ORTECH Power Submission to Ministry of the Environment For

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

APPENDIX A

Stakeholder Consultation Letters and Notifications

(14 pages)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Letters and Correspondence

December 10, 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

McGraw Falls Water Power (MFWP) is proposing to incorporate a two (2) megawatt hydroelectric facility on the Matawin River approximately 7km southwest of Shabaqua Corners. This facility will make use of the current weir and reservoir located just upstream of McGraw Falls. A small powerhouse and penstock will be constructed downstream of the existing weir. A 5km wooden pole distribution line will be added for transmitting electricity to the Shabaqua Distribution Station.

The Ministry of the Environment regulates private electricity projects in Ontario under the Electricity Projects Regulation (O.Reg. 116/01) which requires all electricity projects to undergo an environmental screening process. In 2006, McGraw Falls was identified as a location with hydro-electric potential for development through the Ministry of Natural Resources Direct Site Release Program. This program requires the proponent to liaise with the Ministry of Natural Resources throughout the environmental assessment, permitting and construction phases. Consistent with the requirements of these two ministries we are developing a draft Environmental Screening Report for the spring of 2008.

Public consultation is a major component of the environmental screening process in Ontario, and as such we will be actively engaged in that process in various ways, one of which is a public open house set for early 2008. Based on the results of the public consultation process and comments to the draft report, we hope to release our Final Environmental Screening Report in the summer of 2008.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

This letter is to inform potentially interested parties that we are entering our public consultation phase of the project. We encourage you to attend the public open house this spring in order to obtain information and speak with our experts. You are also invited to send us your written comments and questions via e-mail or regular mail at any time. We encourage you to visit our website www.mcgrawfallspower.ca for more information and project updates or contact:

Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power 2395 Speakman Drive, Mississauga, ON, L5K 1B (905) 822-4120 ext. 305 or 1-877-774-6560 ext. 305 [email protected]

We look forward to your participation in this project.

Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power c.c. Patrick Gillette, McGraw Falls Water Power c.c. Ministry of Natural Resources, 435 James St. S., Thunder Bay, ON P7E 6S8 (Attention: Bill Ringham & Jim Cameron) c.c. Ministry of Energy, 3rd Floor, 880 Bay St., Toronto, ON M7A 2C1 (Attention: Perry Cecchini) c.c. Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, Floor 12A, 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 (Attention: Marie Legrow) c.c. Ontario-Great Lakes Area, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 28 Waubeek St., Parry Sound, ON P2A1B9 (Attention: Dan Thompson)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

February 12, 2008

To: Selected Media For Immediate Release

Proposed hydro project aims to be low impact

Acting on the Province’s need for more sources of clean, renewable energy, the first of many steps has been taken toward the commissioning of a waterpower generating facility about seven kilometers south of Shabaqua Corners (50 km east of Thunder Bay) in Northwestern Ontario.

Interested parties attending a February 26 information open house at Thunder Bay’s Valhalla Inn will hear that, if it proceeds, the McGraw Falls project offers significant economic opportunity for the region with an estimated 20,000 person hours of work and $2-$3 million in local spending on goods and services.

Awarded Applicant of Record Status by the Ministry of Natural Resources, McGraw Falls Water Power, a subsidiary of Xeneca Power, of Mississauga, is now proceeding with the next level of intensive consultation with local and regional stakeholders. Xeneca President Patrick Gillette notes that surveying, engineering studies, environmental impact assessments and permitting must all be completed to ensure the project minimizes impacts on the environment and other users and maximizes the benefits of resource.

“There are certainly a number of natural features in the area, and we are convinced that we can maintain and likely enhance them as we proceed with this project,” Mr. Gillette observes.

The existing weir structure on the site, built about 70 years ago, created wetlands upstream that supports a population of waterfowl and other species. Studies indicate that the existing structure may not be optimal for some of these environmental features, and Xeneca officials believe their project can be built in a manner that will stabilize water levels. Improved water control can help to maintain or even enhance the wetland habitat while generating a modest 1.5-2 megawatts of electricity during times of peak demand.

Fish habitat is also of significant interest adds Mr. Gillette pointing out the proposal to build on top of the existing structure will minimize impacts on the aquatic ecosystem both upstream and downstream. A relatively small penstock delivering water to the powerhouse will have to be built. Xeneca is committed to constructing and operating these structures to have as low of an impact as possible both visually and environmentally.

“We will be holding information sessions. We’re looking for people’s input and ideas. Our process is intended to be open, transparent and accountable,” adds Mr. Gillette.

For more information contact Leah Deveaux of ORTECH Power at (905) 822-4120 ext. 305/Fax: (905) 855-0406 ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

April 1st, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

ORTECH on behalf of MFWP has posted a Notice of Completion, concluding the Environmental Screening period for the McGraw Falls Generating Station. This notice was published in the Thunder Bay Source, Chronicle Journal for Wednesday April 1st, 2009 and Wawatay News for Thursday March 19th, 2009. You will find a copy of this notice attached. The publication of the Notice of Completion marks the beginning of a mandatory 30 day review period which will conclude Friday May 1st, 2009 at 4:30pm.

In accordance with Ontario Regulation 116/01 this ESR is being made available for review and comment from Wednesday April 1st, 2009 until Friday May 1st, 2009. The ESR may be reviewed on the project website: www.mcgrawfallspower.ca Hard copies of the ESR may be found during this review period at the following public locations:

The Brodie Resource Library KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. Thunder Bay City Clerks Office 216 Brodie St. 349 Mooney Ave. 600 Victoria Avenue East Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay

McGraw Falls Water Power c/o Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power 804 Southdown Rd. Mississauga ON; L5J 2Y4 Phone: 1-877-774-6560 x.305 Fax: 905-855-0406 Email: [email protected]

Requests must be made in accordance with the provisions set out in the Ministry of the Environment’s “Environmental Screening Process for Electricity Projects” (The Guide). A copy of The Guide can be found on the MOE’s website. www.ene.gov.ca The Director must also receive requests for elevation by 4:30pm Friday May 1st, 2008, at the following address:

Director of Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, ON; M4V 1L5 Fax: 416-314-8452 ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Your information will be forwarded to the Water Management Planning process, and you will receive all associated updates and consultation notices. We appreciate your input into this process and look forward to your continued input in the future.

Thanks kindly,

Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power www.mcgrawfallspower.ca

-enclosures c.c. Patrick Gillette, McGraw Falls Water Power c.c. Scott Manser, ORTECH Power c.c. Dave Thomson, KBM Forestry Consultants ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

McGraw Falls Hydro Electric Project Newsletter February 21, 2008 Edition 1

Project Status Currently McGraw Falls Water Power has begun several specialty studies, examining their conclusions and establishing plans of operation for the project which will benefit the environment and residents while remaining economical. This process is estimated to take between 6-8 months to complete.

Studies which are currently in process include:

Habitat Study: this study examines the aquatic and terrestrial environment, the species who reside in the area and an in depth assessment of the wetland upstream of the weir.

Hydrology Study: this examines the flows of the river over an extended period of time. This is used to establish an accurate estimate of electricity production.

Archaeology Study: this study included a field assessment to look for natural heritage or cultural features which may be impacted by work at the area.

McGraw Falls Water Power continues to work very closely with the Thunder Bay Region Ministry of Natural Resources to ensure that local values are examined and studies are focused appropriately.

What Happens Next? As the studies begin to conclude their technical findings, McGraw Falls Water Power will reach out to the local community to ensure that the findings address the local culture and values. A public open house is scheduled for February 26, 2008 at which time individuals can become better acquainted with the studies, ask questions and leave comments. Following consultation with agencies and the general public, strategies for mitigation based on individual concerns will be drafted, if necessary. These strategies will be discussed at a second public open house scheduled for spring 2008.

Open House Specifics McGraw Falls Water Power (MFWP) is proposing to develop a 1.5 – 2 MW hydro electric plant on the Matawin River at the McGraw Falls Dam, 7km southwest of Shabaqua Corners. This will be an intermediate development; a rubber dam will be added to the existing weir and will work in coordination with the existing reservoir upstream. The powerhouse will be located approximately 150m downstream of the dam. A wood pole distribution line will run 7km northwest along the existing roadway to the Shabaqua Distribution Station.

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. & ORTECH Power will be hosting a public open house on Tuesday, February 26, 2008. This forum will introduce stakeholders to the project and its components. The Open House is scheduled for:

When: Tuesday February 26, 2008

Time: 4pm to 7:30pm

Where: Scandia Room – First Floor The Valhalla Inn 1 Valhalla Rd. Thunder Bay, ON (807) 577-1121

www.mcgrawfallspower.ca

An update to the website will be unveiled in the coming weeks; this update will include expanded project documents, increased mapping, open house materials and a comment sheet. The files from the website are alternatively available in hardcopy or delivered via e-mail if you are unable or have difficulty accessing them. Please contact ORTECH Power in writing by mail or email, or by telephone.

Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power 2395 Speakman Dr. ON L5K 1B3 1-877-774-6560 ext 305 [email protected] www.mcgrawfallspower.ca

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

McGraw Falls Hydro Electric Project Newsletter March 27, 2008 Edition 2

Open House McGraw Falls Water Power held their first open house on February 26, 2008 at the Valhalla Inn. This open house provided an introduction to important aspects of the project design, as well as, an opportunity to provide feedback directly to the project team on hand.

If you were unable to attend this event, or are interested in reviewing the information presented on the open house display boards again, the materials are now available on the project website at www.mcgrawfallspower.ca. Comments can be returned until April 25th, 2008.

Next Steps McGraw Falls Water Power is proceeding to refine the proposed operating plan for this site, including the development of a water management plan to ensure proper resource management. Additional display material is also being prepared in response to feedback received from the initial open house. We will keep you notified on the status of these items moving forward.

As always you can contact us at anytime

Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power 2395 Speakman Dr. ON L5K 1B3 1-877-774-6560 ext 305 Fax: 905-855-0406 [email protected] www.mcgrawfallspower.ca

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

McGraw Falls Hydro Electric Project Newsletter November 7, 2008 Edition 3

McGraw Falls Water Power Releases Draft ESR for public review

McGraw Falls Water Power (MFWP) is proposing to incorporate a 2 MW intermittent peaking hydro electric facility on the Matawin River at the McGraw Falls Weir. In order to complete this project MFWP is required to undergo an Environmental Screening as legislated by the Ontario Environmental Assessment for Electricity Projects Regulation (O. Reg. 116/01). MFWP has retained the services of ORTECH Power to complete this requirement. Currently MFWP has completed a draft Environmental Screening Report (ESR) and is making it available for public comment. This Draft ESR is an important step in creating a well balanced ESR which considers local concerns and values. Comments received on this draft ESR will be used in the completion of a final ESR.

Members of the public, agencies and First Nation communities are invited to comment on this Draft ESR until December 5, 2008. Copies of this draft report can be reviewed at the offices of KBM Forestry at 349 Mooney Ave, Thunder Bay; or through the project website www.mcgrawfallspower.ca

In order to encourage stakeholder input on this draft report, MFWP is holding a public open house on November 24, 2008 at the Valhalla Inn, in Thunder Bay from 4 pm to 7:30 pm (EST). This information session is designed to provide individuals and agencies further details on the project effects and mitigation strategies. We invite you to attend this information session to review project details. We also encourage you to submit written comments and ask questions of the representatives at the open house.

The Open House is scheduled for: When: Monday November 24, 2008 Time: 4:00pm – 7:30 pm (EST) Where: Scandia Room – First floor Valhalla Inn 1 Valhalla Rd. Thunder Bay (807) 577-1121

Written comments will be collected until December 5, 2008. If you have any questions or comments regarding this project you can contact Leah Deveaux by phone 1-877-774-6560 ext. 305 or by email [email protected]

Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power 2395 Speakman Dr. ON L5K 1B3 1-877-774-6560 ext 305 [email protected] www.mcgrawfallspower.ca ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

McGraw Falls Hydro Electric Project Newsletter April 1st, 2009 Edition 4

McGraw Falls Water Power Notice of Completion of Environmental Screening Report

ORTECH on behalf of MFWP has posted a Notice of Completion, concluding the Environmental Screening period for the McGraw Falls Generating Station. This notice was published in the Thunder Bay Source, Chronicle Journal for Wednesday April 1st, 2009 and Wawatay News for Thursday March 19, 2009. You will find a copy of this notice on our website www.mcgrawfallspower.ca. The publication of the Notice of Completion marks the beginning of a mandatory 30 day review period which will conclude Friday May 1st, 2009 at 4:30pm.

The Brodie Resource KBM Forestry Consultants Thunder Bay City Clerks Library Inc. Office 216 Brodie St. 349 Mooney Ave. 600 Victoria Avenue East Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay

McGraw Falls Water Power c/o Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power 804 Southdown Rd. Mississauga ON; L5J 2Y4 Phone: 1-877-774-6560 x.305 Email: [email protected]

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Director of Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, ON; M4V 1L5 Fax: 416-314-8452

Notifications

McGraw Falls GS Notice of Commencement

Notice of Commencement Environmental Screening McGraw Falls Hydro-Electric Project

McGraw Falls Water Power (MFWP) is proposing to develop a 2 MW hydro-electric plant on the Matawin River at the McGraw Falls Dam, 7km southwest of Shabaqua Corners. This will be a ‘Run-of-River’ Development with intermittent peaking ability using the existing reservoir upstream. The powerhouse will be located approximately 150m downstream of the dam. A wood pole distribution line will run 7km northwest along the existing roadway to the Shabaqua Distribution Station. The map below shows the project location.

The project is subject to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Screening Process for Electricity Projects and the Ministry of Natural Resources Waterpower Program Guidelines.

MFWP has retained ORTECH Power and KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. to assist them in this environmental screening process.

For more information or to provide your comments/concerns please contact: Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power 2395 Speakman Dr. Mississauga ON. L5K 1B3 Phone: (905)822-4120 ext. 305; 1-877-774-6560 Email: [email protected] www.mcgrawfallspower.ca

Published to the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal & The Thunder Bay Source – October 12, 2007; Published to Wawatay News October 18, 2007

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

cc Notice of Completion of an Environmental Screening Report McGraw Falls G.S. Hydroelectric Project

McGraw Falls Water Power (MFWP) is proposing to develop a 2 MW hydroelectric plant on the Matawin River at the McGraw Falls Dam, 7km southwest of Shabaqua Corners. A rubber dam will be added to the existing weir and will work in coordination with the existing reservoir upstream. The powerhouse will be located approximately 150m downstream of the dam. A wood pole distribution line will run 5km northwest along the existing roadway connecting to the existing line to the Shabaqua Distribution Station.

The proposed Project is subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and Regulation 116/01. Under this Act and its supporting regulations, the Project is subject to an environmental screening. The Environmental Screening Report examined the Project’s potential impacts on the environment including water, wildlife and vegetation. Issues raised by stakeholders and submitted to the proponent have also been considered in the screening report.

The proposed Project has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Screening Process for electricity projects, the results of which are described in the McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report (ESR). The conclusions of the ESR indicate that there are no significant negative effects, subject to mitigation measures as detailed in the ESR. Environmental monitoring programs will be conducted to document the effectiveness of these measures. MFWP intends to proceed with additional permitting requirements and water management planning.

Hard copies of the ESR may be found starting Wednesday April 1st, 2009 until Friday May 1st, 2009 at the following public locations:

The Brodie Resource Library KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. Thunder Bay City Clerks Office 216 Brodie St. 349 Mooney Ave. 600 Victoria Avenue East Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay

The ESR may also be reviewed on the project website www.mcgrawfallspower.ca starting Wednesday April 1st, 2009. MFWP must receive all comments regarding the McGraw Falls G.S. hydroelectric project and/or the ESR, in writing, no later than 4:30pm Friday May 1st, 2009. All comments and correspondence should be sent to: Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power 804 Southdown Rd.. Mississauga ON; L5J 2Y4 Phone: 1-877-774-6560 ext. 305 Email: [email protected] www.mcgrawfallspower.ca

In accordance with the EA Guide, stakeholders must first attempt to resolve any outstanding issues with MFWP during the 30 day review period. In the event that issues cannot be resolved during this period, the concerned party may make a written request to the Director of the MOE’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch at the address provided below, to elevate the project to an Environmental Review or Individual Environmental Assessment. A copy of this elevation request must also be sent to MFWP at the address above. Requests must be made in accordance with the provisions set out in the Ministry of the Environment’s “Environmental Screening Process for Electricity Projects” (The Guide). The Director must receive requests, at the address below for elevation requests by 4:30pm Friday May 1st, 2009. A copy of The Guide can be found on the MOE’s website. www.ene.gov.ca

Director of Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, ON; M4V 1L5 ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Newspaper Ads and Articles

Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal – October 12, Thunder Bay Source October 12, 2007 2007

Wawatay News October 18, 2007

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix A For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Chronicle Journal February 13, 2008

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix B For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

APPENDIX B

McGraw Falls Open House 1 4:30pm – 7:30 pm Valhalla Inn, Thunder Bay

(7 pages)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix B For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

February 26, 2008 Valhalla Inn Thunder Bay, 4pm – 7:30pm

cc Notice of Public Open House

McGraw Falls Hydro Electric Project

McGraw Falls Water Power (MFWP) is proposing to develop a 1.5 – 2 MW hydro electric plant on the Matawin River at the McGraw Falls Dam, 7km southwest of Shabaqua Corners. This will be a peaking development; a rubber dam will be added to the existing weir and will work in coordination with the existing reservoir upstream. The powerhouse will be located approximately 150m downstream of the dam. A wood pole distribution line will run 7km northwest along the existing roadway to the Shabaqua Distribution Station. The map below shows the project location.

The project is subject to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Screening Process for Electricity Projects and the Ministry of Natural Resources Waterpower Program Guidelines. KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. & ORTECH Power will be hosting a public open house on Tuesday February 26, 2008. This forum will introduce stakeholders to the project and its components.

The Open House is scheduled for:

When: Tuesday February 26, 2008 For more information please contact:

Time: 4pm to 7:30pm Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power Where: Scandia Room – First Floor 2395 Speakman Dr. Mississauga ON. L5K 1B3 The Valhalla Inn Phone: 1-877-774-6560 ext. 305 1 Valhalla Rd. Email: [email protected] Thunder Bay, ON www.mcgrawfallspower.ca (807) 577-1121

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix B For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

February 7, 2008

To Whom It May Concern:

McGraw Falls Water Power (MFWP) is proposing to incorporate a 1.5 – 2 MW hydro electric facility on the Matawin River at the McGraw Falls Weir. In order to complete this project MFWP is required to undergo an Environmental Screening as legislated by the Ontario Environmental Assessment for Electricity Projects Regulation (O. Reg. 116/02). Currently MFWP is in the process of concluding field studies and finalizing an operating strategy which will work along side environmental and social values while still maintaining economic feasibility. The field studies which are in progress include:

• Aquatic and terrestrial habitat study • Hydrology study • Archaeology and heritage study • Technical feasibility study

In order to develop an operational strategy, public stake holder input is required. This is a legislative requirement under the environmental assessment act, and is also necessary to examine project impacts on local cultural values, as well as, to identify gaps in the data collection process. Following stakeholder input McGraw Falls Water Power will finalize field studies and the operational strategy according to stakeholder values and feed back.

In order to obtain stakeholder input, MFWP is holding a public open house on February 26, 2008 at the Valhalla Inn in Thunder Bay. This information session is designed to provide individuals and agencies further detail on the project and the study area. There will be information available on the policy and permitting process and status of these items will be discussed. We invite you to attend this information session to review project details; we also encourage you to submit written comments and ask questions of the representatives at the open house; written comments will be collected until April 5th, 2008.

Additionally, media from the Open House will be available on the project website www.mcgrawfallspower.com following the open house. Please find attached a copy of the notice of public open house which will be published in local papers February 21, 2008.

If you have any comments or concerns regarding this project you can contact me by phone 1-877- 774-6560 ext. 305. or by email [email protected]

Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix B For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Thunder Bay Source – Open House 1 Notice – Chronicle Journal – Open House 1 Notice – February 15, 2008 February 15, 2008

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix B For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Images

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix B For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix B For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

McGraw Falls Hydro-Electric Project Open House February 6, 2008 McGraw Falls Water Power (MFWP) is proposing to develop a 2 MW hydro-electric plant on the Matawin River at the McGraw Falls Dam, 7km southwest of Shabaqua Corners. This will be a ‘Run-of-River’ Development with intermittent peaking ability using the existing reservoir upstream. The powerhouse will be located approximately 150m downstream of the dam. A wood pole distribution line will run 7km northwest along the existing roadway to the Shabaqua Distribution Station. Public Consultation is an important and critical aspect of the Environmental Assessment process. Many of the questions below are based upon information provided today. Please take the time to complete and submit this comment sheet. If you wish you can also mail in written comments or questions to the address provided below. For further information or an electronic copy of this survey please refer to www.mcgrawfallspower.ca .

A – Development

1. Do you own property or have rights over property in the Matawin River area? Yes No

a. If yes do you reside: Permanently Seasonally Other ______

2. What types of activities do you undertake in the study area? (Check all that may apply)

Hunting Fishing Camping Commercial Residential ATVing

Trapping Snowmobiling Bird Watching Cycling Mining None

Research (Type) ______Other______

B – McGraw Falls Hydro Electric Project

1. Are you in favour of renewable power? 1a. Are you in favour of Hydro Electric Power?

Yes No Undecided Yes No Undecided

2. Do you feel that this project adequately meets the Ontario government’s commitment to add new sources of renewable power to the province? Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

3. The material presented provided a clear understanding regarding the construction, operation and size of the waterpower development. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix B For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

C – Technical Studies and Reports

1. The Matawin River is a productive water body providing suitable habitat for fish such as walleye, pike and perch. The current hydro electric development plan addresses the need to maintain this resource. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

2. Construction of the McGraw Weir in 1930 resulted in the creation of a wetland upstream which is beneficial to ducks, and black terns. The current development plan addresses the need to maintain this wetland. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

3. Aquatic plants and wetland vegetation, including wild rice, is an important aspect of the Matawin River ecosystem. The current development plan recognizes this aspect and proposes to implement a water management plan aimed at protecting these features. In your opinion is this approach acceptable? Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

4. The Matawin River provides several recreational opportunities including fishing, hunting, canoeing, mining and trail access. Operation of the McGraw waterpower project will not interfere with access for these uses. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

D – Please provide any additional comments or questions in the space provided ______

To receive our newsletter, please fill out the information below: Name: ______Address: ______Town: ______Phone: ______Postal Code: ______Email: ______Date:______ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix C For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

APPENDIX C

McGraw Falls Open House 2 4:30pm – 7:30 pm Valhalla Inn, Thunder Bay

(5 pages)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix C For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Opportunity to Inspect Draft Environmental Screening Report cc McGraw Falls G.S. Hydroelectric Project

McGraw Falls Water Power (MFWP) is proposing to develop a 2 MW intermittent peaking hydroelectric plant on the Matawin River at the McGraw Falls Dam, 7km southwest of Shabaqua Corners. A rubber dam will be added to the existing weir and will work in coordination with the existing reservoir upstream. A new wood pole distribution line will run 3 km from the weir, northwest along the existing roadway to an existing line which feeds into the Shabaqua Distribution Station.

The proposed Project is subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and Regulation 116/01 “Electricity Project Regulation”. Under this Act and its supporting regulations, the Project will be subject to an environmental screening. This requires examining the Project’s potential impacts on the environment including land, water and noise; developing suitable measures to mitigate potential impacts; and conducting public consultation. MFWP has retained ORTECH Power to undertake the environmental screening requirements. MFWP is committed to consulting and working with the public and stakeholder groups throughout the development of the Project. It is MFWP invites interested parties to attend a second public requested that all written comments regarding the Draft ESR be open house regarding the project. This public open house received by December 5, 2008. will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to review elements of the Draft Environmental Screening Report For more information please contact: (ESR), displays of preliminary preferred design strategies, operating design and environmental effects assessment. Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power Copies of the Draft ESR will be made available from 2395 Speakman Dr. Mississauga ON. L5K 1B3 November 7, 2008 to December 5, 2008. Copies are Phone: 1-877-774-6560 ext. 305 available for review at: Email: [email protected]

KBM Forestry, 349 Mooney Ave, Thunder Bay and www.mcgrawfallspower.ca www.mcgrawfallspower.ca

An open house is scheduled for:

When: Monday November 24, 2008

Time: 4pm to 7:30pm (EST)

Where: Scandia Room – First Floor The Valhalla Inn 1 Valhalla Rd. Thunder Bay, ON (807) 577-1121

Information will be collected and used in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and solely for the purpose of assisting MFWP in meeting environmental assessment requirements. This material will be maintained on file for use during the study and may be included in project documentation. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix C For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

November 7, 2008

The Open House is scheduled for: When: Monday November 24, 2008 Time: 4:00pm – 7:30 pm (EST) Where: Scandia Room – First floor Valhalla Inn 1 Valhalla Rd. Thunder Bay (807) 577-1121

Written comments will be collected until December 5, 2008. If you have any questions or comments regarding this project you can contact me by phone 1-877-774-6560 ext. 305 or by email [email protected]

Leah Deveaux ORTECH Power www.mcgrawfallspower.ca

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix C For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Chronicle Journal – Notice of Inspection of Draft Thunder Bay Source – Notice of Inspection of Report - November 7, 2008 Draft Report – November 7, 2008

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix C For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Images

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix C For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

APPENDIX D

Stakeholder & Agency Comments

(32 pages)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Table D-1 McGraw Falls G.S. General Comments

October 2007 - November 2008 Stakeholder Comment Date Response Relevant Group Code Report Section C East west trans-Ontario provincial snowmobile "A" Oct- Noted. 7.4 & 8.4.3 Trail passes immediately adjacent to site of 07 McGraw falls dam and crosses existing road bridge, Shabaqua road is also used for access (food, gas etc.). C Plans to open year round road to McGraw Falls Oct- Road will not be opened year round except in rare emergency situations and 6.6, 7.4, dam has the potential to severely disrupt the 07 potentially during construction. Stakeholder will be notified of any plowing 8.4.3 & Fig snowmobile trail system. required. 3.5

C Consider clearing a right of way sufficiently wide Oct- Will investigate this option further if site access can not be achieved by 3.2.1 enough to allow a road way and groomed trail to 07 snowmobile. coexist in the area of the site or provide another suitable alternative. C Lodging/retailer in Shabaqua should be contacted Oct- This suggested stakeholder group was identified and notified early on, 13 as a stakeholder. 07 through direct mailings.

C Construction schedule and maintenance can affect Oct- Construction access will be developed with stakeholder in mind, notification 7.4 & 10 snowmobile use of road and bridge. 07 of schedule will occur.

S Aesthetic concerns regarding GS placement. Oct- Screening of the power house is possible and will be considered in the final 3.1.2 & 07 design phase. 8.4.3

W Concerned with distribution connection application Oct- At the time of the contact, there was no knowledge of place in queue, n/a and place in the hydro one queue. 07 currently project is #1 to connect. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

H Interested in obtaining copies of the material in Nov- Materials were made available to the public once they had been finalized. n/a order to review them. 07 H Concern over water fluctuations, water taking and Nov- Operating plan within the ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 3.3 & 8.2 impact on waterfowl in the system. 07 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create issues for waterfowl. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water levels considers the potential for waterfowl impacts. Waterfowl should not be unduly impacted by this operating plan.

A Would proponent involve First Nations. Nov- First Nations has been actively engaged. 13.3 & 07 Appendix D H Concerned that the proposed project will destroy Dec- Operating plan within the ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 3.3, 8.2, 9.2 the wetland. 07 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create & Appendix issues for wetland vegetation. The timing and extent of increases in H headpond water levels considers the potential for wetland impacts. Under the proposed operating plan an outward migration of vegetation may occur. Approximately 8% of the wetland, primarily willow and alder swamp, is considered vulnerable and may under go an adaptation or shift in vegetative species. These areas are predicted to transition to a grass/sedge community during the first two to three years of plant operation. H Concern over ability for MNR to be involved. Dec- The proponent is constantly consulting the MNR to ensure the project meets 13 07 the objectives of the Ministry. MNR has 3 members on the WMP team.

H Concern over wild rice and vegetation in the Dec- An outward migration of wild rice along the river channel may occur. 8.2 system. 07 Mitigation measures to ensure the value of this feature is preserved include: Adjustments to the timing and extent of operations, as well as, the planting of suitable wild rice varieties within the wetland. H Wants to ensure that the proponent is held Dec- The GS will be required to operate in a manner consistent with this ESR as 4.2.2 & accountable for maintaining permitted flows and 07 well as the requirements placed upon the project through the Water Appendix H fluctuations. Management Planning process. Compensatory and minimum flows are provided within the ESR. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

H Interested in seeing the project help manage the Dec- This is a goal of the project and the WMP. 3.3, 8.2, 9.2 wetland. 07 & Appendix H H Indicated that design of penstock so that draw Dec- Operating plan provides a figure indicating the extent and timing of 3.2 downs would be possible given a biological 07 potential drawdown periods. justification is preferable. F Concern that black tern nests could be susceptible Dec- Operating plan within ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 8.2, 9.2 & to water level fluctuations, particularly during 07 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create 12 breeding season. issues for back terns. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water levels considers the potential for black tern. Black tern may benefit positively from the proposed operating plan through a control of severe changes in water levels resulting from sudden rain events. L Ongoing research project in the area. Dec- Mapping indicated the research project is outside the project area. n/a 07 U Develop a detailed basin profile for reservoir area. Dec- A bathymetry study has been initiated. Preliminary results were presented at Fig 8-4 07 Open House #2. A representative cross section is provided in the ESR.

U Suggest deep winter draw down avoidance, spring Dec- Drawdowns during the winter period are a project requirement. The 3.3 & levels allowed to peak early and draw down to 07 operating plan attempts to mimic a natural hydrological cycle throughout the Appendix H summer norms ASAP. spring and summer.

W Inquired about connecting to transmission instead Dec- Stakeholder was asked to provide a map, no map was received. The DS 2.2 of DS, stakeholder would be proponent. 07 connection is preferred for technical and economic reasons.

H Desire to protect fish and water fowl habitat. Jan- Several features are designed into the proposed operating plan for the 8.2, 9.2 & 08 protection of fish and waterfowl habitat. Mitigation measures are proposed 12 where negative impacts may occur. Monitoring activities will seek to evaluate the overall impact of plant operations as well as the effectiveness of mitigation measures. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

H Concerns over post commission monitoring and Jan- Post commissioning monitoring will seek to evaluate key areas of the 12 what will happen if ecosystem conditions 08 ecosystem (wetland, waterfowl, etc) with the predictions and assumptions deteriorate. contained within the ESR. Possible mitigation methods include modifications to the timing and extent of increases/drawdowns within the headpond. Approximately 8% of the wetland is predicted to undergo an adaptation or transitional process.

H Indicated the importance of wild rice and millet in Jan- An outward migration of wild rice along the river channel may occur. 8.2, 9.2 & the system, particularly for the continued use of the 08 Mitigation measures to ensure the value of this feature are preserved 12 area by water fowl. include: Adjustments to the timing and extent of operations as well as the planting of suitable wild rice varieties within the wetland. H Concerned over water levels and fluctuations Jan- Operating plan within ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 3.3, 8.2, 9.2 during water fowl breeding season. 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create & Appendix issues for waterfowl. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water H levels considers the potential for waterfowl impacts. Waterfowl should not be unduly impacted by this operating plan.

H There is an importance to maintain access to the Jan- Access will not be restricted with exception of during the construction 3.2, 7.5, 8.5 area. 08 period. & 10

H Interest in involvement of experts in order to Jan- Internal and external experts were consulted throughout the ESR and WMP n/a maintain the wetland. 08 processes.

F Impacts on black tern habitat in relation to water Jan- Operating plan within ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 8.2, 9.2 & level fluctuations and destruction of habitat. 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create 12 issues for back terns. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water levels considers the potential for black terns. Black terns may benefit positively from the proposed operating plan through a control of severe changes in water levels resulting from sudden rain events.

F Interested in seeing a black tern expert consulted in Jan- The proponent has consulted with an internal specialist with expertise in n/a order to suggest acceptable limits on black terns. 08 waterfowl. Other black tern specialists will be further consulted if required. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

F Concerns raised over the health of the upstream Jan- Operating plan within ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 8.2, 9.2, 12 wetland. 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create & Appendix issues for wetland vegetation. The timing and extent of increases in H headpond water levels considers the potential for wetland impacts. Under the proposed operating plan an outward migration of vegetation may occur. Approximately 8% of the wetland, primarily willow and alder swamp, is considered vulnerable and may under go an adaptation or shift in vegetative species. These areas are predicted to transition to a grass/sedge community during the first two to three years of plant operation.

F Concerns over the habitat and lifecycle of Jan- Some overall habitat loss may occur. This habitat loss is mitigated through 8.2 & 9.2 dragonflies downstream of the weir. 08 the provision of compensatory and minimum flow as well as flow variance criteria outlined within the ESR. F Interested in seeing a wildlife/habitat monitoring Jan- Monitoring began in 2008 and will continue well into the project life. 12 project (post commissioning). 08 F Concerned over access to the waterway, increased Jan- The proponent does not have the authority to restrict access to crown land 3.2, 7.5 & traffic can disturb nesting habitats want to see 08 not under their control. Certain items such as parking areas will be required 8.5 access restricted or fenced off completely; no docks for the facility and fencing of these areas may occur. or launch sites, camping areas, picnic tables, outhouses or parking lots should be provided.

F Precautions to avoid silting and contamination of Jan- A sediment control plan will be developed and implemented. 7.1 the water will be taken during the construction 08 phase. T Monitoring of black tern nesting and benchmarking Jan- Planned as a component of the ESR. 12 after commissioning. 08 T Find expert to consult with on black terns issues. Jan- The proponent has consulted with an internal specialist with expertise in n/a 08 waterfowl. Black tern specialists will be further consulted if required. The proposed operating plan reflects the habitat needs for black terns. Pre and post operational studies to determine use of this area by black terns are proposed in this ESR. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

T Full peaking may impact dragonfly eggs and Jan- Operating plan reflects this impact through the provisions of flow variance 8.2 & 9.2 population downstream. 08 criteria (max/min downstream volumes).

T Wild rice in the system is important and should be Jan- An outward migration of wild rice along the river channel may occur. 8.2 & 9.2 protected. 08 Mitigation measures to ensure the value of this feature are preserved include: Adjustments to the timing and extent of operations as well as the planting of suitable wild rice varieties within the wetland. T Road improvements would impact critical habitat Jan- No authority to restrict site access 3.2, 7.5 & through increased site use, boat wakes a concern, 08 8.5 minimal site access preferable. T Wish to be involved in long term monitoring Jan- Stakeholder was offered opportunity to participate in 2008 monitoring. 12 strategy for black terns. 08 S Concerns over the power line routing, travel along Jan- The proposed line route represents the least disruptive route for the 2.2 Shabaqua access road rather than the CN line. 08 distribution line. Further mitigation strategies are proposed to reduce visual and environmental impacts.

S Request for a new trail based on the position of the Jan- The proposed line route represents the least disruptive route for the 2.2 power lines at back end of road detracting from 08 distribution line. Further mitigation strategies are proposed to reduce visual wilderness experience. and environmental impacts. S Prefer penstock hidden from view. Jan- Considered in design plans. 2.2 & 3.2 08 S Prefer no use of boreal road as it may create a loop Jan- Shabaqua Road and the Haner Road are the preferred access route. 3.2 for hunters and cause an influx of sportsman 08 driving in the area. S Preference to see powerhouse built on east side of Jan- Technical reasons require the powerhouse on the west side, mitigation 3.1 the river (aesthetics). 08 options (screening) will be pursued.

S Request that the deck of the bailey bridge below Jan- Will examine feasibility of this. 3.2 & 10 the pool be fixed with new timbers. 08 ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

A Concerned about water level fluctuations, opposed Jan- Operating plan within the ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 3.3 & to large scale fluctuations. 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations associated with operations of Appendix H +/- 2 cm are proposed. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water levels during the spring and fall storage periods is based upon avoidance of significant environmental impacts. These storage periods are a project requirement. A Will water management be possible? Jan- Operating plan, based upon long term flow synthesis, within ESR provides 3.3 & 08 details regarding water management strategies. Appendix H A Walleye spawning habitat requires adequate flow. Jan- Operating plan contains special operating conditions during walleye 3.3, 8.2, 9.2 08 spawning periods to reduce impacts. Under normal hydrological conditions & 12 the generating station will be operated as a run of the river type facility and should not impact walleye spawning.

A Desire for the maintenance of fish passage flows Jan- Lower falls and weir represent an existing barrier to fish passage. Minimum 3.3, 8.2 & were needed. 08 flow and flow variance criteria seek to maintain fish habitat downstream of 9.2 the generating station.

A Prefer status quo for access. Jan- Noted. 3.2 08 A Consider water table impacts. Jan- Water table should not be impacted. 6.2 08 A Consider upstream wetland habitat. Jan- Noted above. 8.2 08 A Possible to use flows and levels to improve habitat Jan- The operating plan seeks to mimic a natural hydrological regime within the 3.3, 8.2, 9.2 conditions. 08 headpond. Headpond storage could be used for short periods of time to & Appendix improve downstream habitat during drought periods. H

T Concern over validity of the science. Jan- All scientific reports were prepared by experts, using required due diligence n/a 08 and scientific methods. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

H Believes the proponent needs to commit to a Feb- Operating plan within ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 12 waterfowl management plan which would include 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create impacts on their habitat, on an annual basis pre and issues for wetland vegetation. The timing and extent of increases in post commissioning monitoring strategies. headpond water levels considers the potential for wetland impacts. Under the proposed operating plan an outward migration of vegetation may occur. Approximately 8% of the wetland, primarily willow and alder swamp, is considered vulnerable and may under go an adaptation or shift in vegetative species. These areas are predicted to transition to a grass/sedge community during the first two to three years of plant operation.

H Concern over planned mid September water level Feb- Fall storage is a project requirement. The timing and extent of increased 3.3, 8.2 & increases, and how they will impact water fowl, 08 inflow into the system varies from year to year and could occur later, but not 9.2 particularly migratory birds; water levels require before the proposed period. The proposed operating plan reflects the need stability through out the fall as traditional hunting to protect waterfowl and migratory birds. Impacts associated with higher period begins at this time. fall water levels may be partially offset by the outward migration of wetland vegetation. The proposed water levels should not significantly impact waterfowl. F Impacts on black tern habitat due to flooding above Feb- Operating plan within ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 3.3, 8.2 & the dam during breeding season, alterations to 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create 9.2 habitat based on flooding, interested in seeing issues for back terns. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water fluctuations mimicking natural flows. levels considers the potential for black tern. Black tern may benefit positively from the proposed operating plan through a control of severe changes in water levels resulting from sudden rain events.

F Concern with the presentation of what appears to Feb- The current reservoir at McGraw Falls is permanent and has existed since at 2.1 be a permanent reservoir. 08 least the 1960s. F Concern with the draft water level fluctuations. Feb- Operating plan within the ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 3.3 & 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations associated with operations of Appendix H +/- 2 cm are proposed. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water levels during the spring and fall storage periods is based upon avoidance of significant environmental impacts. These storage periods are a project requirement. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

F Indicate lack of desire to see floating nest platforms Feb- Noted. 8.2, 9.2 & used as a mitigation measure. 08 12 F Replacement in stop logs may have impacted the Feb- Independent engineering review determined that this did not happen. This n/a water levels behind the weir. 08 action occurred prior to the ESR process.

F Concern over habitat for nesting birds at water Feb- Operating plan within the ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 8.2, 9.2 & level, flooding of their nests may result. 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create 12 issues for waterfowl. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water levels considers the potential for waterfowl impacts. Waterfowl should not be unduly impacted by this operating plan. F Extensive shoreline cutting impacts on marsh and Feb- Noted. There is a low potential that shoreline cutting will be required. If 8.1 wildlife, loss of shoreline shade and increase in 08 shoreline cutting is required this would be limited to the first stand of course sediment runoff, vulnerability to exotics, net loss of timber. Health of shoreline vegetation to be monitored during operations. habitat for birds, mammals and plants.

F Suggestion to utilize experts, consultation has not Feb- Proponent has consulted with internal experts. Further outside expertise will n/a occurred. 08 be consulted if required.

F Information from first open house was not Feb- The stakeholder was given an extension to allow for more time to respond to 13 available after open house, and not enough time 08 materials. The information was posted three weeks late due to a technical was given once it was posted. problem with the webhoster. Hardcopies were delivered to all who requested them.

F Comment sheet was anonymous, no way to ensure Feb- Will be corrected for subsequent open houses. All information from 13 & input from legitimate stakeholder. 08 consultation is examined anonymously. Only one anonymous comment Appendix D sheet was turned in at the open house. F Request water level measurements from reed site Feb- A bathymetry study has been initiated. Preliminary results were presented at Fig 8-4 where black tern nesting has been known to occur. 08 Open House #2. A representative cross section is provided in the ESR.

F Strict adherence to natural water levels, no use of Feb- A variety of scientific studies on the area indicate an increase of water level 3.3 & flap gate to adjust water levels during low water 08 over the existing would be beneficial for the wetland environment. A natural Appendix H period. river regime has not existed in the system for nearly a century. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

F Placement and management of flap gate is a Feb- Operating plan within the ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 3.3 & concern, water level variations. 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations associated with operations of Appendix H +/- 2 cm are proposed. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water levels during the spring and fall storage periods is based upon avoidance of significant environmental impacts. These storage periods are a project requirement. F On going monitoring schedule for wetland and Feb- Monitoring began in 2008 and will continue well into the project life, as 12 black tern colonies should be established. 08 committed to in the ESR

T Black tern nesting habitat sensitive to water Feb- Noted above. 3.3, 8.2 & fluctuations through out the season, changes to 08 9.2 water levels can have significant impacts on species.

T Significant impacts on vegetation in the area can Feb- Noted above. 8.2 & 9.2 have impacts on black tern populations. 08 T Monitoring will focus on black tern activity not Feb- Monitoring will focus on all waterfowl species and waterfowl species 12 necessarily nesting. 08 populations and habitat as well as focusing on other species such as fisheries and vegetation.

T Distribution of upstream flooding is required Feb- Upstream flooding (beyond the wetland) is not predicted. Figure 8-1 8.2, Fig 8-3 perhaps modeling. 08 provides an image of wetland communities which may be impacted under & Fig-8-4 the proposed operations. T Impacts from surging at end of penstock to riverbed Feb- Proposed operating plan incorporates flow variance criteria as well as 3.3, 8.2 & below, daily surge/dry cycle not normal regimen of 08 buffing of the ramp up/down cycle through upstream pools and the 9.2 river, may result in failed breeding of dragonflies compensatory flow pipe. and other impacts further downstream suggest steady flow over 24 hour period instead of surging.

T Suggest that the project run as is, with no raise in Feb- Water level increases and short term storage is a project requirement. 3.3 water level. 08 ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

D Please count me as one of those opposed to any Feb- Noted. n/a development on the pristine Matawin river. 08 Y Oppose any "development" of pristine area, Feb- The MFGS site was specifically selected for development based upon the 2.1, 3.3, 6.3, changes in levels of reservoir area opposed, 08 capacity and low environmental impact. Significant developments in the 8.2 & 9.2 fluctuating water levels to sustain power generation project operations have occurred since this comment was received. would have detrimental effect on fisheries, wildfowl and furbearers. Y No restriction of public access. Feb- No authority to restrict site access. 3.2 08 Y Matawin is a wilderness gem and must be kept Feb- Both federal and provincial governments made commitments to contribute 2.1, 3.3, 6.3, unspoiled. There is more than enough electricity 08 to the addition of new sources of renewable energy. This project is a 8.2 & 9.2 currently being generated in Northwestern Ontario response to the Ontario Power Authority’s Standard Offer Contract without adding this small project to the grid. program; as well as, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund initiative which is designed to provide more development opportunities in the north.

O Concern over the process and public notification. Feb- Stakeholder will receive advance notification of subsequent open houses. 13 08 O Concerned about Shebandowan lake water tables. Feb- No impact. 6.1 08 O Impact on fish and wildlife habitat. Feb- Operating plan within the ESR provides details regarding daily and seasonal 7.2.2 & 08 water level fluctuations. Daily fluctuations of +/- 2 cm should not create 8.2.2 issues for wetland vegetation. The timing and extent of increases in headpond water levels considers the potential for wetland impacts. Under the proposed operating plan an outward migration of vegetation may occur. Approximately 8% of the wetland, primarily willow and alder swamp, is considered vulnerable and may under go an adaptation or shift in vegetative species. These areas are predicted to transition to a grass/sedge community during the first two to three years of plant operation.

O Impact on the dam at the mouth of the Feb- Water flow from the Matawin River represents less than 13% of the total n/a Shebandowan river. 08 flow in the Shebandowan River. Proposed operations are considered to have no significant impact at this location. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

O Flooding in Mabella. Feb- No impact. n/a 08 O Alternative to dam creation. Feb- The dam is already constructed, was constructed in present form in 1969. 2.1 08 O Stakeholder consultation closer to project site. Feb- Noted. lack of available venues pushed the consultation into Thunder Bay. 13 08 O Use of existing roadway or will another be built. Feb- Existing roadways will be used. 3.2.1 08 O Employment of individuals full time following Feb- Some post construction employment. 3.3.2, 8.5 & construction. 08 9.3 O Power supply for mining industry? Feb- Power to be fed into the grid at Shabaqua DS. 2.2 08 N Minimal disruption to site access during Feb- Restricting site access will be kept to a minimum, but will be done with the 7.4 construction period. 08 utmost concern for health and safety of recreationalists, tourists and industry.

N Increase in fishing/hunting pressure on the river a Feb- One launch site will be taken out of use. The second boat launch will not be 8.4.3 concern due to upgrading and maintenance of the 08 significantly upgraded from existing; road access will only be upgraded to road and boat launch. the point where equipment can access the site.

N Would the road to the boat launch be maintained Feb- One launch site will be taken out of use. The second boat launch will not be 8.4.3 and upgraded. 08 significantly upgraded from existing; road access will only be upgraded to the point where equipment can access the site.

N To what standard would the boat launch be Feb- See above. 8.4.3 upgraded if at all. 08 T Nesting platform research indicated they are Apr- Nesting platforms are not currently being proposed. There is a potential 12 dangerous to birds and recommend they not be 08 that during the initial 1-2 years of plant operation some impacts may result. used. Long term positive impacts for black tern nesting are predicted.

L Stream monitoring stations on the system for May- Monitoring stations will not be impacted by the proposed project. n/a research project. 08 ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Z Stakeholder attempting to sell property within the May- Stakeholder to request meeting in the future. n/a study area, interested in the process. Potential to 08 negotiate for rock waste. R Question regarding details of open house process Sep- Added to mailing list to be notified of subsequent McGraw Falls open 13 for McGraw Falls. 08 houses. S Indicated preference for distribution connection at Sep- Noted. Detailed line routing and discussions with Hydro One are ongoing. 2.2 & 9.3 second last pole and not last pole, indicated 08 Additional mitigation measures are proposed to reduce visual and concerns over improved roads and allowed access environmental impacts. to vehicles. Z Interested in setting up meeting, road accesses and Oct- At request will set up meeting to further discuss issues with stakeholder. 10 bridge consultations. 08 L Concern regarding the connection route and Nov- Discussions with the stakeholder revealed that the size of the line may no 2.2 & impacts on stream and weather monitoring stations 08 longer pose an issue, detailed planning of the distribution line will be done Appendix F located downstream on the Matawin River. with this concern in mind, and methods will be taken to avoid disturbance with the identified stations. Proposed line route represents the least disruptive alternative.

H Concern over water levels and the sustainability of Nov- Information on the wild rice crop at the Matawin was collected with the help 3.3, 8.2 & the wild rice crop upstream of the weir from 08 of a local expert. The proposed operating plan predicts that the wild rice 9.2 addition of the rubber dam. crop will adapt to higher water levels through an outward migration. Additional mitigation measures proposed within the ESR include adjustments to plant operations and planting wild rice varieties suited to the operating regime.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Table D-2 McGraw Falls Open House 1 Comments February 26, 2008 – Thunder Bay, Ontario Sheet Comment Response Relevant # Report Section 2 I am part of a stream hydrology project at Lakehead university After obtaining coordinates of sampling station a mapping exercise n/a (forward.lakeheadu.ca) studying harvesting impacts on streamflow and determined there would not be no impact. water quality. We have two watersheds below the weir plus a weather station in the area (not impacted) and the watersheds above the weir. Two are tributaries of Sackville creek, the third a trib of serpent creek. According to your projects of water level rise I don't think that flow in our watersheds will be impeded but we would like to be kept in the loop. Thank you for your time. 6 I am concerned that road access to and beyond this project area not be The proponent has no right to restrict access along the main 3.2 & 9.3 restricted. Traditional access must be allowed. Although I use this area roadway. occasionally in the snow free time of year, there is so very much history and points of interest here. 7 I do have concerns about the effect of water level fluctuations on the wild The proposed operating plan predicts that the wild rice crop will 3.3, 8.2, 9.2 rice. If the water level is raised in mid September the rice will be flooded. adapt to higher water levels through an outward migration. This & 12 Even though it will have matured the ducks may not use the marsh in the outward migration will reduce the impact of an increase in fall water same way if the rice is flooded out. this could be detrimental to the ducks depths. Diving and dabbling ducks searching for fallen wild rice and it will surely be detrimental to the hunt. seen along the river bottom should not be unduly impacted. Additional mitigation measures include modified plant operations and the planting of wild rice varieties more suited to the operating regime.

10 Concerned that public access may be limited. Powerhouse location seems to Proponent has no right to restrict access; Shoreline fishing can still 3 & 9.3 be existing Bailey Bridge. Will there still be opportunities to fish from occur. Powerhouse location not proposed for a currently accessible shore? I am assuming road will be upgraded/maintained - will public still be area. allowed to use road? ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

11 Until a concrete wildlife plan is worked out and until the proponents plan is Noted. Wildlife and habitat needs are considered within the ESR. 3.3, 8.2, 9.2 better defined we are unable to agree with the plan. Post operational monitoring will seek to re examine key natural & 12 features at a level consistent with the baseline habitat report.

12 1) winter drawdown impact potential for losing species due to freezing out Impacts to overwintering mammals and other species are discussed 8.2 & 9.2 2) impact on contaminants levels in fish possible. within the ESR. The extent of the winter drawdown is not predicted to result in significant impacts. Post operational water quality monitoring, including mercury sampling will occur. Increased contaminant levels in fish populations are not predicted. 13 Please ensure that public access is maintained with no restrictions, Proponent has no right to restrict access, boat launch will be 3.2 preferably enhance the boat launches by the addition of gravel relocated upstream, enhancement may be possible 15 Agree to having hydro plant built there as long as access to river for fishing Access to river way will be maintained. 3.2 is not closed off. C1 The Matawin river reserve is unique, beautiful area. It includes an important Public access will be maintained, operating plan will ensure 3.2, 8.2 & wetland, a beautiful rapids/gorge/river area, diverse wildlife habitat. This ecosystem is maintained in good health. 9.2 area known as "Sam young's farm" is of historical importance to many people locally. I hope public access (continuing (ongoing) and the preservation of these values (not all necessarily monetary) has been and will continue to be taken into account when making any plans for this area.

C2 Build power plant we need clean hydro-as long as it meet all standards. Noted. n/a

C3 I have concerns over the transmission line going through my property and Noted. Detailed connection point and routing discussions occurring 2.2 would like some detail regarding size, clearing around the line etc. I have with Hydro One. Proposed mitigation measures include maintaining property where the river comes closest to the road just before (name a vegetative screening along sight lines where possible. Detailed withheld) farm thanks. line routing in this area will be discussed with the property owner prior to construction. C4 I think this is a very good project. Noted. n/a ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

AO1 Hope no increased access to this site for motor boats - it is fairly quite now Boat and recreationalist use of the area is popular; the proponent can 3.3 & 8.5 so good for wildlife. No launch facilities, no road improvements or not restrict access. The existing boat launch will be closed; access of organized parking lots and launch ramps - this would ruin it; (in margins) the same quality will be created to an existing upstream boat launch. your plan has too much flooding, leave it alone, no changes. Road improvements may be required for site access by construction equipment, these would be minor. Parking lot would be contained within the fenced off area only.

AO2 The current proposal appears to create too much flooding of the wetland. (in The proposed operating plan has been modified since this comment. 3.3 & margin) the example water management draft appears to flood everything. A minor increase in the extent of the existing wetland is predicted Appendix H associated with higher annual average levels. No permanent flooding is proposed. AO3 Leave nature alone to regulate the water flows and levels. Just use the power Water level management is a project requirement. The proposed 3.3, 8.2, 9.2 that could be produced using natural flow regimen - water level operating plan has been modified since this comment. The proposed & manipulation that you propose will result in damage to the wetland habitats operating plan seeks to mimic a natural hydrological cycle. Appendix H above the weir; risk of flooding out ducks and black tern colony above the weir is high with the sort of manipulations you are planning. (in the margins) Wetland will definitely change and be damaged with your plan!

AO4 The project cannot go ahead without certainty around changing water levels. The proposed operating plan has been modified since this comment. 8.2, 9.2, 12 The area includes a provincially significant wetland. The reservoir area A minor increase in the extent of the existing wetland is predicted & currently supports black terns, a species of concern and regionally rare. associated with higher annual average levels. Proponent has no Appendix H Public access to the development area must be strictly controlled. authority to restrict site access. AO5 Too much interference with normal water flow patterns. I expect far too Water level management is a project requirement. The proposed 3, 8.2 & 9.2 much flooding upstream of the weir from this proposal - damage to the operating plan has been modified since this comment. The proposed marshes, degradation of the wildlife habitat due to all this flooding and operating plan seeks to mimic a natural hydrological cycle. No water level manipulation. permanent flooding is proposed.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Table D-3 McGraw Falls Open House 2 Comments November 24, 2008 – Thunder Bay, Ontario Sheet # Comment Response Relevant Report Section OHF 1 Good presentation and watershed Noted. Purchasing shares is not available at this time. n/a improvements, I support the development. Is there an opportunity to buy shares in the development? Please advice. OHF 2 Keep up the good work. We will Noted. n/a make good use of the roads for hunting and fishing. Like to see new projects, especially hydro. OHF 3 Waterfowl nesting, rearing and Fall storage is a project requirement. The timing and extent of increased inflow 3, 8.2, 9.2 & Appendix H protection of migration food sources into the system varies from year to year and could occur later, but not before the must be paramount in the planning proposed period. Increases in inflow may not occur in October and thus prevent for water level control. *water fall storage requirements. The proposed operating plan reflects the need to retention in fall should be pushed to protect waterfowl and migratory birds. Impacts associated with higher fall late October to ensure food sources water levels may be partially offset by the outward migration of wetland are not flooded prior to migration vegetation. The proposed water levels should not significantly impact from north. waterfowl.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Table D-4 McGraw Falls G.S. Draft ESR Public Comments October 2007 - October 2008 Source Comment Response Relevant Report Section Concerns regarding water fluctuations in There is a potential that during the initial 1-2 years of plant operation 8.2 & 9.2 wetland and impact on black terns and some impacts may result. Long term positive impacts for black tern vegetation sustaining black tern habitat. nesting are predicted through control of headpond water elevations. Areas within the wetland identified as having a high degree of vulnerability to adaptation are not areas where black terns are known to nest. Concerns regarding proposed mitigation Nesting platforms are not currently being proposed. An assessment of 12 strategies: feel that nesting platforms are areas within the wetland subject to a high degree of vulnerability inappropriate and that monitoring area for (adaptation) are not identified as areas where black terns are known to changes is not aggressive enough. nest. Additional operating information has been included in the current ESR. Request the inclusion of a wildlife scientist The project team contains such a wildlife scientist with knowledge of n/a with black tern expertise be consulted. black terns. Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Wish to see the water level no higher than Water elevations currently exceed 0.5 m above weir during certain 3 0.5m above the weir. events. The preferred operating plan seeks to mimic a natural hydrological cycle. Additional consideration has been placed on the timing and duration of water elevation increases. Requested information on water level Proposed operating graph provide a scatter plot of historic water n/a variations. elevations. Additional hydrological information is presented in the ESR. Suggest better modeling of the impacts and The predicted impacts resulting from the project are based upon n/a the changes to the wetland both over the extensive field surveys including; land survey transects at selected short and long term so to better understand locations along the river, a bathymetry study, two and a half years of and mitigate impacts to black terns and their on-site water flow monitoring, aerial photography, and wetland habitat. evaluation.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Table D-5 First Nations Consultation Log

Method Fort William First Nations Lac Des Mille Lac Date Contacted Purpose Notes Delivered package with project description Letter Yes Yes 29-Aug-07 Project information and details Phone Call Yes 17-Sep-07 Left a message Follow up to earlier Phone Call Yes 17-Sep-07 letter

Notice of Invitation to be involved in archaeology Letter Yes Yes 24-Sep-07 Archeological study study Phone Call Yes 24-Sep-07

Email Yes 9-Oct-07 Archeological Study Arranged to meet for Archeological study Notice of change in Date for Archeological Email Yes Yes 9-Oct-07 Archeological Study study Arrangements and compensation relating to archeological study travel costs and field Email Yes 10-Oct-07 Archeological Study work Archaeological Phone Call Yes 12-Oct-07 Study Confirming details Archaeological Thanking for FWFN's participation in the email Yes 13-Oct-07 Study study Assisted and Observed Archaeological Visit Yes October 15-17, 2007 Archeological Study assessment on McGraw Falls site

Generated from FWFN to ORTECH Project information requesting info for a report for band council email Yes 5-Nov-07 request based on study observations (archaeology) ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Project information informed FWFN that we do not have the email Yes 6-Nov-07 request information he is requesting at this time. Issue background Sent FWFN a copy of historical information email Yes 12-Nov-07 information for McGraw Falls

Archeological Study sent a copy of the archaeology report as well Letter Yes 11-Feb-08 & Open House as an invitation to the open house Letter notifying(inviting) stakeholders to Letter Yes Yes 12-Feb-08 Open House open house

Emails discussing stage III Archaeology Archaeological Assessment and inviting them to take part, Email Yes Yes 3-Jul-08 Study letter and package to be issued Asked to update on status of consultations Email Yes Yes 30-Sep-08 Status Update with FN Log of consultation was sent, status updated further consultation will occur following Email Yes 3-Oct-08 Status Update October 17th election Letter notifying (inviting) stakeholders to open house and opportunity to inspect draft report, enclosed copy of the noticed letter Yes Yes 7-Nov-08 Open House published to the papers.

Proponent sent email regarding draft ESR, and also requesting a letter outlining the Email Yes Yes 10-Nov-08 Outgoing correspondence efforts made for the project ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

LDML responded to email, indicated he will be present at open house, and agreed to draft a letter. Also updated on outcome of the LDML election and new election of new Email Yes 10-Nov-08 Response chief

Email Yes 10-Nov-08 Contact Info LMDL provided address to send draft report Confirming ongoing consultation with Xeneca in regards to this project & LDML Letter Yes 11-Nov-08 Letter relations Email Yes 12-Nov-08 Letter information regarding consultation letter LDML email to let Proponent know status of relationship with Xeneca, and materials Email Yes 16-Nov-08 Status Update requested, and to request LDML was present at MFWP open house, newly elected Chief could not make it due to in person Yes 24-Nov Open House other engagements.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Agency Comments & Responses

March 30, 2009

Ministry of Natural Resources 435 James Street South, Suite B001 Thunder Bay, ON P7E 6S8

Attention: Jeff Black

Subject: Response to Review of McGraw Falls Generating Station January 2009 Draft Environmental Screening Report

Mr. Black;

We wish to recognize the significant level of effort that the Thunder Bay District Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has committed to this project including participation in project scoping, site visits and review of various environmental reports. The consultation process to date has provided the proponent with useful information and guidance on valued ecosystem components.

We are pleased to note that through extensive dialog over the past two years with the MNR and other stakeholders, we have been able to identify and mitigate all major environmental issues surrounding this project. Potential impacts on the upstream wetland have been mitigated by limiting the change in water levels, improving late summer drawdowns, and delaying fall refill until October. The potential for significant impacts on the downstream fish habitat have been mitigated by operating the plant as a run-of- river plant during the sensitive spawning period and reducing daily flow fluctuations during the summer season. In these mitigative efforts, we have gone as far as feasible for a daily peaking plant.

In response to your February 23rd letter and review of the Draft Environmental Screening Report (ESR) by the MNR we are please to provide the following additional information which we trust will address, in part, your concerns. As you are aware the project is currently proceeding through the MNR’s Water Management Planning (WMP) process where comments regarding the implementation and enforcement of the targeted plant operations will be addressed. Our technical project team remains available and committed to open discussion regarding additional comments or questions you may have.

Comment: The only flow parameter discussed was the long term flow (LTAF). Other metrics such as monthly/seasonal median and Q80/20, magnitude and frequency of bankfull and riparian flows and average ramping rates are required. Any meaningful discussion of proposed compensatory flows and daily peaking variations requires reference to the existing unregulated flow regime.

Response: The key hydrological and operational parameters for the Matawin River at McGraw Falls have been established and are provided below for your review. These parameters will also appear in the final version of the ESR. Other parameters, such as generator ramp up rates require a detail design analysis and are not ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

presently available. In the interim the ESR will provide a discussion of these parameters and how the proponent seeks to address potential environmental impacts.

The flow metric parameters provided below are based upon the long term flow synthesis analysis as described within the December 2007 Hatch report entitled “Hydrology Review”. The proponent has also undertaken several site specific studies and stream flow analysis including monitoring of daily headpond water levels and a Basin Profile study examining several downstream pools. These studies provide additional supporting information for the development of compensatory flows and daily flow variance criteria presented in the ESR.

Table 1: McGraw Falls Flow Metrics Current and Proposed Operations Flow Current Description Ecosystem Feature Proposed Value Metric Value Flow exceeded 80% of the Q80 time Natural Range of Assessed on a monthly basis below Flow exceeded 20% of the Flow Q20 time Flow exceeded 50% of the Q50 Average Flow Assessed on a monthly basis below time Flow exceeded 99% of the Minimum Flow, Q99 time, similar to 7Q10 (Pyrce, maintain deeper Assessed on a monthly basis below 2004) pools in stream The lowest stream flow for Low flow indicator No change: The project seven consecutive days that regarding system seeks to balance daily inflow would be expected to occur stress and habitat and outflow from the 7Q10 1.4 m3/s once in ten years. maintenance (Pyrce, generator. Off peak 2004) generation hours may result in flows less than this value. The lowest stream flow for Low flow indicator No change: The project seven consecutive days that regarding system seeks to balance daily inflow would be expected to occur stress and habitat and outflow from the once in ten years. maintenance (Pyrce, generator. Off peak 7Q20 2004) 0.8 m3/s generation hours may result in flows less than this value during the fall and winter periods when inflows are typically at their lowest. Bankfull flow is described as Represents dominant No change. Maximum Bankfull the discharge at which water or channel forming 30 m3/s generating flow through the Flow just begins to enter the flow (MNR 2003) turbine is 15 m3/s. floodplain Riparian flows are defined as Overbank flows overbank events that occur inundate riparian with a frequency of between areas, resulting in No change. Maximum Riparian 1:2 and 1:20 year return period significant >30 m3/s generating flow through the Flow interaction between turbine is 15 m3/s. the channel and floodplain (MNR 2003)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Table 2: Monthly Long Term Flow Averages and Percentile Values

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Q80 3.8 3.4 4.7 23.0 32.2 20.7 11.3 6.6 9.9 10.3 8.9 5.7 Q20 1.2 1.3 1.9 12.0 14.2 9.2 4.7 2.6 2.5 3.5 3.0 1.8 Q50 2.3 2.4 3.5 16.7 21.7 12.8 7.0 4.4 4.3 5.1 4.9 3.0 Change in 0.20 0.20 0.20 -1.35 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 -1.01 0.20 0.20 Q50 Flow Q50 2.5 2.6 3.7 15.4 22.0 13.2 7.4 4.7 4.3 4.1 5.1 3.2 Operation

In general the proposed operating plan seeks to balance inflow and outflow on a daily basis. Spring and fall refill events provide an opportunity for short term storage of water which will be released on a gradual basis. For this reason monthly and even daily average flows are similar to natural levels. The proposed spring storage volume of 3,500,000 m3 achieved by holding back a portion of the flow over 30 days near the end of the spring freshet equates to a decrease in average monthly flow of 1.35 m3/s during April. This same storage volume released after the freshet over the span of three months equates to an increase in average monthly flows of 0.34 m3/s during June, July and August. A similar method is applied to the fall refill (October) where storage is achieved over a 30 day period and released over the course of the following five months.

Operation of the inflatable rubber dam will not significantly impact bankfull or riparian flows as the capacity of the turbine is limited to 15 m3/s. The frequency of bankfull and riparian flows could show a slight decrease as heights above the weir associated with these flow events will decrease by a few centimeters based upon the geometry of the weir, penstock and height/flow relationship as outlined in the 2007 Hatch hydrology study. The ESR now contains an estimate of bankfull flow and levels based on April 30th, 2008 field observations and prescribed methods. Riparian flows are estimated to be much greater than turbine capacity and the 1 m upper operating limit for the headpond.

Specific hourly generator ramp up rates to date have not been established and will be required to take the current “ramping’ effect of significant precipitation events into consideration. As shown in Figure 3-7 of the ESR a significant rain event occurred in the days immediately prior to September 20, 2007. Figure 1 provides an illustration of this event and the associated increase in headpond elevations during this day. Table 3 provides the maximum values corresponding to this period. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Figure 1: Headpond Elevation vs. Time (September 20th, 2007)

Headpond Elevation September 20th, 2007

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40 Height Aboveweir (m)

0.35

0.30 0:00:00 1:00:00 2:00:00 3:00:00 4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00 19:00:00 20:00:00 21:00:00 22:00:00 23:00:00 Time (hour)

Table 3: September 20, 2007 Maximum Values

` 1 hr change 8 hr change 24 hr change Flow Head Flow Head Flow Head Flow Head (m) (cms) (m) (cms) (m) (cms) (m) (cms) Max Value 0.53 28.40 0.04 3.71 0.10 7.80 0.18 11.06

Comment: The methods used to synthesize the long term daily flow series require further explanation.

Response: The methods used to synthesize the long term daily flow series is contained in a stand alone report dated December 4, 2007 by Hatch entitled “Hydrology Review”. A copy of this information will be included within the ESR. An electronic copy of this report is further attached to this communication.

Comment: The importance of this provincially significant wetland for a variety of species is well documented in the background report and acknowledged in the ESR. It is suggested that this proposal could provide benefits to the function of the wetland ecosystem. The anticipated benefits center around the late summer drawdown. Some support from the literature is required regarding the benefits of a drawdown of the proposed magnitude and frequency. The historic late summer water levels derived from the long ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

term flow synthesis need to take leakage into account. Otherwise the historic levels will be high and the increased amount of drawdown will be overstated.

Response:

Benefits of Summer Drawdown The height, width and design of the existing weir prevents water level in the wetland from fluctuating as much as it did prior to construction of the weir, reducing the average range of annual water level fluctuations. The predicted effect was reduced vegetation diversity in the wetland. Wetland diversity increases with an annual flooding – drawdown cycle. Flooding kills off trees and shrubs and deposits nutrient-rich silt; drawdown allows some species to germinate and oxidizes sediments (Keddy 2000, Mitsch and Gosselink 1986, Nilsson and Berggren 2000). The overall effect of the flooding and drawdown cycle is to increase the vegetation diversity (Figure 2).

References Blom, C. W. P. M. and L. A. C. J. Voesenek. 1996. Flooding: The survival strategies of plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:290–295. Gartner Lee Ltd. 2003. Draft for discussion: Matawin River wetland assessment. Unpublished report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Keddy, P. 2000. Wetland Ecology. Principles and Conservation. Cambridge University Press. Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Leakage Through the Stop Log Bay Discussions on impacts of leakage through the current weir are only relevant during those periods where no water is overflowing the weir and when inflows are low. Leakage through the stop log bay was never a design feature of the weir and represented a deteriorating condition. Leakage should not be viewed as a natural condition.

Current leakage through the stop log bay can be estimated from Table 5 of the “Matawin River Aquatic and Terrestrial Inventory – Existing Conditions”, (Northern Bioscience, 2008) which measured the main river channel flow after the weir during very low flow conditions to be 0.189 m3/s. This value has since been adjusted, based upon updated information to 0.1m3/s. An accounting of leakage and the associated impact within the headpond at these rates is not considered practical. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Figure 2. Effects of water level stabilization on wetland vegetation (Keddy 2000).

Comment: The anticipated impacts of increased spring water levels and the length of time for the wetland to recover need to be further supported.

Response: On average spring water levels are predicted to increase from their historic average levels but remain well within the current range of values. The target spring levels take into consideration the requirement for light penetration within the root zone of aquatic vegetation. The depth of average light penetration within the headpond was measured to be 1.15m (Northern Bioscience, 2008) which is significantly less than the proposed target line of 0.67m.

Wetland Vegetation Recovery Time Response of the wetland vegetation to the new water management regime is expected to parallel the changes after the construction of the weir. The concrete weir was constructed in 1969 to replace an old wooden weir that had fallen in disrepair. The original 1930’s weir apparently increased water levels by about 1.4 m and construction drawings indicate that the concrete weir increased water levels by an ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

additional 0.6 m. Although no wetland monitoring was conducted in the years immediately after construction, flooded trees and alder and willow communities probably died back within a few years. Tall shrub species will require 5 to 10 years or more to reach their former abundance at the suitable elevation. Floating mat vegetation likely floated with the rising water level to stabilize at the new elevation. Sedge and horsetail communities on the floating mat likely recovered quickly through rhizome growth (Gartner Lee 2003). Submergent vegetation and wild rice probably responded to the new water levels within 1 to 2 years since they rely heavily on annual seed production for regeneration. Wild rice production may decrease in the short term until it is established in the appropriate depth zone. By 1982 (13 years after reconstruction of the weir) the wetland was considered an important moose aquatic feeding area, waterfowl habitat, and wild rice production area (Todesco 1983). This evidence suggests that, in the absence of observations made prior to this period, significant wetland functions should return to their current levels in less than 13 years.

Comment: Potential negative impacts resulting from increased fall storage and winter drawdown on wetland vegetation and fall waterfowl use remain a concern.

Response:

Increased fall water storage has the potential to cause oxygen stress to roots and rhizomes of wetland vegetation plants through water logging of soils (Blom and Voesenek1996). Gas diffusion is severely limited in flooded soils. Under the proposed regime water storage will be on average about 25 cm higher than average present levels through the fall and early winter before dropping to weir level in late winter.

The proponent has re-visited the concerns expressed with the timing and magnitude of the proposed fall storage and is prepared to modify the timing of this event. The proposed timing of the fall storage will be moved back in the calendar year from September 1st to October 10th as an additional mitigation measure for both wetland vegetation and waterfowl use. After reviewing the hydrological information an elimination or significant modification in the magnitude of fall storage would result in significant loss of generation potential over the winter months and a change in this value is not being proposed.

Most of the fall flooding zone consists of marsh community (Figure 3). Increased fall flooding is unlikely to cause significant changes in this zone since it is flooded from September to April under present conditions. Plants inhabiting this zone are adapted to anoxic soil conditions and are metabolically inactive (and therefore have low oxygen requirements) during the winter. In contrast, increased fall and winter flooding of the alder thicket community will probably cause die-back of the shrubs and other species. Eventually, alder will migrate to a higher elevation and recolonize the outer fringe of the wetland above the fall flooding level. As discussed above the process is expected to take less than 13 years.

Changes in the winter drawdown are unlikely to have significant impacts on vegetation communities since water levels will not decrease below the present (weir) level. Presently the water level drops from about 25 cm above the weir in fall to weir level in late winter. The water elevation change will be about 50 cm under the proposed regime. ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Figure 3: Profile of Existing and Proposed Fall Water Depths

Figure 5: Typical section of the Matawin River wetland showing vegetation communities.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Fall Waterfowl Use Wild rice grows in narrow bands along the open channel edge throughout much of the impoundment in waters depths of 0 to 1.5 m in depth (see Figure 8-3). Wild rice is a key feature of the wetland and an important food source for staging waterfowl.

While elevated spring water levels can impact wild rice germination and growth, the duration and magnitude of the targeted spring refill are intended to minimize the potential for impact. The germination of wild rice is temperature dependent with germination occurring at approximately 13 C (Lee and Stewart, 1981). This temperature seems to occur in mid May on the Matawin, but annual variation should be expected. Recorded water temperature on the Matawin River in 2007 and 2008 indicates that 13 C occurred on May 9th in 2007 and May 24th in 2008. Planned water depths are 64 and 61 cm above weir height on these dates and could result in total water depths in wild rice zones of 65 to 1.65 cm. Subsequent declining levels should encourage germination and tillering of wild rice.

Potential impacts of higher spring water levels could include reduced rice production due to a narrowing of the width of the bands of rice along the sides of the open water channel (E. Armson, Ducks Unlimited Canada, personal communication, March 24, 2009). Higher spring water levels are expected to create a successional outward shift of wetland vegetation over time and allow the bands of wild rice to extend in width.

Seeding with higher yielding and more depth tolerant varieties of wild rice could potentially enhance grain yield in the Matawin River. Counts and Lee (1988) demonstrated that variations existed in the response of four commercially available populations of wild rice to the uniform depth regime present in an experimentally seeded lake near Ignace, Ontario. Seeding of wild rice within wetland habitats is frequently undertaken by organizations such as Ducks Unlimited (P. Lee, personal communication, March 24, 2009).

Wild rice germination and growth will be monitored in the post-operational habitat study with the assistance of qualified professionals to determine whether wild rice is declining in abundance and if seeding of tolerant varieties is required. This monitoring effort will be repeated in the event wild rice seeding is conducted

Wild rice can be particularly sensitive to high water fluctuations during late summer. The planned gradual decrease in water levels during the late summer is predicted to enhance wild rice production.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Increased water levels during waterfowl staging periods may impact the ability of dabbling ducks (mallards, teal, etc.) to access wild rice and other food on the bottom of the wetland. A delayed fall refill date of October 10th will be used to avoid this impact during the peak staging period for dabbling waterfowl.

Comment: It is not clear how plant operations will incorporate the proposed target curve shown in figure 3-7. Maintaining headpond levels between the upper and lower operating bands does not provide any assurance that the proposed operation will not result in negative impacts to the wetland. For example, the discussion of ‘buffering’ of rain events indicates that the strategy will be to capture and store the water, which may result in an increase in duration of high water levels compared to the transitory nature of rain events currently experienced. This is a significant departure from the natural flow regime which needs to be discussed.

Response:

The generating station will be controlled remotely and will therefore require field instrumentation and controls to monitor headpond elevations and generator output. The “logic” to be used by the system will consider a number of factors such as current headpond elevation, changes in this value over time, as well as generation level. The system will have the ability to manage and balance the system at inflow rates up to 15 m3/s. Inflow rates above 15 m3/s exceed the capacity of the turbine and additional logic will be employed to regulate the operation of the rubber dam. The system will further have limited ability to impact inflows at rates approaching bankfull and riparian flow, although some short term flood management provisions could be built into the system.

It should be noted that the “target line” is based upon average hydrological data which implies that on average the target line will be achieved. Weekly and seasonal fluctuations in the natural hydrological input into the system will be reflected in the actual operating line and the exact timing and magnitude shown on the target line will not be achievable for all years. The weekly, seasonally and year over year variability of the system is demonstrated by the two and half years of on site water level data presented in Figure 3-7 of the ESR.

A further explanation of “buffering” of rain events and situations where this feature will be employed is provided below for clarification. Similar to this discussion regarding the proposed target line this feature will require “logic” to be built into the control systems.

The proposed operating plan will seek to buffer significant rain events through monitoring of changing headpond elevations. Changes in headpond elevation over time will trigger the station to increase/decrease the generating rate relative to the current rate. In simple terms, if the generating station is operating and headpond elevations are increasing inflow into the system exceeds the current generation rate and this rate will be increased to balance the inflow rate. This feature will allow the generating station to pass water through the station in advance of the peak inflows associated with precipitation events thus reducing the flood peak normally associated with this event. Precipitation events producing inflow in excess of 15 m3/s exceed the generator capacity and this excess flow, or a portion of it, will be held back behind the rubber dam where it will be released through the generator station as inflows start to decline from the 15 m3/s value. The station logic will adjust operations to correspond with the target operational value. Again, this logic will require the assessment of multiple factors, several of which will be seasonally dependent. (i.e.: the requirement to protect Black Tern nesting, fish spawning, and waterfowl staging). The detailed system logic required to provide a comprehensive discussion of this feature has not been developed and will require involvement from the Water Management Planning committee.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix D For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Regards;

Scott Manser, P.Eng Senior Environmental Engineer ORTECH Environmental

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

APPENDIX E

Impact & Mitigation Tables

(14 pages)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Table E-1 Environmental Assessment Summary Related to Construction

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Activity/Description Significance Air and Noise Air and Noise Dust and noise may result from IE Inspect and wet down unpaved road sections when required. Inspect IE Yes construction activities and use of vehicles leaving the construction site. Cover trucks hauling heavy equipment. aggregate. Limit blasting and construction work to daylight hours and week-days. Send notification to land owners and land use permit holders. Erect signage and use an audible siren system warning of impending blasting operations. Use blast mats where possible. Surface and Ground Water Surface Water Quality Surface drainage throughout the IE Prepare a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. Install sediment IE Yes construction phase could affect control measures (e.g. silt fence) around the laydown and work surface water quality and, areas. Install a silt curtain across the dam, tailrace and consequently, fish habitat, by compensatory flow pipe to prevent suspended sediment from inflow of sediment-laden water entering the river. or contaminated water. Store aggregates (including excavated materials) and construction materials in specially designated areas. Restrict movements of construction vehicles areas around water. Minimize the area disturbed by work as much as possible. Accidental fuel, oil, concrete, IE Perform heavy machinery and vehicle maintenance in a designated IE Yes grout, and chemical spills site equipped with control measures (e.g. containment), away from associated with the use of heavy waterbodies. machinery and equipment used for concrete pouring and grouting Store and handle oils, greases, gasoline, diesel, concrete, grout, and can deteriorate surface water other potential hazardous materials such as to avoid spillage (e.g. quality by contamination run-off. containment). Prepare a Spill Contingency Plan. Have suitable materials (e.g., absorbent, brooms, etc.) for the cleanup of fuel spills. Any spillage of oil, grease, gasoline, diesel or other hazardous material shall be controlled and reported in accordance with provincial and federal legislation.

Keep all equipment, vehicles, tools, etc., in good repair, well maintained and suitable for the work to be done. Regularly inspect hydraulic lines.

Only operate heavy equipment in the dry in dewatered areas.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Activity/Description Significance Impacts to water quality resulting IE Work in wetted areas will occur during periods of low inflow IE Yes from disturbances to river (typically during late summer and winter) to minimize these sediments. (coffer dam disturbances. Silt curtains and flow diversion techniques will be installation, compensatory flow used to mitigate the potential for high levels of sedimentation pipe installation) entering the water course.

Treatment or removal of turbid waters behind coffer dam before removal of structure.

Natural Environment Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Clearing of vegetation due to IE Minimize size of all construction laydown areas and access roads. NE Yes construction facilities, Wherever possible, leave a vegetative buffer along the shoreline. Re- powerhouse, access roads and vegetate site areas following construction period. transmission line construction. Fish and Fish Habitat Injury and possible death of fish IE Drilling, blasting and excavating of the intake and tailrace will occur IE Yes from underwater blast-generated in the dry. A coffer dam will be used. DFO blasting guidelines will sonic waves. Impairment of fish be followed. Avoid blasting/excavation in new tailrace during respiration due to construction- spawning period. generated suspended sediment.

Accidental fuel, oil, concrete, IE See Surface Water Quality. IE Yes grout, and chemical spills associated with the use of heavy machinery and equipment used for concrete pouring and grouting can deteriorate fish habitat by contamination run-off.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Activity/Description Significance Fish and fish habitat in the areas IE Have Sediment and Erosion Control Plan in place. Provide sediment IE Yes surrounding the dam, tailrace, and controls where necessary to contain the movement of sediment laden compensatory flow pipe will be water on-site. affected during construction by temporary dewatering using Discussions with MNR and DFO will occur prior to removal of blast cofferdams, excavation, blasting material to determine if there is any benefit in leaving some of this and movement of materials. material in the river channel to create fish habitat. Any rock would be tested for leachate and lakefill fill requirements before placement in water. Habitat enhancement may consist of altering the slope of filled material within engineering standards to MNR's specifications in an effort to provide suitable spawning areas for walleye. Quantities of blast rock may also be deposited downstream of the dam, to DFO/MNR's specifications, to provide underwater structure and diversify flows.

Any fish trapped or stranded during dewatering of cofferdam will be captured and relocated to the river. Surface drainage throughout the IE Prepare a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. Install sediment IE Yes construction phase could affect control measures (e.g. silt fence) around the laydown and work surface water quality and, areas. Install a silt curtain across the dam, tailrace and consequently, fish habitat, by compensatory flow pipe to prevent suspended sediment from inflow of sediment-laden water entering the river. or contaminated water. Minimize the area disturbed by work as much as possible. Socio-economic Local Traffic Disruption to local traffic due to IE Post signs along Highway 11 to give advance notice of traffic IE Yes increased truck traffic in area interruptions. Use flag persons as required to control traffic. Public and Worker Safety Use of heavy machinery can put IE Ensure that the work performed, the equipment supplied and all IE Yes public and worker safety at risk. services provided comply with all federal and provincial regulatory requirements and that personnel are trained and qualified to undertake the work.

Prepare and monitor on site a Health and Safety Plan with detailed procedures to ensure the health and safety of all personnel assigned to the work including contractor staff, subcontractors, service companies, as well as the public.

Execute the work is such a manner that the use of adjacent roads by vehicles engaged in the work will not unreasonably inconvenience or endanger public, pedestrian and vehicular traffic nor hinder the

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Activity/Description Significance use of such facilities.

Install adequate fencing around the laydown and work areas with warning signage to protect the public. Economy and Employment Hiring of contractors for the IE positive None. IE positive No project will benefit local economy and employment Tourist and Recreational Hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, IE Erect fencing and signage to ensure public safety. Advise clubs and IE Yes Activities horseback riding activities, etc. tourism operators of construction schedule. may be restricted. Heritage and Culture Archaeology Remains of previous historic sites IE An archaeological assessment has been conducted to assess heritage NE No not found during pre-construction value of the project location. Construction activities will avoid the surveys may be excavated during identified site of potential archaeological significance. construction. All archaeological materials uncovered during construction activities at the site will be properly documented and reported to the Ministry of Heritage and Culture. Discussion will take place with the MCTR and First Nations regarding storage and disposition of any artifacts.

Negligible Effect (NE): A nearly zero or hardly discernible effect. A negligible effect would touch a population or specific group of individuals at a localized area and/or over a short period in such a way as to be similar in effect to random small changes in the population (or group) due to environmental irregularities, but would have no measurable effect on the population (or group) as a whole.

Insignificant Effect (IE): An effect that may exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: • Not widespread. • Temporary or short-term duration (i.e. only during construction). • Recurring effect lasting for short periods of time during or after project implementation. • Not permanent, so that once the stimulus is removed, the integrity of the social/environmental components is resumed.

Significant Effect (SE): An effect that may exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: • Widespread. • Permanent transcendence or contravention of legislation, standards, or environmental guidelines or objectives. • Permanent reduction in species diversity or population of species. • Permanent loss of critical/productive habitat. • Permanent alteration to community characteristics or services, land use or established patterns. • Permanent loss of archaeological/heritage resources.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Table E-2 Environmental Assessment Summary Related to Operation

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance Air and Noise Effects of noise generated NE Negligible due to rural setting. Generator/turbine set up will be NE No by turbine and transformer within the provincial requirements. The generator/ turbine will on recreational users. be housed in a concrete building, vents and louvers will be directed away from trails. Routine maintenance and inspection of the equipment will be carried out.

Emission of greenhouse Displacement of fossil fuels for electricity generation will gases caused by decaying NE (Positive) result in a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. NE (positive) No vegetation. Surface and Ground Water Surface Water Quality Surface water flows and IE The river channel through the wetland is mainly deep and IE Powerhouse operations will be recorded via velocities will slow (Northern Bioscience 2008) and will remain relatively a computer control system. These controls increase/decrease through unchanged by operations. Operations will balance daily will monitor and record flow variance, the river during inflow and outflow through the system with short term storage headpond and downstream water levels. powerhouse operation during the spring and fall. impacting surface water A post-operational habitat study, similar to quality. SE Below the weir the river is mainly pool (7 ha) and rapids IE the 2008 baseline study will examine habitat (3 ha). The river channel is largely bedrock-controlled changes in shoreline. Pre and post but forms pools where there are deeper clay deposits. operational conditions will assess the need (Northern Bioscience, 2008) Clay deposits along the river for additional stabilization. bank in the pool sections may experience shoreline erosion and increased downstream sediment transport. These impacts will be minimized by limiting the daily flow variance and time of year when peaking may occur. Run-of-river operations from April 15 – June 15 will allow shoreline vegetation to develop under current conditions as a further measure to reduce erosion. (Table 3-2) Plant operation will not change the occurrence of bankfull or riparian flows. (Table 3-1)

A compensatory flow pipe and upstream pools will work in combination to mitigate impacts associated with generator ramp up/down and changes in hourly flow/velocities (Sections 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.1).

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance Sediment contained in the IE Effect is also present with operation of existing weir. IE Additional pre-operational water quality storm water runoff may Operations will seek to balance daily inflows and outflows. A monitoring will establish a background settle behind the weir minor change from the current monthly flow pattern will reference value for the system. (Section impacting water quality. occur due to the spring and fall refill periods as a small 12.1) Post operational monitoring will fraction of this water will be held back. (Table 3-2) include a comparison to the reference values. (Section 12.2) Increased flooding of IE The health of shoreline woody vegetation will be monitored IE A relatively small area (60 ha) is considered vegetated area may and removed as recommended by the post operational habitat to have a high degree of vulnerability. increase methyl mercury study. (Section 8.2.1.3) The post-operational levels. habitat study will examine these areas, The monitoring recommendation will include an assessment verify the extent of impact and assess the of the effectiveness of adjustments to the timing and benefit of selected removal of woody magnitude of flooding as an alternative mitigation measure to vegetation within these area. reduce impacts. Mercury concentrations in fish muscle tissue were collected as a part of a pre- operational monitoring strategy. (Section 6.3.2) Post-operational monitoring of mercury in fish tissue will be conducted to compare with pre-operational levels. Mercury concentrations within the water will be assessed against the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO). (Section 12.2) Natural Environment Fish Entrainment of fish from IE Design intake(s) in accordance with DFO “Freshwater Intake IE No the forebay into the intake End-of-pipe Fish Screen Guideline” , March 1995 of the new unit. Entrainment of fish from the compensatory flow pipe. Water level fluctuations in IE Headpond water levels will typically vary by 2 cm and up to 4 IE Powerhouse operations will be recorded via headpond could degrade cm around weir level resulting from intermittent peaking. This a computer control system. These controls fish habitat. value is well within the current range (Figure 3-7), impact will monitor and record flow variance, headpond not be significant. and downstream water levels.

Upstream tributaries will not be impacted by these fluctuations (Northern Bioscience 2008)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance Dam will act as barrier to IE Downstream fish passage is considered “possible” (Northern IE The post-operational habitat study will downstream fish passage. Bioscience, 2008) and will continue to occur naturally during assess fish populations downstream of the periods of high inflow. The overall significance of downstream weir. The upper and lower middle sections fish passage during other periods is currently unknown. The are considered to represent “sink” rather lower falls and weir are considered to be barriers to upstream than self sustaining fish populations fish passage. (Northern Bioscience, 2008) (Northern Bioscience 2008) and could be impacted by, amongst other issues, downstream fish passage. Reduction in fish habitat IE Compensatory flow provided downstream of the weir will IE The post operational monitoring program will downstream of the weir and maintain fish habitat within the deeper pools (0.3 ha) and a loss document the new habitat area and assess the upstream of the tailrace. of habitat within the rapid areas (0.9 ha) is predicted. Given the adaptations which have occurred within this small area of this section sport fish populations are considered area. to represent “sink” rather than self sustaining populations. (Northern Bioscience 2008) The contribution of this population to the study area is considered insignificant. Reduction in fish habitat SE Compensatory flow provided downstream of the tailrace will be IE The post operational monitoring program will downstream of the tailrace seasonally adjusted corresponding to habitat requirements. document the new habitat area and assess the Compensatory flow rates during the fall and winter will adaptations which have occurred within this maintain fish habitat within the deeper pools (6.0 ha) and a loss area. of habitat within the rapid, rifle and run areas (5.5 ha) is predicted

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance Stranding of fish and other IE Downstream mitigation measures require the installation of a IE The post operational monitoring program will aquatic species within pools compensatory flow pipe to moderate hourly flows in between document the habitat area and assess the downstream of the tailrace generating cycles. adaptations which have occurred within this and upstream of the lower area. This monitoring effort will also falls during intermittent The time required to draw the pool area down by 1 m is document impacts associated with the ramp peaking operations. estimated to be between 4-8 hours and will minimize fish up/down rate and provide recommendations (compensatory flow pipe stranding impacts in this area. Some impacts to the nearshore for adjustments in this rate if required. effects) areas (1.4 ha) of the deeper pools will remain. (Figure 8-3) Using an estimated standing crop of 10 Minimization and mitigation of this impact will be achieved by adult walleye per hectare (typical for adjusted the generating cycle to maintain the specified volume Northwestern Ontario lakes, FWIN data; and depth within these pools. This mitigation approach will Peter Cldy pers. communication) this consider the seasonal requirements of the habitat area. The section could sustain 25 adult walleye. daily flow variance criteria (Table 3-4) will further limit the (Section 8.2.2.1) Monitoring of fish and extent of fluctuation in this area. benthic organisms will be conducted to determine changes in population Run of river operations during April 15th – June 15th will avoid size/diversity. Some negative impacts to impacts to spawning fish within this area and will further allow these populations are likely to occur. vegetation to develop under current conditions. (Table 3-4)

Fish populations within this area are considered sink rather than self sustaining based upon the naturally fragmented habitat and limited pool area. (Northern Bioscience 2008)

Impacts within this area will reduce downstream impacts to fish habitat (7 ha). Outward migration of wetland vegetation within the headpond will provide additional fish habitat in the impoundment area. (Section 8.2.1.3)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance Stranding of fish and other SE Upstream pools, compensatory flow pipe and flow variance IE The post operational monitoring program will aquatic species downstream criteria will work in combination to mitigate downstream document the habitat area for fish and benthic of the lower falls during impacts. organisms and assess the adaptations which intermittent peaking have occurred within this area. operations. Low/Minimal Inflows: The upstream pools and compensatory flow pipe will provide a Powerhouse operations will be recorded via minimum flow of 1 cms during most of the off peak generating a computer control system. These controls hours. As the upstream pools gradually fills over a 2 hour monitor and record flow variance, headpond period, flow through the pipe and eventually lower falls, will and downstream water levels. increase providing a transition between off peak and on-peak generating hours. The daily flow variance criteria will further Some negative impacts to this section of limit the magnitude of the flow variation (change in downstream river as a fish nursery are likely to occur. water levels) to minimize the potential for stranding. During Frequent intermittent peaking operations generator ramp down flow will continue through the occurring outside of the spawning period compensatory flow pipe at decreasing rates corresponding to may drive out larger fish, such as decreasing head within the pool over a period of 4 to 8 hours. pike/walleye from the area and into the (Sections 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, Table 3-2, Figures 3-8, 3-10) Shebandowan River.

Use of a variable pitch turbine will extend the efficient range of power generation for run-of-the-river operations across a wider range of inflow conditions (15 cms to 4 cms) compared to a fixed vane (15 cms – 10 cms). This feature will reduce the magnitude and frequency of intermittent peaking operations. (Section 3.1.2)

Moderate/High Inflows: The rate of generator ramp up/down will be the primary mitigation measure to control downstream flow and level variances as the upstream ponds will be full and water will overflow the lower falls. The daily flow variance criteria will further reduce the magnitude and thus impact of intermittent peaking operations at these inflow rates. (Table 3-2)

Run-of-river operations will prevail during the fish spawning Impacts to this area during fish spawning period of April 15th to June 15th to avoid impacts associated (April 15th – June 15th) are not predicted as with intermittent peaking. (Table 3-2) run of river operations will prevail. Monitoring efforts will focus on impacts during low/minimal inflow when intermittent peaking operations are occurring.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance Black Tern Effects of water level SE The magnitude of fluctuating water levels during nesting season IE A pre-commissioning monitoring program of fluctuations on nests. will be less than historically experienced (Table 3-7, Section breeding Black Tern population was initiated 8.2.1.3). Fluctuations resulting from intermittent peaking will in 2008. typically be within 2 cm during tern nesting. (Table 3-2, Figure 3-7) Post-construction monitoring (with the assistance of the Thunder Bay Field Operating plans will seek to buffer fluctuations resulting from Naturalists) will evaluate impacts of changes precipitation events by increasing the generating rate as in water depth and fluctuations on Black Tern headpond levels begin to rise. The generating station will be nesting, staging and foraging. able to control events producing inflows of 15 cms or less. For events producing inflow greater than 15 cms the initial portion A post operational monitoring program will of the flood curve can be controlled to maintain headpond further assess Black Tern impacts and the levels, thus reducing the peak level attained by the event under presences of suitable nesting habitat. the present condition. (Section 8.2.1.3) Powerhouse operations will be recorded via Black Tern nesting habitat is discussed under wetland a computer control system. These controls vegetation effects. monitor and record flow variance, headpond and downstream water levels.

Loss of waterfowl nesting, Effects of water level IE The timing and magnitude of the spring refill will allow the IE Post-construction monitoring will map and rearing and staging areas fluctuations on waterfowl. development of wetland vegetation. A gradual drawdown of the evaluate impacts of changes in wetland headpond during the summer and an increased ability to control development including the lag time following headpond level increases resulting from precipitation events will the spring refill. minimize impacts to waterfowl nests. (Table 3-2, Figure 3-7, Section 8.2.1.3) Post construction monitoring will record the depth and location of the wild rice crop and The delayed fall refill period of October 10th is proposed to correlate this with headpond elevations to avoid impacts during the peak staging period for dabbling predict fall impacts. Impacts associated with waterfowl (Figure 3-7, Section 8.2.1.3). the fall refill and waterfowl staging are linked with wild rice as a food source. Waterfowl staging during the fall is linked to access to wild rice seeds on the river bottom as a food source. (Section 8.2.1.3)

Seeding of additional or tolerant wild rice varieties may increase the productivity of this food source. (Section 8.2.1.3; P. Lee, 2009)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance Loss of habitat for dragonfly Effects of flows on SE Compensatory flow will be passed through the weir to maintain IE Post operational monitoring will document species downstream habitat due to the pool habitat (0.3 ha) in this area. Impacts and a loss of (Undetermined) the new habitat area and the use of this area flow diversion through habitat in the rapid area (0.9 ha) is predicted. by dragonflies. Several species of dragonfly powerhouse. (Upper Middle found in this area were removed from the Section) The proposed compensatory flow value of 0.2 m3/s is predicted provincially rare classification. to occur on average 5 days per year. (Appendix J, Figure J-1)

Vegetation along the shoreline should adapt to the new flow regime but a slight loss in diversity may occur in this area. (Section 8.2.1.2) Effects of peaking and use SE Downstream mitigation measures require the installation of a IE Powerhouse operations will be recorded via of the compensatory flow compensatory flow pipe to moderate flows in between a computer control system. These controls pipe on dragonfly habitat. generating cycles during periods of low/minimal inflow (less monitor and record flow variance, headpond (Lower Middle Section) than 4 cms). and downstream water levels. This information will provide the post operational monitoring program with an assessment of the frequency and timing of intermittent peaking operations.

The post operational monitoring program will Impacts will occur in the nearshore areas (1.4 ha) of the deeper document the habitat area, changes in pools. (Figure 8-3) Stranding of dragonfly nymphs in these vegetation diversity and assess the nearshore areas may result in increased rates of mortality. adaptations which have occurred within this Generator cycles will be adjusted to maintain the specified area. Post operational monitoring will volume and depth within these pools. The daily flow variance document dragonfly species found in this criteria (Table 3-2) will further limit the magnitude of area. fluctuation in this area.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance Loss of aquatic habitat Effects of compensatory IE A loss in aquatic habitat and diversity supporting benthic IE Post operational monitoring will document downstream of weir flow and intermittent organisms and aquatic vegetation is predicted. the new habitat area. The monitoring peaking on downstream program will include an assessment of the aquatic habitat Compensatory flow rates will maintain habitat within the deeper benthic community and aquatic vegetation pools (6.0 ha) and a loss of habitat within the rapid, rifle and run downstream. areas (5.5 ha) is predicted.

Intermittent peaking operations may increase downstream drift of benthics. The modified operations, including flow variance criteria (Table 3-4) will reduce the overall impact.

A small areas of emergent/submergent marsh (0.2 ha) may experience a loss in diversity and range associated with the proposed operations. Loss of habitat for rare plant Effects of flows on NE Rare plant species are found along north facing cliff walls NE Post operational monitoring will document species. downstream habitat due to below the middle falls and will not be impacted by a change the plant species in this area as well as the flow diversion through in the flow regime in this area. need for mitigation if required. powerhouse. (Upper Middle Section)

Wild Rice Effects of proposed SE The proposed draft operating plan gives consideration to this IE Higher average spring and summer water operating plan on wild rice, feature and limits the duration and magnitude of the spring elevations in the headpond are predicted to including spring/fall storage refill. result in an outward shift of wetland and intermittent peaking. vegetation, including wild rice. Seeding of additional or tolerant wild rice varieties will be Wild rice growth and succession will be conducted pending the recommendations of qualified monitored in the post-operational habitat consultants and the post-operational habitat study. Planting of study with the assistance of qualified wild rice within wetland habitats is frequently undertaken by professionals to determine whether wild rice organizations such as Ducks Unlimited. (P. Lee, 2009) is declining in abundance. This monitoring effort will be repeated in the In the event post operational monitoring indicates additional event wild rice seedings are required. . measures are required to protect this feature the timing and magnitude of the spring refill will be adjusted.

Moose Feeding Areas Increased water levels in IE Moose are known to use the area in winter to feed on horsetail Undetermined The significance of the moose feeding areas headpond during winter and (Undetermined) associated with the marshes (Section 6.3.3). Access to this on the Matawin River will be assessed availability of horsetail as a particular food source would be reduced under the proposed relative to the availability of other feeding food source. fall storage requirements since there will be an additional 20 areas in the area. cm of water in the reservoir in early winter. (Section 8.2.1.3)

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance This impact is presently considered The proponent will determine the importance and extent of this insignificant (undetermined) on the impact during the winter months for this food source. following basis: Mitigation measures, if required, will include decreasing water levels within the headpond prior to ice cover. “During the winter months, moose feed almost exclusively on twigs and branches of woody plants, such as willow, birch, aspen, hazel and mountain ash.” (Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat, MNR Feb 1998)

Changes in shoreline Loss of vegetation diversity IE A shift in alder and willow communities is expected in some NE Pre- and post -construction monitoring of vegetation / wildlife habitat due to increased water areas. Water management of wetland is predicted to improve wetland vegetation communities will be levels. diversity. (Section 8.2.1.3) conducted to evaluate changes and develop appropriate measures to protect ecological diversity. Wetland Health Effects of waterpower plant SE The proposed operating plan reflects optimized power SE Positive WMP will develop appropriate measures to operations on upstream generation while protecting values such as the wetland, protect wetland ecological conditions. wetland health in long term. waterfowl and fish habitat, and meeting the objectives of the Wetland monitoring will include a variety of Kaministiquia River System Water Management Plan (Kam environmental parameters such as wetland WMP) (Section 3.3.1) vegetation, soils, hydrology, and wildlife.

Mitigation of impacts associated with spring and fall storage periods will be mitigated through adjustments in the target operating line based upon the recommendations of the post operational habitat study. Diversity of the wetland may also benefit from a greater range of water levels within the headpond. (Section 8.2.1.3) Wetland Drawdowns Control structure will allow SE The control structure will allow for forced draw downs only SE Positive Post operational monitoring will document for forced draw downs of when it is considered ecologically important for the continued the health and adaptation of the wetland the headpond area. health of the ecosystem (Payne, 1992, Keddy,2000; Gartner under the operating plan. Lee, 2003) . Shoreline harvesting Shoreline cutting will have IE The health of shoreline woody vegetation will be monitored IE A relatively small area (60 ha) is considered impacts on marsh, wildlife, and removed as recommended by the post operational habitat to have a high degree of vulnerability. loss of shoreline shade, study. (Section 8.2.1.3) The post-operational increase in sediment run off, habitat study will examine these areas, vulnerability to exotics, loss The recommendation will include an assessment of the verify the extent of impact and assess the of habitat for all species. effectiveness of adjustments to the timing and magnitude of benefit of selected removal of woody flooding as an alternative mitigation measure to reduce vegetation within these area. impacts.

ORTECH Power

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix E For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Residual Effect Criterion Effect Mitigation Measure Significance Monitoring Description Activity/Description Significance Heritage and Culture Archaeology The site of potential IE The maximum operating water elevation will be kept within the IE No archeological significance historic flood range of 1 m above weir height. may be impacted by the project activities. Negligible Effect (NE): A nearly zero or hardly discernible effect. A negligible effect would touch a population or specific group of individuals at a localized area and/or over a short period in such a way as to be similar in effect to random small changes in the population (or group) due to environmental irregularities, but would have no measurable effect on the population (or group) as a whole.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

APPENDIX F

Class EA for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects Screening Criteria Checklist

(10 pages)

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Class Environmental Assessment: For MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects

Introduction and Project Description:

The McGraw Falls Generating Station (MFGS) is subject to environmental assessment requirements outlined under Ontario Regulation 116/01 “Electricity Projects Regulation”. Under this EA regulation the development is considered a Category B project and must undergo an environmental screening. Electrical transmission lines less than 115 kV are considered Category A projects and as such there are no environmental assessment requirements for this aspect of the project under this EA regulation. However, the MNR is required to categorize projects where a disposition of land is required under the MNR’s Resource Stewardship Class EA requirements. The Class EA establishes criteria for screening projects to determine an appropriate category for the project.

In terms of fulfilling the requirements of the MNR’s Class EA the context of the “project” is as follows:

An electrical distribution line services the area north of the proposed MFGS, providing power for residences on Shabaqua Road on the north side of the CNR tracks. This existing 12kV single phase line runs north 2km from the railway to a connection point with a 2 phase distribution line in the vicinity of the Shabaqua Distribution Station. In order to connect the generating station to the Distribution Station this existing line will be upgraded to 12 kV three phase distribution line utilizing current hydro poles and will be extended 3.7 km south to the powerhouse. The new extension line will use wooden poles along the existing Shabaqua road allowance where possible. This new section of line is subject to the screening requirements of the MNR’s Resource Stewardship Class EA. The exact location of connection between the new and existing lines will be determined in consultation with Hydro One in 2009. A proposed interconnection line route is provided in Figure F-1.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Figure F-1: Layout of Proposed Interconnection Route

The project, consisting of 3.7 km of new transmission line and associated electrical poles, is not specifically listed as a Category A project (potential for low negative environmental effects and/or public agency concern) and is therefore required to undergo the screening process outlined in section three of the Class EA guide.

A brief project description has been included in this appendix and a further description of the MFGS and development components is provided in the main body of the ESR. Table F-1 provides a copy of the complete screening checklist as required by section three of the Class EA guide for review and project categorization by MNR staff. Pending categorization of this project by the MNR additional criteria or requirement may or may not be placed on this project.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Factors for the Assessment of Significance (Effects and Mitigation):

Magnitude: The project consists of 3.7 km of new three phase 12 kV electrical transmission line to be carried on wooden poles running alongside an existing public access road. A setback distance of 5 m from the road is proposed. Within this setback area removal of timber will be required.

The Value of the Feature or Situation Affected: The project area is situated within the Dog River-Matawin Forest Management area. Table F-2 provides a summary of the predicted environmental effects, proposed mitigation and residual environmental impact resulting from construction and operation of the proposed transmission line.

During construction of the transmission line some disruption will occur along the line route. Installation of wooden poles and transmission line will require land clearing along the Shabaqua road. Land clearing activities have the potential for the disruption of:

• forest habitat; • water quality through surface and stream flows; • air quality related to construction noise and road dust, and • traffic patterns.

These impacts can largely be mitigated by working on small sections of the transmission line route at a given time, re-vegetation of the work area as soon as practical to do so, and work planning. Work planning will incorporate features covered within the main Environmental Screening Report for the generating stations such as:

• development of a sedimentation control plan; • development of a spill contingency plan, and • notification of work schedules.

Construction of the transmission line will not have a significant impact on forest resources, with the proposed mitigation measures in place. Approximately 2 ha of forest area may be taken out of service.

Geographic Extent: The extent of impacts will be localized to within a few meters of the transmission line setback distance. The ability of this project to have limited impacts is based upon the small cumulative impact of the transmission line running alongside the existing public access road.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

Duration and Frequency: Impacts associated with construction of the new transmission line will occur for 2-3 months as the project site is prepared and new wooden poles and transmission line are installed. Environmental impacts associated with the transmission line after construction will remain for the duration of the MFGS lifespan.

Likelihood of the Effect: Impacts associated with certain features of construction can involve loss of vegetation and surface water run-off. Other impacts such as disruption to wildlife patterns are not as well documented, however these impacts are considered to have a low significance given the impacts from the existing roadway. The transmission line covers a relatively small area and work along the route will further proceed in small portions at a given time.

Impacts associated with operation of electrical transmission lines include land taken out of service and hazards associated with fallen power lines. These effects are considered low based upon the relative proportion of forest lands taken out of service and ability to shut off the generator in circumstances where the transmission line should fail.

Reversibility or Irreversibility: Impacts associated with construction such as the potential for impacts to surface water quality and increased erosion are considered reversible as ground cover vegetation establishes itself along the transmission line route. Impacts to forest reserves and visual appearance represent irreversible impacts which will be present during the life of the project.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Table F-1: MNR Class EA for Resource Stewardship Screening Checklist

Rating of Potential Net Effect Comments, rationale -H -M -L nil unk +L +M +H Natural Environment Considerations

Air Quality x Water quality or quantity (ground or surface) x Minor amounts of clearing adjacent to small streams may have a negative impact on surface water quality until ground cover is established. Species at risk or their habitat x Potential for SAR within project area, minor disruption to habitat during construction. Significant earth or life science features x Line route follows public access road Fish or other aquatic species, communities, x Potential for surface water quality impacts or their habitat (including movement of discussed above. resident or migratory species) Land subject to natural or x Additional clearing along road may reduce the human-made hazards spread of forest fires. Recovery of a species under a special x No known programs in place within area impacted management program (e.g. elk restoration) by project. Ecological integrity x Minor clearing of vegetation and habitat disruption along road Terrestrial wildlife (including x Minor clearing of vegetation and habitat disruption numbers, diversity and movement along road of resident or migratory species) Natural vegetation and terrestrial x Minor clearing of vegetation and habitat disruption habitat linkages or corridors through along road fragmentation, alteration and/or critical loss Permafrost x

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Soils and sediment quality x Drainage or flooding x Sedimentation or erosion Minor amounts of clearing adjacent to road may x produce some localized erosion until ground cover is established. Release of contaminants in x soils, sediments Natural heritage features and areas x Pole placement will not occur within provincially (e.g. areas of natural and scientific interest, significant wetland area. Powerhouse is located in a provincially significant wetlands) steeply sloping rocky area. Other (specify) Land Use, Resource Management Considerations

Access to trails or inaccessible areas x During construction road access may be limited. (land or water) Signage will be erected, notification to public will be provided. Or obstruct navigation x Other resource management projects Access during construction may impede forestry and mining. Potential benefits after construction related to x road maintenance. Notice will be provided to forestry and mining stakeholders. Traffic patterns or traffic infrastructure Access during construction may interfere with traffic. Potential benefits after construction related to road x maintenance. Signage will be erected, notification to public will be provided. Recreational importance – public or private Some positive benefits may exist after construction x associated with road maintenance.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Or create excessive waste materials Minor clearing of scrub brush along road and minor quantities of excavated material from pole placement. x Quantities are not considered excessive.

Or commit a significant amount of a x Project will run along existing public access road. non-renewable resource (e.g. aggregates, agricultural land) Noise levels x Views or aesthetics Development at any level could be viewed as negative x for trail use activities. Or be a precondition or justification for x Project is required for the connection of a 2 MW implementing another project hydroelectric generating station to the power grid. Adjacent or nearby uses, persons or property Last pole connection will occur adjacent to Whisper x Dreams Ranch. Property holder has been consulted

Other (specify) Social, Cultural, and Economic Considerations

Cultural heritage resources – x A stage I and II assessment of the area in the including archaeological sites, built immediate vicinity of the powerhouse was conducted heritage, and cultural heritage and did not reveal the presence of cultural artifacts. As landscapes. the project moves away from the water course the potential for cultural artifacts also declines. Project will run adjacent to an existing road.

Or displace people, businesses, x No displacement. institutions, or public facilities Community character, enjoyment of x Last pole connection will occur adjacent to Whisper property, or local amenities Dreams Ranch. Property holder has been consulted Or increase demands on government x This is a private undertaking services or infrastructure

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Public health and/or safety Limited potential for contact with power lines. In the x event of a downed line the generating station would be shut off. Local, regional or provincial x Minor economic benefit during construction associated economies or businesses with employment. Tourism values (e.g. resource-based x Development at any level could be viewed as negative tourist lodge) for trail use activities. Other (specify) Aboriginal Considerations

First Nation reserves or communities x Consultation with First Nations has occurred. Spiritual, ceremonial, or cultural sites x Consultation with First Nations has occurred. Traditional land or resources used for x Consultation with First Nations has occurred. harvesting, activities Aboriginal values x Lands subject to land claims x Other (specify)

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Table F-2. Effects and Mitigation Measures for Undertaking the Proposed Transmission Line

Potential Effects Proposed Mitigation Residual (Net) Effects Short-term Effects Terrestrial effects Some vegetation may be removed for Clearing of vegetation will be No significant residual effects are construction of new line minimized. Selective cutting or predicted including effects on pruning of trees boarding along the wildlife or wildlife habitat. transmission line route will be considered to minimize impacts. Aquatic effects Removal or disturbance of ground Clearing and disturbance of vegetation No significant residual effects are vegetation may result in increased will be minimized. Retain shrubby predicted. Small streams currently surface water runoff. adjacent to stream banks. As cross under the road via culverts. necessary, sediment fencing may be used around stream crossings. Temporary Traffic Disruption Interruption could last from one day to A traffic plan will be developed in No long-term residual effects are several days consultation with affected predicted stakeholders. Efforts will be made to keep delays to minimum. Temporary Disruption to Railway Any interruption would be temporary. A plan to string the line across the No long-term residual effects are railway will be developed in predicted consultation with affected CNR officials. Efforts will be made to keep any delays to minimum. Noise and dust There is a potential for noise and dust Equipment will be maintained and No long-term resident residual emissions from construction activities monitored by operators to ensure the effects are predicted. (e.g. site preparation and equipment operation conforms to normal erection). Noise levels may increase parameters. Dust suppression controls during daylight hours. will be implemented as required. Property value effects There is a perception on the part of Retain trees and shrubby along sight Net residual effect will be reduced one property owner that the line where possible to screen line through re-vegetation of line route connection of the existing with the impacts. and discussions with adjacent new lines will be a visual impact. property owner.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix F For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Potential Effects Proposed Mitigation Residual (Net) Effects Heritage effects There is a potential for a disturbing Should any artifacts be uncovered No long-term residual effects are artifacts not identified through during the course of construction, a predicted. previous studies. licensed archaeologist will be contracting to assess the significant and if necessary to develop and a proper plan of action. Long-term Effects Aesthetic effects Transmission line will be added to the Establish vegetation along line route The transmission line will become a landscape after construction to minimize visual permanent part of landscape. impacts as well as other environmental impacts as discussed. Electromagnetic fields Health Canada has concluded that Hydro One’s existing design approach No anticipated health effects. typical exposures present no health to meet technical and operational However, some property owners risks. The public has continued to needs (e.g. optimal phasing of may experience ongoing stress express concerns about exposure to conductors) will be used to reduce associated with this issue. increased EMFs and at locations of EMFs at the edge of the right-of-way. adjacent to a transmission corridor when lines are placed in service.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix G For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

APPENDIX G

Cumulative Effects Assessment Tables Canadian Environmental Assessment

(4 pages)

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix G For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Table G-1: Cumulative Environmental Impacts – Construction and Operations

Valued Ecosystem Mitigation Components (VEC) Related to Potential Cumulative Effects Magnitude Magnitude Geographic Extent / Duration Frequency Reversible (R) / Irreversible (IR) / Ecological Social / and Cultural Economic Context Residual Cumulative Effects & Significance Air Quality Contribution to local air quality Small scale construction project Low Localized - Short Term R Project site is well removed No, from operation of construction mitigation is not proposed. Project from inhabited and negligible equipment in addition to Site industrialized areas. forestry/mining equipment. Impairment of local air quality Project site is serviced by dirt Low Localized - Short Term R Increased road use during Yes, not generated from road dust roads. Cumulative impact of Rural construction may increase the significant emissions related to construction construction traffic and existing roads current amount of generated generated traffic in addition to traffic may result in additional road dust on a few residences. forestry/mining equipment. emissions on a limited number Overall road use will remain of residences. Road low. maintenance and wetting measures will reduce this impact. Noise Impairment during blasting from Posting of signs and notices High Localized - Short Term R Project site is well removed Yes, construction in addition to within the impacted area to within 1 - Infrequent from inhabited areas. A limited Significance mining. notify public. km number of residences or unknown recreational users may be (unlikely to impacted. occur) Noise originating from Locate vents and louvers Low Localized Long Term R Project site is well removed Yes, not equipment contained within the strategically and insulate from inhabited areas. A limited significant powerhouse building in addition building adequately. number of recreational users to forestry and mining. may be impacted.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix G For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Climate Contribution to GHG emissions Small scale project will not Low Regional Short Term R Small scale construction Yes, from construction equipment result in a measurable impact. project. negligible and additional long term Mitigation is not proposed. flooding in addition to forestry/mining equipment Surface Water Quality Contribution to sediment load Site construction will implement Low Localized Short Term R Small scale construction Yes, not on waterbody from construction a sediment control plan to project. Downstream fish and significant activities in addition to other reduce impacts. Much of the dragonfly habitat requires forestry/mining activities. project site is situated on rock. protection. Forestry and mining activities adjacent to the river system are limited.

Contribution of accidental A spill contingency plan will be Low Localized Short Term R Small scale construction No, releases to the environment enacted during construction and project. Downstream fish and Significance during construction or operation operation. dragonfly habitat requires unknown of the generating station in protection. (unlikely) addition to other accidental releases.

Fish and Fish Habitat Disruption of fish and fish Maintenance of compensatory Low Localized Short Term R Downstream fish spawning No, not habitat during construction in flows during construction habitat requires protection. significant addition to other waterpower activities. facilities.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix G For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Disruption of fish and fish A minor amendment to the Low Regional Long Term IR Fish spawning will not be Yes, not habitat downstream of the lower Kaministiquia 2005 Water impacted by the development significant falls in addition to other water Management Plan will be made under most hydrological power facilities. incorporating values of this plan conditions. into the development. Downstream of the lower falls Compensatory flow, flow the river is known to run close variance criteria and upstream to dry for periods of time (headpond) improvements will during the late summer. On reduce or mitigate these impacts. average flows of 1.0 m3/s or less are experienced 25 days per year. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Loss of vegetation and wildlife Small construction site. Low Local - Long Term IR Project site has historically Yes, not habitat due to construction in Construction and design of Project experienced some level of significant addition to forestry and mining project will seek to minimize Site development in the past. activities disruption to natural environment where possible. Impacts to species of concern Maintain compensatory flows Low Local - Short Term R Status of provincially No, not and provincially significant flora during construction to maintain Project significant to dragonfly species significant and fauna resulting from downstream dragonfly habitat. Site is currently under review. construction in addition to forestry and mining activities. Heritage and Culture Loss of cultural artifacts due to Mitigation is not proposed for Low Local - Long Term IR Stage I and II archaeological No, not construction in addition to the construction site. In the Project assessment of the area did not significant mining activities event artifacts are discovered Site identify the construction site as further assessment(s) will be having a high potential for conducted cultural artifacts. This area has . experienced past development.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix G For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Socio-economic Restriction of access to boat Posting of signage indicating Low Localized Short Term R Boat launch and local roads are Yes, not launch and local roads during construction times as well as used for recreational significant construction in addition to alternate access routes. opportunities such as hunting forestry and mining activities and fishing.

Increased opportunity for Commitment to hire local work Low Regional Short Term R Construction of the project will Yes, not employment and municipal tax force. increase job opportunities and significant base. contribute to the municipal tax base.

Ability to utilize forestry and Small project footprint, Low Local - Long Term IR Forest resources are not Yes, not mining resources during primarily within the mixed Project predicted to be impacted by this significant construction. variable forest and mining use Site project. Extent of mineral (unlikely) zones will have minimal impacts resources impacted is limited to on utilizing these resources. the immediate area around Surface mining opportunities powerhouse and penstock. The within the immediate area of the potential of these resources and powerhouse and penstock may ability to develop these be restricted. Prior notification resources is undetermined. will be provided to claim holders.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006

APPENDIX H

Draft Water Management Planning Options

(12 pages)

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Option A (Hydro): Draft Preferred Operating Option

Option A (Hydro) Objectives:

This option attempts to optimize power generation while protecting values such as the wetland, waterfowl and fish habitat and meeting the objectives of the Kaministiquia River System Water Management Plan (Kam WMP). The model balances reasonable financial gain / return for the proponent with the protection of the core environmental values. (i.e. Provincially Significant Wetland).

Although this option attempts to minimize environmental impacts, the degree of change from existing conditions will produce some potential environmental impacts. These will have to be monitored and mitigated.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

This option allows for the capture / storage of rain events to maximize on-peak hour hydro generation. It has relatively broad compliance bands (upper / lower) as compared to Options C and D, so the potential for significant environmental impacts is greater and will have to be monitored.

Advantages include:

• Near optimal financial gain / return for the proponent • ability to generate during peak hours • With the exception of fall/winter storage “natural” headpond water elevations should be maintained by this option • Increased ability to provide downstream compensatory flows during low flow periods • Moves towards a representative natural flow regime, which may benefit the aquatic ecosystem in the upstream wetland • Drawdown after spring freshet to promote aquatic plant growth • Ability to buffer water level fluctuations in headpond during black tern nesting. • Meets objectives of the Kam WMP • Summer drawdown for wetland health, diversity

Disadvantages include: • Deeper Winter Drawdown – beaver, vegetation impacts • Fall / Winter storage above “normal” levels and impacts to vegetation and wildlife • Adaptation of marsh vegetation (shrubs) to prolonged flooding at higher levels than current

Neutral: • Intermittent peaking is required for all options. Based upon typical inflow volumes a narrow band (+/- 4 cm above weir elevation, width varies based upon slope) of wetland vegetation may experience frequent, but short duration, cycles of submergence. This narrow band may encounter some adaptation with preference to flood tolerant plant species.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Option A (Modified Hydro)

Option A Modified (Hydro and System) Objectives:

This option attempts to provide benefit for needs elsewhere in the Kaministiquia System and protect wetland, waterfowl and fish habitat while optimizing power generation potential. It meets the objectives of the Kaministiquia River System Water Management Plan. The model balances reasonable financial gain / return for the proponent with system needs and the protection of the core environmental values. (i.e. Provincially Significant Wetland).

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

This option has the same compliance bands (upper / lower) as A, but has a modified target line to accommodate the storage of water for up to 60 days following the spring freshet. These increased water depths in June and July may have modest environmental impacts. These will have to be monitored and mitigated.

This option allows for the capture / storage of rain events to maximize on-peak hour hydro generation.

Advantages include: • Provides timed storage and flow to meet needs elsewhere in the system. • Optimal financial gain / return for the proponent • allows for the capture / storage of rain events: o maximizes on-peak hour hydro generation o minimizes impact of rain events on waterfowl/waterbird nesting, and wild rice • Meets most of the objectives of the Kam WMP for needs elsewhere in the system • Moves towards a representative natural flow regime, which may benefit the aquatic ecosystem in the upstream wetland • Stable water levels during tern nesting period • Increased ability to provide downstream compensatory flows during low flow periods • Summer drawdown for wetland health and diversity • Offers some downstream flood protection during the spring. • Ability to buffer water level fluctuations in headpond during black tern nesting. • Meets objectives of the Kam WMP

Disadvantages include: • More significant change from current levels and flows (than A, C or D) • Prolonged and elevated headpond water levels could place additional stress on wetland vegetation during the early growing season (May / June). This vegetation is required for black tern nesting habitat in June. May also limit the germination of wild rice. • Deeper Winter Drawdown – beaver, vegetation impacts

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

• Fall / Winter storage above “normal” levels and impacts to vegetation and wildlife • Adaptation of marsh vegetation (shrubs) to prolonged flooding at higher levels than current

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Option B (System)

Option B (System) Objectives:

This option represents the maximum benefit for needs elsewhere in the Kaministiquia System as well as providing acceptable financial gain / return for the proponent. This model gives modest consideration to the core environmental values in the project area.

This option allows for the capture / storage of spring freshet and rain events and holds this water for downstream system needs later in the summer. It allows for maximize on-peak hour hydro generation. This option has broad bands (upper / lower) and therefore the potential for significant environmental impacts are greater and will have to be tightly controlled / monitored.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Disadvantages include: • Most significant change from current levels and flows • Deeper Winter Drawdown – beaver, vegetation impacts • Prolonged and elevated headpond water levels could place additional stress on wetland vegetation during the early growing season (May / June). This vegetation is required for black tern nesting habitat in June. May also limit the germination of wild rice. • marsh vegetation (shrubs) will have adapt to prolonged flooding at higher levels • Fall / Winter storage above “normal” levels and impacts to vegetation and wildlife

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Option C (Wetland)

Option C (Wetland) Objectives:

This option represents most restrictive water management option (aside from do nothing – run of river scenario).

With the exception of modest fall storage (for hydro generation) and a summer drawdown (for wetland enhancement) this option follows the existing water elevation profile and as such, is considered to have the least environment impact on the current system.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Advantages include: • Minimizes impacts for wetland, waterfowl nesting and wild rice. • Moves towards a representative natural flow regime, which should benefit the aquatic ecosystem in the upstream wetland

Disadvantages include: • Limits power production (less storage and greater spill) • Limits ability to capture summer rain events: o Less ability to mitigate impact of rain events on waterfowl/waterbird nesting and wild rice o Creates unnecessary spill flow with resultant loss of revenue • Does not address the objectives of the Kam WMP for needs elsewhere in the system (sturgeon flow at Kakabeka, assimilation capacity at Bowater and flooding at Old Fort William).

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Option D (Status Quo and Fisheries)

Option D (Status Quo and Fisheries) Objectives:

This option follows the existing water elevation profile and as such is considered to have the least environment impact on the current system. It represents most restrictive water management option and allows for no peaking.

Note: This option is predicted to be financially infeasible.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Advantages include: • Minimizes most impacts for wetland, waterfowl nesting and wild rice. • Minimizes potential impact to fisheries

Disadvantages include: • Limits power production (no peaking, less storage and greater spill) • Limits ability to capture summer rain events: o Less ability to mitigate impact of rain events on waterfowl/waterbird nesting and wild rice o Creates unnecessary spill flow with resultant loss of revenue • This option does not reflect a representative natural flow regime • Does not address the objectives of the Kam WMP for needs elsewhere in the system (sturgeon flow at Kakabeka, assimilation capacity at Bowater and flooding at Old Fort William).

Minimum Flows (same for all options):

Minimum Flow (cms)

Reach April 25 to May 30 June 1 to July 31 August 1 to April 25

Weir to GS 0.2 0.2 0.2

Below Lower Falls 2 1 0.2

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix H For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Objective Above weir Weir to Generating Below Objective Total Comment Station (below Generating achievement Middle Falls) Station Maintain or improves aquatic ecosystem 1. Maintain wetland health and diversity within Provincially Significant Wetland 2. Maintain May/June water levels for waterfowl and tern nesting 3. Manage levels for wild rice (below .70m by late May and steady or dropping during August) 4. Maintain minimum flows below structures for fish and dragonfly habitat 5. Provide flows below Kakabeka falls for sturgeon Assimilation capacity Acceptable dissolved oxygen in lower Kam. Maintain or Improve Opportunities for tourism and recreation Manage fall levels for hunting (delay fall refill until October) Flood Minimize risk of downstream flooding (i.e. Old Fort William) Power Generation Minimize spill Maximize ability to capture and store summer rain events Maintain daily peaking ability Overall Total score objective = achievement Option Evaluation Score Sheet

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

APPENDIX I

McGraw Falls G.S. Hydrology Review \

(22 pages)

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______December 4, 2007

Project Report Ortech Power

McGraw Hydrology Review Falls

DISTRIBUTION 1 electronic Ortech Power Attention: Mr. Patrick Gillette Ortech Power copy 2395 Speakman Drive Mississauga, Ontario L5K 1B3 Jim Law/File 1 electronic H325127.06 Hatch, Oakville copy

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______Report Disclaimer This report has been prepared by Hatch Ltd. for the sole and exclusive use of Ortech Power (the “Client”) for the purpose of assisting the management of the Client in making decisions with respect to the McGraw Falls Hydro Project and shall not be (a) used for any other purpose, or (b) provided to, relied upon or used by any third party.

This report contains opinions, conclusions and recommendations made by Hatch Ltd. (Hatch), using its professional judgment and reasonable care. Any use of or reliance upon this report by Client is subject to the following conditions:

(a) the report being read in the context of and subject to the terms of the agreement between Hatch and the Client including any methodologies, procedures, techniques, assumptions and other relevant terms or conditions that were specified or agreed therein (b) the report, being read as a whole, with sections or parts hereof read or relied upon in context (c) the conditions of the site may change over time (or may have already changed) due to natural forces or human intervention, and Hatch takes no responsibility for the impact that such changes may have on the accuracy or validity of the observations, conclusions and recommendations set out in this report; and Hatch takes no responsibility for the impact that changes to these factors may have on the accuracy or validity of this report; and the report is based on information made available to Hatch by the Client or by certain third parties; and unless stated otherwise in the Agreement, Hatch has not verified the accuracy, completeness or validity of such information, makes no representation regarding its accuracy and hereby disclaims any liability in connection therewith.

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page i ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______Table of Contents

Report Disclaimer List of Tables List of Figures 1. Introduction ...... 2...... Mean Annual Runoff 1 ...... 2.1 Regional Water 2 2.2Balance...... Regional Runoff ...... 2 2.3...... Water Levels at McGraw Falls Dam

...... 2 3...... Seasonal Flow Pattern 3 ...... 4...... Annual Flow 9 V ariability...... 5...... Long Term Daily Flow 10 Synthesis...... 6...... 11 Results...... 12

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page ii ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report OrtechProject No.-McGraw 61006 ______Falls Hydrology Review List of Tables

Number Title

Regional Mean Annual Runoffs McGraw Falls Spillway Flows Mean Monthly Flows in the Matawin 1 2 3 River at McGraw Falls Dam

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page iii ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 List______of Figures

Number Title

1 General Location

2 McGraw Falls Dam Watershed

3 McGraw Falls Spillway Discharge Rating

4 McGraw Falls Spillway Flows Mean Monthly Flows Expressed as Ratio to Annual 5 Mean 6 Annual Flow Variability

7 Seasonal Flow Patterns Matawin River at McGraw Falls Dam – Annual Flow 8 Variability Matawin River at McGraw Falls Dam – Daily Flow 9 Duration Curve

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page iv ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______1. Introduction

The objective of this report is to develop a flow series for the Matawin River at the McGraw Falls Dam that can be used to assess the hydroelectric generating potential of the site. Flows in the Matawin River have not been measured or monitored in the past, so a long term flow series at McGraw Falls must be synthesized from flow records on other rivers in the region. Flow synthesis generally follows steps: • Estimation of the expected mean annual runoff at the site • Definition of the seasonal flow pattern • Assessing the variability of runoff from year to year • Synthesis of a long term daily flow record that meets the above parameters.

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 1 ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______2. Mean Annual Runoff

Mean annual runoff (MAR) describes how much of the rainfall and snowmelt in the basin drains past the site on average each year. MAR is usually expressed in units of mm over the drainage basin, for ease of comparison with precipitation (rain and snow) and evaporation, which are also expressed in mm.

The estimation of MAR for an ungauged site depends on the extent of regional information available and whether a water level monitoring gauge has been installed at the site. MAR estimation makes use of the following approaches, depending on the level of information •available: A regional water balance analysis using precipitation and evapotranspiration data • Regional runoff trends from a network of established streamflow stations • Comparison of a short term flow series at the site with flows at established streamflow stations for the same period.

2.1 Regional Water Balance Where regional flow data is very limited MAR must be estimated from regional isohyets of equal precipitation and estimates of evapotranspiration, which tends to decrease from south to north across Ontario. MAR is then estimated as the difference between long term average precipitation and evapotranspiration.

The streamflow station network around the Matawin River basin is extensive and this simplistic approach was not used for McGraw Falls.

2.2 Regional Runoff Flow data are available from nineteen Water Survey of Canada (WSC) streamflow station in the study region. A summary of these station records is shown in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the streamflow station locations and the location of McGraw Falls Dam. Figure 2 shows the drainage area of the Matawin River at McGraw Falls Dam.

The streamflow station records vary in length and period of record covered so a direct comparison of MAR is not accurate. Instead the mean annual flows must first be adjusted to an estimate of long term average flow (LTAF) for a common period. This is done by selecting a station record that covers the longest period of record, in this case WSC# 02AA001 Pigeon River at Middle Falls, and adjusting the station means by the ratio of LTAF to the mean flow for 02AA001, for each station period of record. From Table 1 the MAR in the Matawin River region varies from 183 mm upstream of Shebandowan Lake to 350 mm north of Thunder Bay. More localized estimates of MAR can be derived by subtracting LTAF values for a river upstream and downstream of the inflow from the target river. For the Matawin River this means subtracting the LTAF for the Shebandowan River at the outlet of Shebandowan Lake (02AB011) from the Shebandowan River at Glenwater (02AB005). The net MAR from this calculation represents the MAR from the Matawin and Oskondaga Rivers. This calculation, plus the general trend in MAR in the region, gave an estimated MAR of 300 mm 3

for the Matawin River. This is equivalent to a LTAF of 8.5 m /s at McGraw Falls Dam.

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 2 ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Ortech Appendix-McGraw I Falls For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report HydrologyProject No. Review 61006 Table______1 Regional Mean Annual Runoffs

Drainage Mean Period LTAF WSC Period of Years of Compare LTAF MAR Area Flow Mean (1924 - No. Record Record Period Factor (mm) (km2) (m3/s) (m3/s) 1999) 02AA001 1550 1924-99 76 14.1 24-99 14.1 1.000 14.10 287 02AA002 389 1973-77 5 4.8 73-77 4.25 0.892 3.79 307 02AB001 3630 1922-55 34 29.5 24-55 29.83 0.979 29.21 254 02AB004 3457 1924-94 67 28.1 24-86 27.74 0.978 27.14 248 02AB005 2560 1924-56 29 22.4 35-56 24.23 0.942 22.83 281 02AB006 6475 1927-00 70 59.9 35-99 60.64 0.986 59.80 291 02AB008 187 1954-00 47 1.66 54-99 1.67 1.016 1.70 286 02AB009 2800 1958-94 37 24.4 58-94 24.40 0.991 24.18 272 02AB010 6710 1924-94 71 53.2 24-94 53.20 0.989 52.62 247 02AB011 1176 1925-94 61 7.17 25-84 7.17 0.978 7.02 188 02AB012 174 1948-76 28 1.33 52-76 1.33 1.017 1.36 246 02AB013 526 1952-90 36 3.11 52-86 3.09 0.991 3.06 183 02AB014 111 1972-94 23 1.22 72-94 1.22 0.978 1.19 339 02AB015 492 1972-85 14 5.28 72-85 5.28 0.928 4.90 314 02AB016 145 1972-85 14 1.46 72-85 1.46 0.928 1.36 295 02AB017 210 1980-00 21 2.02 80-99 2.05 1.049 2.15 324 02AB019 46.4 1986-00 15 0.341 86-99 0.34 1.089 0.37 255 02AB020 90 1987-00 14 0.702 87-99 0.70 1.101 0.77 272 02AB021 392 1989-00 12 4.01 89-99 4.04 1.076 4.34 350 Average 276 Maximum 350 Minimum 183

2.3 Water Levels at McGraw Falls Dam A datalogger and barologger (to correct for atmospheric pressure variations) were installed at McGraw Falls Dam on September 8, 2006. The datalogger datum was set at the crest of the dam spillway, but the water level remained below the spillway crest until February 2007 because the above the spillway crest level. This record of water levels was used to estimate the flows over the spillway for comparison with concurrent flows at other locations. The period of record used in the spillway flow analysis was May 1, 2007 to September 26, 2007 (the end of the water level record available at the time of analysis). Water levels for February to April were not included in the analysis to avoid the potential influences of ice cover on the theoretical spillway discharge rating.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

There were no drawings of McGraw Falls Dam to extract precise dimensions of the structure, but a topographic survey undertaken in 2007 showed that the spillway is 44.06m long. A series of photographs of the dam indicate that the spillway is a standard ogee with a height and design head of approximately 6 feet and 4 feet, respectively. These dimensions and discharge coefficients for a standard ogee were used to generate the spillway discharge rating curve shown in Figure 3. The discharge rating curve was then used to convert the half-hourly barologger-corrected datalogger record to flows over the spillway. Figure 4 shows the spill record from May 1, 2007 and Table 2 shows the spills summarized on a daily basis.

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 3

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

To make use of the average flow for May 1 to September 26, 2007 at McGraw Falls Dam (7.74 3 m /s) shown in Table 2 it is necessary to compare it to concurrent flow averages at streamflow stations for which the MAR has been established. The streamflow stations chosen for this purpose must be carefully chosen to ensure they respond to hydro-meteorological events in the same way. The flows arriving at McGraw Falls Dam are essentially unregulated and should therefore be compared to unregulated flow records. OPG supplied daily flow data for 2007 from: • Shebandowan Lake Dam • Silver Falls GS on Dog Lake • Kakabeka Falls GS.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 4 ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

The first two records include significant regulation and the third is strongly influenced by the regulation in the first two records. However, if the flows out of Shebandowan Lake and Dog Lake are subtracted from the Kakabeka Falls record, the net flows come from an unregulated catchment area, including the Matawin River basin. This unregulated catchment area is referred to as the Net Drainage Area in the table below.

The May 1, 2007 to September 26, 2007 (Summer 2007) flows and the LTAF at the OPG sites are shown below.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Kakabeka Shebandowa Silver Net Matawin Flow Period Falls GS n n Lake Falls GS Drainage River at Area McGraw Falls Drainage 6755 1176 3457 2122 890 Area Summer 2007 43.4 3.1 24.3 15.9 7.74

3 i.e. McGraw Falls LTAF = Net Area LTAF (18.0) x McGraw Falls (7.74)/Net Area (15.9) = 8.70 m /s

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 5 ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment OrtechAppendix -McGraw I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report FallsProject No.Hydrology 61006 Review ______

Table 2 McGraw Falls Spillway Flows

Day May June July August September Period 1 3.67 5.21 14.10 7.32 14.02 2 8.42 4.22 11.22 7.47 9.32 3 10.66 2.22 5.54 10.27 13.26 4 9.17 2.61 3.62 11.79 11.47 5 11.82 3.99 4.95 7.07 7.67 6 10.57 2.28 6.69 7.51 5.53 7 5.06 0.24 2.74 6.49 4.36 8 3.39 1.33 0.42 8.19 11.47 9 3.60 4.39 2.89 8.57 15.97 10 3.62 5.19 2.41 10.26 13.96 11 11.89 6.04 3.56 9.17 4.14 12 12.47 8.07 3.72 12.20 11.80 13 10.21 7.35 6.89 14.60 6.14 14 4.30 6.04 2.34 7.95 7.47 15 6.62 4.87 4.05 8.58 13.38 16 7.90 5.06 4.78 8.75 9.29 17 10.97 7.07 4.49 12.33 8.69 18 6.67 1.73 4.30 15.51 7.41 19 9.07 1.77 7.37 14.58 9.11 20 12.20 5.82 10.21 12.50 13.87 21 8.60 8.03 10.12 9.44 4.55 22 4.88 9.68 7.90 7.83 6.55 23 3.82 4.46 4.79 7.20 10.15 24 5.45 3.40 5.57 8.11 6.69 25 8.50 4.33 8.58 9.95 6.11 26 10.27 6.25 7.73 9.95 11.58 27 4.30 6.88 8.81 9.15 28 8.32 11.67 11.32 9.85 29 5.82 9.88 9.96 13.03 30 4.86 11.20 9.56 14.97 31 5.38 10.34 14.70 Average 7.50 5.38 6.48 10.17 7.74 The LTAF estimate for the Matawin River at McGraw Falls derived from the correlation of 3 measured flows with concurrent regional streamflows, 8.7 m /s, is close to that derived from 3 regional runoff trends, 8.5 m /s. 3 Thus, the LTAF for Matawin River at McGraw Falls is 8.7 m /s and the MAR is 308 mm.

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 6

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure 3 McGraw Falls Spillway Discharge Rating

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4 Head on Spillway (m) 1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0 50 100 150 200 250

3 Flow over Spillway (m /s)

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 7 ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure 4 McGraw Falls Spillway Flows

5/1 5/8 5/15 5/22 5/29 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/24 7/31 8/7 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/4 9/11 9/18 9/25 Month/Day 2007

PRH/325127., Rev. 0, Page 8

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment OrtechAppendix -McGraw I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report FallsProject No.Hydrology 61006 Review ______

3. Seasonal Flow Pattern A run-of-river hydroelectric project uses natural river flows, without the benefit of storage regulation through a reservoir. Thus it is important to know not only how much flow passes the dam, but also the distribution and timing of flows. This means that it is important to examine to examine the seasonal flow pattern of streamflow stations that might be considered as a base for simulating a daily flow record at the dam.

Figure 5 shows the seasonal flow patterns for: • Dog Lake outflow, which is heavily regulated • Shebandowan Lake outflow, which is partially regulated • Pigeon River, which is unregulated. The flow record at McGraw Falls should have a seasonal flow pattern similar to the Pigeon River.

Figure 5 Mean Monthly Flows Expressed as Ratio to Annual Mean 3.5

Dog Lake Outflow

Shebandowan Lake Outflow 3.0 Pigeon River

2.5 Monthly/Annu al Means

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 9 ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

4. Annual Flow Variability The third component of a long term flow record required for generation analysis is flow variability from year to year. The LTAF and the seasonal flow pattern summarize the long term average characteristics of the flow series expected at the dam site. However, these flows will vary from year to year and will influence the generating potential of the site.

Figure 6 shows the variation in mean annual flow for the Pigeon River from 1924 to 1999. This figure demonstrates the importance of synthesizing a multi-year flow record at McGraw Falls Dam to capture the full range of flow variation that could be expected over the life of the project.

Figure 6 Annual Flow Variability

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 10

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______5. Long Term Daily Flow Synthesis

Synthesis of a long-term daily flow series at an ungauged site requires selection of a historic streamflow record that has the same characteristics as those expected at the dam to prorate to the site. Normally this would be a single streamflow station record, such as 02AA001, the Pigeon River at Middle Falls. However, for the Matawin River it is possible to estimate the actual historic flows from the difference between flow records on the Shebandowan River.

From 1935 to 1957 daily flows can be synthesized from: 02AB005 Shebandowan River at Glenwater – 02AB011 Outlet of Shebandowan Lake

From 1957 to 1984 daily flows can be synthesized from: 02AB009 Shebandowan River at Sunshine – 02AB011 Outlet of Shebandowan Lake

The drainage areas at these three locations are: 2 02AB005 2560 km 2 02AB009 2800 km 2 02AB011 1176 km 2 2 Flows from the net drainage areas, 1384 km , from 1935-57, and 1624 km , from 1957-84, represent the Matawin River basin and the Oskondaga River basin. Adjusting the net flows from the streamflow stations above by the ratio of drainage areas and a 3 factor to give a LTAF of 8.7 m /s, yields the following daily flow synthesis equations for the Matawin River at McGraw Falls Dam:

QMcGraw Falls = 0.549 (Q02AB005 – Q02AB011) January 1935 – September 1957

QMcGraw Falls = 0.467 (Q02AB005 – Q02AB011) October 1957 – December 1984

Applying these equations to the daily streamflow records gave a 50- 3 year daily flow series with a LTAF of 8.7 m /s.

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 11 ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______6. Results

The principal output of this hydrology review is a 50-year, daily flow series that can be used in the generation potential analysis of McGraw Falls Dam. This dataset is too large to include in this report, but the following characteristics of the flow series are reproduced here to confirm their adherence to the objectives stated throughout the report:

• Table 3 A monthly flow summary table • Figure 7 A seasonal flow pattern • Figure 8 An annual flow variation diagram • Figure 9 A daily flow duration curve.

The daily flow duration curve shows the percent of time that flows in the 50-year , daily flow series are greater than any value. The flow duration curve is the principal hydrologic tool used in generation potential assessment when there is no storage available and the time of year that flows occur is not important.

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 12 ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Ortech Appendix-McGraw I Falls For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report HydrologyProject No. Review 61006 ______Table 3 Mean Monthly Flows in the Matawin River at McGraw Falls Dam Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann 1935 2.58 3.39 3.40 26.54 30.04 12.05 5.92 4.12 5.04 5.24 4.22 1.77 8.70 1936 0.93 0.11 0.00 4.55 43.96 12.17 2.89 1.97 2.19 2.20 2.32 1.38 6.27 1937 1.53 0.97 3.59 18.91 37.22 16.77 6.79 3.76 2.91 8.10 7.50 2.86 9.29 1938 1.30 1.29 1.79 24.93 33.71 20.36 8.17 6.38 2.49 1.50 4.20 1.37 8.98 1939 0.67 0.54 2.96 15.27 26.18 12.88 11.75 4.74 2.48 3.89 2.27 1.71 7.15 1940 1.22 0.40 0.52 1.51 9.24 12.80 5.47 2.28 1.13 1.04 3.00 1.86 3.38 1941 0.78 0.33 0.37 17.10 10.96 22.88 4.03 3.23 21.27 16.27 8.10 0.80 8.82 1942 1.16 1.61 1.95 9.45 26.48 13.01 9.03 3.26 2.75 4.47 3.86 1.78 6.60 1943 0.47 0.62 2.96 12.04 20.80 39.80 10.68 4.82 7.30 6.65 7.95 4.48 9.88 1944 1.32 1.20 3.07 14.34 34.93 29.31 14.84 17.87 9.89 7.37 11.08 7.87 12.78 1945 5.07 2.92 6.92 28.83 11.36 7.86 7.91 4.87 7.99 4.23 3.33 2.91 7.85 1946 1.49 3.24 7.55 21.94 15.11 12.21 10.10 2.67 5.15 17.25 14.37 7.66 9.91 1947 5.80 3.65 3.47 5.06 37.30 50.42 12.20 6.73 7.23 4.92 5.21 2.85 12.09 1948 2.97 2.72 4.19 19.70 21.84 9.25 4.39 10.45 4.36 1.78 2.58 3.05 7.28 1949 3.17 2.82 4.56 16.20 16.62 8.25 6.64 4.40 3.40 9.83 6.71 5.58 7.37 1950 5.04 4.26 4.82 14.80 88.24 31.79 23.38 13.28 10.23 17.55 10.25 8.85 19.53 1951 5.85 3.15 6.81 18.40 73.15 16.62 9.34 4.98 10.87 14.00 9.64 8.81 15.25 1952 4.18 4.40 4.89 26.11 19.77 11.64 18.18 14.98 11.01 4.91 5.78 4.35 10.85 1953 3.16 2.52 3.68 12.97 22.68 29.38 7.18 5.56 5.22 4.90 3.30 3.46 8.67 1954 2.43 2.56 1.35 14.98 50.89 17.33 6.76 4.07 4.18 4.21 3.23 1.52 9.51 1955 2.76 1.84 2.70 16.43 8.39 3.17 3.21 1.55 3.30 6.20 6.56 3.86 5.00 1956 3.44 2.68 1.92 10.30 31.79 13.01 7.43 3.12 2.41 1.21 3.18 2.09 6.90 1957 1.75 1.01 3.22 22.78 21.27 15.30 11.59 2.09 1.78 2.30 4.18 4.18 7.64 1958 3.95 2.86 2.90 13.62 6.44 8.16 9.59 2.45 3.89 4.96 6.89 3.10 5.73 1959 0.81 1.51 2.81 9.82 14.40 10.26 4.89 8.44 15.81 10.77 5.56 2.73 7.33 1960 2.08 1.97 3.77 11.88 13.68 5.63 2.52 2.25 3.13 3.98 9.16 2.88 5.24 1961 2.89 2.74 4.88 15.39 15.60 7.91 4.99 3.32 11.26 8.91 9.13 3.20 7.52 1962 2.91 2.89 2.45 7.76 21.56 13.41 7.88 13.71 7.58 4.02 3.93 4.04 7.71 1963 3.49 2.02 0.57 11.23 13.32 27.27 8.33 4.67 3.67 1.81 2.54 1.51 6.69 1964 1.71 1.30 1.64 17.75 28.44 29.28 11.90 5.03 8.10 8.99 5.65 2.24 10.16 1965 1.24 1.31 2.46 14.70 30.19 12.16 6.63 3.88 9.88 18.33 6.20 4.95 9.38 1966 2.26 2.17 4.07 20.56 37.22 11.30 5.48 2.58 1.81 4.94 2.87 2.68 8.20 1967 4.38 2.21 3.10 28.30 25.21 8.94 3.31 6.18 1.98 2.09 2.10 1.17 7.43 1968 0.02 0.80 4.09 24.07 17.74 29.69 18.45 1.39 2.91 9.87 3.04 0.64 9.38 1969 0.60 1.68 4.70 34.95 14.27 7.89 4.00 7.28 2.69 4.94 3.63 2.41 7.41 1970 2.19 2.39 7.26 17.23 38.33 15.34 10.75 3.72 2.39 9.71 19.25 13.98 11.94 1971 3.77 3.51 4.21 33.52 31.09 12.32 4.79 1.61 2.52 9.76 12.95 7.96 10.68 1972 1.94 2.57 4.95 18.83 31.54 12.32 11.28 5.26 3.05 3.64 2.94 1.90 8.37 1973 2.36 3.74 8.08 18.27 15.08 9.54 6.77 6.53 12.47 11.24 8.33 3.23 8.81 1974 3.02 2.77 4.65 20.52 28.05 15.74 6.78 4.31 8.05 8.37 8.81 6.04 9.78 1975 5.73 4.70 3.84 16.99 17.99 11.49 6.01 3.35 3.28 4.06 3.53 3.10 7.00 1976 2.31 2.40 8.12 44.28 12.91 9.87 3.73 1.90 1.19 1.15 1.16 0.30 7.40 1977 0.15 0.14 1.20 6.85 4.60 4.23 3.41 5.56 33.12 21.61 12.78 9.23 8.58 1978 5.28 3.96 3.47 16.05 22.94 22.22 8.33 5.67 6.19 7.08 3.87 2.32 8.96 1979 1.97 1.76 2.61 19.70 31.25 13.27 5.62 3.84 4.82 2.79 3.80 1.48 7.76 1980 1.10 1.31 1.71 13.23 7.44 2.65 3.43 3.32 17.89 10.21 7.40 4.30 6.15 1981 3.22 3.39 4.68 30.40 17.33 17.55 6.87 2.47 1.58 3.73 2.88 1.82 7.97 1982 1.47 1.40 1.89 14.46 23.67 12.26 25.94 10.23 5.63 17.55 16.62 8.45 11.71 1983 4.40 3.43 3.51 13.62 18.37 16.08 11.28 9.25 7.20 11.06 7.61 6.30 9.37 1984 3.67 4.29 4.03 20.84 20.96 14.57 7.61 6.32 4.14 6.38 4.63 4.56 8.49 Mean 2.56 2.27 3.57 17.76 25.03 15.59 8.37 5.31 6.42 7.24 6.20 3.83 8.70

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 13

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment OrtechAppendix -McGraw I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report FallsProject No.Hydrology 61006 Review ______Figure 7 Seasonal Flow Patterns

Figure 8 Matawin River at McGraw Falls Dam - Annual Flow Variability

PR H/325127. , Rev. 0, Page 14

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix I For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

PRH/325127., Rev. 0, Page 15

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

APPENDIX J

McGraw Falls G.S. Hydrology Parameters

(13 pages)

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Natural Flows:

A key step in establishing appropriate headpond operating levels and downstream flows for McGraw is the identification of key natural flow parameters, including minimum, bankfull and riparian flows. Periodic extreme flood and drought events are critical to the maintenance of healthy aquatic ecosystems including wetlands and downstream riverine environments. In the case of wetlands, these events are necessary to recycle nutrients, maintain diversity and productivity and prevent succession to monotypic species. For rivers, these events are required for sediment transport and sorting, and maintaining many channel features. Channel- forming flow is important for the protection of the diversity of instream, riparian and floodplain habitats (MNR 2003).

Bankfull flow:

Bankfull flow is described as the discharge at which water just begins to enter the floodplain. This discharge, and its magnitude, duration and timing, represents the dominant or channel forming flow that characterizes the channel morphology (MNR 2003). Bankfull flows generally occur yearly.

Pyrce, 2003 outlines methods for estimating bankfull flow based on field observations. Based on this methodology, estimated bankfull flow was observed on April 30th 2008 on a representative portion of the Matawin immediately below the Lower Falls (see Figure J-1). Based on recorded headpond elevations, bankfull flows were estimated to be 30 cms on this date. This sample area also corresponds with the channel profile study area (Figure 3-8). Flows had completely filled the channel and were just beginning to flood the roots of woody vegetation and shoreline trees.

An example of near bankfull flow in the headpond can be seen in Figure J-2. A benchmarking exercise to document headpond levels during spring freshet was conducted on April 30th 2008. Headpond levels were 50 cm above weir height on this date and inflows were 30 cms. A series of observation along the reservoir demonstrated that levels were just beginning to encroach on woody vegetation in the floodplain. This figure also shows willow roots partially flooded. Bankfull flows in the headpond are estimated to occur at slightly higher flows than those observed on April 30th and are likely associated with levels of 55 to 65 cm above weir height and flows of 35 to 45 cms.

Bankfull levels of 55 to 65 cm above weir appear to occur naturally at a frequency of 13.1 and 6.8 days per year on average. The proposed operating plan will

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

continue to allow the same frequency and duration of bankfull flows to occur, with no change or impact expected.

Figure J-1: Downstream Bankfull Flow at 30 cms. April 30, 2008

Figure J-2: Headpond levels at Near Bankfull Flow of 30 cms. April 30, 2008.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Riparian Flow:

Riparian flows are defined as overbank events that occur with a frequency of between 1:2 and 1:20 year return period (that is, an event that occurs once every two to twenty years). Overbank flows inundate riparian areas, resulting in significant interaction between the channel and floodplain in terms of movement and storage of water and sediment (MNR 2003).

On the Matawin River it is reasonable to assume that riparian flows/levels are well over the 30 cms estimate for downstream bankfull flow and the 55 to 65 cm above weir height estimate for bankfull headpond level. Field observations on April 30th, 2008 demonstrated that a 30 cms flow had not yet fully inundated the floodplain or flooded downstream riparian areas (see Figure J-1 and J-2).

Given the fact that the total GS capacity at McGraw will be 15 cms, it is clear that the project can not influence the magnitude, duration or timing of downstream riparian flows. An estimate of downstream riparian flows is therefore not required. For reference purposes, a flood frequency occurrence of 1:2 represents a downstream flow of 108 cms and a headpond level of 1.16 m above weir height. Since the maximum planned headpond levels for McGraw are 1 m or less, there is no expected change in riparian level frequency on the headpond due to planned operations and therefore no predicted impact. Riparian levels can still occur as a result of major storm events and will not be altered as a result of project design or operation.

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-3: McGraw Flow Probability Curve

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-4: Graphical Representation of 7Q10 Flows Based Upon On-site Measurements at McGraw Falls

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-5: Graphical Representation of Maximum Intermittent Peaking Range based upon Table 3-4 Criteria

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-5: Graphical Representation of Maximum Daily Intermittent Peaking by Month

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-5: Graphical Representation of Maximum Daily Intermittent Peaking by Month (continued)

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-5: Graphical Representation of Maximum Daily Intermittent Peaking by Month (continued)

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-5: Graphical Representation of Maximum Daily Intermittent Peaking by Month (continued)

*Moderate inflow between 5-6 cms may be represented by flow variances of 12-4 cms or 9-1 cms to conform to the modified operations covering the period June 15 - September 15 as per Table 3-4

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-5: Graphical Representation of Maximum Daily Intermittent Peaking by Month (continued)

*Moderate inflow between 5-6 cms may be represented by flow variances of 12-4 cms or 9-1 cms to conform to the modified operations covering the period June 15 - September 15 as per Table 3-4

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-5: Graphical Representation of Maximum Daily Intermittent Peaking by Month (continued)

*Moderate inflow between 5-6 cms may be represented by flow variances of 12-4 cms or 9-1 cms to conform to the modified operations covering the period June 15 - September 15 as per Table 3-4

ORTECH Power ______

Submission to Ministry of the Environment Appendix J For McGraw Falls G.S. Environmental Screening Report Project No. 61006 ______

Figure J-5: Graphical Representation of Maximum Daily Intermittent Peaking by Month (continued)