations) which could cause adverse effects. The construction plan will minimize or avoid any direct works in water bodies and most construction will occur at appropriate setbacks from water bodies. The potential for these effects will be addressed in the EA and on a site specific basis, through the permitting processes.

In Progress Riparian Area, Mitigation Measures


MICH – 29 We are concerned with numerous issues to do with the loss of vegetation and riparian vegetation. Concerns include use of herbicides, damage to the soil, introduction of invasive species, damage to possible spills of toxic chemicals, erosion and loss of soil altogether in some areas. We need more information on chosen mitigation. Specific impacts to all of the wetlands impacted, including those within Gros Cap No. 49 Reserve have not been identified. Are field studies being completed?Will there be a forthcoming policy from OPG that will commit to major reductions in the potential use of herbicides, restricted to areas which are not near to waterways and where safety is a concern for access? Use of herbicides will also be prohibited on Reserve lands. ELM Comment:Further field work is necessary to determine the severity of impacts that may occur. The TK keepers from MFN should continue to be involved with field work to identify species that may benefit from relocation to new areas. Furthermore, the potential damage herbicides may cause to wetlands and riparian areas is considerable. As mentioned previously, there are a number of small and unmapped water crossing that were apparent during the June 2018 inspections. These water crossings have the potential to move soluble herbicides to larger bodies of water. Due to this, additional buffer zones may be required in areas not originally expected. Furthermore, in the past there has been similar agreements between MFN and other parties concerning the use of pesticide on reserve lands however during the inspection there is evidence of herbicide spraying (likely 2 4 dinitrophenol) noted. Therefore, follow up may be necessary to ensure there is no use of herbicides on reserve lands throughout and following construction activities. In areas where herbicides may be used, we recommend hand spraying of only chosen vegetation rather than complete spraying of entire areas.

Specific studies and vegetation management strategies within Gros Cap No. 49 will be part of consultation with MFN. The development of spill response protocols and erosion control methods are addressed within comment MICH-17. Hydro One has vegetation management standards that will be applied to the LSL project. These standards include management practices to minimize and/or avoid the use of herbicides with the goal to ensure vegetation does not interfere with the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of the transmission line. In general, where herbicides are required the storage, handling, and application will comply with the Ontario Clean Water Act (2006). Details of the vegetation management program and practices will be discussed as part of the EA.

In Progress Spills, Erosoion Control, Indigenous Consultation, Vegetation Management, Herbicides


MICH – 31 Can plants be salvaged and transplanted? Is there a plan to preserve the removed plants and will the remaining populations be self-sustaining? Is there a tracking/monitoring plan in place? There are no provisions in the Construction Environmental Protection Plan for harvesting or salvage of traditional plants in construction zones prior to construction. These activities are only identified as a contingency measure. MFN should have the opportunity to harvest or transplant traditional plants prior to clearing of the right-of-way and access roads. MFN should retain the rights of first refusal to merchantable timber from Reserve lands. A revenue sharing agreement for the proceeds from this timber should also be in place prior to construction/clearing. Further, Michipicoten should be the primary beneficiary of any procurement opportunities on Michipicoten reserve lands. ELM Comment:MFN should be given adequate time to remove and relocate species of cultural or medicinal relevance. Plants being relocated will require a similar ecosystem from which they have been removed from and this will take time to locate. Mitigation plans, such as replanting, should be implemented in areas where species cannot be relocated and a self-sustaining population will not exist. Follow up monitoring plans for these species should be implemented throughout and following construction activities. Additional discussion is required. Is it feasible to relocate plants over a large area? For example, such an activity would require extensive man-power and elevated cost.

Vegetation community assemblages and SAR will be assessed during the EA. Specific mitigations to plants will be part of consultation with MFN. Hydro One has not developed a CEPP for the Project and is unsure which document is being referenced.Consultation with MFN will identify traditional usage of vegetation and accommodations will be discussed.Compensation for timber will be further discussed with MFN and will be in line with timber valuation protocols throughout the Project area

In Progress SAR, Mitigation Measures, Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Consultation, Forestry


MICH – 34 Michipicoten is concerned that increased traffic in traditional use areas will impact local resources. The proposed Project will expand potential access to land through the Gros Cap No. 49 Reserve. MFN would like to ensure that there is some level of restriction/control, during both construction and operation, which limits access to the MFN community, and OPG and their contractor’s staff only. MFN was only recently partially informed regarding the current alignment of access roads and location of a laydown yard within the Gros Cap No. 49 Reserve. MFN and/or their representatives should have some input on these items, as well as the siting and design. An access road use agreement will be required with MFN on Reserve lands. Access roads will be sited and designed in association with MFN on Reserve lands. This topic also relates to the clean equipment protocol and need to control the risk of possible introduction of non-native plants and wildlife. See also MICH-77 regarding cleaning equipment, including vehicles, prior to transport to the hydro line corridor or laydown areas.ELM Comment:It is necessary to resolve a road use agreement prior to any site disturbance by OPG or associated contractors. High density of traffic can lead to health and safety concerns to residents and wildlife. Speeds need to be posted and enforced.

No laydown yard is proposed within the Gros Cap No. 49 Reserve. Hydro One is unaware of where this information may have been obtained.Access to the any works within the Reserve and personnel restrictions will be subject to consultation with MFN. Clean equipment protocols will be developed during the EA process.

In Progress Indigenous Consultation, Clean Equipment Protocol


MICH – 35 There is no discussion or contemplation of the possible exemption of traditional or culturally sensitive lands MFN has identified, so far, that there is one traditional trap-line within the Project footprint as well as campsites, recreational sites, spiritual sites, trap trails and other important cultural sites within the local and regional study areas. All of these have been mentioned in the EA but not studied. The magnitude, duration, irreversibility, and likelihood of occurrence specific to the above areas should be identified, in order to fully understand the Project’s effect on sites and areas of cultural importance to MFN. Given that these sites and areas have not specifically been evaluated, it is difficult to determine whether current mitigation strategies, if any, sufficiently offset negative Project effects, warranting further evaluation. As part of ongoing TLU work, mapping of Indigenous land and resource use sites (e.g., cultural site, camp, or trapline equipment) should be completed in advance of construction, allowing for alternate routes/alignments etc. to be established and confirmed with MFN. These potential sites should be afforded the same proactive measures given to post-contact heritage resources, with direct input on locations, impacts, mitigation and monitoring from MFN A section should be included in the Construction Environmental Protection Plan that deals specifically with mitigation measures to be implemented on the MFN Reserve lands.ELM Comment:Traditional lands were discussed in the TOR, although exemption was noted. Detailed consideration of culturally sensitive land is dependent upon the completion of the TLU study as well as direct consultation with members of MFN. For example, it was stated during the recent inspection that a burial ground is located in close proximity to the corridor. The exact location is unknown.When will traditional land use be included in the EA?

Traditional land use is discussed in Section 5.4.2 and will be assessed during the EA process. Trappers will be consulted and where the impacts to trapping can be demonstrated as a result of the Project, Hydro One will consider a damage/compensation claim or alternative resolution where applicable. Based on consultation with the Indigenous communities, the EA will document concerns and identify opportunities raised with regards to traditional land and resource use, or other relevant socio-economic aspects. The EA will also describe how Hydro One proposes to address these concerns and opportunities. Again, no CEPP has been developed for the Project at this time but mitigation measures will be implemented for work within MFN Reserve Lands.

In Progress Traditional Land Use, Trapping, Indigenous Consultation, Mitigation Measures.


MICH – 36 Is there a statement on cumulative impacts? Certainly, there must be cumulative impacts. What is OPG’s statement and conclusion on cumulative impacts? It is recognized that while OPG’s Project may not be the sole cause of impacts to Species at Risk in the area, cumulatively with other nearby projects (of past and present) there is a negative impact. It is MFN’s concern that, without some effort put towards reversing these impacts, identified species at risk will move further towards extirpation. These species most notably include Caribou, Northern and Brown Myotis, Bald Eagles, and Warblers, among others. MFN would like to see a more proactive approach to reversing and or stop these impacts on sensitive species on the traditional territory. ELM Comment:Resources will need to be put towards mitigating the potential cumulative impacts. This mitigation strategy needs to be consistent with the letter sent from MFN to the Canadian Wildlife Service regarding SAR associated with the hydro line. For example, to limit the cumulative impacts to SAR such as the Canada Warbler. Trees should be cleared during migratory periods and the use of heavy equipment in sensitive areas such as bogs, should occur during the winter months to limit ground compression and overall impact. Other activities may be required for non-SAR wildlife species.

Cumulative impacts will be assessed during the effects assessment process of the EA. The ToR outlines studies to be able to inform potential and cumulative effects assessment. Species at risk, including federal jurisdiction species on Reserve lands, will be part of the EA.

In Progress Effects Assessment, SAR


MICH – 37 There is a fear of magnetic frequencies emanating from the lines. Little research has been undertaken on this subject. What study has OPG undertaken to understand whether or not magnetic frequencies have an impact on human health? ELM Comment: OPG briefly touches on the concerns surrounding human health in the Terms of References with plans to further explore the potential health effects in the EA.

Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) will be assessed as part of the Human Health socio-economic component of the EA. This is outlined in Section 5.3.4

In Progress Human Health


MICH – 38 We would like to review the detailed engineering plans. We would also like to see any bridges and similar permanent or large-scale activities proposed for the future work on the hydro line. Bridges, if proposed, need to conform to the habitat they are located in, as well as meet requirements for fish and wildlife pass and navigation for members of MFN. ELM Comment: A general design outline exists in the TOR however it is necessary for MFN to review the detailed design of the route to understand how environmental constraints are being avoided.

Engineering plans will be publicly available as part of the Ontario Energy Board Section 92 leave to construct hearing. Engineering design will take into consideration requirements for fish passage and recreational use.

In Progress OEB, local design considerations


MICH – 39 We are requesting a list of required permits. We would like to review any permits issued to date, and also have the opportunity to provide comment on each permit to the appropriate government agency. ELM Comment:Permits for activities likely will reflect actual environmental conditions. Thus, MFN wishes to review the permits, to ensure appropriate environmental information has been provided. If the permit are predicated on actual environmental features, then the risk of unexpected disturbance will be reduced. If permits are predicated on inferred environmental features, then risk of unexpected environmental damage is expected to be elevated. Permits need to be provided to MFN prior to site disturbance. We note that OPG lists the necessary permits in the Terms of Reference, with plans to list the permit approvals in the final EA.

Potential permits are listed within the Terms of Reference, with plans to list the permit approvals in the final EA. Consultation on permits with Indigenous communities will be coordinated by the appropriate regulatory body. During the consultation process with MFN we will identify specific concerns and mitigate them where possible through the EA process.

In Progress Permitting, Indigenous Consultation


Changes to the fish habitat stemming from site work, erosion, surface water management, and the construction of access roads, culverts, piers, abutments, crossing structures, or fills within wetted lands and channels that will alter and potentially harm the fish habitat Please also see MICH-40. ELM Comment: Access roads and the Project footprint will likely involve in-water work, it is important that OPG uses Best Management Practices (BMPs) when working in or within the vicinity of water crossings in order to limit impacts to fish habitat. In addition, there are numerous water crossing noted during the June 2018 inspection that are not mapped. It is also important to MFN that water crossings on access roads are treated the same way as water crossings elsewhere, specifically we expect that these water crossing will not suffer from erosion. Thus, we recommend applying additional mitigation techniques, such as the use of silt fencing, to help minimize the harm to fish populations for water crossings on access roads and other work areas. For example, this approach may require the installation of culverts for water crossings on access roads.

It is recognized that the preparation of a plan is necessary to ensure impacts to water crossing areas are minimized or avoided. A plan for the construction phase will be developed during the EA and protection and mitigation measures, including those specific to fish habitat, will be defined at that time. The plan is expected to include compilation of environmental protection measures, contingency plans, and management plans with the objective to address known and anticipated environmental conditions or events that could occur during the construction of the Project.

In Progress Access Roads, Water Crossings, Environmental Plan


The reduction of fish habitat due to hydrology and changes to the groundwater is a possible consequence of the proposed activity. Please address this topic in the EA. ELM Comment: Information that will be generated from MICH-16 is required to confirm that water levels will not be reduced and result in harm to fishes or impact fish habitat. For example, under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, fish habitat and fish passage must be maintained during these types of projects.

An analysis of flow conditions at waterbody crossings will be undertaken to assess the appropriate sizing and type of structures (bridges, culverts) needed to convey hydraulic conditions in accordance with the MNRF guidelines and design criteria for temporary access road crossings of waterbodies.

In Progress Surface Water, Access Roads


Impacts on fish abundance ELM Comment: Results from an aquatic study program will be included in the EA report. Environmental monitors from MFN will be required to determine if Best Practices are being used near water during throughout all phases of construction.

Results from the fish and aquatic habitat studies will inform the assessment of any potential effects and associated mitigation measures in the EA.

In Progress Effects Assessment, Mitigation Measures, Aquatic Environment


• Impacts on fish reproduction resulting from changes in the surface water, sediment quality changes from fuel spills, herbicides or other materials entering the water Please also see MICH-40. ELM Comment:This is discussed previously in MICH-40. Results from an aquatic study program will be included in the EA report. Environmental monitors from MFN will be required to determine if Best Practices are being used near water during throughout all phases of construction.

Results from the fish and aquatic habitat studies will inform the assessment of any potential effects and associated mitigation measures in the EA. Sediment, erosion, spill response and herbicide use will all be subject to mitigation measures and will be further developed in the EA.

In Progress Effects Assessment, Mitigation Measures, Aquatic Environment, Erosion and Sediment Controll, Herbicides


In terms of our traditional use of fish resources, we note the increased presence of non-indigenous people working and/or recreating in the area will put pressure and a greater demand on fish resources. Please explain how staff working on the hydro line will be limited in their harvest of fish and wildlife from MFN’s traditional territory. Please also see MICH-34. ELM Comment: It is necessary for OPG to describe how access will be restricted and how this additional pressure will be mitigated in the EA. We recommend for environmental monitors from MFN to provide oversight and restrict access to resources and harvest of resources. We are concerned that workers will harvest plant and animals and in the process, disturb habitats.

Hunting and fishing on the Project site by Hydro One personnel will be prohibited.

In Progress Hunting and Fishing


Michipicoten believes that modification of shorelines can result in changes in fish habitat. Such changes should be considered as a possible effect of this activity. Such changes in habitat can lead to effects evident with the fish community composition and / or biomass production of species within the fish community over time. ELM Comment: No clear statements about how shoreline modifications will be assessed for possible influence on fish habitat or fish community composition in the EA. This aspect needs study.

Hydro One will make its best efforts to limit removal of existing riparian buffers along the Project footprint, where possible. This will be a consideration in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of project route alternatives. Best management practices and mitigations will be employed working within aquatic habitats. These specific mitigations will be developed during the EA.



A quantitative assessment of the total potential effects should be provided to assist in understanding the magnitude of the potential effects. Please also see MICH-40. ELM Comment: An assessment of the total potential impacts of the Superior Link project should be provided by OPG in the EA report.

An assessment of the total potential impacts of the Lake Superior Link project will be provided by Hydro One in the EA report.

In Progress Effecst Assessment


Comparing measurements of waterbodies to be crossed with structures that will cross the waterbodies should be analyzed to provide a greater understanding of the effects on fish and fish habitat. In other words, the selection process of the locations of tower footprints needs to be included in the EA. This topic needs to resolve candidate locations on the land and not be deferred to the ‘detailed design’ stage. After the candidate footprint locations are resolved, then MFN can review the suitability of these locations. It is not feasible to determine if a footprint is feasible unless the local natural resources are known at the time of the review. Please also see MICH-40. ELM Comment:MFN infers this activity will be likely be provided by OPG in the EA report. Follow-up after forecast footprint locations are completed is necessary, in order to determine the level of potential damage that will be caused to fish populations and determine the best mitigation strategies. We also request to be notified where bridges will be places across water, wetlands and other habitats. The placement of bridges across habitats used by fish, wildlife, members of MFN may impede or obstruct movement. We are concerned about the obstruction of movement from new bridges.

The assessment of fish and aquatic habitat will further inform mitigations to be developed during the EA process. Preliminary design takes into consideration potential impacts to the environment. Effort will be made to avoid PSWs, ANSls, ESAs and areas of traditional importance, where possible. This will be a consideration in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of routing alternatives using natural, socio-economic and technical criteria and indicators. Information from Indigenous communities relating to traditional knowledge and values will be incorporated into evaluation of alternative routing and refinement of the preferred route.

In Progress Aquatic Environment, Mitigation Measures, Sensitive Areas, Traditional Land Use, Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Consultation


MICH – 42 We wish to explore OPG’s mitigation plans more fully and to fathom the cumulative effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The proponent should commit to implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Construction Environmental Protection Plan. All mitigation measures identified that use the terms “should,” “could,” “may” and “would” should be replaced with “shall,” “can,” “must” and “will” to demonstrate commitment. A section should be included in the Construction Environmental Protection Plan that deals specifically with mitigation measures to be implemented on the Michipicoten FN Reserve lands. ELM Comment: OPG’s mitigation plans should be further discussed in the EA.

The mitigation measures in the CEPP referenced are not part of any Hydro One document. A plan for the construction phase will be developed during the EA and protection and mitigation measures will be defined at that time. The plan is expected to include compilation of environmental protection measures, contingency plans, and management plans with the objective to address known and anticipated environmental conditions or events that could occur during the construction of the Project. Hydro One would be pleased to meet with Michipicoten FN to discuss potential mitigation measures that may be implemented on Michipicoten FN Reserve lands during the EA process.

In Progress Environmental Plan, Mitigation Measures, Indigenous Consultation


MICH – 43 Conventional western thinking concludes that the caribou herd and two species of bats (little brown myotis) will continue to decline regardless of the project or efforts to mitigate impacts on these delicate species. Michipicoten has deep interest in preserving and promoting the caribou herd as well as the two species of bats and requires a significant mitigation effort in concert with Ontario and other proponents who contribute to cumulative effects on these species at risk. Allowing the extirpation of the caribou is unacceptable and irresponsible. Please explain how the proponent will carry out construction activities following the timing windows within 10 km of known or potential caribou high use areas. See also MICH-44 and MICH-45.ELM Comment:The path forward for management of SAR caribou and SAR bats will be defined through upcoming correspondence with Environment Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service.

The environmental protection plan will guide construction activities and outline mitigations for working in and around sensitive habitat areas. Hydro One will adhere to the Woodland Caribou Best Management Practices in Ontario (MNR) to reduce and/or mitigate direct and indirect impacts to caribou and caribou habitat. In addition, bat and bat hibernaculum assessments will be conducted as part of the wildlife and SAR portions of the EA. These findings will inform mitigations and project design which will be further developed in the EA process.

In Progress Environmental Plan, SAR


MICH – 44 In terms of SAR such as the caribou, have caribou zones been clearly identified? The Project footprint would remove approximately 140 ha (0.7%) of overlapping nursery and winter use areas. The entire extent of this area overlaps with or is within 500 m of existing anthropogenic disturbance. The Project would also remove approximately 7 ha of (less than 0.1%) of travel corridor habitat identified. With respect to potential caribou habitat, the Project footprint would remove approximately 92 ha (0.3%), 215 ha (0.2%), and 284 ha (0.1%) of winter habitat, refuge habitat, and Category 3 habitat, respectively. The EA does not indicate if or how the loss of these critical habitats will be mitigated/compensated for in accordance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The ability/feasibility of the proponent to compensate for the loss of these areas should be addressed in the EA. ELM Comment: The path forward for management of SAR Caribou will be defined through upcoming correspondence with Environment Canada and The Canadian Wildlife Service.

Hydro One will assess Project footprints through the EA process. Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the project, Hydro One will not duplicate these studies, but instead use publicly available information to inform assessment efforts. In winter 2018, Hydro One completed Woodland Caribou winter aerial surveys for the Marathon to Wawa corridor. The results of this survey were shared with Michipicoten FN on May 9, 2018. The results of this survey, as well as those others will be described and documented in the Individual EA Report and supporting technical reports. This will include an assessment of effects and a description of the proposed mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid potential impacts. The EA report will also identify permits and/or authorizations that may be required in relation to species at risk and habitat protections.



MICH – 45 Bats-(Little Brown and Northern Myotis)-Findings of the hibernaculum field studies have not yet been categorized.Will the EA indicate if or how the loss of critical habitats be mitigated/compensated for in accordance with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act? The ability/feasibility of the proponent to compensate for the loss of these areas should be addressed in the EA. The density of bat roosts within the transmission corridor should be determined for this project ahead of construction to determine the number and location for artificial roosts. ELM Comment:The path forward for management SAR bats will be defined through upcoming correspondence with Environment Canada and The Canadian Wildlife Service. During the June 2018 inspection multiple hibernacula were noted near the proposed powerline corridor. Much of this area is already disturbed from previous hydro line activities, and does not adhere to the 400 m buffer zone minimum. We also recommend placement of bat roosting boxes on towers to help re-establish potential bat habitat that will be removed or further disturbed across this project. In addition, members of MFN should be involved in monitoring candidate habitats during and following construction activities as seasonal clearing may encroach on these areas

An assessment of the effects on SAR bats and a description of the proposed mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid potential impacts will be described in Hydro One’s EA. The EA report will also identify permits and/or authorizations that may be required in relation to species at risk. Federal Endangered Species Act will be adhered to.

In Progress SAR, Mitigation Measures, Permitting


MICH – 46 Canada Warbler: we note permanent habitat loss is a possible outcome of the activity. The EA will have to indicate how the loss of these critical habitats will be mitigated/compensated for in accordance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The ability/feasibility of the proponent to compensate for the loss of these areas should be addressed in the EA. If this approach is taken, then the permanent loss of habitat for SAR Canada Warbler can be avoided. This approach is also applicable to other bird SAR found along the hydro line corridor. ELM Comment: The path forward for management of SAR birds will be defined through correspondence with Environment Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service. Canada Warbler habitat will be directly impacted by construction activities, as they rely heavily on swamp habitats. Wetland areas may also be affected by changing water levels and drainage that many occur as a result of construction activities.

An assessment of the effects on SAR birds and a description of the proposed mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid potential impacts will be described in Hydro One’s EA. The EA report will also identify permits and/or authorizations that may be required in relation to species at risk.

In Progress SAR, Mitigation Measures, Permitting


MICH – 47 Bald Eagle: We need field studies to confirm there are no nests within the project footprint. ELM Comment: Field studies are necessary to determine if Bald Eagles are nesting in the area. We request for members of MFN to act as environmental monitors during the nest sweep protocol.

In winter 2018, Hydro One completed Woodland Caribou and stick nest winter aerial surveys for the Marathon to Wawa corridor. As part of the stick nest survey completed, Eagle’s nests were identified and documented. The results of this survey, as well as those others will be described and documented in the Individual EA Report and supporting technical reports. This will include an assessment of effects and a description of the proposed mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid potential impacts.

In Progress Wildlife, Mitigation Measures


MICH – 48 Changes to the habitat and reductions of habitat will affect many species of wildlife as well as disrupt the use and connectivity of existing habitat during site preparation, construction and operation of the project. MFN will likely provide input on this process.ELM Comment:The Project is planned to run parallel to the existing hydro line. This area was disturbed in the late 1960s and significant fragmentation already exists. However, the land has recovered somewhat over the last 50 years and natural areas exist with sensitive species.

Effects to habitat and wildlife will be assessed during the EA process. Hydro is committed to entering into consultation with Indigenous communities throughout the phases of the Project. Hydro One’s Indigenous engagement program is designed to provide relevant project information to Indigenous communities in a timely manner. The process enables affected Indigenous communities to review the project proposals, provide input on project alternatives, and raise issues, concerns and questions they may have with the Project. Hydro One has, and will continue to meet with Indigenous communities to collect information and discuss any concerns/questions/feedback communities may have on all aspects of the Project.



MICH – 49 Wildlife will be further impacted by changes to the vegetation, soil, surface water management resulting in a permanent and semi-permanent loss of wildlife habitat during site preparation, construction and operation. Please also see MICH-36. ELM Comment: This topic has been addressed within several previous comments. For these reasons, the environmental management discussed in these earlier comments applies to this comment and not discussed further.

Potential environmental effects and mitigation measures will be identified, including predicting the net effects and characterizing the net effects (i.e., after mitigation). Inspection and monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures during and after construction will also be identified in the EA as required.

In Progress Effects Assessment, Mitigation Measures, Monitoring.


MICH – 50 Wildlife reproduction cycles will be greatly altered during site preparation, construction and operation of the line. What study has been undertaken to measure quantifiably and qualitatively the net effects on wildlife population reductions that are already under pressure. Please also see MICH-41. ELM Comment: Studies to outline the cumulative impacts of the Project on wildlife are necessary in the EA report. This topic has been addressed within several previous comments. For these reasons, the environmental management discussed in these earlier comments applies to this comment.

An assessment of the effects on wildlife and a description of the proposed mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid potential impacts will be described in Hydro One’s EA which will include species-specific timing windows for least risk. It will also include species-specific mitigations and potential habitat restorations.

In Progress Wildlife, Mitigation Measures


MICH – 52 Injury and mortality of birds and bats from collision with transmission lines as well as electrocution of birds and bats ELM Comment: Conductors should be placed to minimize the risk for these species, however MFN proposes the placement of bat roosting boxes as one form of habitat compensation.

See comment 50. Transmission lines will be designed to according applicable standards and will include considerations for wildlife.

In Progress Wildlife, Local Design Considerations


MICH – 53 The destruction of nests and eggs of many species during site preparation, construction and operations ELM Comment:Adherence to timing restrictions (April 15-Auguest 31) should avoid destruction of nests and eggs. Follow up will be required should an active nest site be found prior to April 15 or after August 31. Replanting of trees following construction should also recommended to help minimize the overall habitat lost by species upon their return from migration.

As part of the EA, standard mitigation measures and operational timing constraints will be identified for clearing activities to protect migratory birds during their nesting period, including also bats, amphibians and other wildlife during their key life cycle periods. To address potential effects to wildlife, it is expected that vegetation clearing activities will likely be scheduled to occur in the winter to avoid impacts to ecological sensitive areas, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at -risk.

In Progress Mitigation Measures, Vegetation Management


MICH – 56 Significant concerns on remaining habitat availability and additional pressures from herbicides, chemicals, soil erosion, changes to water and wetlands habitat, all resulting in a decline of wildlife populations. Michipicoten needs to study and understand the net cumulative impacts and to suggest mitigation efforts to preserve and promote wildlife populations. Please also see MICH-28. ELM Comment: Changes to ecosystems caused by construction activities and the use of herbicides and chemicals may result in wildlife decline. OPG should provide an assessment of the full effects in the EA report. For this project MFN expects no use of chemical herbicides or other additives that could potentially harm fish, wildlife populations or wetlands. Please also refer to MICH-29, MICH-30 and MICH-49.

An assessment of the effects on wildlife and a description of the proposed mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid potential impacts will be described in Hydro One’s EA. Hydro One has vegetation management standards that will be applied to the LSL project. These standards include management practices to minimize and/or avoid the use of herbicides with the goal to ensure vegetation does not interfere with the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of the transmission line. Details of the vegetation management program and practices will be discussed as part of the EA.

In Progress Wildlife, Mitigation Measures, Vegetation Management, Herbicides.


MICH – 57 How will OPG measure, predict and assess if impacts are not significant given the scale and duration of the project, given the footprint and expected displacement of wildlife and wildlife habitat combined with other triggers that include reduction of reproduction in fish and wildlife species. ELM Comment: This topic has been addressed within several previous comments. For these reasons, the environmental management discussed in these earlier comments applies to this comment.

Hydro One will develop an effects assessment approach to satisfy regulatory requirements under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Potential environmental effects and mitigation measures will be identified, including predicting the net effects and characterizing the net effects (i.e., after mitigation). Inspection and monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures during and after construction will also be identified in the EA as required.

In Progress Effects Assessment, Mitigation Measures


MICH – 58 There is no mention of any risk to reptiles including SAR Common Snapping Turtle and SAR Midland Painted Turtle. ELM Comment: It is our view that SAR turtles will likely be addressed in the EA report. Numerous amphibian species were seen and photographed during the June 2018 inspection of the MFN reserve lands. While no turtles were seen during field work, candidate habitat for this species was noted. Members of MFN stated they have seen turtles in the water near the hydro line. Mitigation strategies should be implemented in order to limit the impacts to reptiles and amphibian species. Members of MFN should be involved in monitoring candidate aquatic habitats during and following construction.

Where studies have been conducted on the proposed corridor and they apply to the project, Hydro One will not duplicate these studies, but instead use publicly available information to inform assessment efforts. The screening of habitat suitability for species at risk within the study area for the Project will be undertaken followed by field surveys to verify presence/ absence of species at risk, including potential effect as a result of the Project. The results of field studies will be included within Hydro One’s EA report. The snapping turtle is listed on the SAR list.

In Progress Data Collection, SAR


MICH – 59 Increased non-indigenous presence and activity will place greater strain on wildlife resources in traditional areas of harvesting and on existing traplines resulting in a semi-permanent loss of traditional wildlife resources One spiritual area and two traditional trapline trails used by Michipicoten First Nation were identified in the Project Footprint. Also see MICH-73. ELM Comment:This process was discussed within an earlier comment. The path forward will involve environmental monitors from MFN to provide oversight and restrict access to resources and harvest of resources

Hydro is committed to entering into consultation with Indigenous communities to provide support, capacity and training throughout the phases of the Project. Hydro One’s Indigenous engagement program is designed to provide relevant project information to Indigenous communities in a timely manner. The process enables affected Indigenous communities to review the project proposals, provide input on project alternatives, and raise issues, concerns and questions they may have with the Project. Hydro One has, and will continue to meet with Indigenous communities to collect information and discuss any concerns/questions/feedback communities may have on all aspects of the Project.Hydro One would be pleased to meet with Michipicoten FN to discuss potential impacts to traplines and spiritual sites to incorporate them into the EA.

In Progress Trapping, Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Land Use, Indigenous Consultation


MICH – 61 In terms of archaeological impacts, Michipicoten has buildings and structures on its reserve that are proximate to the ROW and may not have been considered given little or no substantive study has been undertaken on Michipicoten’s reserve lands. Any low potential locales within the study corridor to be subject to construction impacts should be examined to confirm their status as areas of low potential. First Nations Monitors should be included in these inspections. Please also see MICH-06. ELM Comment: This topic should be examined in an archaeological perspective.

On June 29, 2018, Hydro One’s archaeological consultant, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA), sent an introduction and invitation to participate letter to each of the eighteen (18) Indigenous communities. Each community was invited to participate in the planned archaeological assessments by providing information, at their discretion, regarding cultural heritage resources for inclusion in the Stage 1 report and/or participation in the Stage 2 fieldwork surveys within their Treaty and Traditional Territory. ARA and Hydro One will work with Indigenous communities to incorporate any information provided and to accommodate participation in fieldwork surveys. No construction work will begin until it has been confirmed that work areas have no archaeological potential or all required archaeological assessments have been completed following applicable legislation and guidelines and accepted by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.



MICH – 64 There is a concern over the loss of wetlands, upland forest, and riparian ecosystems. Please also see MICH-28 ELM Comment: This topic has been addressed within several previous comments. Please refer to MICH -28 and MICH-30.

An assessment of the effects on wetlands, upland forest and riparian ecosystems; and a description of the proposed mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid potential impacts will be described in Hydro One’s EA.

In Progress Wetlands, Sensitive Areas, Mitigation Measures


MICH – 65 What compensation will there be for the loss of wetlands of 279 hectares? Please also see MICH-28. ELM Comment: Ontario is currently exploring the possibility of a No Net Loss Policy for wetlands, it is unclear if there will be compensation if wetlands are lost on this project. Follow up will be required if the wetland compensation framework is put in place.

Specific areas of potentially impacted wetlands have not been identified in the terms of reference and Hydro One is unsure where the number (279 hectares) is referenced. An assessment of the effects on wetlands and a description of the proposed mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid potential impacts will be described in Hydro One’s EA.

In Progress Wetlands, Sensitive Areas, Effects Assessment, Mitigation Measures


MICH – 66 We are concerned with the use of herbicides especially near water and the impacts on fish, drinking water and riparian vegetation. Will there be a prohibition on the use of herbicides in your permit that states that you cannot use herbicides within 30 metres of a water body unless application is conducted by the ground application equipment or approved by a relevant regulatory agency Please also see MICH-29.ELM Comment:The potential damage herbicides may cause to the listed areas is considerable. As mentioned previously, there are a number of identified and unmapped small water crossing that were apparent during the June 2018 inspection, these have the potential to move soluble herbicides to larger bodies of water. Due to this, additional buffer zones may be required in areas not originally expected. Furthermore, in the past there has been similar agreements between MFN and other parties concerning the use of pesticides on reserve lands, however during June 2018 inspections there is evidence of herbicide spraying (likely 2 4 dinitrophenol). Therefore, follow-up may be necessary to ensure there is no use of herbicides on reserve lands throughout and following construction activities. In areas where herbicides may be used we recommend that hand spraying chosen vegetation rather than complete spraying of areas.

Hydro One has vegetation management standards that will be applied to the LSL project. These standards include management practices to minimize and/or avoid the use of herbicides with the goal to ensure vegetation does not interfere with the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of the transmission line. Details of the vegetation management program and practices will be discussed as part of the EA.



MICH – 68 Michipicoten acknowledges that pre-existing land use studies and work has been undertaken regarding the traditional use of lands and resources by First Nations. However, apart from providing a GIS database to OPG, MFN has only recently executed a long overdue MOU for actual consultation and a Traditional Land Use Study. Most Traditional Knowledge Studies and Land Use Studies, in our experience, are undertaken years ahead of construction to inform a project’s design and to build a respectful relationship to each Indigenous community. Given that Michipicoten is now only commencing on ecological consultation, a traditional land use study, OPG has questionable and inadequate information and data regarding what could be sensitive issues related to the permanent loss of lands that contain traditional harvesting habitats. No information has been conveyed regarding issues related to “Intuitive Archaeology” or spiritual beliefs. Therefore, specific and detailed land use information and especially any sensitive cultural, spiritual and land use issues have not been conveyed and are not incorporated in the planning and routing of the proposed line. Michipicoten consultations on mining projects that are smaller in scale than the Superior Link generally require one to two years of consultation. It is very questionable that a construction date of November is feasible while consultation at Michipicoten is only commencing now. Please also see MICH-06 and MICH-35 ELM Comment: The approach to be taken here will depend on the findings of the 2018 traditional land use study.

Hydro is committed to entering into consultation with MFN to provide support, capacity and training throughout the phases of the Project. Hydro One’s Indigenous engagement program is designed to provide relevant project information to Indigenous communities in a timely manner. The process enables affected Indigenous communities to review the project proposals, provide input on project alternatives, and raise issues, concerns and questions they may have with the Project. Hydro One has, and will continue to meet with Indigenous communities to collect information and discuss any concerns/questions/feedback communities may have on all aspects of the Project. TEK/TU studies will be discussed as part of the Project consultation and capacity provided for this information to be incorporated in the EA.



MICH – 72 MFN have not been informed of the candidate easement-access areas and laydown areas through Michipicoten reserve lands. Temporary workspaces should be sited and designed in association with the MFN on Reserve lands. Decommissioning of temporary workspaces, access roads and waterbody crossings should be completed in association with MFN on Reserve lands. MFN was only recently partially informed regarding the current alignment of access roads and location of a laydown yard within the Gros Cap No. 49 Reserve. MFN and/or their representatives should have some input on these items, as well as the siting and design. Refer also to MICH-77.ELM Comment:The identification of candidate access roads and laydown areas on reserve land is of importance, as heavy equipment has the potential to cause severe land compression. These areas need to be identified as soon as feasible, so mitigation strategies may be implemented. In addition, the removal of trees and vegetation for these laydown areas has the potential to increase erosion and the movement of silt and sediment into water crossings.As noted in other comments, it is prudent to ensure a clean equipment protocol is followed, when equipment is moved to MFN territory. Prevention of introduction of non-native plants and wildlife is much easier than the control of these species after they establish in a new habitat.

No discussions between Hydro One and Michipicoten FN have yet occurred on siting and design within the Gros Cap No. 49 Reserve and no laydown areas are proposed within the reserve. New or existing access roads may be required within the reserve to access the corridor, but have not yet been confirmed during the ToR phase. Hydro One would be pleased to meet with Michipicoten FN to discuss siting and design within the Gros Cap No. 49 Reserve. Decommissioning of Project infrastructure will be in accordance with mitigation plans to be developed in the EA.

In Progress Access Roads, Indigenous Consultation


MICH – 73 Michipicoten would like to be consulted on and have dialogue with OPG on the two Michipicoten traplines and a spiritual site that will be affected by the Project. We need to understand the impact on our rights and whether the project results in a semi-permanent or permanent loss of these resources. Specific meetings with appropriate support staff should be set and confirmed. ELM Comment: Follow up will be required in order to discuss mitigation and compensation should the impacts result in semi-permanent or permanent loss of resources. Additional oversight should be provided by environmental monitors from MFN.

Hydro is committed to entering into consultation with Indigenous communities to provide support, capacity and training throughout the phases of the Project. Hydro One’s Indigenous engagement program is designed to provide relevant project information to Indigenous communities in a timely manner. The process enables affected Indigenous communities to review the project proposals, provide input on project alternatives, and raise issues, concerns and questions they may have with the Project. Hydro One has, and will continue to meet with Indigenous communities to collect information and discuss any concerns/questions/feedback communities may have on all aspects of the Project. Hydro One would be pleased to meet with Michipicoten FN to


discuss potential impacts to traplines and spiritual sites.


MICH – 74 Michipicoten is concerned about the Project’s impact on MFN citizens who participate in blueberry and cranberry picking and willow harvesting near the project footprint. The blasting schedule needs to respect the traditional use of the land by MFN. OPG should consider avoiding blasting and other potentially hazardous construction activities during these periods, or have additional staff on-hand to maintain a secured perimeter during these periods. Refer also to MICH-09 and MICH-31.ELM Comment:OPG should agree to refrain from activities during key resource harvest times for plants and wildlife. Also, activities should be avoided on holidays and weekends. Finally, OPG should provide notice prior to all periods of activity.

Traditional use of the Project area will be examined during the EA and will take into account consultation on specific activities with Indigenous communities. Should blasting be required, best management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures specific to explosives management and use will be implemented. This will include the development of a blasting plan and schedule which will be shared with the community prior to construction.

In Progress Traditional Land Use, Indigenous Consultation, Blasting


MICH – 75 Michipicoten is concerned about any negative socio-economic impacts on its citizens and the loss or strain on local resources. Some of the impacts that were not included in the Amended EA Report include: - Displacement of businesses and residents; and, - Encroachment on residences and other structures. It is not clear whether and to what extent the above will affect MFN. For example, Gross Cap No. 49 Reserve includes residences along Cemetery Road, a few kilometers south of the Project Footprint, which may be impacted. ELM Comment: Economic matters require consideration in light of the expected disturbance of the land, wildlife, plants, and water.

Hydro One is currently in the development of the Terms of Reference phase. Hydro One has not produced an Amended EA Report at this time. Potential socio-economic impacts to residences nearby proposed work areas throughout the project footprint will be considered and evaluated as necessary in Hydro One’s EA.

In Progress Socio-economic assessment


MICH – 77 A clean equipment protocol should be applied for work on MFN territory. This topic is not addressed sufficiently in the TOR or EA. Clean equipment is needed, to avoid accidental transport of non-native plants to MFN territory. Also refer to MICH-11. ELM Comment: Direct evaluation of the risk from non-native species, particularly plants, is not adequately addressed. Evidence exists that the introduction of non-native plants and animals can occur during construction projects in remote areas. Thus, MFN expects that a clean equipment protocol will be established, to wash down all equipment in an urban setting such as gravel parking lot, before this equipment is moved to the hydro line corridor. This protocol requires inspection by monitors from MFN, to ensure it is being followed.

Hydro One will develop a clean equipment protocol which will be included within Hydro One’s EA. The clean equipment protocol will be followed across all project work areas.

In Progress Clean Equipment Plan


2 “We are satisfied with the ToR at this time but will engage on the EA going forward.” Hydro One will continue to consult with Michipicoten First Nation throughout the Environmental Assessment.


Red Rock Indian Band

RRIB If a dead eagle were found in the course of the field study or construction stages, could it be given to Red Rock Indian Band so that they can make use of the feathers?

Hydro One agreed to share any dead eagle found in the course of the field program or construction stages with Red Rock Indian Band. Hydro One will inform field staff and construction teams of the dead wildlife protocol.


Red Rock Indian Band

RRIB - 1 We would like to see a section within the ToR outlining how trappers will be consulted during the EA. Comment noted. Section 9.4 of the ToR has been updated to identify trappers as a key stakeholder to be engaged throughout the EA. The Section has been updated to include meetings with trappers to discuss potential impacts the project may have on traplines, as well as mitigation and avoidance measures.

In Progress Trapping

Red Sky Metis Independent Nation

RSMIN - 1 We would like the ToR to discuss how invasive species will be considered in the EA and what measures will be implemented to prevent their spread.

Hydro One has developed a Vegetation Management Program for its transmission facilities that will be applied to the LSL project. This program includes management practices to minimize and/or avoid the use of herbicides with the goal to ensure vegetation does not interfere with the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of the transmission line. Part of the Vegetation Management Program will include invasive species. Details of the vegetation management program and practices will be discussed as part of the EA.



RSMIN - 1 RSMIN is aware of Environmental, Cultural, Traditional and Non-traditional Land Use impacts within or adjacent to the LSL project Footprint. RSMIN internal Consultation staff has evaluated the Draft Terms of reference and evaluated the contents of the draft terms of reference to ensure that the rationale includes the necessary tools and studies to avoid or mitigate RSMIN’s community impacts. RSMIN has currently identified concerns on the reference and reference route alternative that require further examination and research to reach potential resolution. The impacts identified can be concentrated in to the following categories and will be communicated to Hydro One following Traditional Knowledge and Land Use studies; o Archaeological o Current Land Use practices protected by Section 35 Rights (Hunting and Fishing) o Non Traditional Land Use Areas o Impacts to Wildlife, Fish and the Environment o Cultural Spiritual Sites o Socio-economical

Hydro One is committed to a full and meaningful discussion of all aspects of the Project with RSMIN as detailed in the now completed Capacity Funding Agreement with RSMIN. All concerns and input received will be discussed and addressed through the EA process and regular meetings with RSMIN and their designates.



1 “RSMIN is please to view the implementation of our comments into the Final ToR. RSMIN will continue to work with Hydro One to identify community related concerns throughout the EA process.”

Hydro One will continue to consult with Red Sky Metis Independent Nation throughout the Environmental Assessment.


Trappers 1 Will trappers affected by the proposed project be compensated? Where the impacts to trapping can be demonstrated as a result of the Project, Hydro One will consider a damage/compensation claim or alternative resolution where applicable.

In Progress Trapping