Draft Environmental Report Ivanhoe River

Home , Flying Post First Nation, Groundhog River, Ivanhoe Lake, Ivanhoe River, Kapuskasing River, Mattagami River

Draft Environmental Report

Ivanhoe River - The Chute and Third Falls

Hydroelectric Generating Station Projects

Revised May 2013 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Insert “Foreword”

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Waterpower in Ontario ...... 1 1.2 Introduction to Project ...... 1 1.2.1 Zone of Influence ...... 2 1.3 Overview of the Environmental Screening Process ...... 4 1.4 Approach to the Environmental Screening Process ...... 5 1.4.1 Legal Framework ...... 6 1.4.2 Characterize Local Environment of Proposed Development ...... 7 1.4.3 Identify Potential Environmental Effects ...... 8 1.4.4 Identify Required Mitigation, Monitoring or Additional Investigations ...... 8 1.4.5 Agency and Public Consultation and Aboriginal Communities Engagement ...... 8 2. Existing Conditions...... 13 2.1 Location and Land Ownership in Project Area ...... 13 2.2 Existing Infrastructure...... 13 2.3 Topography ...... 14 2.4 Climate ...... 14 2.5 Soils ...... 15 2.6 Geology ...... 15 2.7 Hydrogeology ...... 16 2.8 River Hydrology ...... 16 2.8.1 Water Levels, Flow and Movement ...... 17 2.8.2 Surface Water Quality ...... 17 2.8.3 Thermal regime ...... 19 2.9 Ecology ...... 19 2.9.1 Site Information Package ...... 20 2.9.2 Terrestrial Habitat and Species ...... 21 2.9.3 Aquatic Habitat and Species ...... 22 2.9.4 Valued Ecosystem Components ...... 24 2.9.5 Significant Wildlife Habitats ...... 26 2.10 Cultural Heritage ...... 27

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

2.10.1 Archaeological Sites and Assessments ...... 27 2.10.2 Buildings and Structures ...... 29 2.11 Current Land and Water Use ...... 29 2.11.1 Land Use/Land Policies ...... 29 2.11.2 Access ...... 30 2.11.3 Navigation ...... 30 2.11.4 Recreational Use and Commercial Tourism ...... 31 2.11.5 Area Aesthetics ...... 33 2.11.6 Forestry ...... 34 2.11.7 Hunting ...... 35 2.11.8 Fishing ...... 37 2.11.9 Trapping and Baitfish Harvesting ...... 39 2.11.10 Protected Areas ...... 40 2.11.11 Mineral Resources ...... 41 2.12 Aboriginal Land and Water Use ...... 42 2.12.1 Reserves, Communities and Land Claims ...... 42 2.12.2 Spiritual, Ceremonial, Cultural and Burial Grounds ...... 43 2.13 Social and Economic ...... 44 2.13.1 Municipal Structure and Community Profile ...... 44 2.13.2 Employment & Economic Setting ...... 47 2.13.3 Water Supply ...... 50 3. Description of Proposed Projects ...... 51 3.1 The Chute GS ...... 52 3.1.1 Description of the Proposed The Chute Hydroelectric Facility ...... 52 3.1.2 Design Options and Chosen Alternatives for The Chute GS ...... 52 3.1.3 The Chute Generating Station Components ...... 53 3.1.4 Ancillary Works for The Chute GS ...... 54 3.2 Third Falls GS ...... 55 3.2.1 Description of Proposed Third Falls Hydroelectric Facility ...... 55 3.2.2 Original Design Options and Chosen Alternatives for Third Falls ...... 55 3.2.3 Third Falls Generating Station Components ...... 56 3.2.4 Ancillary Works for Third Falls GS ...... 57

iii

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

3.3 Roads ...... 57 4. Construction Strategy ...... 59 4.1 Construction Schedule ...... 59 4.2 Construction Activities ...... 61 4.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing ...... 61 4.2.2 Aggregate Borrow ...... 61 4.2.3 Laydown Areas ...... 62 4.2.4 Construction Camp ...... 63 4.2.5 Cofferdams ...... 63 4.2.6 Dewatering...... 63 4.2.7 Excavation of Powerhouse and Tailrace Canal ...... 64 4.2.8 Concrete Production...... 64 4.2.9 Connection line ...... 64 4.2.10 Management of Waste Materials during Construction ...... 64 4.2.11 Water Crossings ...... 65 5. Operation Strategy ...... 66 5.1 Headpond Inundation ...... 66 5.2 Site Operating Strategy ...... 67 5.3 Variable Flow Reach ...... 71 5.4 Spillway Flow Allocation ...... 72 5.5 Operating Parameters for Water Control Structures ...... 73 5.6 Special Event Operation ...... 78 5.7 Compliance Considerations ...... 79 5.7.1 Confirmation Monitoring ...... 80 6. Federal, Provincial and Municipal Agency and Stakeholder Consultations ...... 81 6.1 Consultation Guidelines ...... 81 6.2 Consultation Strategies ...... 82 6.2.1 General Print and Mailing ...... 82 6.2.2 Print Media ...... 82 6.2.3 Web Media ...... 82 6.2.4 Meetings ...... 83 6.2.5 Public Information Centres (PICs) ...... 83

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

6.3 Government and Agency Consultation ...... 83 6.3.1 Federal ...... 84 6.3.2 Provincial ...... 87 6.3.3 Municipal ...... 99 6.4 Public Consultation ...... 100 6.4.1 Public Meetings ...... 102 6.4.2 Other Focus Group Meetings ...... 107 6.4.3 Additional Public Consultation ...... 108 6.4.4 Ivanhoe Lake Cottagers’ Association ...... 109 6.4.5 Part II Order Requests ...... 110 6.4.6 Industry ...... 111 6.5 Aboriginal Engagement ...... 112 6.5.1 Areas under Land Claim ...... 115 6.5.2 Identified Communities ...... 118 6.5.3 Communities with Minor Consultation ...... 144 7. Evaluation of Potential Project Effects ...... 147 7.1 Identified Potential Effects on the Natural Environment ...... 148 7.1.1 Water Quality ...... 148 7.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation ...... 149 7.1.3 Species at Risk ...... 150 7.1.4 Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat ...... 151 7.1.5 Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ...... 154 7.2 Identified Potential Socioeconomic Effects ...... 157 7.2.1 Navigation ...... 157 7.2.2 Public Health and Safety ...... 157 7.2.3 Civil Structure and Private Property ...... 157 7.2.4 Potable Water Supply ...... 158 7.2.5 Area Aesthetics ...... 159 7.2.6 Employment & Economic Effects ...... 159 7.3 Identified Aboriginal Community Considerations and Concerns ...... 160 7.4 Consideration of Accidents and Malfunctions...... 163 8. Effects of Environment on the Projects ...... 186

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

8.1 Precipitation and Flooding ...... 186 8.2 Extreme Winter Conditions ...... 186 8.3 Extreme Summer Conditions ...... 186 8.4 Lightning Strikes ...... 186 8.5 Accidental Fires ...... 187 8.6 Earthquakes ...... 187 8.7 Climate Changes and Other Weather Related Effects ...... 187 9. Compensation ...... 188 10. Residual Adverse Effects and Significance ...... 189 10.1 Residual Natural Heritage Effects ...... 192 10.2 Residual Socioeconomic Effects ...... 195 11. Cumulative Effects ...... 207 11.1 Identification of Other Projects and Activities ...... 207 11.2 Assessment of Potential Cumulative Effects ...... 208 12. Monitoring & Follow-Up Programs ...... 211 12.1 Construction Monitoring ...... 211 12.2 Post-Construction / Operation Monitoring ...... 211 13. Regulatory Approvals and Permits ...... 216 14. Commitments ...... 219 15. Conclusions ...... 222 16. References ...... 225

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

List of Figures

Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Project Development Schedule Figure 3: Non-commercial users of the Pineland Forest by recreational activities Figure 4: Number of species caught vs. kept in 2012 Ivanhoe River Angling Survey Figure 5: Employment breakdown by Industry in the City of Timmins Figure 6: Major Employers in Chapleau in the Private and Public Sector Figure 7: Modes of Operation for the Chute GS outside of Walleye Spawning Period Figure 8: Identified Aboriginal Reserve Lands

List of Tables

Table 1: Open hunting season timetable Table 2: Open trapping season timetable Table 3: Community profile for Foleyet (Statistics Canada) Table 4: Community profile for Timmins (Statistics Canada) Table 5: Community profile for Chapleau (Statistics Canada) Table 6: Project Component Construction Schedule for The Chute and Third Falls Table 7: Upstream Operating Parameters Table 8: Operating Restrictions at The Chute GS for Walleye Spawning Period Table 9: Seasonal Hydrological Periods Table 10: The Chute Proposed Operating Parameters Table 11: Third Falls Proposed Operating Parameters Table 12: Monthly Q80BF values (in m3/s) Table 13: The Chute Operating Mode Occurrence by Season Table 14: Public Information Centres/Meetings for the proposed Ivanhoe River Projects Table 15: Aboriginal Community Organization Table 16: Brunswick House First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 17: Chapleau Cree First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 18: Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 19: Flying Post First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 20: Mattagami First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 21: Métis Nation of Ontario ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 22: Michipicoten First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 23: MNO Timmins Métis Council ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 24: Moose Cree First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 25: Taykwa Tagamou First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary Table 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation, and Potential Residual Effects Table 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance Table 28: Post-Construction Monitoring Actions Table 29: List of Potential Regulatory Approvals

vii

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Waterway Designation and MNR Site Information Package Appendix B: Combined Project Description Appendix C: Agency Consultation Appendix D: Public Consultation Appendix E: Aboriginal Consultation and Engagement

List of Annexes

Annex I: Hydrology and Geomorphology Studies and Proposed Operating Plan Annex II: Conceptual Engineering Design Annex III: Natural Environmental Characterization and Impact Assessment Report Annex IV: Surface Water Quality Studies Annex V: Archaeological Assessments Annex VI: Access Roads and Connection Line Summary

viii

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Acronyms

AAND Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) ARD Acid Rock Drainage BMP Best Management Practice CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CEA Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CMS Cubic metres per second (m3/s) DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Environmental Assessment EC Environment Canada ESA Endangered Species Act ER Environmental Report FEAC Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator FIT Feed-In Tariff GEA Green Energy Act GS Generating Station LTAF Long term annual flow, average annual mean ME Ministry of Energy ML Metal leaching MNDM Ministry of Northern Development and Mines MNR Ministry of Natural Resources MOE Ministry of the Environment MTCS Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport NOC Notice of Commencement NRCan Natural Resources Canada NWPA Navigable Waters Protection Act OBBA Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas OCWA Ontario Clean Water Agency OPA Ontario Power Authority PIC Public Information Centre QP Qualified Person

Q99 Streamflow exceeded 99% of time

Q95 Streamflow exceeded 95% of time

Q80 Streamflow exceeded 80% of time

Q50 Streamflow exceeded 50% of time

Q20 Streamflow exceeded 20% of time

QEA Downstream environmental flow target

QCOMP Compensatory flow (between dam and tailrace)

QMED Median streamflow value

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

QTMAX Maximum turbine capacity

QTmin Minimum turbine flow

QTL Limited turbine flow – modified ROR

QHWM Streamflow corresponding to high water mark 7Q2 2 year return period 7-day-average-low flow 7Q10 10 year return period 7-day-average-low flow 7Q20 20 year return period 7-day-average-low flow Q1:2 High streamflow event; occurrence of 1 in 2 yrs. Q1:100 High streamflow event; occurrence of 1 in 100 yrs.

RA Responsible Authority

ROR Run of River

ROW Right-of-way

SAR Species at Risk SARA Species at Risk Act TC Transport Canada TS Transformer Station UTM Universal Transverse Mercator Units

Units kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt hour m metres m2 square metres masl metres above sea level m/s metres per second m3/s cubic metres per second MW megawatt MWh megawatt hour r/min revolutions per minute μg microgram umho/cm micromhos per centimetre

The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

1. INTRODUCTION

This section presents an introduction to waterpower in Ontario, an overview of the proposed projects, and the methods used to complete the work presented herein.

1.1 WATERPOWER IN ONTARIO

Hydroelectricity is generated from water, a naturally replenished source making waterpower both a renewable and sustainable resource. It is considered to be the most widely-used form of renewable energy. Greenhouse gas emissions from a hydroelectric generating station are effectively zero. Waterpower generation provides peak and base load energy, which replaces non-renewable sources of power such as coal and gas. Some waterpower facilities are designed and operated to store energy (water) until it is needed for peak periods of usage.

Hydroelectric generating stations are long-lived, lasting upward of 80 years; there remain operating waterpower facilities in the province that were constructed at the turn of the 20th century. In 2009, the Ontario Green Energy Act (GEA) was enacted with the aim of making the province a global leader in clean, renewable energy. The Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Program administered by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) was established under the GEA to encourage the development of renewable energy in Ontario while phasing out the province’s coal-fired electricity by 2014. The FIT also promotes economic activity and the development of renewable energy technologies and the creation of new green industries and jobs.

1.2 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT

Xeneca Power Development Inc. (Xeneca) is proposing the construction of two hydroelectric generating stations (GS) at The Chute and Third Falls sites (the projects or facilities), located 44 km apart along the Ivanhoe River, to meet government and energy regulatory goals and objectives to generate sustainable and reliable hydroelectric power. The proposed Chute GS and Third Falls GS will have total nameplate capacities of 3.6 MW and 3.9 MW, respectively. The proposed projects were awarded 40-year FIT contracts from the OPA which, subsequent to a successful Environmental Assessment (EA) outcome, would see the facilities commissioned and delivering electricity to the provincial supply grid by October 2015.

The proposed projects are located on the Ivanhoe River. The proposed Chute GS is located approximately 85 km west of Timmins, and 15 km north of Highway 101; the proposed Third Falls GS is located 79 km west of Timmins and 46 km north of Highway 101. The proposed Third Falls GS is located 44 km downstream of the Chute GS. A site location map is provided as Figure 1.

When the proposed Third Falls and Chute projects were initiated in 2010, they were initially scoped as two separate projects due to the distance between the two sites and the initial design plan that each site’s respective effect on the river hydrology would be distinct. Subsequent economic analyses and hydrological modeling investigations at The Third Falls site have since

1 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 concluded that the maximum available capacity could be achieved when the headpond for the Third Falls site extends upstream into the downstream zone of influence of the Chute facility. Therefore, under the currently proposed development scenario the two projects are hydrologically linked. Accordingly, the assessment documented within this environmental report considers the combined potential environmental effects of both developments.

In addition, the Third Falls project was initially presented with two location options. One of these options was placed inside the boundary of the Northern Claybelt Forest Complex Conservation Reserve, and the other option was placed outside the reserve. In order for the option inside the conservation area to be considered, an amendment that de-regulates the reserve land being used for the project was required from the MNR. As the amendment was not approved, only the out-of-park option for the Third Falls project is being presented in this report.

Finally, the Third Falls project was initially proposed as a modified run-of-river facility similar to The Chute. However, in order to eliminate predicted flow effects which extended downstream into the Conservation Reserve, the operational regime of Third Falls has been modified. Third Falls will now be operated to moderate and re-naturalize the effects of the Chute, effectively providing run-of-river flows downstream of its tailrace.

1.2.1 Zone of Influence

For the purposes of this assessment, the zone of influence of the project consists of the areas which will be affected by the construction and operations of the facilities. These areas include the facilities and their construction area footprints and access road right of ways. It also includes the full extent of the Ivanhoe River and its tributaries extending from 6.4km upstream of The Chute facility to the tailrace of Third Falls facility up to the proposed inundation level and new shoreline.

2 82°30'0"W 82°15'0"W LEGEND !( Site Locations Roads Water Features N "

0 Third Falls ' 6 3 °

8 !( N 4 " 0 ' 6 3 ° 8 4 N " 0 ' 9 2 ° 8 N 4 " 0 ' 9 2 ° 8 4

v i

v I

86°0'0"W 84°0'0"W 82°0'0"W 80°0'0"W

The Chutes N N " "

0 James Bay 0 ' ' 0 0

!( ° ° 2 2 5 5 N " 0 ' 2 2 N N ° " " 8 N 0 0 4 ' ' " 0 0 0 ' ° ° 2 0 0 2 5 5

° Kapuskasing 8 4 !

Timmins

N ! N " " 0 0 ' ' 0 0 ° ° 8 8 4 4

Lake Sudbury North Bay Superior N ! N " " 0 0

' ! ' 0 0 ° ° 6 6 4 4 86°0'0"W 84°0'0"W 82°0'0"W 80°0'0"W

REFERENCE Note: MNR & Geogratis Data Services (2010) UTM Zone 17

0 4,950 9,900

Meters 1:125,000 O N " 0 '

5 PROJECT 1 ° 8 N 4 101 " 0 ' 5 1

° IVANHOE: THE CHUTE GS 8 %& 4 TITLE SITE LOCATION MAP

Timmins 60 km PROJECT No. DESIGN KC 06/10/2010 FIGURE GIS KC 06/10/2010 82°30'0"W 82°15'0"W 82°0'0"W CHECK TS 06/10/2010 REVIEW KM 06/10/2010 1 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

A tentative project development schedule outlining key project phases which have been or will be completed is provided below in Figure 2.

Ivanhoe River - The Chute & Third Falls Project FIT Schedule 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Task Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Conduct Environmental Field Complete Conceptual Designs Prepare Class EA Issue Draft / Final Class EA and NOC Complete Detail Designs Initiate Post EA Approvals & EA Procure Equipment

Equipment Delivery

Site Preparation

Construction Project Commissioning

Project Operational

(FIT Contract Operation Date: Oct. 12, 2015) Figure 2: Project Development Schedule

1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING PROCESS

The purpose of an environmental assessment (EA) is to recognize the potential effects of a project life cycle early in the project planning phase and take these effects into account during the development and design of the project. Environmental effects include both the positive and negative effects that a project would have, or could potentially have, on the environment at any stage in the project life cycle. The assessment also considers the effects of the environment on the project. The environment is defined as a combination of natural/physical, socio-economic, and cultural-human factors.

The components of hydroelectric projects evaluated by the Ontario Waterpower Class EA can include access roads, reservoirs or headponds, water control structures, water conveyance structures (canals or penstocks), and powerhouses. Connection lines and transformer stations are also components of the overall project, but the assessment of these components is not required in the Class EA and any information related to the connection line presented in this report is provided for the information of the reader. For each of these components, there are three main life-stages of development: construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning. There are also indirect activities related to the maintenance and operation of these facilities, including small volumes of non-hazardous waste generation and their disposal, and a backup generating system.

4 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The process of conducting this environmental assessment entailed the examination and evaluation of each component (i.e. dam) and life-stage (i.e. operation) of the proposed developments and their potential effect on each aspect of the current environment. Environmental effects are changes that may include, but are not limited to, alteration/loss/gain of natural features, flora or fauna and their habitat, ecological functions, natural resources, air and water quality, and cultural or heritage resources. Environmental effects may also include the displacement, impairment, or interference with existing land uses, land use and resource management plans, businesses or economic enterprises, recreational uses or activities, cultural pursuits, and social conditions and economic attributes.

1.4 APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING PROCESS

The environmental assessment team included internal departments within Xeneca (i.e. personnel from the Corporate Affairs and Communications (including Public Affairs and Aboriginal Relations), Environmental Affairs, Engineering, and Legal Affairs departments) as well as technical consultant firms retained by Xeneca for the proposed undertaking as such:

 Canadian Projects Limited

 Hatch

 Hutchison Environmental Sciences Ltd.

 KBM Resources Group

 Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI)

 Northern Bioscience

 OEL-HydroSys and WESA, divisions of BluMetric Environmental Inc.

 ORTECH Consulting Inc.

 Parish Geomorphic Ltd.

 R.J. Burnside and Associates Limited

 Woodland Heritage Services

5 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

1.4.1 Legal Framework

As a waterpower development with an installed capacity less than 200 MW, these projects are subject to the Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects (herein referred to as the Waterpower Class EA) planning process developed by the Ontario Waterpower Association as approved by the Ministry of the Environment in October 2008 (revised in April 2012) under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The Ivanhoe River has water control infrastructure in place in other sections of the waterway and the river is managed for water levels and flows. The proponent has categorized the proposed waterpower facilities at The Chute and Third Falls sites as ‘new projects on a managed waterway’ in accordance with the definitions found in the Waterpower Class EA (Appendix A).

The EA team also reviewed other applicable environmental assessment guidelines and legislation regulating small hydroelectric developments in the Province of Ontario, and determined that the following regulatory processes and guidelines may be applicable to this undertaking:

 Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR-RSFDP Class EA);

 The Federal Requirements for Waterpower Development Environmental Assessment Processes in Ontario – Practitioner’s Guide (DFO-OWA); and

 The Water Management Planning Guidelines for Waterpower, Ministry of Natural Resources.

The proposed project will also require an authorization from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) under the Fisheries Act and an approval from Transport Canada under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). In the early stages of the planning process, these federal regulatory approvals triggered the requirement for a screening-level environmental assessment under CEAA. Since the enactment of the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA, 2012) a federal screening is no longer required. As such, this Environmental Report document is primarily intended to meet Class EA requirements, though federal information requirements have been addressed where possible.

According to Ontario Regulation 116/01 (Electricity Regulation) connection lines less than 115 kV are Category A undertakings and therefore exempt from a provincial environmental assessment. As such, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) notified the proponent that, where the disposition of Crown resources is required for the connection line, and where the project is not subject to an environmental assessment (Category A), the MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects Class Environmental Assessment (MNR-RSFDP Class EA) would apply. However, as a result of more recent decisions within MNR it has since been determined that the MNR-RSFDP Class EA will not apply to the development. Any information provided on transmission lines in this report are for transparency and permitting purposes and are not required under the Ontario Waterpower Class EA.

6 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The EA team worked closely with many stakeholders at the local, provincial and federal levels to ensure that the local environment including physical, social/cultural and economic aspects were well understood.

The EA team collaborated in the completion of the Potential Effects Identification Matrix (Table 3, Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects (OWA, Revised April 2012)). This matrix was included in the Project Description document developed by Xeneca, and circulated to regulators in order to begin the planning process.

Based on the review of these documents and consultation with the key provincial and federal authorities assigned to the project, the EA team determined that there was an overlap of many of the requirements for the above noted processes.

1.4.2 Characterize Local Environment of Proposed Development

The EA team completed the following tasks to characterize the local environment in the proposed development areas:

 A detailed literature review of existing information available through provincial and federal databases. The documents are identified in the References section in this document and in the technical reports referenced throughout this document;

 Field investigations to supplement the terrestrial and aquatic biology record available for the site. The EA team undertook detailed field investigations throughout the project areas to document existing conditions and assess the potential effects of the projects on these conditions. The results of these studies are presented throughout this document and in a detailed report in Annex III;

 Stage 1 and Stage II Archaeological Assessments to supplement the available historical record for the project.

 Engineering field investigations to supplement the topography, water depth and hydrology data. A statistical analysis of historical hydrological data was completed. Hydraulic modeling was also undertaken to assess flow depths and velocities. Steady-state and unsteady-state hydraulic models were developed using HEC-RAS. Detailed reports are found in Annex l.

 Extensive desktop review for access roads incorporating ELC, GIS information, MNR’s input values, and also forestry resource inventories with an intention to avoid any sensitive areas or private properties which will be supplemented through ground truthing in the spring of 2013.

7 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

1.4.3 Identify Potential Environmental Effects

The EA team used a consultative process to identify the potential effects of the project in the early stages of the planning process through completion of the Potential Effects Identification Matrix from the Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects. The matrix is useful in determining the data gathering and analysis program, and it was circulated to regulators at the beginning of the environmental assessment planning process. In examining the potential effects of this project, the EA team considered all stages of the project including construction, operation/maintenance and decommissioning along with their potential impacts within the determined Zone of Influence (Appendix B).

1.4.4 Identify Required Mitigation, Monitoring or Additional Investigations

Based on their areas of expertise, the EA team developed a summary of recommended actions to prevent or mitigate negative effects of the proposed undertakings on the environment. These mitigation measures were compiled based on the information collected during the study period (field and desktop), through consultation with government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities and the EA team’s knowledge of hydroelectric developments. The residual effects, those that cannot be prevented, avoided or mitigated, are identified and classified based on their significance. It should be noted that residual effects also include the positive benefits that would be achieved through the lifecycle of these projects to ensure that all potential net effects are afforded consideration.

Recommendations for environmental monitoring, where on-going data collection will be required to monitor possible short-term or long-term effects (i.e. those that would be experienced during construction and those that may be experienced subsequent to commissioning) are included within this document. Environmental monitoring during both construction and operation will be subject to regulatory approval at the permitting stage in advance of construction. The proponent has made commitments related to the projects which may include additional data and information collection activities. A list of commitments proposed by Xeneca in support of the Chute and Third Falls waterpower development are summarized in Section 14 of this document.

1.4.5 Agency and Public Consultation and Aboriginal Communities Engagement

The consultation and engagement initiatives were designed to co-ordinate all applicable requirements for the regulatory, public and Aboriginal community notification, engagement and consultation. The results of these initiatives are presented within this document. The regulatory agencies, public interest groups and communities, First Nations, other Aboriginal groups and additional stakeholders identified during the EA planning process for the proposed Chute and Third Falls projects include:

8 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC, formerly known as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Transport Canada (TC) Environment Canada (EC) Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Health Canada (HC)

Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Ontario Ministry of Energy (ME) Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) Ontario Ministry of Transportation

Brunswick House First Nation (Wabun Tribal Council) Chapleau Cree First Nation Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation (Wabun Tribal Council) Flying Post First Nation (Wabun Tribal Council) Mattagami First Nation (Wabun Tribal Council) Métis Nation Ontario Michipicoten First Nation Timmins Métis Council Moose Cree First Nation Taykwa Tagamou First Nation

Information is also provided to: Constance Lake First Nation Missanabie Cree First Nation North Channel Métis Council Northern Lights Métis Council Sudbury Métis Council

City of Timmins Foleyet Local Services Board Town of Chapleau

Air Ivanhoe Borden Lake Campers Association

9 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Chapleau Anglers Hunters Club Chapleau Arctic Watershed Snowmobile Club Chapleau ATV Club Chapleau Centennial Museum Chapleau Tourist Association Do Little Inn Gosenda Lodge Ivanhoe Lake Cottager's Association Kinniwabi Long Rifles Club Northern Wilderness Cottages Ontario Clean Water Agency Ontario Rivers Alliance Red Pine Lodge Timmins Chamber of Commerce Utor Gold Construction Whitepine Lodge Interested members of the public

A summary of the key consultation activities is provided below:

 A Notice of Commencement (NOC) and two subsequent revisions to the Notice were issued by Xeneca. The NOCs were concurrently advertised in local media. The first NOC was issued on July 28, 2010. The NOC was revised and re-issued on November 10, 2010, and again on December 22, 2010. All notices identified both projects on the Ivanhoe River.

 A Project Descriptions for The Chute and Third Falls hydroelectric generating stations were issued in November, 2010 and January 2011 respectively to provincial ministries, municipal stakeholders and the Ontario Waterpower Association and circulated federally through the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC).

 The Project Descriptions were also distributed in electronic format to nine First Nations and Aboriginal communities (Brunswick House First Nation, Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation, Constance Lake First Nation, Flying Post First Nation, Mattagami First Nation, Missanabie First Nation, Michipicoten First Nation, Moose Cree First Nation, Wabun Tribal Council). Hard copies of the Project Descriptions were distributed in April and May 2011 to Brunswick House First Nation, Chapleau Cree First Nation (Fox Lake Reserve), Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation, Constance Lake First Nation, Flying Post First Nation, Mattagami First Nation, Missanabie First Nation, Michipicoten First Nation, Moose Cree First Nation, Taykwa Tagamou First Nation, Wabun Tribal Council and Métis Nation of Ontario. A record of Aboriginal engagement and consultation in support of these undertakings is provided in Appendix E.

10 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 A complete record of Agency consultation is provided in Appendix C and is summarized in Section 6.3. A data acquisition meeting for both Ivanhoe River projects with MNR was held via teleconference on March 3, 2010. An EA Coordination meeting attended by federal and provincial regulators and municipal representatives was held on April 19, 2011;

 Public Information Centres were held at the Foleyet Community Centre in Foleyet, Ontario on January 13 and 27, 2011. Others were held in Chapleau, Ontario on July 7, 2011 and on July 26, 2012. A record of public consultation is provided in Appendix D, and summarized in Section 6.4. Both proposed development sites were presented and discussed at these consultation events.

 Public focus group consultation events held in support of this combined undertaking are detailed in Section 6.4.

 Copies of advertisements, notifications, and correspondences are discussed further in this report and copies are provided in their respective appendices.

 Aboriginal consultation and engagement events in support of this combined undertaking are detailed in Section 6.5.

 A Notice of Completion for The Chute GS as an individual project was issued on July 14, 2011. In September of 2011, six Part II Order requests were submitted to Xeneca and the Ministry of the Environment. At this time it was mutually agreed that the Notice of Completion and ER would be withdrawn and the EA planning process for the project would continue as a planning process that would consider The Chute GS and Third Falls GS as a combined project.

 Through remainder of 2011 and 2012 additional consultation and engagement with the public, First Nations and regulators has occurred which considers The Chute and Third Falls as a combined project. An additional PIC was held on July 26, 2012 to update members of the public on changes to the process and project design and to clarify some of the changes that had been made since the retraction of the 2011 Notice of Completion.

The Final Environmental Report will be provided to regulatory agencies, First Nations, Aboriginal groups and made available for electronic review to local stakeholders that were identified during the EA planning process. Hard copies of the Final Environmental Report will also be placed in local municipal libraries and municipal government offices for a 30-day formal review period as per the Class EA for Waterpower Projects. The review will follow the steps below:

11 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 A Notice of Completion will be issued for publication in local media, emailed to stakeholders and posted on the Xeneca website.

 Formal review of the Environmental Report and submission of reviewer comments (both regulatory and public) identifying outstanding issues and any requests to meet with Xeneca.

 During the formal review period Xeneca and stakeholders will attempt to resolve any issues that have been brought forward.

 Once outstanding issues have been resolved within the formal review period or within any subsequent periods required for third party resolution, Xeneca will submit the Notice of Completion.

 If, at the end of the formal review period, the stakeholder is not satisfied with Xeneca’s proposed resolution, the stakeholder may make a written request to MOE for a Part II Order. Such requests to be compliant with requirements of the Waterpower Class EA.

12 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Existing Conditions section provides a description of the existing environmental conditions in the proposed project areas. Any potential effects of the project on these existing conditions during construction and operations are discussed in Section 7.

2.1 LOCATION AND LAND OWNERSHIP IN PROJECT AREA

The Ivanhoe projects will be built on provincial Crown land in the geographical townships of Oates and Belford respectively. No known parcels of private land exist within the close proximity of the two sites. The proposed Third Falls project site is located immediately upstream of the North Clay Belt Conservation Reserve (C1702), placing the proposed Chute site 44 km upstream of the same Reserve. The Ivanhoe River flows through this conservation reserve, and is considered to be of significant value. In addition, both projects are located upstream of Groundhog River Provincial Park.

The closest municipalities to The Chute project are the Town of Foleyet, occupying a total area of 12 km2 and located about 20 km south of the site location, and Timmins, which occupies about 2,961 km2 and is located approximately 85 km east of the site. The Third Falls project is located approximately 25 km northeast of The Chute project as the crow flies, and 44 km downstream following the Ivanhoe River.

The project footprint and potential areas of impact, (i.e. for the generating stations, headponds, control structures, access road(s) and connection lines) are located entirely on provincial lands. Conceptual design details are found in Annex ll.

The approximate geographic coordinates and watershed drainage area for the proposed Chute and Third Falls sites are:

Chute:

Geographic coordinates: 48o 23’ 28.1” N; 82o 27’ 3” W

Watershed drainage area: 2723 km2

Third Falls:

Geographic coordinates: 48o 36’ 20.7” N; 82o 21’ 29.2” W

Watershed drainage area: 3242 km2

2.2 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

Access to the proposed Chute project site is via the Oates Road, which exits north from Highway 101 approximately 3 km east of the Town of Foleyet. The Oates Road is a well-maintained

13 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 primary forest access road situated within the Pineland Forest, which is licensed to EACOM Timber.

For the proposed Chute GS site access will be required from both sides of the Ivanhoe River. Access to the proposed development site from the east side of the Ivanhoe River is via the Oates Road (approx. 14.5 km) then along the Laundry Road for approximately 2.2 km. Water crossings and drainage culverts were noted to be in good condition along the Oates Road. The Laundry Road is not a regularly maintained forest access road and is primarily used by the public to access a boat launch and campsite north of the falls. Access to the west side of the proposed Chute GS development site requires crossing the Ivanhoe River via the existing Bailey Bridge with tertiary roads providing access to a point 200 m west of the proposed GS location.

Access to the Third falls GS is via 79.7 km of existing primary road, 16.3 km of secondary access road and 3.5 km of new road providing access to the west side of the GS

There is another water control structure located on the Ivanhoe River. The Ivanhoe Lake Dam, located 40 km upstream of the Chute site and 84 km upstream of the Third Falls site, is owned and operated by the Chapleau District of the MNR. The operation of the Ivanhoe Lake Dam is governed by the existing Mattagami River Water Management Plan (WMP). Among the objectives of the WMP is the protection of the ecological and recreational values of Ivanhoe Lake and the downstream water treatment facilities in the Town of Foleyet. The existence of the upstream Ivanhoe Lake Dam has been taken into consideration throughout the planning and design process of the proposed Chute GS and Third Falls GS.

Xeneca has designed the proposed Chute GS and Third Falls GS to operate independently of the Ivanhoe Lake Dam, and current modeling demonstrates that the project will not impact Ivanhoe Lake or the Town of Foleyet. As such, Xeneca has no current or future plans to request a change in the operations of the Ivanhoe Lake Dam or to use Ivanhoe Lake for operation of the Chute GS or Third Falls GS. The management of levels and flows on Ivanhoe Lake will not be manipulated as a result of the proposed hydropower developments.

2.3 TOPOGRAPHY

The general topography of the area is characterized by gently rising uplands and lowland flats (Rowe 1972). The Ivanhoe River flows through a steeply banked valley. At the proposed project location, the valley rises approximately 15 m from the river’s edge over a horizontal distance of less than 50 m.

2.4 CLIMATE

In Northern Ontario the climate is primarily continental, with cold winters and mild summer temperatures moderated by the Great Lakes. Most precipitation falls in the form of summer showers and thunderstorms; winter snowfall amounts can be significant. During the winter months, Northern Ontario can have prolonged periods of extreme cold.

14 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

For the city of Timmins, mean daily temperatures range from a high of 17.4oC in July to a low of -17.5oC in January. Mean maximum daily temperatures (mean of past 25 years) reach a peak in July of 24.2oC, with 38.9oC being the highest daily temperature on record. The mean minimum daily temperatures are reached in January (-23.9oC) with -44.2oC being the coldest day on record. Annual precipitation averages 831.3 mm with rainfall accounting for 558.1 mm of that total. On average, July is the wettest month and February is the driest. (Canada’s National Climate Archive, 2009).

2.5 SOILS

The site is located in the northern Clay Belt and humo-ferric podzol soils tend to dominate. Site specific soil information may be available following site investigations in the pre-construction phase of the project development following the successful completion of this environmental assessment.

2.6 GEOLOGY

The Chute:

Bedrock Geology

Detailed geological information covering the project area is poor. Two bedrock geology maps were indicated by the Ontario Geological Survey’s (OGSEarth) digital database as covering the project area, but upon more detailed investigation were found to not cover the project area. On the recommendation of the MNR, the report “Geology of the Chapleau area, districts of Algoma, Sudbury and Cochrane” (Thurston et. al., 1977) was investigated and one of the associated maps does cover the project area (M2351). Information from this map and from the bedrock geology dataset from the OGSEarth digital database was used to compile this geological summary.

The study area is located within the Superior Province of the Canadian Shield. Bedrock at The Chutes project site consists of paragneiss, migmatites and undifferentiated metasedimentary rocks. West of the project area, ~250 m at the closest proximity to the project site, the bedrock is a gneissic tonalite suite, with foliated to gneissic tonalite to granodiorite. ~800 m east of the project area the bedrock is massive ganodiorite to granite in composition. Three mafic dikes – one belonging to the Sudbury dike swarm (~1235-1238 Ma) and two of unknown association are found near the project area – one ~500 m north, one ~500 m south, and the last is ~800 m northwest of The Chute.

Surficial Geology

The surficial geology in the vicinity of The Chute consists of glaciofluvial sediments. Immediately surrounding the project area, and extending to the east, are sand and gravels associated with esker complexes. The area has moderate, undulating to rolling relief and dry drainage. West of The Chute the surficial sediments are sands from a glacial outwash plain and some peat and muck

15 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 associated with organic deposits; the area has moderate local relief and mixed wet and dry drainage.

Third Falls:

Bedrock Geology

The bedrock immediately surrounding the project area (approximately 1 km radius) consists of metamorphosed mafic intrusive rocks including gabbro and peridotite. Outwards from the immediate area the bedrock also includes metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The entire region is part of the Superior Province of the Canadian Shield. According to geological mapping, a minor fault in interpreted to extend across the Third Falls project area. Details about the timing and extent of movement along the fault are not available; however given the geological stability of the Canadian Shield, the fault is likely inactive.

Surficial Geology

The surficial geology surrounding Third Falls consists of organic peat/muck and clay and silt of a glaciolacustrine plain, with some low outcrops of bedrock. The area has low local relief with mixed wet and dry drainage. Approximately 300 m directly east of Third Falls is an esker complex consisting of silt and gravel – forming an area of moderate local relief and dry drainage.

2.7 HYDROGEOLOGY

A review of Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s electronic well records database revealed there are no water well records within a 1-km buffer surrounding the zone of influence and area of impact of the proposed development.

2.8 RIVER HYDROLOGY

The following information was sourced from existing background data and data collected during field investigations.

The Ivanhoe River originates from drainage from a series of kettle lakes and feeder tributaries such as Wright Creek, Kinogoma River and Biggs Creek, and flows northward into Ivanhoe Lake. Ivanhoe Lake is long and sinuous and is located approximately 8 km southwest of the town of Foleyet. The original, natural outlet of the lake was via the “Old Channel” (near the northwest end) which was dammed to facilitate historic logging activities in the area. An esker was later breached near the northeast end of the lake which led to the formation of the “New Channel” of the Ivanhoe River (Ayer 1993). The “New Channel” is approximately 16 km in length before it reconnects with the Ivanhoe River “Old Channel”. A concrete dam, currently owned and operated by the Chapleau District of the MNR, regulates water levels in the system and is operated as required under the Mattagami River Water Management Plan.

16 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Downstream of Ivanhoe Lake, the Ivanhoe River is generally low gradient and meandering with short stretches of rapids. The drainage area of the Ivanhoe River at The Chute and Third Falls is approximately 2,723 km2 and 3,242 km2, respectively. The river channel is contained within a well-defined, narrow flood plain. Minor drainages such as Heart and Biting Creek join the Ivanhoe River before the confluence with the Shawmere River approximately 32 km downstream of Ivanhoe Lake. Downstream of the Shawmere River confluence, only four additional unnamed drainages from kettle lakes and muskegs outlet to the Ivanhoe River prior to reaching The Chute hydroelectric site approximately 8 km downstream. The Ivanhoe River continues northward to join the Groundhog River which flows for approximately 145 km before joining with the Mattagami River. The Mattagami River is joined by the Kapuskasing River approximately 12 km downstream and continues to flow northward where it contributes its flow to the Moose River and continues to James Bay. The reader is referred to Figure 1 provided in the 2009 Hydrology Review for Ivanhoe Hydropower Sites (Hatch) appended in Annex I.

2.8.1 Water Levels, Flow and Movement

Flow values for Ivanhoe River at The Chute and Third Falls were prorated using drainage basin area, from Water Survey of Canada gauge 04LC003 (Ivanhoe River at Foleyet). Hydrographs and flow duration curves have been developed for the sites and are provided in Annex I.

The development and operation of the proposed generating stations will alter the existing river system and impact the hydrological characteristics of the Ivanhoe River both upstream and downstream of each site. Regulatory agencies expect that the proponent will determine through study the flows required to maintain aquatic ecosystem integrity in the zones of influence of each proposed project. The potential impacts of the proposed development and operations of The Chute and Third Falls facilities on the hydrological regime are described within this environmental report.

2.8.2 Surface Water Quality

2010 Studies

Surface water quality investigations were undertaken in 2010 to establish ambient (baseline) characteristics of the Ivanhoe River at the proposed project sites. For each of the proposed project sites, two sampling events (spring and summer) were conducted at two locations. The results of the sampling events were compared to the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) to establish ambient water quality conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project locations. The PWQO were established by the Ministry of the Environment in 1994. Under the Ontario Water Resources Act the MOE has the supervision of all surface and ground waters in Ontario. The reader will note that several of the parameters subjected to analyses do not have a PWQO objective.

The spring event at The Chute was undertaken on May 27, 2010; the summer event was completed on July 21, 2010. During the sampling events, general observation and characteristics

17 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 of each sampling location was assessed and recorded (i.e. water level, current, color and odour). In the spring sampling event, no parameter levels exceeded the PWQO. In the summer event, one of the duplicate samples exceeded the PWQO for zinc.

The spring and summer sampling events at Third Falls occurred on May 28, 2010, and July 23, 2010, respectively. General observations and characteristics (i.e. water level, current, colour and odour) were assessed and recorded during the July sampling event. At one of the two sampling sites, exceedances in zinc were recorded during both the May and July sampling events. At the other sampling site, exceedances in copper and lead were recorded during the July sampling event only. The source of these elevated metal concentrations is not known.

The detailed findings of the investigations are included in Annex IV of this report.

2012 Studies

Additional studies were undertaken by in 2012 and conducted according to the recommendations of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) document titled “From Class EA to Permit to Take Water: A Guide to Understanding the Ministry of the Environment’s Technical Requirements for Waterpower” (Draft - January, 2012) and discussions with the MOE on application of the recommendations to the Ivanhoe Projects. The studies further sought to characterize baseline conditions of water quality and mercury concentrations in fish. The 2012 baseline results indicate that the Ivanhoe River in the project area has very good water quality, typical of a river with few contaminant sources in its watershed.

In 2012, sampling occurred at The Chute on April 16, August 20, and November 3. Sampling at Third Falls occurred on April 15, August 18, and November 3.

All measured concentrations were found to be well below the PWQOs. The results of the sampling dates indicate that there are seasonal influences on the river’s water quality; turbidity, phosphorous, sulphate, aluminum, iron, and total mercury were all elevated during the spring freshet, decreased during summer low flows, and increased again alongside flows in the fall.

In addition, dissolved oxygen concentration followed the same pattern, indicative of wetlands flushing into the river in higher flow periods. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and manganese showed weak fluctuations and no seasonal trends; calcium, magnesium, and strontium concentrations showed patterns inversely related to the river’s flow.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations exceed the PWQO for coldwater species, but showed higher concentrations in spring and fall and lower concentrations in summer, reflective of water temperature.

Studies for mercury concentration in large fish were completed based on Walleye caught in 2011 by NRSI. All samples from all sites showed a range of 232 ng/g to 1900 ng/g; site median concentrations ranged from 476 ng/g to 556 ng/g. Mercury concentrations in many large fish

18 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 exceeded MOE consumption guidelines for women of child bearing age and children under 15, while all concentrations exceeded the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) mercury guidelines.

Studies for mercury concentrations in forage fish were based on multiple species caught in 2012. Total and methyl mercury concentrations in forage fish were 3-4 times higher upstream of Third Falls than upstream of The Chute. Three of four samples at the Chute and all samples from Third Falls were above CCME guidelines.

Details from the additional 2012 studies can be found in Annex IV of this report. Additional pre- development surface water collection events will be undertaken as part of the water quality monitoring program for the project.

2.8.3 Thermal regime

The results of 2012 baseline studies show that water temperature in the project area ranged from approximately 6°C in the spring, to 20°C in the summer, to 3°C in the fall.

The fish community is typical of a warm/cool water temperature regime and is more dependent on flow regime and water levels within the watershed than temperature regimes. The exception is the possibility of a cold water regime in contributing tributaries in the reach of the Ivanhoe River between the Chute and the Third Falls. The investigation of the thermal regimes of these tributaries will be investigated in the summer of 2013.

2.9 ECOLOGY

The EA team analyzed the existing ecological conditions at the combined project sites based on the Site Information Package (SIP) received from the Ministry of Natural Resources (Appendix A) and field investigations conducted by NRSI in 2010, 2011, and 2012. These field investigations addressed fisheries, aquatic habitat, and terrestrial habitat in the study area, which was delineated as the Zone of Influence (ZOI) plus a 120 m perimeter buffer. Due to project developments, the nature of the study area has changed over the course of field investigation; those changes are described below in order to provide context.

In 2010, the Chute and Third Falls were being considered as two separate projects. The 2010 natural heritage studies applied only to the project site for The Chute GS. The zone of influence for The Chute project was established with an understanding of the project’s influence on natural environment features based on static inundation mapping. As such, the zone of influence used for 2010 studies was defined as the extent of headpond inundation (2.8 km static) plus the downstream reach which experiences variable flows as a result of the proposed operations (approximately 400 m). The study area was generally defined to include these areas plus 120 m.

Before the 2011 field season, updated 2011 hydrological modeling information showed that the proposed area of inundation at the Chute headpond was estimated to extend 6.4 km upstream

19 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 from The Chute development and have an overall surface area of 59 ha. Therefore, 2011 field studies were modified to encompass this newly identified area of inundation.

Following the release of the Chute GS Environmental Report in 2011, it was determined that the headpond of Third Falls extends into the tailrace of the Chute and that the two projects are hydrologically linked. As such, the current ZOI of the combined projects extends from 6.4 km upstream of the proposed Chute GS to the end of the tailrace of the Third Falls GS.

The 2010, 2011, and 2012 work programs included Fish Community Surveys, Riverine Index Netting Surveys, Walleye Spawning Surveys, Northern Pike Spawning Surveys, Benthic Macro Invertebrate Assessment, Lake Sturgeon Spawning Surveys, Lake Sturgeon Distribution Fall Surveys, Mercury Fish Tissue Analysis, Aquatic Habitat Characterization, Water Temperature Analysis, Breeding Bird Surveys, Incidental Wildlife Surveys, Snake Coverboard Surveys, and Vegetation Community Assessments. A report addressing the findings of these studies is provided in Annex III of this document. A brief summary of the findings is presented in sections 2.9.2 and 2.9.3.

2.9.1 Site Information Package

Site Information Packages (SIP) for The Chute and Third Falls was provided to the proponent by the Ministry of Natural Resources (Appendix A). Key natural heritage features identified in the SIPs for the project areas are listed below.

Fish and Fish Habitat

A wide variety of species are found in the Ivanhoe River within the vicinity of The Chute and Third Falls projects. Aquatic studies indicate the presence of 18 fish species within the reach of the river including several species of sport fish (Walleye, Northern Pike, and Smallmouth Bass). Sensitive coldwater species such as Mottled Sculpin, Burbot and Brook trout were collected in the vicinity of the projects within the incoming tributaries and the main stem. Lake Sturgeon, a species of Special Concern, was caught within the river system downstream of the proposed Third Falls GS near the confluence with the Groundhog River.

 Walleye, Northern pike, White sucker, Yellow perch, Fathead minnow, Iowa darter, River chub and Log perch have been confirmed throughout the Ivanhoe River.

 In addition, Burbot, Lake whitefish, Cisco and Spottail shiner have been confirmed upstream of The Chute.

 Additional species including Brook trout, White sucker, lake whitefish, burbot and various minnow species may also be present in the river but are not yet confirmed within the first 80km portion of the Ivanhoe River.

20 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 Lake Sturgeon have been confirmed in the Ivanhoe River at 6.6 to 7.1 km upstream of the Groundhog River and Ivanhoe River confluence.

 There is a confirmed spawning site for lake sturgeon is located at km 6.6 of the Ivanhoe (approximately 20 km downstream of Third Falls)

 Good quality spawning habitat exists for Walleye at the base of both The Chute and Third Falls as well as for Northern pike along the vegetated shorelines of the river. The likelihood for additional spawning habitat for both species also exists both above and below The Chute and Third Falls.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora and Fauna

According to the Ministry’s SIPs, beaver slides and activity are numerous throughout the shorelines of The Chute and Third Falls. Other wildlife species in both areas that rely on the river system and riparian habitat also include:

 Spring peeper, otter, muskrat, mink, snowshoe hare, marten, fox, wolves, black bear, moose and various small mammals.

 There are also documented moose aquatic feeding areas along the tributaries of the Ivanhoe River both upstream and downstream of The Chutes and approximately 5 km upstream from Third Falls.

 Confirmed Significant Wildlife Habitat was also identified within the study area for moose aquatic feeding, Lake Sturgeon habitat, Rare treed Type: Black Ash, otter denning and furbearer movement corridor, and habitat for Canada warbler, common nighthawk and olive-sided flycatcher.

2.9.2 Terrestrial Habitat and Species

Studies on terrestrial habitat and species were conducted over the course of 2010, 2011, and 2012 (Annex III). The study area is dominated by Spruce-Fir Conifer, with some coniferous and thicket swamp communities near tributary mouths.

Terrestrial forest communities were identified within 120 m of the proposed development site and for the 2.8 km inundation area are dominated by eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) forest communities with some areas in an early succession stage following forestry activity. An open water marsh is also located on the east side of the Ivanhoe River near the anticipated inundation area. Sixteen ecosite types have been identified within the study area and are described in detail in NRSI report.

Field observations identified 99 bird species present in the site vicinity based upon morning surveys on June 16 and July 8, 2010. Ten species demonstrated confirmed breeding evidence,

21 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 including Canada goose (Branta canadensis), hooded merganser (Lophodyrtes cucullatus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), American black duck (Anas rubripes), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), great horned owl (Bubo virgianus), gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and common merganser (Mergus merganser).

During breeding bird surveys, four significant bird species, bald eagle, Canada warbler, olive- sided flycatcher and common nighthawk were observed within the study area.

Based on the EA team’s field observations, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) may be breeding within the study area. The bald eagle is a provincially designated as a species of Special Concern and its habitat is considered a Significant Wildlife Habitat. Significant Wildlife Habitat for Bald Eagle nesting was confirmed within the study area.

No significant herpetofaunal species were identified within the vicinity of the study area.

A total of 23 mammal species have been identified as potentially present within the study area; there were evidence or direct observations of 13 species during site investigations, all of which represent common species with secure populations within Ontario.

2.9.3 Aquatic Habitat and Species

Studies on aquatic habitat and species were conducted over the course of 2010, 2011, and 2012. Over the course of all three field seasons, a total of 18 fish species were captured within the study area, which is indicative of a diverse fish community.

 Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) – Southern Hudson Bay-James Bay population

 White sucker (Catostromus commersonii)

 Lake Whitefish (Coregonis cluepeaformis)

 Blackfin Cisco (Coregonis nigripinnis)

 Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdi)

 Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans)

 Northern Pike (Esox lucius)

 Iowa Darter (Etheostoma exile)

 Johnny Darter (Etheostoma nigrum)

 Burbot (Lota lota)

22 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 Sopttail Shiner (Notropis hudsonius)

 Logperch (Percina caprodes)

 Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens)

 Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)

 Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys obtusus)

 Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

 Walleye (Sander vitreus)

 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu)

The families of the fish captured are Acipenseridae (sturgeon),Catostomidae (suckers), Centracidae (sunfishes), Cottidae (sculpins), Cyprinidae (minnows), Esocidae (pike), Gadidae (cods), Gasterosteidae (sticklebacks), Percidae (perches), Salmonidae (salmon and trout) and Salmonidae – subfamily Coregoninae (whitefish).

In addition to the species caught, an additional 4 species are known to exist in the Ivanhoe River based on background information.

 Cisco (Coregonus artedi)

 Common Shiner (Luxilus cornutus)

 Blacknose Shiner (Notropis heterolepis)

 Trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus)

The fish community is composed primarily of generalist species that are not highly dependent on specific habitat requirements for spawning or life history processes. With the exception of Northern pike, which require specific habitat characteristics for spawning, rearing and refuge, the fish community is typical of warm/cool water temperature regimes, the distribution of which is primarily dependant on flow regime/ water levels within the watershed and to a lesser extent water temperatures.

Based on Aquatic Habitat Characterization, several fastwater habitat features exist within the main stem of the study area, including chute, riffle, and run habitat. In total, based on variable water levels (low flow to bank-full), there is from 8000 m2 to 15,940 m2 of chute habitat, from 32,630 m2 to 62,230 m2 of riffle habitat, and from 21,480 m2 to 61,000 m2 of run habitat. Of this fastwater habitat, suitable spawning substrate was observed in multiple areas. Spawning surveys in 2010, 2011, and 2012 determined that spawning occurs in areas downstream of Third

23 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Falls, upstream of The Chute, and immediately downstream of The Chute. Further details pertaining to the spawning survey results can be found in NRSI’s report in Annex III.

Additionally, Northern Pike spawning habitat (shallow areas with emergent vegetation) is present along shoreline. The presence of both adult and young-of-year Northern Pike in the system has been confirmed. Detailed habitat characterization can be found in the NRSI Report in Annex III. It was also determined that tributaries likely provide important habitat for a variety of fish species; this habitat will be further quantified before construction begins.

While the majority of fish species collected are indicative of a warm/coolwater fish community, five species do have thermal preferences for cool waters. These included Mottled Sculpin, Burbot, Lake whitefish, Blackfin Cisco, and Brook trout. The presence of these species suggests that areas of suitable thermal regime exist within the study area. Additional studies pertaining to potential Brook trout, coldwater habitat, and tributary characterization are planned for the 2013 field season.

Lake Sturgeon, a species of Special Concern, was also caught within the river system downstream of the proposed Third Falls GS near the confluence with the Groundhog River. Lake Sturgeon spawning surveys were conducted in 2010 and 2011; no eggs were observed.

For a full description of the results of the 2010 aquatic ecological assessment, including complete lists of all documented species and assessment methods, please refer to the Natural Environment Characterization and Impact Assessment Report (2013) which is appended to this document as Annex III.

2.9.4 Valued Ecosystem Components

In the opinion of the EA team, Walleye, Northern pike, Brook trout, Lake sturgeon, bald eagle, moose, large denning weasels, and their habitats are the primary natural heritage valued ecosystem components (VEC) in the study area.

Walleye

Walleye are a predatory fish species with broad distribution covering much of the eastern United States and central Canada. Found in both lakes and rivers, they are tolerant of a broad range of environmental conditions. Walleye is a widely sought-after recreational and subsistence fishery, and is often considered the finest freshwater food fish. It may also be the most economically valuable fish species in Canadian inland waters. As seen through public correspondence, Walleye are popular with both local anglers and visiting tourists, and as such hold high socioeconomic value in the community surrounding the proposed project. In the MNR Usage Survey held in 2011 and 2012, Walleye was one of the two most angled fish species in the area, along with Northern Pike.

24 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

During the 2010 summer field studies, Walleye were captured at one station upstream of The Chute indicating that resident populations occur upstream and most likely downstream. The surveyed sections of the river contained six areas of boulder/cobble/gravel that represent potential spawning habitat. Walleye spawning was confirmed by the presence of eggs on deployed mats.

Northern Pike

Northern pike are a popular sport fish and have healthy populations in the area. As such, they provide socioeconomic value to both local anglers and tourism operations in the area as part of the variety of species that can be found and caught in the area. According to the MNR Usage Survey at the project sites in 2011 and 2012, Northern Pike was one of the two most angled fish species in the area, along with Walleye. During field investigations conducted during the Walleye spawning surveys, a total of ten Northern pike were successfully angled both downstream of The Chute and downstream of the Oates Bridge rapids, suggesting that they are present in various sections of the Ivanhoe River.

Potentially significant spawning areas for Northern pike have been noted as existing approximately 3.5 km and 5.5 km downstream of the Chute site (Annex III). The 2010 field investigations also identified 3 smaller potential Northern pike spawning locations. One location was noted approximately 120 m downstream of The Chute and the other locations were immediately upstream and downstream of the Oates Road Bridge approximately 1.8 km upstream of The Chute.

Brook trout

Brook trout were also identified by the MNR as a valued species which may be present within the project area, and were caught in the project area during field studies. Brook trout are highly mobile and could be found both in the main stem of the Ivanhoe River or its tributaries depending on the time of year and available habitats. The Shawmere River joins the Ivanhoe River approximately 650 m upstream of the updated inundation area, approximately 7 km upstream of the proposed dam, and is considered by locals and MNR as a significant coldwater system with a healthy population of Brook trout.

Lake Sturgeon

Based on the results of the fall Lake Sturgeon investigation, this species appears to be restricted to the lower reach of the Ivanhoe River near the confluence with the Groundhog River by a barrier falls. There are a number of other impediments/barriers to fish passage which will likely further limit their potential occurrence both downstream of the proposed Third Falls hydroelectric site and upstream in the proposed inundation area. As the largest fish in Ontario, and a Species at Risk, the Lake Sturgeon has a zero harvest quota for both recreational and commercial fisheries. Accordingly, the Lake Sturgeon does not hold socioeconomic value in terms of angling at the

25 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 present. However, public correspondence shows stewardship concern for the species and demonstrates high social value among the surrounding community.

Bald Eagle

Members of the EA team observed a bald eagle flying in suitable habitat on July 7, 2010, indicating possible breeding. Bald eagles nest in mature to old growth forest in close proximity (<2 km) to water bodies that provide suitable foraging opportunities (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2010). Nests are typically greater than 500 m from human activity and are re-used from year to year indefinitely. The presence of the Ivanhoe River for foraging in combination with the cedar-conifer forest community around it provides habitat suitable for supporting bald eagle. The Endangered Species Act considers the bald eagle as a species of conservation concern.

Moose

Biologists observed moose within the study area during spring and summer 2010. The Moose Aquatic Feeding area is represented within the study area by the Open Water Marsh. It is anticipated that moose are currently making use of these areas. Moose are of socioeconomic value in the region for both recreational and tourist hunting purposes.

Large Weasel Denning

The project area features relatively undisturbed shoreline habitats of coniferous or mixed woods forests coupled with a productive fish community. These habitat features make the project area a potentially significant habitat for mink and otters (Large Weasel Denning). Further, the large contiguous forest in the area makes the area potentially significant habitat for martens and fishers. Additional work is required to determine the significance of the study area for Large Weasel Denning and as a result it remains as a candidate significant habitat for the project.

The information contained in this section was reproduced from the Natural Environment Characterization and Impact Assessment Report presented in full in Annex III.

2.9.5 Significant Wildlife Habitats

A Moose Aquatic Feeding area, considered a Significant Wildlife Habitat is present within the study area. Moose were observed during spring and summer and it is anticipated that foraging areas exist within the vicinity. In addition, Significant Wildlife Habitat for otter denning was identified within the area at Nova Road Bridge (approximately 8 km upstream of Third Falls GS).

Habitat suitable for one rare mammal species, the northern long-eared bat, was found within the study area. This habitat is considered to be Significant Wildlife Habitat. Further study is required to determine whether any roosting sites are located within the area prior to construction, as a mitigation measure.

26 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

At Third Falls, a vegetation community containing abundant Black Ash was found. This habitat was later confirmed to be a Significant vegetation community.

Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat was identified within the study area for the Amphibian Breeding Habitat, Marsh Breeding Bird Habitat, Waterfowl Nesting Areas, Amphibian, Cervid, and furbearer Movement Corridors, Lake Sturgeon habitat, nighthawk habitat, olive-sided flycatcher habitat, and Canada warbler habitat.

For a full description of the results of the 2010, 2011, and 2012 terrestrial ecological assessments, including complete lists of all documented species and assessment methods, please refer to the Natural Environment Characterization and Impact Assessment Report (Feb. 2013) which is appended to this document as Annex III.

2.10 CULTURAL HERITAGE

The Ivanhoe River would likely have been part of a pre-contact/early contact travel corridor between the height of land and the James Bay coast. Prior to contact with Europeans the region, was populated by peoples from both the Blackduck and Selkirk cultures which are thought to have developed into the modern Ojibwe (Anishnabeck) and Cree peoples and First Nations respectively. It is quite likely that the site was used for traditional activities including fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering.

During Aboriginal and public consultation, the presence of Culturally Modified Trees (CMTs) in the area was identified. Over the course of the consultation process, the significance of the CMTs to First Nations communities was discussed and the proponent was able to work with those communities and agree upon a resolution that satisfies all parties.

During an October 17th, 2012 meeting between the proponent and the Chapleau Cree First Nation, the cultural importance of CMTs in the area was reaffirmed. A potential CMT was identified on an island downstream of the proposed Chute project site. This tree is located outside of clearing areas, but will be clearly marked and shielded from flyrock during construction. In addition, areas to be cleared during construction will be minimized and clearly demarcated, and construction staff will be provided with training on identifying culturally modified trees. These details were planned in accordance with First Nation’s consultation.

2.10.1 Archaeological Sites and Assessments

The registered site database maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) indicated that there are no registered archaeological sites in or near either proposed project area. However, in MTCS’s checklist for determining archaeological potential, areas in northern Ontario within 150 m of a major water source are considered to have high cultural heritage potential.

27 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

There are no previous archaeological studies on record for the proposed project areas. It is important to note, however, that the lack of archaeological studies does not indicate or suggest that there is no archaeological or cultural heritage potential within the proposed project areas. Rather, it should be interpreted to mean simply that no archaeologist has conducted a study in these areas.

A Stage 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment was completed for both The Chute and Third Falls proposed project areas by Woodland Heritage Services (WHS) to gain an understanding of the cultural heritage of the area. The reports are appended in Annex V. A summary of key findings is presented below.

The location of the proposed dams at The Chute and Third Falls, as with most sites with waterpower potential, was determined to have high archaeological potential due to its proximity to a major water source and the existence of rapids. It is reasonable to assume that portage trails may exist at both project locations on one or both sides of the river. The two pools located above the proposed dam site at The Chute and the three pools located above and below Third Falls also present likely subsistence fishing locations, and as such contribute to the determination of potential. An island also exists upstream from the proposed Chute dam that has been identified as a high potential area.

The Stage 2 Archeological impact Assessments that were recommended in Stage 1 assessments for both sites were completed in October of 2012, and can be found in Annex V.

Third Falls

The steepness of the river valley in the vicinity of the proposed Third Falls GS does not lend itself to high potential at the shorelines above the project location. However, the Stage 1 report determined several localized areas of high potential, which were further investigated in the Stage 2 report described below. The Stage 1 assessment for Third Falls recommended that a Stage 2 assessment be completed in the locations of the proposed dams, powerhouse and spillways, at the island in the river, and atop the river valley edge to determine if a portage trail exists at this location.

During the Stage 2 studies, 10 areas of high potential identified in the Stage 1 report were investigated. Five of these areas were difficult to investigate due to access issues (High Potential Areas 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8) but based on aerial photography and topographical mapping, it was determined they were not unique shorelines. Areas 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 were investigated using test pits. The Stage 2 report recommends that no further archeological work is required in the Third Falls area. The report did not investigate transmission lines, roads, or other infrastructure. Further archaeological investigations are planned for the spring of 2013 to assess access roads, the results of which will be incorporated into the final ER.

As a result of the Stage 2 assessment, no cultural resources were identified at the Third Falls project site.

28 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The Chute

At the proposed Chute location, all seven of the identified areas of high potential were investigated using test pits, and all test pits were negative. As such, it was recommended that no further archeological work be pursued.

The presence of culturally modified trees (CMTs) in the vicinity of the Chute site was indicated by consulted First Nations communities, and as such, was investigated. In the Stage 2 assessment for the Chute project site, the consulting archeologist examined cedar trees for evidence of cultural modification. In addition, the archeologist investigated previously identified trees of interest and determined that there were no culturally modified in the project site area according to archeological standards. However, this assessment does not detract from the importance of the location to First Nation communities, and will be protected as addressed in the above Cultural Heritage Section.

2.10.2 Buildings and Structures

Based on the results of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, the potential for the presence of built heritage structures within the project areas is expected to be negligible. This expectation has been confirmed through the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment.

2.11 CURRENT LAND AND WATER USE

2.11.1 Land Use/Land Policies

The Ivanhoe projects are located in Oates and Belford Townships and will be built on provincial Crown land. No known parcels of private land exist within the close proximity of the two sites.

The Chute development is situated in a General Mixed Use Areas (G1770), a 1,697,118 ha general use area extending through the Chapleau and Timmins Districts. The overall land use area encompasses areas with significant mining potential and anticipated future forest extraction activities. The area contains several roads and access points, along with numerous commercial lodges, commercial outpost camps, and cottages. Primary outdoor recreational activities are fishing, hunting, canoeing and boating. According to MNR Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA) report the land use priorities in this area include an expansion of the forest, mining, and trapping sectors. This will be intermixed with local recreation and tourism. Road access will be directed towards facilitating the priority land uses suggested for this area, while at the same time promoting recreational opportunities and tourism.

Commercial activities allowed on Crown land in proximity to the project include aggregate extraction, bait fishing, commercial fur harvesting, commercial hydro development, timber harvesting, commercial tourism, mineral exploration and development, peat extraction and wild rice harvesting. Crown land can be disposed of for road development and maintenance, rural residential use, agricultural use and cottaging purposes (MNR, 2008).

29 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The Third Falls project is located in the vicinity of the Northern Claybelt Conservation Forest Complex. This large complex of land and water protects ecosystems that are characteristic of the Forest. Its combined size, location within the claybelt and diversity of natural features make an important contribution toward the conservation of northeastern Ontario's biological diversity. According to the CLUPA report (C1702: Northern Claybelt Forest Complex), the forest access road is mainly used for commercial reasons. Commercial activities allowed in this part of Ontario include bait fishing, commercial fur harvesting, commercial tourism, energy transmission and wild rice harvesting. Crown land can be disposed of for road development and maintenance, private recreation camping, vegetation management, and fire suppression (MNR, 2006).

2.11.2 Access

Access to the proposed Chute project site is via the Oates Road, which exits north from Highway 101 approximately 3 km east of the Town of Foleyet. The Oates Road is a well-maintained primary forest access road situated within the Pineland Forest, which is licensed to EACOM Timber.

For the proposed Chute GS site access to will be required from both sides of the Ivanhoe River. Access to the proposed development site from the east side of the Ivanhoe River is via the Oates Road (approx. 14.5 km) then along the Laundry Road approximately 2.2 km. Water crossings and drainage culverts were noted to be in good condition along the Oates Road. The Laundry Road is not a regularly maintained forest access road and is primarily used by the public to access a boat launch and campsite north of the falls. Access to the west side of the proposed Chute GS development site requires crossing the Ivanhoe River via the existing Bailey Bridge with tertiary roads providing access to a point 200 m west of the proposed GS location.

The proposed Third Falls site can currently be accessed from the City of Timmins area, taking Montcalm Mine Road, to West Road, to Nova SR Road. Current access to the immediate vicinity of the Third Falls site occurs via an ATV trail running west from the Nova SR Road; access to the Ivanhoe River is enabled at the end of this trail.

There is a boat launch at the end of The Chute access road downstream of the project site that has been used for many years to support the recreational activities such as boating and angling, and to gain access to backcountry areas. A campsite and a parking location are also present at the boat launch location and are highly used by visitors. As this is a highly used area, reduced access would impact the recreational use of the Ivanhoe River in this area. In order to address this, the proponent has committed to maintaining and potentially improving access to this area in order to ensure the continued recreational use of the Ivanhoe River by the proposed Chute GS project.

2.11.3 Navigation

The Ivanhoe River is considered a navigable waterway as defined under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Act prohibits construction in navigable waters unless an Approval is issued

30 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 for the undertaking for the site, work and plans. The Ivanhoe River has likely been used as a travel corridor between the height of land and the James Bay coast since pre-contact/early contact times and sections are currently navigated by local people and tourists. The Ivanhoe River Canoe Route is a recognized canoe route that provides a waterway link to James Bay.

2.11.4 Recreational Use and Commercial Tourism

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Site Information Package (SIP) noted that the project and surrounding area are valued for canoeing, hunting and fishing (Appendix A). The project area is considered to be important for the activities of local tourism outfitters.

In order for the MNR and Xeneca to fully understand the impacts of the proposed hydroelectric projects on the Ivanhoe River and surrounding communities, it was imperative that information was collected on current recreational usage of the river.

Information was gathered via MNR’s Ivanhoe River usage surveys of 2011 and 2012 which illustrated a wide variety of recreational use occurring in the general area around the two Ivanhoe projects. These uses include nature appreciation, picnicking, camping, kayaking, swimming, fishing and hunting with more frequent visits occurring near The Chute project compared to the Third Falls location (Figure 6). The MNR Usage Survey (conducted in 2011 and 2012 summer seasons) provided comment cards from visitors at both site locations. These comment cards can be found in Appendix D. The Usage Survey showed that out of 59 comment cards submitted, the majority of users visited the site 10 or more times per year (54%). The Usage Survey data can be found in Appendix D.

In a socioeconomic survey undertaken by the MNR Chapleau District to gather information on the recreational activities for the non-commercial users of the Pineland Forest, a total of 64 people (out of 1000 recipients of the survey) participated and were identified using the Forest in 2009. According to the results, the non-commercial users spend on average 42 days/year participating in Crown land recreational activity; Activities that generated the most interest was berry picking (22%) followed by driving ATV's (14%) and 11% users spend their time hunting, fishing, boating and cottaging. The survey indicated that factors for not visiting the forest included a lack of interest in outdoor activity and current increases in gas prices.

31 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Figure 3: Non-commercial users of the Pineland Forest by recreational activities (MNR Chapleau, 2009)

Though canoeing, fishing and hunting occur in the vicinity of the Third Falls project, it should be noted there are indications that the demands of the tourists visiting the region are shifting. Traditionally the region’s tourism industry has depended heavily upon hunting and fishing but more recently the demand for eco-tourism has been increasing. Eco-tourists seek to enjoy a natural experience where the presence of few roads, towns, or other infrastructure provides them an impression of remoteness. Ecotourism participants also desire a diversity of natural plant and animal life, as well as landscape diversity, most of which can be found in the vicinity of the Third Falls project.

Camping/Picnicking

Crown land camping is allowed throughout Northern Ontario, although non-residents do require a permit. Camping and picnicking are popular activities in the general Ivanhoe area. In the MNR Usage Survey (combined 2011 and 2012 results), camping and picnicking were noted as reasons for visiting on 30 and 26 comment cards out of 59, respectively.

According to the MNR SIP, the area adjacent (east) to The Chute is used for recreational camping, primarily by residents of Foleyet and Timmins. This popular camping spot is occupied for wide periods throughout the spring, summer and fall. However, no camping was observed by Xeneca staff or the EA consulting team within 1000 m of the project during various times of the year.

32 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Cottaging and private camping areas exist in the Gordon Cosens Forest, though there does not appear to be any camps set up in the immediate vicinity of the Third Falls project. The MNR SIP notes that a land use permit has been issued for a cottage recreational camp in the unincorporated Township of Montcalm, approximately 15 km downstream of the proposed location of the Third Falls site on Ivanhoe River.

Since camping on Crown land is generally free for Ontario residents, this information is not tracked.

Canoeing/Kayaking/Boating

The SIP lists the Ivanhoe River Canoe Route as a recognised canoe route that provides the waterway link to James Bay and has likely been used in the past as an Aboriginal corridor. The canoe route, also known as Pishkanogami Canoe Route by the Aboriginals, follows the Kinogama and Ivanhoe Rivers for 105 km from the now deserted town of Kormak to the Ivanhoe Provincial River. The area, only accessible by canoe, air and can be reached using the services of local outfitters who offer “fly-in” packages, also includes a 3 km portage trail which ensures an isolated environment (Haig, 1998).

The resource based tourism map provided by the Pineland Forest Management Plan (FMP)(MNR, 2011) illustrates a canoe route and active portage trails on the Ivanhoe River in the vicinity of the Chute GS. A rudimentary boat launch exists at the end of the Chutes access road that has been used for many years to support the recreational activities like boating and canoeing. In MNR surveys in 2011 and 2012, 9 comment cards (out of 59) listed canoeing/kayaking as an option under “other” usage.

Trails (Snowmobiling, Hiking, ATV)

The areas around the proposed sites are not located in the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Club maps. However, conversation with a camper near the Chute site revealed that snowmobiles are used in the winter time to fish for Walleye through the ice. Aside from this case, snowmobiling is not expected to occur in the vicinity of the Ivanhoe projects.

A hiking trail runs along the eastern shoreline of the Ivanhoe River from the boat launch upstream beyond the falls (MNR SIP).

There is access to the third set of falls via an ATV trail running west from the Nova SR Road. The trail is used by hunters, anglers, and trappers based on stakeholder input. Boat caches can be found below the falls (MNR SIP).

2.11.5 Area Aesthetics

Nature appreciation and bird watching are increasingly popular activities throughout Northern Ontario and are closely associated with the natural aesthetics of an area. As evident from the

33 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

FMP statistics, the general area associated with The Chute and Third Falls projects have been used for many years by residents and visitors of the region for various recreational activities and nature appreciation. The Ivanhoe River has an aesthetic value with local residents and recreational users of the area who use it for day trips, picnicking and to enjoy the visual aspects of the river.

Results from the MNR Usage Survey show that out of 59 comment cards on general usage, 41 stated enjoying the falls as a reason for visiting the site, and 39 stated general nature appreciation (Appendix D).

2.11.6 Forestry

Forestry is one of the primary resource extraction and management activities occurring around the project area. The Chute site is home to Pineland Forest and the Third Falls site to Gordon Cosens Forest, the details of which are discussed below.

The Chute: Pineland Forest

The Chute project is situated within the Pineland Forest (NF in the MNR’s Northeast Region and is managed by the Pineland Timber Company Ltd. (Pineland) under its Sustainable Forest License (SFL). EACOM Timber Corporation (EACOM) is the agent for Pineland, undertaking all forest management activities from its office in Timmins, Ontario to ensure sustainable management.

The Pineland forest management unit covers a total of 391,325 ha, with 99.3% of the land owned by the Crown. The managed production forest area accounts for approximately 80.5% of the Crown land or 312,664 ha. The remaining Crown area (approximately 19.5%) is not managed for timber production and is composed of non-productive, protected and other Crown Forested areas totalling 10.2%; and non-forested areas totalling 9.3%.

The main economic benefits derived from the forest come from the commercial timber harvest. The Pineland forest is currently being harvested in accordance with the approved Forest Management Plan (FMP) (2011 to 2021). Under the SFL, EACOM retains the license to all timber species on the Pineland Forest with commitments to supply other company mills with timber. Logging contractors employed by EACOM harvest all of the timber on the unit and distribute the material to the mills by trucks or in some cases by rail.

Companies that were identified as harvesting timber from this forest were:

 EACOM Timber Corporation

 True North Hardwood Plywood Inc.

 Grant Forest Products Ltd.

 Niska North Inc.

34 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 Commonwealth Plywood Co. ltd.

A 200 m forest reserve, along the length of the Ivanhoe River, has traditionally been maintained as an Area of Concern (AOC) under the Forest Management Planning process.

Third Falls: Gorden Cosens Forest

Third Falls is situated within the Gordon Cosens Forest, and managed by Tembec Inc., which is the Sustainable Forest License (SFL) holder for the forest.

The Gordon Cosens Forest covers approximately 1.82 million ha, with managed productive forest accounting for 1.51 million ha of the total area and approximately 200,000 ha composed of unmanaged forest. Black spruce is the most abundant working group by area within the forest (comprising 70%), followed by poplar (17%), white birch, balsam fir and jack pine.

The Gordon Cosens forest is currently being harvested in accordance with the approved FMP (2010 to 2020). The FMP identifies future harvesting, site preparation, and regeneration areas, as well as infrastructure requirements such as expanded logging road networks. The primary wood user in the forest is Tembec/Spruce Falls Inc., although in 2001, the following six third-party companies were identified as harvesting timber from this forest:

 Excel Forest Products (Opasatika)

 Lecours Lumber Co. (Colstock)

 Tembec Inc. – United Division (Hearst)

 Tembec Inc. (Timmins)

 Columbia Forest Products (Hearst)

 J.E. Martel & Sons Limited (Chapleau).

A 200 m forest reserve, along the length of the river, has traditionally been maintained as an Area of Concern (AOC) under the Forest Management Planning process.

2.11.7 Hunting

Hunting is a popular activity in this part of Ontario, and the Ivanhoe River and surrounding area has been identified as valued area for hunting. All areas of the province have been divided into geographically distinct Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) for the purposes of managing wildlife populations. The Ivanhoe projects are located in a Wildlife Management Unit (WMU 30). Black bear and moose are the main big game animals hunted. Moose hunting is particularly important to local citizens and constitutes a major event each year. Small game hunting consists of ruffed grouse, spruce grouse, sharp-tailed grouse and snowshoe hare. Many species of

35 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 waterfowl (ducks and geese) add to the hunting opportunities available in this Forest. Open hunting seasons for the various wildlife species potentially hunted in the site vicinity are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Open hunting season timetable

Species Open Hunting Season

Black Bear August 15 – October 31

Moose Archery: September 16 – October 5

Gun: October 7 – November 15

Grouse September 15 – December 31

Weasel October 25 – end of February

Red Fox September 15 – end of February

Snowshoe Hare September 1 – June 15

Deer November 5- November 17

In order to manage black bear populations and provide resident and non-resident hunting opportunities, Crown Land areas known as Bear Management Areas (BMAs) are assigned to commercial camp owners for the purposes of providing bear hunting services. Resident hunters may hunt wherever there is an open season, provided they have a valid license and game seal for use in the specific WMU in which they are hunting. In the MNR Usage survey, 27 out of 59 comment cards noted hunting as a reason for visiting the project locations.

Game species have large territorial ranges and have limited interaction with aquatic habitats (Although bears are opportunistic omnivores and do consume aquatic species, their diets consist of a large variety of foods).

The Chute

Recreational hunting represents an important resource near the Chute project area. Species commonly desired through sport hunting include moose, bear and small game. As an exercise, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) in cooperation with MNR economists assembled some economic information for hunting related activities on the Pineland Forest using readily available MNR data. The socio-economic hunting analysis was based on moose and bear hunting on the Pineland Forest with the total economic benefit derived from the two species estimated at $731,423 annually (Pineland FMP).

36 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The site is located within Bear Management Area CP-30-25 (SIP).

Third Falls

Recreational hunting is popular among local residents and tourists in the vicinity of the Third Falls project, and there are several active local hunting clubs. Common Species hunted in this region include black bear, moose, duck and grouse.

One Bear Management Area (CP-30-23) is located south of the site and borders Nova-Belford townships (SIP).

2.11.8 Fishing

Although the MNR does not compile statistics associated with fishing or most outdoor recreational activities, an economic study conducted by Engel Consulting Groups for the MNR in 2003 estimated that the actual expenditures per person per day for fishing (for non-lodge, non-remote based fishing) were $95.43, with a willingness to pay estimate of $28.35, resulting in a total economic value of $123.78 per day or $146.58 in 2012 dollars.

During a discussion with remote tourism operators in November 2010, it was noted that fishing was the primary motivation for clients seeking remote tourism experience. It was also brought to Xeneca’s attention that any kind of road access would bring in people and this affects the remote tourism business.

Sport fishing represents an important resource at the Ivanhoe River, with year round demand. The river provides for remote as well as road-based angling opportunities. The fishery also provides subsistence for First Nations Communities. The desired sport fishing species include northern pike, Walleye, whitefish, lake trout, and Brook trout.

Information gathered via the MNR’s Ivanhoe River usage surveys of 2011 and 2012 noted fishery data including species being angled, effort being allocated and levels of harvest. In the surveys, fishing was the most referenced reason for visiting the project site locations, and was noted on 48 out of 59 comment cards.

37 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Figure 4: Number of species caught vs. kept in 2012 Ivanhoe River Angling Survey

According to the Ivanhoe River Creel usage surveys in 2011 (provided by MNR), most recreational anglers and commercial outfitters visit the river more than 10 times a year. Angling locations include areas both upstream and downstream of the Chute site and downstream of Third Falls. Walleye (pickerel), northern pike and Brook trout form the three most sought after species. Based on surveys, the recorded fish locations are as follows:

 The Chutes

 Upstream of the Chutes

 Downstream of the Chutes

 Joe Lake

 Small Lake

 Ivanhoe River

 Oats Creek

 Third Falls

 Downstream of Third Falls

38 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The Chute

The river stretch below The Chute is used extensively for angling, particularly in the spring and fall season in the vicinity of the falls. Walleye and northern pike are the primary species sought after by anglers, which supports a number of remote tourism outfitters operating in the area.

The MNR Chapleau District sent an Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) survey for anglers and hunters. The OFAH's survey resulted in a total of 84 participants, 64 out of 84 participants undertake angling activities within the Pineland Forest. The anglers within the Pineland Forest fish on average 22 days/year, while they generally hunt on average 16 days/year. Furthermore, a total of 89% of the angler's fish on the Pineland Forest while only 77% of the anglers hunt (FMP).

During the Ivanhoe PIC in July 2012, anglers informed Xeneca of their use of the river downstream from the Chutes.

Third Falls

The MNR SIP notes that Walleye and northern pike are the primary species sought after by recreational anglers. Based on field visits, Third Falls is used for recreational angling and boat caches can be found below the falls.

2.11.9 Trapping and Baitfish Harvesting

Commercial trapping of fur bearing animals is a popular activity throughout the region during the open season. All Crown land open for trapping in the province has a registered trapline system to control trapping. Each trapline represents a specific geographical area, in which the holder of the trapline license is allowed to conduct trapping activities. Each trapline is issued a quota for the animals which can be trapped within the area. The quota is specific to each trapline, being based on past harvest levels, or recent furbearer population surveys. Only one trapper is licensed to trap in each trapline area.

Table 2: Open trapping season timetable

Furbearer Open Trapping Seasons

Species Open Season

Beaver October 15 – March 31

Otter October 15 – March 31

Canada Lynx October 25 – last day of February

Mink October 15 – last day of February

39 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Muskrat October 5 – May 21

Fisher October 25 – last day of February

Marten October 25 – last day of February

Red fox September 15 – last day of February

Raccoon October 15 – January 15 Red squirrel October 25 – last day in February

Weasel October 25 – last day in February

Skunk No closed season

Black bear August 15 – October 3

The Chute

Commercial trapping and baitfish harvesting are all identified activities within the project area. It does not appear that any trap / baitfish cabins are present within the expected zone of influence (MNR SIP). The site is located on the border of trap lines CP 11 and 12 with the site being situated within CP 12; Appendix A identifies the individual trap lines. Two baitfish harvesting areas are located in Oates Township (MNR SIP).

Third Falls

Commercial trapping and baitfish harvesting are noted to be licensed and occur in and around the project area. Targeted species that are assigned quotas include beaver, lynx and marten, while all other fur bearing animals have open quotas. The site is located within trap line CP005. According to MNR documentation (MNR SIP), it appears that there is a trap cabin approximately 6 km upstream and another 5 km downstream.

The geographical townships of Belford, Montcalm, Ossin and Nova are designated baitfish harvest areas.

2.11.10 Protected Areas

The Chute

There are no protected areas in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project however the Northern Clay Belt Conservation Reserve (C1702) and Groundhog River Provincial Park (P1569) are located downstream of the proposed site.

40 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Third Falls

There is an existing Conservation Reserve (CR) immediately downstream (north) of the proposed Third Falls waterpower site: The Northern Clay Belt Forest Conservation Reserve. The Ivanhoe River itself is within the boundaries of the Northern Clay Belt CR below the proposed site. The river is viewed as a significant value within the CR.

The Groundhog River Provincial Park is also referred to as the Groundhog River Waterway Provincial Park, is downstream from both of the proposed project locations. According to the MNR’s Crown Land Use Atlas the park has an area of 12,318 ha, and features approximately 22 different landform vegetation combinations. The park provides one of the last remaining sturgeon spawning grounds in the watershed. It connects smaller protected areas with the 70,000 ha Northern Clay belt Forest Conservation Reserve (Wildlands League website, May 2011).

2.11.11 Mineral Resources

As of 2009, the surface rights of areas situated in the Townships of Belford and Oates (G-1042 and G-1189 respectively), in the Porcupine Mining Division, along the Ivanhoe River were withdrawn from prospecting, staking out, sale or lease in accordance with the terms of Order No. W-P-127/09, under Section 35 of the Mining Act. The area was withdrawn from mining activities by the MNR as the proposed site for The Chute and Third Falls waterpower projects (see Appendix A).

The Chute

There are no mining claims or leases in the immediate vicinity of The Chute project (Site Information Package (SIP)).

Available aggregate pits in proximity to the Chute GS are located along the Oates Road. These pits are classified as Category 14 and are only useable by the SFL holder with approval being granted through the forest management planning process. Category 14 pits are a maximum of 3 ha in size and are bound by minimum rehabilitation timelines and standards (Annex VI).Furthermore, according to the MNR SIP, two Category 9 aggregate permits (13 ha and 16 ha) have been issued to EACOM in Oates Township

Third Falls

According to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) CLAIMaps website, there are several active mining claims (#3006253, #3006257, #3006258, #3006259, #3006260, #3006261, #3006267, #3006286, #3006287, and #3006288) near the project location, mainly claimed by Xstrata Canada Corporation.

41 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Several aggregate pits are located in proximity to the Third Falls GS. However, they are in various stages of rehabilitation (closure).

2.12 ABORIGINAL LAND AND WATER USE

2.12.1 Reserves, Communities and Land Claims

In Ontario, First Nation communities have strong historical and traditional ties to the land, rivers and lakes.

Six First Nation communities were contacted and consulted by the MNR during the planning process that lead to the release of this waterpower site. These communities include Brunswick House, Chapleau Cree, Chapleau Ojibwe, Flying Post, Mattagami and Taykwa Tagamou First Nations. Xeneca is currently engaged in consultation with these communities. Engagement and consultation initiatives are detailed in Appendix E.

Characteristics based on First Nations community profiles provided by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada First Nation Profiles (AANDC, 2011) are noted below:

Taykwa Tagamou Nation (formerly New Post Nation)

The northern reaches of the study area were the traditional territory of the Taykwa Tagamou Nation. Taykwa Tagamou Nation, formerly New Post First Nation, is a Cree First Nation located 14 km southeast of Cochrane. As of August 2012, they had a total registered population of 450 people. The reserve, New Post 69A, occupies an area of approximately 117 ha with an on-reserve population of 126.

Flying Post First Nation

The Flying Post First Nation formerly an independent First Nation in the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation territory, joined the Wabun Tribal Council in 2007 to become a member First Nation to be represented by the organization. The reserve is located 40 km southwest of Smooth Rock Falls and occupies an area of 5957.1 ha. The August 2012 registered population for Flying Post First Nation is 204, all living off reserve. Most of the First Nation members are located near Nipigon but others live in different parts of the country.

Mattagami First Nation

Mattagami First Nation is a small Oji-Cree community 70 km south of Timmins, Ontario and 113 km south west of Kirkland Lake. The community is built on the northwest side of Mattagami Lake. The First Nation reserve occupies an area of 5261 ha. The registered population as of August 2012 is 508 members. In 2006, on reserve membership was listed at 190.

42 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Chapleau Cree First Nation

Chapleau Cree First Nation is a Mushkegowuk Cree First Nation located near Chapleau Township, Sudbury District. The First Nation have reserved for themselves the 108.1 ha Chapleau 75 Reserve and 1017 ha Chapleau Cree (Fox Lake) reserve. In 2006, their on-reserve population was 92.

Chapleau Ojibway

Chapleau Ojibway First Nation is an Ojibway First Nation located near Chapleau Township, Sudbury District. The First Nation have reserved for themselves the 67 ha Chapleau 61A Reserve, a 64.7 ha Chapleau 74 Reserve and the 759 ha Chapleau 74A Reserve. As of August 2012, the total registered First Nation population was 41.

Brunswick House First Nation

Brunswick House First Nation is an Ojibway-Cree First Nation located in Sudbury District, 157 km northeast of Sault Ste. Marie. The First Nation have reserved for themselves the 9054.2 ha Mountbatten 76A Reserve and the 259.8 ha Duck Lake 76B Reserve. As of August 2012, the First Nation had a registered population of 732 people, of which their on-reserve population was 188 people.

2.12.2 Spiritual, Ceremonial, Cultural and Burial Grounds

All waterways are viewed in traditional Aboriginal culture as the ‘veins or lifeblood of Mother Earth’. Water quality and water ecosystem health and function are typically mentioned as concerns by Aboriginal people in relation to natural resource management and development projects.

Eastern white cedar grows commonly in the river floodplain, upstream of The Chute. Cedar is a species of special cultural significance to aboriginal people, and is often used in ceremony. The Chapleau Cree First Nation has identified that cedar is a sacred medicinal plant and discourages harvesting of the species.

Culturally modified trees have been identified as a value significant to members of the Chapleau Cree at the Chute site. In August 2011, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport informed the project team that a site on the island at the Chute was registered as an archaeological site due to the reported presence of culturally modified trees. However, field surveys of the island in question on September 20, 2011, did not yield evidence of trees meeting the MTCS definition of a culturally modified tree on the island or in the surrounding area (see the Stage 2 archaeological impact assessment for the Chute in Annex V). Regardless, the identified trees are considered culturally significant and will be protected through construction.

43 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

2.13 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

The purpose of compiling an economic and a socio-demographic profile is to develop an understanding of the trends, issues and dynamics of the local communities in proximity to Xeneca’s projects. The profile also enables Xeneca to identify a sustainable balance between economic growth facilitated by hydropower and socio environmental objectives. This information can be used to create a socioeconomic baseline against which potential project impacts can be compared.

Information used to characterize the socioeconomic environment has been obtained from various sources including government and local documents and websites (e.g. Statistics Canada, Ontario Provincial Park, Forest Management Plan, and the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas), agency correspondence, telephone interviews with the Local Services Board of Foleyet, literature review and field observations. Information obtained at the PICs was also incorporated into this section.

2.13.1 Municipal Structure and Community Profile

The Chute and Third Falls hydroelectric projects are situated on provincial land on the Ivanhoe River, in the geographical townships of Oates and Belford respectively.

The closest municipalities to The Chute and Third Falls are the Town of Foleyet, located about 20 km south The Chute and 45 km south of Third Falls, the City of Timmins, located approximately 85 km east The Chute and 80 km east of Third Falls, and the Township of Chapleau which is located approximately 90 km southwest The Chute and 110 km southwest of Third Falls.

Foleyet

Foleyet is a community in the Sudbury District, Ontario, Canada, midway between Chapleau and Timmins on Highway 101. The town was created during the construction of the Canadian Northern Railway (CNR) through the area in the early years of the 20th Century and is currently administered by a local services board.

According to the Statistics Canada 2011 Population Census, the population of the Town of Foleyet is 193 people. This represents a 10.6% decrease in the population from 2006 levels and a 25.2% decrease since 2001 (Table 3). The population of the town began declining before 2001 and has declined considerably over the last 20 years. Approximately 5.4% of the people are fluent only in French, 54.1% speak only English, and 40.5% speak both official languages

44 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 3: Community profile for Foleyet (Statistics Canada)

Canada census – Foleyet (Ontario) Community Profile

2011 Census 2006 Census

Population: 193 216

Percentage -10.6% -25.2% difference

Land area: 11.92 km2 11.92 km2

Population 16.2 /km2 14.5 /km2 density:

Timmins

The City of Timmins is centrally located in north-eastern Ontario, on Highway 101, some 400 km north of Toronto. Timmins began as a mining community, but soon evolved as the major business center for the area. Found on the Canadian Shield, Timmins is covered with extensive coniferous forest growth providing lumber and pulp and paper resources. The general area has many lakes and scenic rivers that make it ideal for recreation and tourism.

The community of Timmins has a population of 43,165 people according to the 2011 Census. This represents a 0.4% increase in the population from 2006 levels (Table 4). In terms of language, 53% of the population considers English as their first language and 2% people note French as their mother tongue. In addition, 39% of the population is bilingual (both English and French), while 6% of the population speaks neither official language.

45 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 4: Community profile for Timmins (Statistics Canada)

Canada census – Timmins (Ontario) Community Profile

2011 Census 2006 Census 2001 Census

Population: 43,165 42,997 43,686

Percentage -0.40% -1.60% -8% difference

Land area: 2,979.15 km2 2,961.58 km2 2,961.52 km2

Population 14.5 /km2 14.5 /km2 14.8 /km2 density:

Chapleau

The Township of Chapleau is also located in the Sudbury District, in the heart of the Canadian Shield. Chapleau is geographically isolated; the nearest cities – Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury – are all more than a two hour drive away. It is known for being home to the world's largest Crown Game Preserve.

Chapleau is a bilingual community with approximately 2,116 residents as listed in the 2011 Census. This represents a 10.1% decrease in the population from 2006 levels and 25.2% decrease from 2001 (Table 5). In terms of language, 45% of the population considers English as their first language and 5% people note French as their mother tongue; 50% of the population is bilingual.

46 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 5: Community profile for Chapleau (Statistics Canada)

Canada census – Chapleau (Ontario) Community Profile

2011 Census 2006 Census 2001 Census

Population: 2116 2354 2832

Percentage -10.10% -16.90% -3.50% difference

Land area: 14.27 km2 14.27 km2 15.02 km2

Population 148.3 /km2 165.0 /km2 188.6 /km2 density:

2.13.2 Employment & Economic Setting

Foleyet

In the 19th Century, the area that is currently populated by residents of Foleyet, was used by the Hudson’s Bay Company for fur trading. The company had two outposts nearby, one on Lake Pishkanogami (presently called Lake Ivanhoe), and one on Kukatush (Groundhog) Lake. Both were closed in the 1880s due to a decline in the fur trade.

Presently, Foleyet’s economy is based on outdoor recreational, hunting and angling activity in the area and there are a few outfitter businesses that capitalize on the remote wilderness experience available in the area. The Red Pine Lodge, White Pine Lodge and Gosenda Lodges Ltd. are examples of such outfitter businesses in the area, offering sandy beaches, cottaging and opportunities for hunting and fishing. Moreover, Air Ivanhoe, also situated in Lake Ivanhoe, offers fly-in fishing unique to the area. The town is also known as the home of the white moose with the head of one such moose mounted in the Northern Lights Restaurant. Although it is a major attraction in the area, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources amended the hunting regulations to protect the white moose in the Foleyet area.

Additionally the CNR runs a significant rail yard in Foleyet and there is a large construction camp (C. D’Amours Contracting) located within two kilometres of the town. There are no mining and forestry companies operating in Foleyet, though major organisations in both sectors exist in nearby municipalities, including Timmins and Chapleau (Dayton, 2012).

Foleyet has had many disasters in the form of fires and floods, and much of its landscape differs completely now from its origins. Often when new progress was being made, it was simply destroyed years later2. Aside from these events, limited career options, the decline of the pulp

47 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 and paper industry within the Northern Ontario region and the desire for a more urban lifestyle led to an overall decline in population levels, and form some of the main reasons for Foleyet’s economic decline (Dayton, 2012).

Furthermore, a recent decision of the MNR to close down 10 provincial parks to overnight camping, including Ivanhoe Lake Provincial Park will cause further unemployment in the area and is considered ‘devastating to the local economy’ (LSBF, 2012).

Timmins

Timmins is the major economic centre for a vast section of Northeastern Ontario stretching from Hearst in the west to James Bay in the North, the Quebec border in the east to the northern section of Timiskaming District in the south.

Major settlement of Timmins began in the early 1900s when the area became known for the discovery of gold at the Dome Mine. The City itself was founded in 1912, a by-product of the Porcupine Gold Rush. Since that time the City’s economy is tied to its traditional sectors: mining and forestry. Approximately 20% of the workforce of Timmins is directly employed in the mining and forestry industries. While these two sectors are generally responsible for the booms and the busts in the city’s economy, another large segment of the workforce is in related areas, such as industrial manufacturers and suppliers (Timmins Industry Analysis, 2013).

Additionally, small business operations have played an important role in job creation and evolving Timmins from a small mining community to a full service, modern city. Eighty-one percent (81%) of all employees work for businesses with ten or fewer employees. More than 94% of the workforce is employed by businesses with fewer than 50 employees (Timmins Industry Analysis, 2013). Moreover, the interconnectedness of the communities in and around the area also makes Timmins a regional centre for education, health care, governmental services, and retail and accommodation

48 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Figure 5: Employment breakdown by Industry in the City of Timmins (McSweeney, 2010)

The forestry sector in Timmins is in a state of decline like the rest of Northern Ontario but is in the process of reinventing itself in order to meet current demands such as the emerging bio-economy and manufacturing value added wood products like Oriented Strand board and softwood lumber products (Timmins Industry Analysis, 2013). Similarly, the declining mining sector would have decimated a resource based community like Timmins but high gold prices and the reactivation of several mines and significant discoveries in the James Bay lowlands appear to have had a bolstering effect on the labour force (Timmins, 2011).

Chapleau

The major industries and employers within the Town of Chapleau, presently, are the logging mill, Tembec, and the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) (Town of Chapleau, 2013). A complete list for major public and private sector employers is presented in Figure 5.

49 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Figure 6: Major Employers in Chapleau; Private and Public Sector (Town of Chapleau, 2013)

Historically, the CPR was built through Chapleau in 1885, and brought with it prospectors, hunters, and trappers. By 1925, the success of fur traders was evident in the depletion of wildlife in the area, and in order to prevent this problem from progressing, the Ontario government created the Chapleau Crown Game Preserve. After a series of large fires swept through the area in the 1940s, salvage operations ultimately resulted in an expansion of existing sawmill operations in the area. Furthermore, the Town of Chapleau enjoys a long-term partnership with private sector employers like Tembec and True North Timber for timber supply services.

2.13.3 Water Supply

A search of the Ministry of the Environment’s electronic Water Wells database did not return any well records within a 1-km radius of the project zone of influence. An October 2010 land title search in the vicinity of the project area noted that the nearest privately owned lands were the CNR Railway and those in the Town of Foleyet south of the project location. Therefore, permanent or seasonal domestic water supplies that might draw from the Ivanhoe River as a source are non-existent.

The water supply intake for the Town of Foleyet is located approximately 20 km upstream of the proposed project and is operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA).

The river, both upstream and downstream of the project site is used predominantly for recreation (fishing, swimming, boating, etc.). It is possible that recreational users are taking river water for personal consumption.

50 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

This section provides a description of the elements of both proposed developments. The reader is referred to Annex Il for diagrams showing relevant features of the developments.

During an Environmental Assessment, conceptual design information is presented in addition to data collected through field investigations, desktop studies, and agency consultation to ensure that stakeholders are informed about the general scope and extent of the projects, particularly as it relates to understanding how the projects may impact other uses of the river and the environment. Detailed engineering design and specification work is required subsequent to a successful EA outcome, at the permitting and approval stage for construction and operation.

The proponent necessarily reserves the right to variances between the conceptual design presented herein and the final detailed engineering design, provided that such variances do not materially and negatively impact the environment beyond the scope of the impacts described herein. It may therefore be necessary to conduct additional consultation with the public and Aboriginal communities with regards to the final project details, impacts and mitigation options.

Possible variances from conceptual to final design include:

 Detailed design may incorporate changes that are specifically meant to address and/or accommodate stakeholder issues agreed to during the consultation process.

 Construction materials may vary from those shown on conceptual drawings. Earth material may be interchanged with concrete or steel material as required in the final engineering design. Where alternative material is specified, volumes and footprints may be adjusted to reflect safe engineering design requirements.

 Physical sizes and orientation of structures.

 Physical size of construction site areas may be adjusted where it is required for safe site management.

 Specifications of mechanical and electrical equipment may vary, including the physical size, number of units, and total rating.

 Design specifications for protection of fish, such as inflow velocities and inlet spacing of trash racks.

 The powerhouse angle and alignment may be adjusted. The location of spillway and powerhouse structures may be adjusted along the dam axis to optimize engineering design and safety.

 Road and connection line routes may be refined.

51 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Total Installed Capacity and Annual Energy Output

The approximate installed capacity of the proposed The Chute and Third Falls projects are 3.6 MW and 3.9 MW, respectively. These facilities would together provide approximately 30,000 MWh of renewable energy annually. The production of 30,000 MWh of renewable energy represents the equivalent of:

 The displacement of 20,170 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; or

 The annual greenhouse gas emissions from 4,410 passenger vehicles; or

 The sequestering of carbon from nearly 17,350 hectares of pine or fir forests.

3.1 THE CHUTE GS

3.1.1 Description of the Proposed The Chute Hydroelectric Facility

Xeneca is proposing to construct a hydroelectric facility at The Chute site, located on the Ivanhoe River, approximately 85 km west of Timmins and 15 km north of Highway 101 (Figure 1).

The proposed project at The Chute would utilize a gross head of 9.5 m. The conceptual development for the facility incorporates a spillway dam, and will include an earthen embankment. Flows from the river will be directed to an intake structure which will conduct water through a single turbine with a total installed capacity of 3.6 MW. The total footprint of all generating station components for The Chute will be 5,600 m2.

Access

The Chute site can be accessed from Highway 101 via the Oates Road to the Laundry Road. A gravel road which stems off the Laundry Road is used to access the site. A road upgrade as well as new road construction will be required to access the site. In addition, a connection line will be required to connect the station to the provincial electrical power supply grid.

Further details on the connections lines and roads for both proposed developments can be found in Section 3.3. Connection line and access road mapping is provided in Annex Vl.

3.1.2 Design Options and Chosen Alternatives for The Chute GS

For the proposed The Chute GS, two different design options were originally contemplated for the location of the powerhouse: the first design option placed the powerhouse in the west river channel, and the second option placed the powerhouse in the east river channel. Both options covered the same general footprint and require the same construction sequencing and temporary structures.

52 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The option to build the powerhouse in the west river channel has been discarded over the course of the design process. The selected design has the powerhouse located in the narrower east river channel and the overflow spillway across the west channel. This arrangement makes the best use of existing access and minimizes requirements for road upgrades, and provides better protection and maintenance of important Walleye spawning habitat identified in the west channel. Details concerning the chosen option are discussed in the General Station Components (Section 3.1.3).

3.1.3 The Chute Generating Station Components

The following is a description of the generating station components for the proposed Chute GS. The reader is referred to Annex II for conceptual engineering drawings in support of the information detailed below. It should be noted that final engineering drawings for the components of the proposed undertaking must be submitted for applicable regulatory approvals prior to issuing of provincial permits to construct and federal authorizations. The details presented below are based on conceptual engineering design calculations and subject to some modification at the final design stage.

Headworks Structure

The proposed headworks structures include an 85 m spillway dam. An earthen embankment dam is required at the downstream limit of an unnamed tributary approximately 1 km upstream of The Chute facility; details about this auxiliary dam are discussed in Section 3.1.4. The dam would have a footprint of approximately 1600 m2.

The dam and embankment may be constructed from any or all of the following materials within the engineering constraints for the same; reinforced concrete; RCC – rolled and compacted concrete; earthen/stone, clay and ‘rubber’ (impermeable barriers). Typical construction will feature a broad overflow weir topped by a control feature (i.e.: an Obermeyer or similar, pneumatically operated dam). Headgate structures may be either included in the dam design or built as a separate riverside structure dependent upon water conveyance routing.

Intake and Conveyance System

A 600 m2 area upstream of the powerhouse will be excavated for the facility intake. The excavation will start approximately 30 m upstream of the powerhouse and slope down to reach an approximate elevation of 280 meters above sea level (masl) at the powerhouse intake. No water conveyance system is required for the proposed project; flows would be directed to the GS facility intake by the water control structure directly.

Powerhouse

The proposed powerhouse and yard will have a footprint of approximately 600 m2 including the water intake and draft tube. The powerhouse will be constructed with reinforced concrete floors and walls to a level above the historical flood level. Construction above this defined line can

53 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 occur through the use of reinforced concrete, insulated steel panels or a combination of the two based on physical needs and constraints. The water passage within the powerhouse will be constructed from a combination of concrete and steel conduits.

Turbines

Turbine selection is based on the project site head, flow and economics. In instances of low head and intermediate to large flows, Kaplan, Propeller or Cross Flow (Banki-Ossberger) type turbines are deemed most efficient. For very low heads, a horizontal Kaplan is the preferred option as it requires less excavation than the vertical turbine and can maximize turbine efficiency over a wide range of flows. Regarding additional economics of the turbine selection, cost varies directly with the maximum operating flow, but because a large component of cost is fixed for a development regardless of the flow, an optimum size results through balancing the cost versus the revenue generated from turbines of various sizes (diameters).

Based on the rationale described above, a horizontal or vertical Kaplan turbine will be selected for The Chute GS due to low head (9.5 m); intermediate flows (Long Term Annual Flow 29.7 m3/s) and economic concerns.

Tailrace

The facility’s tailrace will have an overall area of 1000 m2 and extend approximately 30 m downstream of the powerhouse. The excavation will be to an elevation of 281 masl at the powerhouse outlet and taper up towards the end of the canal.

3.1.4 Ancillary Works for The Chute GS

Electrical Substation

A transformer substation will be required and located adjacent to the powerhouse at the site. It will have a footprint of approximately 600 m2. The transformer area will be surrounded by security fencing.

Auxiliary Dam

A 110 m long earthen embankment dam will be required at the downstream limit of an unnamed tributary approximately 1 km upstream of The Chute facility in order to minimize backwater effects into this tributary. The need for the earthen embankment dam has been confirmed through detailed survey and geotechnical testing. The embankment dam will have an approximate footprint of 1200 m2 based on conceptual engineering design.

54 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

3.2 THIRD FALLS GS

3.2.1 Description of Proposed Third Falls Hydroelectric Facility

Xeneca is proposing to construct a second hydroelectric facility on the Ivanhoe River at the Third Falls site, located 44 km downstream of The Chute project.

The proposed design option for the Third Falls presented in this report would involve the use of a gross head of 10 m, and a total installed capacity not exceeding 3.9 MW. The Third Falls design concept is a close coupled arrangement with the powerhouse located on the west bank of the river. The total footprint of all generating station components for Third Falls will be 3,300 m2.

Access

Access to the site will be a continuation of The Chute access road using Oates Road from Hwy 101, a 16 km connector route along existing, older tertiary forestry roads and 13 km along Nova Road, an existing secondary forestry road to the east side of the Ivanhoe River. An 800 m extension from Nova Road will be constructed to access the project site. The west bank will be accessed by a 6 km extension of the existing road constructed on the west side of the Ivanhoe River.

A connection line will be required to connect the station to the provincial electrical power supply grid. Further details on the connections lines and roads for both proposed developments can be found in Section 3.3. Connection line and access road mapping is provided in Annex Vl.

3.2.2 Original Design Options and Chosen Alternatives for Third Falls

For Third Falls GS, there were two proposed design options initially presented. For the first option, the turbines were housed in a close-coupled powerhouse on the west bank of the Ivanhoe River; this arrangement allows for a smaller project footprint and shorter permanent access roads. Option 2 had the powerhouse approximately 200 m downstream on the east bank of the river and the headrace approximately 100 m further upstream. This arrangement consisted of an open channel conveyance system and would allow for a higher head. Both options have a spillway in the same location.

However, Option 2 required the powerhouse and part of the conveyance system to be located within the boundary of the Northern Clay Belt Forest Conservation Reserve. In order for the option inside the conservation area to be considered, an amendment that de-regulates the reserve land being used for the project was required from the MNR. As the amendment was not approved, only the out-of-park option for the Third Falls project is being presented in this report. As such, only components pertaining to Option 1 are discussed in the following sections.

55 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

3.2.3 Third Falls Generating Station Components

The following is a description of the generating station components for the proposed Third Falls GS. The reader is referred to Annex II for conceptual engineering drawings in support of the information detailed below. It should be noted that final engineering drawings for the components of the proposed undertaking must be submitted for applicable regulatory approvals prior to issuing of provincial permits to construct and federal authorizations. The details presented below are based on conceptual engineering design calculations and subject to some modification at the final design stage.

Headworks Structure

For the Third Falls project, the proposed headworks structure includes a 95 m spillway dam with an approximate footprint of 1200 m2. The dam may be constructed from any or all of the following materials within the engineering constraints for the same; reinforced concrete; RCC – rolled and compacted concrete; earthen/stone, clay and ‘rubber’ (impermeable barriers). Typical construction will feature a broad overflow weir topped by a control feature (i.e.: an Obermeyer or similar, pneumatically operated dam). Headgate structures may be either included in the dam design or built as a separate riverside structure dependent upon water conveyance routing.

Intake and Conveyance System

The excavation for the facility intake will start approximately 30 m upstream of the powerhouse and slope down to an approximate elevation of 270.5 masl at the powerhouse intake. The intake will have an approximate footprint of 550 m2. Based on the conceptual construction plans available to date (See Annex II), the cofferdam required for the construction of the facility intake, powerhouse, and tailrace area would temporarily exclude and dewater approximately 3000 m2 of riverbed and would have an approximate footprint of 600 m2. Flows will be directed to the GS facility intake by the water control structure directly; hence, no water conveyance system if required for the proposed project.

Powerhouse

The proposed powerhouse for the Third Falls project will have a footprint of approximately 500 m2 including the water intake, and draft tube. The powerhouse will be constructed with reinforced concrete floors and walls to a level above the historical flood level. Construction above this defined line can be reinforced concrete, insulated steel panels or a combination of the two based on physical needs and constraints. The water passage within the powerhouse will be constructed from a combination of concrete and steel conduits.

Turbines

Turbine selection is based on the project site head, flow and economics. In instances of low head and intermediate to large flows, Kaplan, Propeller or Cross Flow (Banki-Ossberger)

56 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 type turbines are deemed most efficient. For very low heads, a horizontal Kaplan is the preferred option as it requires less excavation than the vertical turbine and can maximize turbine efficiency over a wide range of flows. Regarding additional economics of the turbine selection, cost varies directly with the maximum operating flow, but because a large component of cost is fixed for a development regardless of the flow, an optimum size results through balancing the cost versus the revenue generated from turbines of various sizes (diameters).

Based on the rationale described above, a horizontal or vertical Kaplan turbine will be selected for Third Falls due to low head (10 m); intermediate flows (Long Term Annual Flow 29.7 m3/s) and economic concerns.

Tailrace

The tailrace excavation will be to an elevation of approximately 270.5 masl and will extend approximately 30 m downstream of the powerhouse. The tailrace will have an approximate footprint of 450 m2.

3.2.4 Ancillary Works for Third Falls GS

Electrical Substation

The transformer substation will have an approximate footprint of 600 m2, located adjacent to the powerhouse at the project site. The transformer area will be surrounded by security fencing.

3.3 ROADS

Access road planning to the project site was determined in close consultation with the forest management companies which hold Sustainable Forest Licenses (SFL) for the project area. The goal is to merge Xeneca’s road access needs with the SFL holder’s current and future operational access plans and develop with the forest management companies a long term cost sharing and road maintenance plan. Further consultation with government agencies through detailed design and permitting will be required to ensure that regional and provincial access policies and guidelines are met.

Xeneca will be assessing a 500 m wide alignment along the route identified through desktop review through the spring and early summer of 2013. If sensitive values are identified in addition to what has been identified through the desktop exercise, Xeneca will re-route the roads within the assessed alignment to avoid impacts to significant features where ever possible. In addition Xeneca will be documenting the results of the ground truthing exercise as well as identifying the measures proposed to avoid, address, and mitigate potential impacts in the final ER in advance of the issuance of the Notice of Completion. Accordingly, the specific descriptions provided below may change slightly within the identified alignments.

57 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

New road construction will require the clearing of a 10 – 30 m right of way (ROW). Access road details are provided in Annex Vl.

Xeneca will be required to upgrade some existing roads and construct a new section of road to access both project sites and is currently consulting with EACOM for the use of Oates and Laundry Roads for project construction purposes. Xeneca commits to maintaining current public access to the area and restriction will only be placed on areas where it is the interest of public safety (i.e. powerhouse and water intake). The proponent does not anticipate that access to downstream fishing areas will be compromised.

The Chute

Access to the Chute waterpower site is via the Oates Road, which exits north from Highway 101 approximately 3 km east of the Town of Foleyet. The Oates Road is a well-maintained primary forest access road situated on the Pineland Forest, which is licensed to EACOM Timber.

Access to the east side of the Ivanhoe River is via the Oates Road (approx. 14.5 km) then along the Laundry Road approximately 2.2 km. Water crossings and drainage culverts were noted to be in good condition along the Oates Road. The Laundry Road is not a regularly maintained forest access road and is primarily used by the public to access a boat launch and campsite north of the falls. Access to the west side of the Chute GS requires the crossing of the Ivanhoe River via an existing Bailey bridge with tertiary roads providing access to a point 200m west of the proposed GS location.

Third Falls

The proposed Third Falls site can currently be accessed from the City of Timmins area, taking Montcalm Mine Road, to West Road, to Nova SR Road. Current access to the immediate vicinity of the Third Falls site occurs via an ATV trail running west from the Nova SR Road. 3.5km of the ATV trail would be upgraded to allow construction access to the Third Falls site on the west side of the Ivanhoe River.

Other Civil Works

There is an existing forest access road bridge across the Ivanhoe River, approximately 2 km upstream of the proposed development site. The bridge is owned by the EACOM Timber Corporation. The proponent will be required to enter into a roads sharing agreement with EACOM.

58 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

4. CONSTRUCTION STRATEGY

The following is a summary of the construction activities and temporary works required during the construction of the project. A construction management plan, including conceptual drawings, has been prepared and is presented in Annex ll. It should be noted that final engineering details for these temporary works will be submitted for applicable regulatory approval in advance of the construction stage of the undertaking. The details presented below are based on conceptual engineering design calculations and subject to some modification at the final design stage.

Where construction activities and temporary works are similar for The Chute and Third Falls they have been grouped together in the following sections.

4.1 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

Both sites will follow similar construction schedules. Site preparation activity will commence in mid-2014. Construction of the proposed facility is scheduled to take place between 2014 and 2015 with commissioning of the facility anticipated between November 2015 and March 2016. Under the terms of the FIT contract awarded to Xeneca, the facility must be commissioned no later than October 2015.

Tentative dates for the commencement and completion of various project components are presented in Table 6:

Table 6: Project Component Construction Schedule for The Chute and Third Falls Component Dates

Start Sept 2013 Engineering Finish Feb 2014

Start Jun 2014 Construction of roads Finish Aug 2014

Start July 2014 Construction of dam/weir Finish July 2015

Start Jun 2015 Construction of powerhouse Finish Dec 2015

Start Aug 2015 Wire-to-wire delivery and installation Finish Dec 2015

Commissioning Nov 2015 – Mar 2016

59 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Construction Stages for The Chute and Third Falls

The following construction stages are proposed for the construction of the generating stations and their appurtenant facilities. Details can be found in the Construction Management Plan in Annex II.

Stage 1 (4-6 months)

 Build access to both banks of the river;

 Install Stage 1 cofferdams (for headrace, powerhouse, and tailrace construction);

 Clearing and grubbing of laydown areas, powerhouse areas, and auxiliary dam site.

 Delineation and protection of culturally significant Eastern White Cedars near truck turnaround and culturally modified tree on the west side of the tailrace.

Stage 2 (8-10 months)

 Installation of Stage 2 cofferdams;

 Construction of powerhouse primary stage concrete, intake screen and intake gate;

 Bedrock excavation to shape inlet and tailrace areas;

 Installation of intake gate;

 Dewatering, excavation, and concrete construction of powerhouse;

 Start of substation construction;

 Start of auxiliary dam construction (if optimal);\

 Transmission line right-of-way clearing;

 Headpond clearing (in winter).

Stage 3 (4-6 months)

 Removal of Stage 2 cofferdam and installation of Stage 3 cofferdam;

 Construction of spillway/dam structure

 Installation of overflow control gate, if required

60 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Stage 4 (4-6 months)

 Removal of Stage 3 cofferdams and installation of Stage 4 cofferdams;

 Inspection of inundation area;

 Installation of intake gate and filling of headpond;

 Construction of powerhouse roof

 Removal of Stage 4 cofferdam

 Removal of temporary works

 Reclamation of site.

For both The Chute and Third Falls project sites, construction will be initiated once all applicable regulatory approvals and authorizations have been issued. The construction program will be advanced to meet the requirements of relevant legislation, industry guidelines and best management practices aimed at ensuring the highest level of protection of the environment. Specific proposed mitigation measures that will be integrated into the site’s construction strategies are presented in Section 7 and explained in further detail throughout the supporting Annexes of this report. In-water construction related timing restrictions will be stipulated by the regulatory agencies during the permitting and approvals stage. Some general construction strategies are presented below.

4.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

4.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing

Trees cut within the inundation area and along the ROW for the connection line and access roads right-of-way will have their roots left intact wherever possible.

Merchantable timber will be segregated for removal by the sustainable forest license holder within the area to be inundated, along new access road corridors and along the connection line route. Clearing will be managed in accordance with applicable forestry management guidelines and best management practices. All clearing of timber will conform to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, The Forest Operations and the Silviculture Manual.

4.2.2 Aggregate Borrow

The project construction will require use of granular material for the construction of roads, embankments, yards, cofferdams and concrete structure backfill. The total volume of borrow

61 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 materials required is not known at this time as it will depend on the final project design. Useable materials excavated from the road will be re-used on site for other construction requirements. Some on-site processing of materials may be required (screening or crushing) to improve the engineering characteristics of the in-situ soils.

There are existing Category 14 aggregate borrows along Oates Road and there are several aggregate borrows in the vicinity of Third Falls. Further consultation with the SFL and MNR will be required to determine permitting requirements and usability of this material.

Aggregate for the construction of roads, embankments, yards, cofferdams and concrete structure backfill will be primarily sourced from re-used granular material created during road construction and site excavation. Additionally, several borrow material areas have been identified within 5 km of the project site should excavation and construction activities not produce the volume of materials required. The total volume of borrow materials required is not known at this time as it will depend on the final project design. Granular materials may require on-site processing to improve the engineering characteristics.

4.2.3 Laydown Areas

The Chute

Two 1000 m2 laydown areas will be cleared to service the primary worksites of the intake/powerhouse and the spillway on either side of the river. The construction office will be located in one of these laydown areas. An additional 250 m2 area for vehicle parking will be located on the powerhouse side of the river. A 5000 m2 stockpile area will be created on the west side of the river near the proposed auxiliary dam and will provide a central location for permanent storage of unsuitable overburden materials that are not used in the reclamation phase. This stockpile area will also serve as a temporary stockpile site for materials excavated from the worksites that can be re-used for the auxiliary dam construction.

Third Falls

A 750 m2 laydown area has been identified, on the east side of the river to service the primary worksites of the intake/powerhouse and the spillway. The construction office will be located in the laydown area as well as an area for vehicle parking. A 125 m2 loading / unloading area has been identified next to the powerhouse which will eventually be converted into the powerhouse yard. An approximate 5000 m2 centrally located stockpile area will be required permanent and temporary storage of excavated materials. The exact location for this area will be determined through consultation with the MNR.

62 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

4.2.4 Construction Camp

For The Chute GS, accommodations will be available in Foleyet. However, Third Falls will require a 10,000 m2 temporary construction camp to house workers. The camp will be located approximately 8 km south of the proposed Third Falls GS.

4.2.5 Cofferdams

Temporary cofferdams will be installed in the river during the construction process. At this time, cofferdams are contemplated to be built to manage the 1:20 year flow rate. The cofferdams are used to divert flow first from the powerhouse area, then the spillway area to allow the construction to occur in dry conditions. Type A cofferdams as presented on the attached Drawing 00-151 will be used for all phases of construction. Type A cofferdams consist of cargo bags filled with clean, local granular material and transported to site in haul trucks or on a tractor trailer bed. They are installed using an excavator and/or a crane to place the bags sequentially in the river. The total footprint of the cofferdams will depend on the elevation of dam required to prevent overtopping during the 1:20 year flood event and depth to a suitable base material in the river. This information will be determined once further investigation and design work and evaluation of a suitable return period flood event is completed.

4.2.6 Dewatering

Water that accumulates behind the cofferdams will be discharged in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act. Category 2 Permits to Take Water (PTTW) and Certificates of Approvals for Discharge of Sewage Waste Water to the environment will be required from the Ministry of the Environment prior to the initiation of in-water construction activities.

The Chute

The construction of the spillway dam would require the installation of a cofferdam upstream of the structure and, depending on hydrological conditions, may require the construction of a downstream cofferdam to control backwater effects below the proposed dam. The cofferdam upstream of the spillway dam would temporarily exclude approximately 670 m2 of river bed while the downstream cofferdam would temporarily exclude 1370 m2.

In addition, based on the conceptual construction plans available to date (See Annex ll), the cofferdam required for the construction of the facility intake would temporarily exclude and dewater 3,800 m2 of river bed.

Third Falls

The construction of the spillway dam would require the installation of a cofferdam upstream of the structure and one downstream of the structure. Depending on hydrological conditions, may require the construction of a downstream cofferdam to control backwater effects below the

63 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 proposed dam. The cofferdam would have a temporary footprint of 500 m2 and dewater an area of approximately 2500 m2.

The cofferdam required for the construction of the facility intake, powerhouse, and tailrace area would temporarily exclude and dewater approximately 3000 m2 of riverbed and would have an approximate footprint of 600 m2.

4.2.7 Excavation of Powerhouse and Tailrace Canal

Excavation for the powerhouse and tailrace will be completed using appropriate methods; blasting activities may be undertaken during the excavation process. Tailrace excavation at the intersection with the river will be completed within the in-stream work window. The excavation will be carried out from the powerhouse working towards the water course so that flowing water does not infiltrate the cut until the final phase of excavation.

4.2.8 Concrete Production

A concrete batch plant will be required for the production of concrete for the construction of the facility. An aggregate deposit owned by Custom Concrete has been identified 25 km east of Foleyet, near the Groundhog River. This location would be ideal for the location of the aggregate batch plant as it has been previously disturbed and could serve as a source of aggregate. The distance from Foleyet to The Chute is considered to be manageable for concrete deliveries.

For Third Falls, a batch plant location has been proposed within an existing aggregate borrow area approximately 10 km from the project site on the main east-west forestry road. The estimated footprint required for the batch plant and aggregate storage piles is 5,000 m2.

4.2.9 Connection line

Regardless of which route is selected, the connection line will consist of an indeterminate number of wood poles extending approximately 10 m above the ground surface. The construction of a 20 m (approximate) wide ROW is required for the connection line.

4.2.10 Management of Waste Materials during Construction

Solid nonhazardous construction waste (e.g. material packaging) generated during the construction process will be removed from the site to an approved disposal location. The MOE advised that the local licensed waste disposal site did not have sufficient capacity to accept the project’s construction waste. Therefore, the proponent is required to find an alternative disposal

64 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 site and/or recycling/composting facility (e.g. licenced waste management facility). The receiving facility may be required to amend its licence accordingly. In its investigations of alternative disposal sites and waste management providers, the proponent identified Northern Environmental Services as a possible service provider for managing construction and demolition waste; Erocon Waste Management (located in Timmins) for the removal of construction waste to locally approved landfills; and Veolia for the management and removal of any hazardous waste. The proponent will make the appropriate arrangements prior to construction.

No gaseous wastes other than construction equipment emissions are anticipated. Industrial liquids such as paints, sealants, fuels and lubricating fluids will be stored in secure containment areas and disposed of in accordance with provincial and federal liquid waste disposal regulations (e.g. Environmental Protection Act, O. Reg. 347, and Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act).

4.2.11 Water Crossings

The Ivanhoe River waterpower sites will be accessed using existing forestry access roads to maximize use of existing infrastructure, with some segments of new road required between the existing road and the generating station locations. Road maintenance and potential upgrades to existing roads and water crossings will be discussed with the SFL holder for the project area. Responsibility for road and water crossing upgrades will be confirmed during further discussion with the forestry companies.

The Chute

Access to The Chute waterpower site is via the Oates Road which travels north off of Highway 101 approximately 3 km east of the town of Foleyet. Access to the east side of the Ivanhoe River is via the Oates Road then along the Laundry Road. An additional 27m of new road construction would be required to access the GS. Water crossings and drainage culverts were found to be in good condition along the Oates Road. The Laundry Road is not a regularly maintained forest access road and is primarily used by the public to access a boat launch and campsite north of the falls. Most of the water crossings and drainage culverts along the Laundry Road have failed or significantly deteriorated.

Access to the west side of the Chute generator site (for construction purposes) requires the crossing of the Ivanhoe River via an existing Bailey bridge with existing tertiary roads providing access to a point 200m west of the GS.

Third Falls

Access to the Third falls GS is via 79.7 km of existing primary road, 16.3 km of secondary access road and 3.5 km of new road providing access to the west side of the GS. The existing section of secondary road is hilly in sections, with a consistent solid road base requiring some surface gravelling and maintenance. Most of the existing water crossing structures were found to be sound with a few drainage pipes requiring replacement.

65 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

5. OPERATION STRATEGY

Note to Reviewer: Xeneca has recently received comments on the draft operations plan and is currently working to address them. Accordingly, operations plan and the information below may be changed to reflect those comments and will be included in the Final ER.

This section summarizes how the facilities will be operated and how the operation will be modified to address potential effects on the river including seasonal considerations, proposed operating rules and target limits. The full draft operating plan for The Chute and Third Falls is presented in Annex I.

The operations strategy is based on the conceptual engineering design and was developed following the identification and analysis of potential net effects and the selection of appropriate mitigation measures. Environmental data was collected and analyzed through various studies, including:

 Lidar Survey: detailed topographic mapping of the upstream and downstream river reach;

 Conceptual Design: drawings of the structures as conceptually proposed for the project;

 Hydrology Study: an analysis of the natural river flows;

 Bathymetric Study: a field study of water depths upstream and downstream of the project location and a spot measurement of flows required for hydraulic model calibration;

 Hydraulic Studies: detailed hydraulic engineering analyses to better understand the various hydraulic parameters relevant to assess operational and environmental matters. The work included one-dimensional steady-state HEC-RAS modeling upstream and downstream of the proposed development, as well as unsteady-state flow modeling in the downstream area affected by operation of the project;

 Geomorphology survey: a field study of river channel stability, erosion and sediment transport;

 Environmental field studies: studies of environmental areas and aspects of interest as documented in other parts of this environmental report.

The operations strategy may be refined subsequent to regulatory review and comment, and once the project enters the final design stage.

5.1 HEADPOND INUNDATION

In order to generate energy, both facilities require the creation of a headpond above the generating station, and thus require the inundation of lands upstream. The nature of operations limits the depth and area of inundation upstream, and by extension, the magnitude and spatial

66 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 extent of the associated environmental impact. The limited amount of storage available for operation relative to the natural flow of the river differentiates modified run-of-river projects from hydroelectric projects with large storage reservoirs capable of storing water for weeks or months and which have the ability to “peak” when seasonal periods of hot or cold weather raise the demand for electricity.

Based on the dynamic modeling (HEC-RAS) completed to date, the Chute and Third Falls facilities may result in upstream inundation areas extending 6.4 km and 44 km upstream of the dams, respectively. For both proposed facilities, much of the inundation would be contained within the existing channels.

At the Chute, only the first two kilometres of the river immediately upstream of the dam will experience an increase in depth exceeding 1 m (at long-term average flow) as a result of the creation of the headpond. Water levels in the headpond of the Chute during post-development, long-term average flow will generally be lower than those observed during pre-development, 1:100 year flood events. The results of steady-state HEC-RAS modeling (see Annex I) indicate that the proposed Chute facility will increase water levels immediately upstream of the proposed structure location by approximately 3.0 to 6.0 m. The headpond is predicted to extend approximately 6.4 km upstream during long-term average flow, and 1.9 km during 1:100 year flow conditions. The extents of the current and proposed inundation areas, under long-term average flow and 1:100 flood conditions, are illustrated in the mapping provided in Annex I.

For the proposed Third Falls facility, the results of the steady-state HEC-RAS modeling indicate that water levels immediately upstream of the proposed structure will increase by approximately 1.4 – 3.0 m. The headpond is predicted to extend approximately 44 km upstream during both long-term average flow and 1:100 flood conditions. The model results suggest that the tailwater of the Chute will not be affected by the headpond of Third Falls during long-term average flow, but would experience an increase in water levels by approximately 0.2 m during 1:2 year flood flow and by 0.1 m during 1:100 year flood flow. Additionally, water levels upstream of the proposed Third Falls facility during long-term average flow (post-development) will be lower than those currently reached during 1:100 year flood flows (pre-development). The extent of the current and proposed inundation area under long-term average flow conditions are illustrated on maps in Annex I.

5.2 SITE OPERATING STRATEGY

Waterpower facilities and associated control structures operating within the Mattagami River system are currently governed by a Water Management Plan (WMP) under the authority of the MNR through the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA). An amendment to the Mattagami River WMP will be required establishing the operational parameters for The Chute and Third Falls waterpower projects. The objective of setting operating parameters is to allow flexibility in the electricity generation while limiting significant negative impacts due to variability in flows and fluctuation in levels.

67 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

It is proposed to operate The Chute facility as a “modified run-of-river” generating facility with the facility immediately downstream, Third Falls as a “run-of-river” waterpower project, effectively re-naturalizing river flows based upon upstream conditions prior to the Chute project. During certain times, both facilities would operate at the same rate as the natural flow in the river (i.e. “run-of-river”) with no variation in upstream water levels due to operation and no man-made variation in downstream flows from those experienced naturally. At other times, the first project in series, The Chute, would “modify” the natural flow in the river by storing some of the natural river flow during night time hours to be used during daytime hours (from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) when the need for electricity in the Province is greater. During these periods, the second project in series, Third Falls, would re-naturalize river flows by storing and releasing water at a rate consistent with inflow rates prior to the Chute (natural rate). The proponent will install a monitor in the headpond of The Chute and a second monitor in the tailrace of Third Falls to ensure that flow has been re-naturalized. It should be noted that over any 24 hour period the same volume of water would pass down the river as would occur under run-of-river operation. Operation modes are described in further detail below.

Run-of-river operation would occur during two (2) types of natural flow conditions:

1. High Flow - When natural river flows are greater than the maximum turbine capacity (38 m3/s and 46 m3/s for The Chute and Third Falls, respectively): Since the natural flow exceeds the amount of water that can be processed through the turbine, any excess water is bypassed through the spillway structure. The combined flow of the water used in the turbine to generate electricity and the water bypassed over the spillway equals the natural flow. This situation occurs primarily during spring thaw run-off conditions and during major storm events in the spring, summer and fall.

2. Very Low Flow - When natural flows are so low that any available water must be released downstream to protect the environment: The flow in this situation is typically too low to generate electricity. This situation occurs primarily in late summer and late winter when natural flows are typically very low. This situation may also occur during certain years when spring run-off flow is unusually low and the amount of water available is needed downstream to protect the environment.

Modified run-of-river operation at the Chute would occur during moderate and low flows when the natural flow in the river is below the maximum turbine flow capacity (38 m3/s) but above the minimum flow required to protect the environment (QEA, corresponding to the monthly Q80 baseflow; see Table 12). During these flow conditions, some of the natural river flow during night-time hours can be stored and used to produce electricity during daytime hours. Run-of- river operations for Third Falls during modified run-of-river operations at the Chute requires the use of the Third Falls headpond to buffer inflows which are either above or below natural inflow rates. There are two modes of modified operation as follows:

68 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

1. The Chute turbines operate at reduced rate at night: When natural river flows are 3 moderate (i.e. between the minimum (QTmin = 11.4 m /s) and the maximum 3 (QTmax = 38 m /s) rate of turbine capacity), The Chute runs continuously, but some of the water is saved during nighttime hours. This operation results in downstream flows into Third Falls that are smaller than natural river flows during nighttime hours and larger than natural river flows during daytime hours when electricity use is higher. However, the minimum flow in this mode of operation is not less than the minimum turbine capacity

(QTmin). The downstream site, Third Falls, provides a constant generation rate corresponding to natural upstream inflow rates. To accomplish this task the portion of the inflow which is above the natural rate is stored within the Third Falls headpond and released from the headpond (within 24 hours) at a rate corresponding to the quantity of inflow which is less than the natural rate. This mode of operation results in fluctuating headpond water levels of less than 25 cm.

2. The Chute turbines are stopped at night: When natural river flows are low (i.e. below the

minimum turbine capacity (QTmin)), The Chute will need to stop operation during some nighttime hours and save water until operation is again possible. The lower the natural river flow, the longer the period of stoppage will be. When the Chute facility operates, it

operates at a rate less than maximum turbine capacity (QTmax). To ensure that the

downstream river reach receives enough water flow to protect the environment (QEA), the appropriate amount of water is released through a bypass while the turbine operation is stopped. Operation of the headpond at Third Falls will occur in a manner as discussed in the above section. Regardless of generation capacity at Third Falls, water will be discharged from the tailrace.

Figure 7 below illustrates the mode of operation for The Chute GS under different flow conditions during normal operations. Note that the facility would be subject to additional operating constraints during Walleye spawning (to be discussed further in Section 7.1.4) and when drought is declared by the Province: during such times, The Chute GS will operate in run- of-river mode.

69 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Figure 7: Modes of Operation for The Chute GS outside of Walleye Spawning Period

During periods of moderate and low flows when The Chute facility operates in modified run-of- river operation mode, headpond water levels upstream of the facility will fluctuate from daytime to night-time hours. Water levels will rise during the night as production is reduced below the natural rate of river inflow. Conversely, water levels will fall during the next day as production is increased above the natural rate of river inflow. Headpond levels at Third Falls will generally operate in an opposite direction, falling during the night and rising during the day, as required to re-naturalize river flows. Unsteady flow modeling for three operating scenarios (representing typical operations during February, August and November) demonstrated that the headpond of the Third Falls GS only needs to be fluctuated by 12 cm in order to re-naturalize flows in the Ivanhoe River (see the May 15, 2013 memo, “Ivanhoe River Sites HEC-RAS Unsteady Modelling Supplemental Memo”, in Annex I).

The upstream operating parameters for the projects are provided in Table 7.

70 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 7: Upstream Operating Parameters

The Chute Third Falls

Inundation Area at LTAF (ha) 59 265

Inundation Area - Pre-project (ha) 39 224

Upstream Extent (km) 6.4 44

Maximum Operating Level (m MSL) 298.0 288.0

Minimum Operating Level (m MSL) 297.0 287.8

Maximum Daily Fluctuation (m) 1.0 0.25

existing Normal Tailrace Level (m MSL) 288.5 conditions

Note: values are for normal flow conditions, parameters may vary during droughts or floods due to factors of nature.

5.3 VARIABLE FLOW REACH

The variability in flow can be significant from an area immediately downstream of the Chute GS to the Third Falls GS (the “Variable Flow Reach”). Within the Variable Flow Reach, water depth, flow velocity and wetted perimeter will change from daytime to night-time due to modified run- of-river operations at The Chute GS. The variable flow reach ends in the embayment area immediately downstream of Third Falls tailrace and spillway structures where the flow is re- naturalized to run-of-river conditions.

Variability in flow may impact aquatic habitat, navigation, public safety and civil structures, and ice scour. The operating parameters of the proposed undertaking will ensure that ecological flow requirements are met, take into consideration any downstream navigation constraints, and avoid significant negative impact on public safety and civil structures.

The location of in-stream features within the variable flow reach, such as fast water zones, tributaries and deep pools, were identified and mapped for the downstream sections of the Ivanhoe River below the proposed Chute GS and Third Falls GS (see the mapping provided in Annex I). Important spawning areas exist immediately downstream of the proposed spillways for both The Chute and Third Falls. These spawning areas represent the main spawning sites along the long, flat downstream reaches, which have limited alternative spawning areas. As a result, additional operating constraints were developed in order to minimize negative impacts to downstream features within the variable flow reach, and are listed in Appendix 2 of the draft Operating Plan (Annex I of this report). In particular, the east and west channels immediately

71 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 downstream of the proposed Chute GS and spillway contain suitable fish spawning habitat, thus requiring the provision of additional flows during the spawning period to mitigate environmental impacts related to operations. During Walleye spawning, which largely corresponds with the high flows of the spring freshet, the Chute will operate as a run-of-river facility. Run-of-river operations will begin at the start of Walleye staging and spawning (when water temperatures reach 4°C) and will continue until the eggs have developed and fry have dispersed into open water (33 days after water temperatures reach 12°C).

5.4 SPILLWAY FLOW ALLOCATION

Note to Reviewer: Xeneca has recently received comments on the proposed plan for flow allocation and is currently working to address them. Accordingly, the information below may be changed to reflect those comments and will be included in the Final ER.

At each proposed project site, downstream flows will be divided between the powerhouse and spillway. The apportionment of flow between the two structures depends on the amount of inflow to the project site and the operating status of the powerhouse.

During high flows, such as spring flood events, flows in excess of the maximum powerhouse capacity are directed over the spillway. During moderate flows that fall in the range of the powerhouse capacity, all flows are generally directed into the powerhouse for the production of electricity. Similarly, all flows during low flow events are typically directed into the powerhouse; given that the amount of flow is insufficient for continuous operation, flows emerging from the powerhouse are interrupted intermittently, but a limited amount of flow would be directed into each channel in order to meet special ecological requirements (discussed further below). During very low flows, which are too low for operation, all flows are directed over the spillway, and the powerhouse remains inactive.

Additional analysis of spill flow allocation at the proposed Chute GS was conducted to address the unique feature of an island at the dam site creating a west channel for spillway flows and an east channel for turbine flows (see the April 1, 2013 memo in Annex I, “Assessment of Spillway Flow Allocation at the Chute”).

Run-of-river operations at The Chute will occur during Walleye spawning, which largely corresponds with the high flows of the spring freshet. Following an analysis of flow requirements, it was determined that a minimum spillway flow of 10 m3/s into the west channel during spawning is adequate provided that total inflow are sufficient to maintain the minimum compensatory flows to the east channel of not less than the minimum turbine flow 3 (QTmin = 11.4 m /s). The flow allocation analysis indicates additional operating parameters for the east channel are not required. Additionally, once water temperatures reach 12oC, a minimum flow of 0.5 m3/s will be provided through the spillway into the west channel for the following 33 days in order to ensure the area is not dewatered following egg deposition. The operating restrictions during Walleye spawning are summarized in Table 8 below.

72 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 8: Operating Restrictions at The Chute GS for Walleye Spawning Period

Spillway flow Life Stage Start End Operation allocation

Walleye staging and spawning 4°C 12°C Run-of-river 10 m3/s

Walleye egg incubation, hatch, and 12°C +33 days Run-of-river 0.5 m3/s larval development

5.5 OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR WATER CONTROL STRUCTURES

Note to Reviewer: Xeneca has recently received comments on the operating parameters and is currently working to address them. Accordingly, the information below may be changed to reflect those comments and will be included in the Final ER.

In selecting the operation parameters for the facilities, the environmental aspects outlined in the previous sections were considered so as to provide a reasonable balance among operational constraints, environmental aspects and mitigation of possible impacts.

It should be noted that changes in upstream levels and downstream flows related to operation occur only when The Chute GS is in modified run-of-river operations mode. While The Chute is in run-of-river mode and subject to the amount of natural flow in the river, water levels upstream of either facility will be maintained at a constant level and downstream flows will equal the natural flow in the river.

Operation Parameters

The operating parameters that can be used to manage upstream water levels are:

 Maximum Daily Fluctuation of Upstream Water Levels: Under normal operation and during normal river flows, upstream water levels can be controlled as required by the rate of water use and hence electricity production. In modified run-of-river facilities, a portion of the normal river flow is typically stored during off-peak hours causing water levels to rise upstream until the rate of production is increased again during on-peak hours when electricity demand is higher. The range of daily water fluctuation in the inundated area upstream of the facility will be determined to mitigate upstream impacts.

 Rate of upstream water level change: To a limited degree, the rate of change of upstream water levels within the daily fluctuation range can be managed by the rate of electricity production while the facility is operating. The possible production rates range from the minimum to maximum turbine flow capacity. The rate of water level and flow

73 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

increase/decrease within the maximum daily range of fluctuation will be acceptable to protect shorelines and habitat.

 Minimum Upstream Operating Water Level: The minimum upstream operating water level is the water level below which no power is generated during normal operations. It should be noted that the need to provide environmental flows may result in drops of upstream water levels below the minimum water level even if no power is generated. This situation can occur during prolonged periods of drought and cannot be controlled by plant operation.

 Maximum Upstream Operating Water Level: The maximum upstream operating water level is the water level beyond which water is bypassed through the spillway during normal operations to avoid further water level rise upstream. During flood conditions (i.e. the spring freshet), water levels may rise above this level due to natural factors. Various engineering documents or drawings may refer to this level as the “Normal Operating Level (NOL)” or the “Full Supply Level (FSL)”.

The operating parameters that can be used to manage downstream flows/levels are:

 Upper Turbine Limit (QTL): The maximum amount of flow generated by the facility operation while intermittent turbine operation is occurring. The turbine(s) can be operated in a range of flows and outputs ranging from minimum turbine capacity to the maximum turbine capacity. When it is desirable to minimize the difference between on-peak and off- peak flows, the upper limit of turbine operation can be set as an operating parameter. Setting the upper limit has to take into account that the turbines do not operate very efficiently below roughly 65% of their maximum capacity.

 Turbine Ramp Time: This parameter defines how quickly a turbine can shift from being stopped (i.e. not operating) to the desired operating flow. Turbine start up involves going from being stopped to the minimum turbine capacity in a very short period of time. Once the turbine is operating, the turbine capacity can then be increased gradually to the desired operating flow. By increasing the flow gradually, downstream impacts can be reduced.

 Turbine Down Ramp Time: Essentially the reverse of Turbine Ramp Time. The time during which a turbine is taken down to minimum turbine capacity prior to shut down. By decreasing the flow gradually, downstream impacts can be reduced.

 Environmental Flow: The amount of flow that is continuously provided to the Variable Flow Reach during intermittent operation when the turbine is stopped. It should be noted that the environmental flow provided through operations cannot be larger than the natural flow upstream in the river.

 Compensatory Bypass Flow: The amount of flow that is provided at all times to the river reach between the control structure and the powerhouse tailrace outflow. This flow is only relevant where the final design involves a separation between the containment structure and

74 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

the powerhouse tail water outflow (i.e. where the design creates a section of river that is bypassed by the facility). This flow is not applicable where the final design involves a close coupled design where the powerhouse tailrace outlet is immediately downstream of the containment structure. Where this parameter is applicable it is independent of the facility operation mode.

Potential operational impacts to environmental components vary significantly depending on the mode of operation and flow conditions which are in turn typically dependent on seasonal conditions. For the purposes of the operating plan, the operating seasons have been determined by reviewing a hydrograph of average annual flows and periods of special environmental significance (i.e. fish spawning). Table 9 summarizes the start and end dates for each season as they relate to the operations of The Chute and Third Falls facilities.

Table 9: Seasonal Hydrological Periods

April 16th – June 1st Spring (46 days) June 2nd – September 1st Summer (92 days) September 2nd – November 1st Fall (61 days) November 2nd – April 15th Winter (166 Days)

Tables 10 and 11 provide a description of the proposed operating parameters for the two facilities. Some of the parameters may be further refined based on regulator and stakeholder input as the project proceeds to detailed engineering design.

75 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 10: The Chute Proposed Operating Parameters

Project & Streamflow Conditions (m3/s) Description Acronym Summe Spring r Fall Winter

Streamflow Exceeded 99% of the time Q99 8.0 2.6 2.3 6.6

Streamflow Exceeded 95% of the time Q95 14.6 4.2 3.3 8.5

Streamflow Exceeded 80% of the time Q80 30.5 8.3 6.0 11.6

Streamflow Exceeded 50% of the time Q50 71.6 15.1 15.7 18.4

Streamflow Exceeded 20% of the time Q20 140.0 30.6 31.7 30.5

No int. 1 Downstream environmental flow target QEA Monthly Q80BF values op.

Compensatory flow (between tailrace and 2 QCOMP 0.5-10 0.5 0.5 0.5 dam) Max. turbine flow during intermittent QTL NA 25 25 25 operation

Maximum turbine flow capacity QTMAX 38.0

Minimum turbine flow capacity QTMIN 11.4 Long term annual flow, average annual LTAF 29.7 mean

Median streamflow value QMED 18.9 2 year return period 7-day-average-low flow 7Q2 4.42 10 year return period 7-day-average-low 7Q10 2.49 flow 20 year return period 7-day-average-low 7Q20 2.07 flow High streamflow event; occurrence of 1 in 2 Q1:2 187 yr High streamflow event; occurrence of 1 in Q1:100 370 100 yr Turbine Ramp Time N/A 60 min Turbine Ramp Down Time N/A 60 min 1 See Table 12 for the monthly Q80BF values 2Spring compensatory flow at The Chute is dependent on water temperature in relation to spawning periods. See Table 8 for restrictions.

76 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 11: Third Falls Proposed Operating Parameters

Project & Streamflow Conditions (m3/s) Description Acronym Summe Spring r Fall Winter

Streamflow Exceeded 99% of the time Q99 9.6 3.1 2.7 8.0

Streamflow Exceeded 95% of the time Q95 17.5 5.1 3.9 10.3

Streamflow Exceeded 80% of the time Q80 36.7 10.0 7.3 14.0

Streamflow Exceeded 50% of the time Q50 86.1 18.2 18.9 22.1

Streamflow Exceeded 20% of the time Q20 168.6 36.8 38.2 36.8

Downstream environmental flow target QEA No intermittent operation, ROR Compensatory flow (between tailrace and QCOMP 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 dam) Max. turbine flow during intermittent QTL NA NA NA NA operation

Maximum turbine flow capacity QTMAX 46.0

Minimum turbine flow capacity QTMIN 13.8 Long term annual flow, average annual LTAF 35.7 mean

Median streamflow value QMED 22.7 2 year return period 7-day-average-low flow 7Q2 5.31 10 year return period 7-day-average-low 7Q10 2.99 flow 20 year return period 7-day-average-low 7Q20 2.52 flow High streamflow event; occurrence of 1 in 2 Q1:2 227 yr High streamflow event; occurrence of 1 in Q1:100 450 100 yr Turbine Ramp Time N/A 60 min Turbine Ramp Down Time N/A 60 min

Table 12: Monthly Q80BF values (in m3/s)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 12.0 8.94 8.27 9.16 20.2 11.2 6.08 4.35 3.26 6.89 14.8 18.3

In consultation with MNR, it was determined that in order to preserve the ecological viability of the Clay Belt Conservation area, Xeneca will commit to attenuating fluctuations through the operations of Third Falls in order to mimic natural run-of-river flow to the Northern Claybelt Forest Complex Reserve.

The frequency with which each type of operating mode is employed at The Chute GS will vary seasonally (see Table 13). The proposed frequency of each mode of operation was determined

77 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 using available hydrology at the project site, design parameters and operating restrictions outlined in the draft Operating Plan (Annex I).

Table 13: The Chute Operating Mode Occurrence by Season

Operating Mode InFlow Spring Summer Fall Winter Annual

Run-of-River >QTmax (38 (Continuous m3/s) 74% 13% 12% 12% 20% Operation)

Modified Run-of-River >QTmin (Continuous (11.4 m3/s) 22% 53% 51% 69% 56% Operation)

Modified Run-of-River

Run-of-River

5.6 SPECIAL EVENT OPERATION

Operation during special events, such as floods, droughts and safety emergencies may need to deviate from the normal operating parameters to manage flows and mitigate impacts.

 Normal Flood Operation: Normal flood events are defined as flows that exceed the maximum capacity of the plant up to and including the one in two year flood event level. Flood events of this magnitude are normal occurrences in the river and present minimal concern for public safety or environmental impacts. During these periods, the facility is operated to manage water levels upstream below the maximum upstream operating water level where possible. This is achieved by allowing any water that is in excess of the maximum turbine capacity to bypass the facility through the spillway.

 High Flood Operation: High flood events are defined as events that exceed the one in two year flood event level but are within the safe design level of the facility. Flood events of this frequency are anticipated to occur only infrequently over the life of the facility. The objective of this type of operation is to ensure public safety. This is typically achieved by allowing any water that is in excess of the maximum turbine capacity to bypass the facility through the spillway and by operating the spillway and the power generation facility in a manner that achieves this objective.

78 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 Extreme Flood Operation: Extreme flood events are defined as events at which the facility cannot be attended safely by operators and where the risk of flooding of the generation equipment is possible. The emphasis on operation is on ensuring public and operator safety. Where advance warning is received that an extreme event may occur, the operation of the facility will be adjusted in advance of the flood peak to maximize its ability to pass water and provide minimal obstruction to the passing of flood waters.

It should be recognized that the facility is not designed to mitigate the effects of naturally occurring events such as floods and droughts. However, there are circumstances where the existence of the facility can either aid in managing a special event or pose an additional risk. The flood risk aspects are managed, in part, through the government approval under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act of the engineering plans and specifications for the design of the facility. The purpose of this process is to ensure that the flood passage capacity of the facility is adequate and that the risk to property and public safety is duly considered.

5.7 COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS

For compliance purposes, the Target Operating Zone will be the legal operating limits as provided in Section 7 of the Operating Plan for the Ivanhoe River Hydro Projects (found in Annex 1), consisting of The Chute and Third Falls. Xeneca will place monitoring stations in the headpond of The Chute and in the tailrace of the Third Falls to ensure the flows are re- naturalized. The facilities will be considered out of compliance with this Operating Plan if they go outside of these defined operating parameters. Xeneca will be required to submit an Incident Report following standard compliance procedures outlined by MNR whenever the headpond water levels or downstream flow targets deviate outside the Target Operating Zone.

During periods of drought or extreme flooding events, equipment constraints may prevent water levels or flows from being maintained solely within the Target Operating Zone. Xeneca will not be required to submit an Incident Report whenever the operating parameters deviate outside the Target Operating Zone under these conditions. Xeneca will keep on record the occurrence of these events and resultant conditions.

When flows are above the maximum turbine design capacity (38 m3/s at The Chute and 46 m3/s at Third Falls), Xeneca will have no ability to control water levels, either upstream or downstream of the facilities. Water levels and flows will rise and fall in accordance with natural inflows until flow decreases back to or below the design capacities. For compliance purposes, no Incident Report will be required if flows exceed the design capacity of the facility. However, when inflow rates decrease below the facilities’ design capacity, Xeneca will become subject to the Target Operating Zone Parameters as discussed above.

For the purposes of compliance monitoring, the headpond water level will be monitored from a water level gauge located on the upstream side of each powerhouse.

79 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Water temperature in each headpond will also be monitored on an hourly basis and this data will be reported with the flow and water level reading data.

This information will be reported annually in a compliance monitoring report to MNR. The information will be provided in an electronic format that can be graphed as well as in a written format.

An out-of-operating zone occurrence will require the submission of an Incident Report as noted in Section 5.7 above.

5.7.1 Confirmation Monitoring

In order to confirm the predictions of Xeneca’s hydrological modeling, Xeneca will report the following for each facility:

 one instantaneous discharge (flow) reading at 15-minute intervals

 one instantaneous headpond water level reading at 15-minute intervals.

For total instantaneous discharge readings, this will be a combination of gauged/measured flows through each facility and calculated discharge from the spillway.

An out-of-operating zone occurrence will require the submission of an Incident Report as noted in Section 5.7 above.

80 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

6. FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL AGENCY AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

This section presents the methods and scope of stakeholder consultation conducted for these proposed developments.

6.1 CONSULTATION GUIDELINES

One of the main objectives of the Waterpower Class EA process is to coordinate and integrate the requirements of regulatory agencies under the provincial EAA and any applicable federal legislation. This involves gathering information from public, private and Aboriginal stakeholders to identify environmental concerns and to inform project decision makers.

To meet this objective and to effectively engage with agencies and stakeholders, the Waterpower Class EA builds on the public notification requirements mandated under the EAA, and other provincial processes (i.e. LRIA, PLA, etc.) which recommend that consultation and engagement planning be incorporated as an integral component of the planning process.

Xeneca’s consultation programs are designed to provide the outreach in order to identify potential stakeholders, engage stakeholders and provide the means and opportunity for participation in the development planning process. The goals of the consultation programs are to:

 Identify and notify potentially interested and affected stakeholders;

 Identify and assess the range of positive and negative environmental and socio-economic effects of the projects;

 Address the concerns of adjacent property owners, local and regional interest groups, individual members of the public and Aboriginal communities that may be directly affected by the projects.

To achieve these goals, the consultation programs strive to:

 Identify potentially affected stakeholders;

 Describe how the project may affect the natural and socio-economic environment;

 Provide notification to identified stakeholders as prescribed by the Waterpower Class EA;

 Inform the public, Aboriginal communities and regulatory agencies where, when and how they can engage in the process;

 Identify public and Aboriginal community benefits, concerns and issues related to the projects;

81 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 Address public, Aboriginal community and regulatory agency concerns and issues raised regarding the development and operation of the projects;

 Document public, Aboriginal community and regulatory agency input and how concerns were addressed, issues avoided and mitigation measures put into place during project planning.

The records of government agency, public, and aboriginal community consultation undertaken in the planning of this development proposal are provided in Appendices C, D and E, respectively.

6.2 CONSULTATION STRATEGIES

The consultation programs undertaken by Xeneca were intended to meet all mandatory consultation requirements as well as to assist in the identification and resolution of environmental concerns relating to the project. Xeneca was responsible for notification, engagement, and consultation with First Nations and Aboriginal communities. All public consultation events, communications, and advertising with the public at large were coordinated and executed by Xeneca staff. Public and Aboriginal Community Consultation Plans for the proposed developments were prepared by Xeneca and are presented in Appendices D and E, respectively. Key components of the consultation plans including the specific tools and approaches to consultation are described below.

6.2.1 General Print and Mailing

General mailing of reports, notices and letters through postal, courier and electronic methods were used. To promote environmental sustainability, the EA team did attempt to minimize printed media; however, hard copy print was used where electronic formats were not guaranteed to reach the intended target audience and where specifically requested.

6.2.2 Print Media

All print advertising in support of the undertaking was circulated in the Timmins Daily Press and Chapleau Express to ensure broad formal notification of key project milestones and key meeting dates to members of the public. Advertisements for public meetings were circulated in advance of all meeting dates. The dates, locations, and issues raised at each meeting are summarized in Section 6.4 below.

6.2.3 Web Media

Throughout the planning process Xeneca has provided regular project status updates and key documents (Project Descriptions, etc.) through emailing and through its website (www.Xeneca.com) to complement the consultation and engagement program for the projects. Preliminary distribution of Project Descriptions was through the OEL-HydroSys website at

82 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 www.wesa.ca. Xeneca personnel also employed other social media communication tools to garner and provide feedback to the public.

6.2.4 Meetings

Direct and/or teleconference meetings with various stakeholders, such as municipalities and public interest groups, were a component of the consultation initiative intended to assist in the identification and resolution of environmental concerns. A summary of these events is presented in Sections 6.4.1.

Meetings were also held with identified Aboriginal communities as part of the aboriginal consultation initiative. As part of these meetings, consideration of the concerns of Aboriginal communities located in the vicinity of, and/or having a potential interest in the project was afforded. To help facilitate these activities, Xeneca assisted interested Aboriginal communities in accessing government programs and funding. A summary of Aboriginal Engagement for the proposed Ivanhoe River projects is presented in Section 6.5 of this report.

6.2.5 Public Information Centres (PICs)

In addition to direct correspondence, public meetings were held in order to inform the public on project details and studies, and to gather feedback on the proposed undertakings. The dates and times for the Public Information Centres (PICs) were advertised in local publications, and notification was sent either by electronic mail or direct mail to participating members of stakeholder groups and government agencies well in advance of the scheduled date. Members of Xeneca staff as well as key experts from the EA team were on hand to answer public questions and to address concerns related to the development. The PICs featured posters and maps with information about the project, copies of which are provided in Appendix D. Attendees of the meeting were asked to provide their name and contact information, to identify whether they wished to be provided with project updates, and to provide feedback on the project. A summary of these events is presented in Section 6.4.1.

6.3 GOVERNMENT AND AGENCY CONSULTATION

The EA team was responsible for regulatory agency and government consultation. Xeneca issued a Notice of Commencement (NOC) for the proposed undertakings on July 28th, 2010. The Project Description documents for The Chute and Third Falls were provided to regulators on November 19th, 2010, and February 2nd, 2011, respectively. A revised NOC was issued on November 10th, 2010, with a third NOC revision issued on December 22, 2010. A copy of each NOC is provided in Appendix D. A complete record of contact and evidence of the provincial and federal government consultation effort is presented in Appendix C.

The EA team engaged federal, provincial and municipal agencies during an EA Coordination meeting on April 19th, 2011 to introduce the projects and collect feedback for regulatory approvals, permitting and requirements and project scoping.

83 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

A summary of the consultation events with government regulators and stakeholders is presented below. For the reader’s convenience, a summary of the issues identified during the regulatory agency and public consultation process is provided in tabular format as Table 26 (Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation, and Potential Residual Effects). The table also identifies whether and how resolution of the identified issue has been or may be addressed, and which issues remain unresolved. Future efforts to resolve these issues are outlined in Section 7 of this report.

6.3.1 Federal

6.3.1.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

It is important to remind the reader that the proponent initially approached the EA planning process with a view to presenting one harmonized environmental assessment report document to meet the requirements of both provincial and federal planning processes. Since the enactment of the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA, 2012) a federal environmental assessment is no longer required for these projects. Therefore, the information contained in the following section is based on the preliminary project approach and should therefore be considered in the light of the regulatory setting it was undertaken in despite the current requirements for EA planning. There is merit in recounting the entire planning process accurately so the entire federal consultation record has been included in order to provide a comprehensive account of the planning process. Additional consultation with federal regulators may be required subsequent to the release of this document and prior to authorizations or approvals required under applicable federal legislation.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) was provided with an introductory letter and project overview by Xeneca in June 2010. The proponent was advised that the CEA Agency would be acting at the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC) for any proposed project subject to the then-applicable Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992). The CEA Agency requested from the proponent full Project Descriptions and clarification as to whether federal funding was being contemplated for the projects. The proponent was advised that federal agencies to be contacted through the FEAC would include Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (now Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada), Natural Resources Canada, and Transport Canada. Xeneca was informed that documents may be made available to the public, and that information related to the EA will be included in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry.

A copy of the Project Description for the Chute and Third Falls was provided to the FEAC and each of the above referenced federal agencies in November 2010 and February 2011, respectively.

An EA Coordination meeting for the proposed projects on the Ivanhoe River was held in Timmins on April 19, 2011. The CEA Agency was unable to participate in the meeting and

84 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 requested a copy of the meeting minutes; the Agency was provided with the final meeting minutes on June 13, 2011.

In a July 12, 2012 letter (sent by DFO), Xeneca was informed that a federal EA was no longer required for the proposed Chute GS and Third Falls GS. On August 10, 2012, CEAA confirmed that it would no longer be involved with the proposed projects as a federal EA was no longer required.

6.3.1.2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada

At the EA Coordination meeting held on April 19th, 2011, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) was identified as a Responsible Authority for the projects. DFO outlined their concerns and responsibilities regarding the projects including impacts to fisheries and fish habitat around the project sites and at any proposed water crossings as well as provisions for fish migration and passage and the requirement for detailed information. In order for DFO to complete their review of the undertakings, accept the EA planning outcomes, and ultimately make a determination under the Fisheries Act, sufficient detailed information relating to these issues must be made available.

Federal scoping documents for the two proposed Ivanhoe River developments was issued by DFO in the months following the EA Coordination meeting in April 2011. The scoping documents outlined the federal review team and the environmental and project components that must be assessed.

In a letter dated July 12, 2012, after the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, came into force, DFO notified Xeneca that the proposed Chute and Third Falls projects would no longer require federal environmental assessments.

DFO was in attendance at the August 16, 2012 meeting with Xeneca, MNR and MOE. The purpose of the meeting was for Xeneca to update the regulatory bodies on the status of studies completed, to identify key issues, and to discuss potential mitigation options and approaches. The meeting discussions are summarized below in Section 6.3.2.1 (“Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources”).

Future consultation with DFO will be required as the projects move forward in the development process. The final detailed engineering drawings and other supporting information will be submitted to DFO for a determination under the Fisheries Act.

6.3.1.3 Transport Canada

Transport Canada (TC) was provided with Project Descriptions for the proposed Chute GS and Third Falls GS on November 19th, 2010, and February 2nd, 2011, respectively. The Agency confirmed its role as a Responsible Authority for the projects under the Navigable Waters

85 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Protection Act (NWPA). The Act prohibits the construction or placement of any “works” in, on, over, under, through or across navigable waters without first obtaining approval.

During the EA Coordination meeting, TC confirmed that based on the Project Description, approvals under the NWPA will be required. The agency confirmed it would provide a comprehensive list of requirements which would need to be addressed prior to accepting the outcomes of the EA and ultimately make a determination under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. TC advised the proponent to submit its application for a project review request under the NWPA as soon as possible, the application is pending and will be completed once the detailed design drawing package is prepared.

On September 9, 2011, TC issued their review comments on the July 2011 Environmental Report for the proposed Chute project. The report was reviewed and evaluated within the context of the then-applicable CEAA (1992), and outlined the department’s responsibilities under the Act.

Future consultation with TC will be required as the combined project moves forward in the development process. The final detailed engineering drawings for each proposed facility will be submitted to TC for a determination under the NWPA.

6.3.1.4 Environment Canada

A surface water monitoring program was conducted during the 2010 field season at the proposed project sites. The results of the program were summarized in baseline surface water quality investigation reports (Annex lV) which Environment Canada (EC) received on March 22, 2011. EC was also informed of the proponent’s timeline for releasing additional supporting documentation by the end of March 2011; reference was made to reports that would encompass hydrology, operations, existing conditions and archaeology.

Acting as an expert Federal Authority for the EA, EC reviewed the surface water quality monitoring reports and provided feedback to the federal agencies, the proponent and its consultants on April 15, 2011. Comments and recommendations were made regarding the collection and reporting of data for the Fish Species Inventory, the identification of potential environmental effects during the construction and operation phases of the projects, and ongoing monitoring of surface water chemistry, the details of which are provided below.

EC requested mapping indicating the sampling areas and stations that were included in the fish species inventory survey and as part of the Walleye Spawning Survey along with the water quality sampling stations. Clarification as to the location of the reference sampling area prior to headpond creation to ensure appropriate sampling had been undertaken is required. This information is presented in the EA team’s technical report titled Natural Environment Characterization and Impact Assessment Report provided in Annex lll.

86 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The 2010 habitat investigations identified Walleye and Pike as the primary species targeted by anglers within the Ivanhoe River in the area of The Chute (Annex lll). EC sought clarification as to why the proponent targeted only Walleye in its spawning survey.

The Agency recommended that baseline studies be continued to determine mercury concentrations in sport fish and in the study areas, detailing specific parameters to which the proponent has committed to in future work plans. It was noted that further consideration was required since the undertakings would result in the creation of upstream headponds, presenting the potential of an increase in methylized mercury levels in both surface water and fish tissue.

EC requested an estimate of the expected temperature and volume of the thermal discharge from either of the projects’ powerhouse and clarification as to whether this discharge would be released into the Ivanhoe River in order to quantify the potential change in surface water temperature in the headpond due to increased surface area and slower flow velocity. EC noted that there was mention of small areas of wetland in the proposed Chute development area and requested results of the study conducted which are provided in Annex lll. Additional information and measurements were requested in relation to hardness of water, water levels and currents by EC; a copy of the correspondence is provided in Appendix C.

In response to EC’s requests, the proponent has committed to consultation with EC in 2011 in order to scope and undertake a surface water quality characterization study and impact assessment during subsequent field seasons leading up to the construction phase, in order to determine any potential negative effects of the proposed project on this regime. Subsequently, surface water characterization and monitoring has been developed with MOE and is included in Annex IV.

On March 22, 2011, Environment Canada was invited to attend the upcoming EA coordination meetings and an invitation to form part of the technical review team. They were also provided information on the release dates of upcoming supporting studies. No further communications were received from Environment Canada.

6.3.1.5 Natural Resources Canada

Electronic correspondence was received from Natural Resources Canada on August 13, 2012, confirming that the Agency is no longer involved in the proposed undertakings as a result of the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

6.3.2 Provincial

Various provincial ministries were provided copies of an introductory letter, a Notice of Commencement, a revised Notice of Commencement and the Project Description document for the proposed projects. A record of government agency consultation is provided in Appendix C.

87 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The following is a synopsis of correspondence and consultation undertaken with provincial agencies.

6.3.2.1 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), based on to its mandate to manage natural resources and to promote renewable energy in the province, has legislative as well as natural heritage and water management planning policy roles in these projects.

The proponent’s notification and consultation with the Ministry includes the provision of early notices of the projects, requests for background/baseline information on Natural Heritage information in the vicinity of the project sites, scoping consultation, and requests for Scientific Collectors Permits to undertake terrestrial and aquatic baselines surveys within the anticipated project zones of influence.

Prior to the EA planning phase of the projects, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Chapleau District office, provided instructions specific to site release issues which included MNR’s requirements for Aboriginal consultation and the procedures associated with the Site Release Policy. This included the provision of a Waterpower Declaration Form. Throughout this process issues pertaining to the projects that the Ministry would like to see addressed through the Waterpower Class EA were identified.

Site Information Packages (SIPs) for The Chute and Third Falls projects were received from the MNR on October 19, 2010.

In the course of the Class EA planning process, meetings were held between the EA team and the Ministry of Natural Resources to develop field study work plans and investigation protocols, data information and reporting requirements and eventually to negotiate issues surrounding the results of these actions. A summary of these meetings is provided below:

 March 3, 2010 teleconference to discuss information requirements for the work plan and identify the Scientific Collectors Permits requirements for aquatic investigations in advance of the 2010 field season.

 September 2010 species at risk discussion between the EA team and the Chapleau District Office in order to determine the applicability of the Endangered Species Act to the project. One species at risk, Lake sturgeon, has been observed in the Ivanhoe River. MNR recommended that field work be conducted to determine if sturgeon spawning areas exist within the study area; studies were carried out in the fall of 2011. There was a meeting on January 26th, 2011 to discuss the preliminary findings of the 2010 field season and other issues. The following issues were identified by the MNR at this meeting;

88 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

o Issue of only one season of biological data, during which historically low water levels were reported. It was suggested that additional data collection in the 2011 field season would be required to augment the baseline studies (Annex lll).

o The importance of clearly defining the ecological impacts for the Aboriginal and local communities involved in the project as they might provide extensive local knowledge of the river and surrounding area. Regular updates to MNR on Aboriginal community consultation were expected, and that a formal public and Aboriginal engagement and consultation plan was required. A subsequent letter from the MNR to Xeneca dated May 17, 2011, outlined the next steps in Aboriginal engagement and consultation for the site release and environmental assessment processes and provided a clarification of responsibilities. A list of Local Aboriginal Communities and Identified Aboriginal Communities was provided. Public and Aboriginal Consultation Plans are located in Appendix D and E respectively.

o Sharing of information in regards to the operation of the Ivanhoe Lake Dam (rule curve) and other hydrological data for the river available currently, from the water level monitoring station and, in the future from the facility once built.

o The preservation and protection of the Northern Claybelt Conservation Reserve located immediately downstream of the Third Falls project site.

o Water management planning requirements for the proposed facilities (i.e. dam operating plan and flood flow management plan) which can be found in Annex l.

 April 19th, 2011 environmental assessment coordination meeting: a number of topics were discussed at the meeting between MNR and the proponent, and meeting minutes are provided in Appendix C. The following key planning considerations were discussed at this meeting;

o The project planning will be undertaken as a harmonized environmental assessment in order to integrate federal and provincial EA planning requirements. For the federal EA, as a result of a recent Supreme Court decision (MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), all components associated with the undertaking, including the connection line right-of-way, will be scoped into the assessment. The Canada - Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (November 2004) was discussed. The agreement requires the federal and provincial governments to coordinate the environmental assessment processes whenever projects are subject to review by both jurisdictions. The proponent will follow the Waterpower Class EA process as approved under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, and incorporate additional information necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Agreement requires that under this harmonized approach the proponent will present its findings on the predicted environmental effects of the project in a single body of documentation. In keeping

89 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

with this agreement which encourages efficient and comprehensive planning, the proponent has decided to incorporate the connection line ROW for the proposed Chute GS into the environmental assessment of the undertaking even though under the provincial process, a <115 KV line is a Category A undertaking and is exempt from an EA. The MNR agreed that dispositions that may be required under the MNR- RSFDP Class EA may be embedded into the Waterpower Class EA if the proponent can demonstrate they have adhered to MNR-RSFDP Class EA planning principles.

o It was determined that discussion and decisions surrounding the classification of the projects as being on a “managed waterway” would be deferred to the Operation Plans Meeting to be held April 28th, 2011.

o First Nation and other Aboriginal community consultation should be well documented and should follow a formal consultation plan. Xeneca’s Public and Aboriginal Consultation Plans can be found in Appendix D and E, respectively.

o Public Information Centres (PIC’s) were requested for Timmins, Chapleau and Foleyet. It was also noted that the proponent provided public notice in advance of previous meetings.

o Consultation requirements include the need to present the findings of any investigations within the course of the environmental assessment process.

o Documentation identifying which First Nations had agreed to representation by the Wabun Tribal Council was requested by MNR to be included in the ER.

o A detailed Construction Management Plan and Sediment and Erosion Control Plan are required at the permitting and approvals stage of the projects.

o Ministries and Agencies present confirmed they would provide the project team with information for regulatory permit applications and the supporting documentation requirements at a later date.

o Proposed access road and connection line corridor route maps will be required (Annex Vl) along with Public Lands Act permit applications. Part 1 Form should be submitted as soon as possible to MNR.

o MNR stated that operations of the Ivanhoe Lake Dam will most likely not be altered in support of the nearby Chute project.

o It was agreed between the proponent and the MNR that the zone of influence of the project would be clearly identified in the Operating Plan and through HEC-RAS modeling as part of the environmental report (Annex l).

90 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

o MNR cautioned the proponent about proceeding with EA planning as site release approval had not yet been provided for the projects. It was recommended that the proponent initiate conversations with the Mattagami WMP Standing Advisory Committee to facilitate approval and incorporation into the Water Management Plan. The proponent must ultimately demonstrate that water management planning was incorporated into all notification and display material either through the EA or through a separate water management plan amendment process.

o All maps provided in the ER should show all protected area boundaries.

o Key study and permitting requirements were identified and can be found in the meeting minutes in Appendix C including LRIA and ESA.

 On April 15th, 2011 the proponent met with a task team of MNR and MOE hydrologists to discuss the hydrologic modeling methodology which was undertaken to develop the Operational Plan for the sites.

 On April 28th and April 29th 2011, a meeting to discuss the proposed operational strategy for the proposed Chute facility was held with district and regional level staff of the MNR, MOE and DFO. The proponent presented the conceptual engineering design for the Chute site, and the proposed Operation Plan, which included maps of the upstream inundation zone of influence for The Chute site.

o The Agencies requested more details on the modeling parameters and methods in order to confirm the information. This additional information has been provided in the revised Operating Plan provided in Annex l.

o Topics such as potential impacts to riparian land and civil structures were preliminarily discussed. The proponent advised that standard engineering design work such as a downstream dam break analysis would not be conducted until the detailed design stage of the project. The proponent considered that only a conceptual design was required for the EA planning stage and the legislative approvals stage would be where more detailed information was provided. MNR cautioned that it would be best to consider all potential impacts at the EA stage to avoid opening the addendum provision of the Waterpower Class EA at a later date.

o The erosion potential downstream in the variable flow reach was also identified as a potential information gap. The proponent committed to addressing this issue by providing an erosion potential assessment. An Erosion Potential Assessment (2011) and Geomorphic Assessments are provided in Annex 1.

Comments on the Project Descriptions for both the Chute and Third Falls were received on May 30th, 2011 (see Appendix C). At the April 19th, 2011 EA Coordination meeting, it was agreed that

91 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 an addendum to the Project Description may be required if erroneous information was presented or if significant changes to the proposal were being introduced. However, the proponent’s position is that, within the Waterpower Class EA process, the Project Description is intended to be a starting document that initiates the planning discussion and is built upon over time eventually shaping into the ER. The MNR review comments on the Project Description document did not indicate any misconceptions but it was noted that the Document was deficient of some information which has since been addressed in this document. Therefore, an addendum to the Project Description was not deemed necessary.

Additional discussions were held on the subject of operations and potential ecological effects between the MNR, proponent and the EA team on May 31st and June 15, 2011. The outcomes of these discussions are summarized in a letter from Xeneca to the MNR dated July 4th, 2011 (Appendix C) pending the finalizing of the meeting minutes and have been included in Appendix C.

On June 1 and 9, 2011, the MNR provided Xeneca with draft Fish Management Objectives documents for the Ivanhoe River. The Fish Management Objectives noted that fish habitat upstream and downstream of the proposed project sites may be impacted by the inundation area and manipulation of flows downstream due to facility operations. In the outlined objectives, the MNR advised Xeneca to maintain productivity of the river in the vicinity of, and downstream of the project sites for fish species targeted by recreational and commercial anglers. Additionally, Xeneca was advised that populations of sturgeon in the downstream reaches of the Ivanhoe River, as well as the Groundhog River, should be maintained. The MNR noted that due to the large drop in elevation at both the Third Falls and Chute sites, the falls are likely acting as a barrier to upstream fish movement so upstream fish passage won’t be a project requirement. However, given that downstream movement of larvae and adult fish is likely, operations at the facilities should allow for downstream fish passage to occur.

The MNR attended the PIC in Chapleau on July 7, 2011. Discussions were held regarding connection lines and connection points; the proponent committed to providing copies of lines and roads maps by July 11, 2011. A summary of the discussions that were held during this PIC is provided in the meeting notes in Appendix C of this report.

The Ministry also launched an Ivanhoe River Usage Survey on June 6, 2011 with the approval of the proponent in order to assist all parties to gain a better understanding of the use of the area by recreational anglers and commercial outfitters. Details of this survey effort can be found in Appendix D; Public Consultation and the results of this survey are included in the socio-economic analysis provided in Section 7.2.6.

On July 22nd, 2011, MNR sent Xeneca a letter addressing additional concerns. These concerns included inadequate information being provided on the increased dynamic inundation zone, the need to address variable flows upstream and downstream of the Chute through modelling, the need to analyze base and peak flows, ramping rates, frequency of peaking, and the impacts of

92 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 these flows relative to the natural flow regime. MNR also expressed concerns regarding erosion of the inundation zone and downstream areas because of the fine substrate materials in the project area. MNR also indicated that the riverine index netting program for 2011 would need to include fish ageing data to provide adequate baseline information that could be used as a target during the post-construction phase.

In September of 2011, MNR provided a letter to Xeneca outlining the agency’s outstanding issues with respect to the Environmental Report that was submitted to regulatory agencies on July 14, 2011. Key concerns were as follows:

 Zone of influence and assessment of potential impacts; information and analysis was missing from the potential effects identification matrix, especially in light of the expanded zone of influence downstream of the Chute to the junction with the Groundhog River

 The document was missing a preliminary dam operating plan which would clearly outline the environmental effects expected from the operation of the facility and the resulting requirement for mitigative and/or monitoring strategies

 Inadequate hydrological monitoring was available to identify the flows needed at the Chute to provide a Q80 baseflow at the crest of Third Falls

 The procedural aspects of aboriginal consultation had not yet been completed

 Post-construction monitoring had not been included in the Environmental Report

On August 16, 2012, in advance of a meeting between Xeneca, the MNR, MOE and DFO, these regulators were provided with a draft operating plan for the two proposed Ivanhoe River developments, the content of which was substantially revised from the version distributed the previous year; the 2012 version also presented both options for the location of the Third Falls powerhouse (inside and outside of the conservation reserve). On August 16th, 2012, a meeting was held at the MNR District Office in Chapleau. The purpose of the meeting was for Xeneca to update the MNR, MOE and DFO on the status of studies completed, to identify key issues, and to discuss potential mitigation options and approaches. The following topics were highlights of the meeting:

 Route planning for the proposed transmission line route(s) was discussed and a commitment was made to meet again with the MNR Regional and District Offices to further clarify the routing plans and approvals process required.

 MNR requested that a report on the Aboriginal consultations to date be supplied to both MNR and MOE. They also requested that Xeneca provide an updated Notice of Commencement outlining the combined EA process for both The Chute and Third Falls.

93 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 An update on the hydrological modelling was provided to MNR. Xeneca proposed that modified run of river operations will be conducted at The Chute and Third Falls. Two hydrology reports were completed by two different consulting firms. The fast water features downstream of Third Falls and the impact of these features on the hydrological modelling required were discussed. Xeneca was to ensure its consultants include within their reports a discussion of the uncertainties and limitations of the modelling used, and to suggest that a model verification exercise be completed at project commissioning.

Other highlights of discussion at the August 16, 2012 meeting included:

 Further discussions took place regarding modelling at the Third Falls site and Conservation Reserve, and the potential impact on area tributaries.

 Brook trout and the required potential mitigation if they were found to be present were discussed. A commitment was made to discuss the potential for Brook trout mitigation with MNR in a future meeting. The locations where lake sturgeon may be present were also discussed.

 MNR stated a concern with erosion problems when the Ivanhoe River is at low flows and the need to ensure that the Northern Claybelt Forest Complex Conservation Reserve will not experience erosion as a result of the project. Xeneca committed to retaining a geomorphology consultant to address the potential for erosion with MNR.

 Xeneca discussed plans to initiate a deregulation of a portion of the CR to continue further analysis of an in-CR option with respect to the Third Falls project. The need to potentially utilize the CR lands for road access to the Third Falls site was also discussed; Xeneca was later informed that a deregulation of this portion of the CR would be required for access road construction.

 The preferred option for best placement of the dam structure at the two channels of the Chute was discussed. The eastern channel was selected as being the most suitable for minimizing the impact to spawning habitat, which is dominant in the western channel.

A meeting was held between Xeneca, MNR, MOE and DFO on March 1, 2013 to discuss facility operations, the downstream zone of influence, sediment and erosion, assessment of lines and roads, and Brook trout. During this meeting, the MNR noted their concern about the loss of fast water features as a result of inundation created by Third Falls, and stated that a habitat compensation plan and a description of mitigation efforts must be included in the EA for the proposed Ivanhoe River projects.

MNR also expressed concern regarding the then-proposed operations for Third Falls, which at the time of the meeting, was to vary outflows from the Third Falls GS while ensuring a minimum flow is supplied to the downstream reaches of the river at all time. The MNR explained that

94 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 impacts to natural flows in the nearby conservation reserve would be subject to a much higher standard of ecological study and restraint.

During the March 1, 2013, the need to assess tributaries within the headpond of Third Falls was discussed, due to the potential for suitable Brook trout habitat to be impacted by inundation. MNR noted that there did not appear to be sufficient information at the time on impacts in the tributaries, and that should impacts occur, compensation would be required.

Following the March 1, 2013 meeting with the MNR, MOE and DFO, Xeneca made a formal commitment to the MNR to operate the Third Falls GS under a run-of-river regime in order to avoid or mitigate downstream environmental effects within the Conservation Reserve (see the March 13, 2013 letter in Annex I of this report). Xeneca noted, though, that they would be completing additional environmental studies inside and outside of the nearby Northern Claybelt Forest Complex Conservation Reserve to assess the potential impacts of using an alternate operating regime at Third Falls. Xeneca stated that, should the results indicate that the effects are within acceptable ranges, they will undertake the steps required to amend permits to ease restrictions on that facility’s operations.

As the MNR is a key agency in the development process for waterpower Xeneca is committed to ongoing consultation throughout the permitting and approvals stage following the Environmental Assessment.

6.3.2.2 Ontario Ministry of the Environment

A project overview and draft Notice of Commencement was provided to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on June 10, 2010 by the proponent. A response was received from the MOE’s Regional Environmental Assessment Coordinator - Northern Region on August 12, 2010. The MOE cautioned the proponent that by proceeding with the Class EA for Waterpower Projects prior to having secured Applicant of Record status from the Ministry of Natural Resources, Xeneca was facing possible risks by not having the same level of information that is provided once Applicant of Record is awarded. The proponent was urged to discuss the classification of the waterway as unmanaged with both the MOE and MNR. Additionally, the proponent was advised that in the MOE’s opinion the Draft Notice of Commencement (NOC) provided in the project information package failed to meet the minimum requirements for such a Notice. Detailed comments for the NOC were provided along with a request for a copy of the Final NOC and confirmation of advertising for the Notice.

The Ministry recommended that the proponent host an Agency coordination meeting prior to the release of the NOC.

The Ministry referred the proponent to various resources aimed at ensuring that Aboriginal communities that should be consulted regarding the undertaking were identified. The MOE recommended that the proponent provide information directly to the Aboriginal communities that may be directly affected by, or have an interest in the undertaking as early as possible.

95 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The MOE also provided comment on the Project Description, consultation and issue resolution requirements, permits and approvals and federal triggers for waterpower projects. A copy of the letter issued to the proponent by the MOE is provided in Appendix C.

At the EA Coordination meeting held on April 19th, 2011, the MOE stated that the Potential Regulatory Permits and Approvals List provided in the Project Description was insufficient and requested an expanded list of all activities that will occur during construction and operation, so as to provide the Ministry with sufficient detail to identify all applicable permits and approvals. This request was supported by MNR.

MOE stated that there is a concern with waste disposal for the undertaking since the local landfill does not have the capacity to accept the project’s construction waste, noting an alternative for waste disposal will be required. The MOE stated the burning of waste on site would not be permitted.

Concerns were expressed with the proposed timing for the completion of the EA since investigations planned to be completed subsequent to the date of the submission of the Environmental Report would not be addressed in the document. Additionally, they noted that there would remain the requirement for public consultation to present the findings of these post EA investigations. The EA team explained that the proponent’s approach would be to identify clear commitments in the Final ER to complete any outstanding studies thereafter, and to develop impact management strategies that would have to be agreed by the various agencies and honoured by the proponent moving forward, otherwise an amendment to the EA would be required.

On July 14, 2011, Xeneca published its Notice of Completion for the proposed Chute GS and provided a 60 day review period which ended November 12, 2011. A total of seven Part II order requests were submitted to the MOE and to Xeneca between August 9th and September 12th, 2011. Xeneca suggested to the MOE in late September that a meeting be planned in October to discuss the next steps. In a response dated October 6, 2011, MOE suggested that additional public, agency and aboriginal consultation opportunities be provided following the completion of the 2011 field season (Appendix C). Based on the information provided, the MOE was not able to determine whether sufficient consultation was provided to Aboriginal groups for the EA process, and was also unable to determine what level of aboriginal consultation would be required for the permitting and approval process to follow.

The MOE also indicated that there were a number of studies and potential effects that were not fully assessed in the initial Chutes ER. Studies which had been initiated but were not yet complete included those relating to the thermal regime, water quality, general field studies and archaeological Stage 1 and 2 assessments. There were a number of outstanding technical issues that had not been adequately addressed in the report. These included issue related to the consideration of different options, zone of influence, hydrology and hydraulics, water quality,

96 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 benthic invertebrates, mercury, economic and socio-economic effects, cumulative impacts and archaeological effects, waste, and permitting issues.

Xeneca responded in a letter dated October 14, 2011, indicating that the comments received would be incorporated into the process moving forward, and that Xeneca’s immediate concern was to address the Part II Order requests to support the MOE’s processes.

On March 2, 2012, MOE provided a letter to Xeneca to clarify the process that should be followed moving forward. MOE advised that the July 2011 Environmental Report for the proposed Chute GS be revised and that Xeneca should re-issue a new Notice of Completion. MOE instructed Xeneca to consult with potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities to gain information related to traditional land and water use and potential impacts to aboriginal or treaty rights and incorporate this information into the Environmental Report. It was suggested that further consultation with both MNR and MOE would be required to clarify the zone of influence and to determine what additional studies would need to be completed to adequately assess potential effects of the project. It was also suggested that a revised version of the report be provided to all regulatory agencies for comment prior to re-issuance, and that following the Notice of Completion re-issuance, the MOE would further investigate the Part II Order requests received between August 12 and September 9, 2011, as well as any additional requests received after the re-issuance of the new Notice of Completion.

At this point it was decided that Xeneca would combine both the Chute and Third Falls proposed projects into one comprehensive Environmental Report.

MOE was in attendance at the August 16, 2012 meeting with Xeneca, MNR and DFO. The purpose of the meeting was for Xeneca to update the regulatory bodies on the status of studies completed, to identify key issues, and to discuss potential mitigation options and approaches. The meeting discussions are summarized in Section 6.3.2.1 (“Ministry of Natural Resources”).

6.3.2.3 Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

On September 12, 2011, Xeneca received a letter from the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (now the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) advising the proponent that the information relating to identifying all known and potential cultural heritage resources was inconsistent within the initial Chutes EA Report submitted. The letter indicated that the Chute may be considered a cultural heritage landscape because of the request made by the Chapleau Cree to consider a modified dam structure for aesthetic reasons at this location. The Ministry also commented that not enough information had been gathered on the known and potential cultural heritage resources to be able to evaluate the potential project impacts. The MTCS also recommended that Xeneca conduct a marine archaeological assessment at the project site as a best practice, because of the potential impact on marine archaeological sites.

In August 2011, the MTCS informed the project team of the registration of a site on the island at the Chute due to the reported presence of culturally modified trees. Field visits in September

97 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

2011 yielded no evidence of the presence of such trees (see Annex V), and the proponent subsequently sent a request to the MTCS on October 5, 2011, to have the site registration cancelled.

6.3.2.4 Ontario Ministry for Municipal Affairs and Housing

In response to the request for comments on the proposed project, the Ontario Ministry for Municipal Affairs and Housing advised the proponent on July 20, 2010 (Appendix C) that their Ministry did not intend to comment specifically on any of the projects proposed by Xeneca as it was understood that consultation efforts with potentially affected communities was being undertaken by the proponent.

6.3.2.5 Ontario Ministry of Energy

The Ministry of Energy (ME) requested additional information on Xeneca’s proposed approach to fostering Aboriginal and First Nation partnerships within the development proposal via an e- mail on December 21, 2010 (Appendix C). ME noted that although the Ministry might not participate in all planning meetings, the ME would like to be kept abreast of the planning process developments. Additionally, ME confirmed on January 5, 2011 (Appendix C) that they wanted to be included in the distribution of all technical documents and the ER in order to provide comment where appropriate.

On April 19, 2011, ME participated by teleconference in an EA co-ordination meeting held at the Timmins MNR District Office. No specific issues were raised by ME.

On June 17, 2011, ME was notified of an upcoming PIC in Chapleau which was subsequently held on July 7th, 2011. The email was sent to clarify whether ME wished to continue receiving information with regard to the Ivanhoe River projects. No further communications were received from ME.

6.3.2.6 Ontario Ministry of Transportation

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) provided a response to several of Xeneca’s proposed undertakings on February 18th, 2011. Information was provided as per the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and applicable permits (Appendix C). MTO identified the requirements for any project that requires modification to a highway entrance. The Ministry identified that all connection lines must be placed outside of existing MTO right-of-way (ROW), and that permits will be required for all proposed ROW crossings or for lines located within 45 metres of MTO ROW limits. No further communications from MTO were received on this project.

98 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

6.3.3 Municipal

The project sites are located in the townships of Oates and Bedford, west of the City of Timmins. The Project Description document for the proposed Chute GS and Third Falls GS were provided on November 19th, 2010, and February 2nd, 2011, respectively, to the City of Timmins. A revised Notice of Commencement was issued on November 10th, 2010, with a third NOC revision issued on December 22, 2010. A copy of each NOC is provided in Appendix D. A revised Notice of Commencement was issued on November 10th, 2010, with a third NOC revision issued on December 22, 2010. Xeneca met with the Foleyet Local Services Board (Foleyet LSB) on November 1st, 2010. Draft versions of the information panels for upcoming public information centres (PICs) in Foleyet were presented and can be found in Appendix D. Xeneca outlined its corporate profile, the Class EA for Waterpower process, and presented conceptual project designs and development timelines.

At the November 1, 2010 meeting, Foleyet LSB expressed concerns about the potential for the project to impact the town water supply and water intake, and the sewage treatment plant. Xeneca replied that the upper limit of the proposed Chute project zone of influence would be located approximately 14 km downstream from the water intake, and that the project’s anticipated upstream zone of influence would not extend beyond 3 km upstream of the proposed dam, adding that there would be minor, if any impact to the river in the vicinity of Foleyet. The LSB noted a previous dam failure at Ivanhoe Lake Dam which resulted in significant damage within the town. Xeneca responded that water control at The Chute would be automated and that the facility design is based on extreme flood conditions.

LSB members identified that the community’s drinking water and sewage treatment is managed by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) and that OCWA should be included in the planning process. The meeting notes are located in Appendix C. The economic cost and benefits to the Town of Foleyet were discussed, and it was noted that Xeneca will endeavour to procure goods and services locally where possible.

Members enquired as to Xeneca’s expertise and experience in building and operating waterpower plants and they were directed to the Misema GS near Englehart, Ontario. The executive team at Xeneca Power Inc. was part of the team that developed the Misema GS.

Questions were raised as to the impact to terrestrial wildlife (particularly the rare white moose population). The proponent advised that more definitive answers would be provided in the Waterpower Class EA technical reports (see Annex lll). The report does not specifically address the rare white moose population but encompasses moose populations as a whole.

The Foleyet Local services Board (LSB) attended the EA Coordination meeting. The LSB requested an additional PIC in Foleyet in May. The LSB re-iterated its concerns about water levels since Foleyet’s sewage treatment facility (two lagoons - alternate discharge to river) may be impacted by loading rates which in turn could affect water quality.

99 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

A guarantee was sought from the proponent that there would be no impacts to the community’s potable water supply as a result of this undertaking.

LSB sought clarification as to whether Xeneca would provide notification prior to operating its facility, and whether the project would have an effect on operations at the Ivanhoe Lake Dam. A letter to the proponent was circulated by the LSB at the meeting (Appendix C).

OCWA was contacted by the EA team to verify the water intake location for the Town of Foleyet and to identify any outstanding issues. OCWA identified high and low water levels as being a concern for the operation of the water treatment plant, citing past issues with seasonal runoff and drought conditions.

The Local Services Board of Foleyet was contacted by the EA team on May 5th, 2011 to determine the location of the sewage treatment plant and the information was referenced to aerial photography for confirmation.

Given that the water supply intake and sewage treatment facility outflow are both located well upstream of the 6.4 km inundation area, it is not anticipated that the project will result in impacts to the Town’s potable water supply or wastewater treatment facility.

In a May 13, 2011 letter to Xeneca, the Local Services Board expressed concerns regarding the potential for the Chute GS and Third Falls GS to exacerbate problems with flooding and low water levels and questioned how they would be notified of water level changes. In June of 2011, Xeneca committed to meet with the Board prior to the PIC being organized on July 7th in Chapleau for further discussion on these topics; this Public Information Meeting was held on July 6, 2011, in Foleyet, and is summarized under “Public Information Meeting (Chute) – July 6, 2011” in Section 6.4.1 below.

In a January 24, 2012 letter to the FLSB, Xeneca committed to maintaining public access to the proposed Chute project site, and that restrictions would only be implemented where required to ensure public safety. Additionally, Xeneca expressed willingness to collaborate in the development of a small parking and rest area, and the improvement of an existing boat launch, with input from the town.

In an August 15, 2012 letter to the board, Xeneca made a formal commitment that the proposed Chute and Third Falls projects would have no impact on Foleyet’s water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Xeneca committed to ensuring that clean water would be brought in, in the unlikely event that Xeneca’s construction or operational activities could ever affect water for the Town of Foleyet.

6.4 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public consultation was undertaken by the proponent in the form of direct communications, advertising, Public Information Centres (PICs) and focus group meetings where requested. The

100 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

PICs were advertised in local publications at least ten days prior to the event; copies of the print advertising is provided in Appendix D. Information collected at these events including signed attendance sheets and completed comment forms are also provided in Appendix D along with a detailed record of consultation. Initial contact with the public stakeholders listed below was in the form of a letter dated October 13, 2010, containing details of a potential PIC which was subsequently rescheduled.

 Air Ivanhoe

 Borden Lake Campers Association

 Chapleau Anglers Hunters Club

 Chapleau Arctic Watershed Snowmobile Club

 Chapleau ATV Club

 Chapleau Centennial Museum

 Chapleau Tourist Association

 Do Little Inn

 Gosenda Lodge

 Ivanhoe Lake Cottager's Association

 Kinniwabi Long Rifles Club

 Northern Wilderness Cottages

 Ontario Clean Water Agency

 Ontario Rivers Alliance

 Red Pine Lodge

 Timmins Chamber of Commerce

 Utor Gold Construction

 Whitepine Lodge

Throughout the public consultation process, additional individuals, companies and cottagers associations were added to the public contact list upon request. Xeneca has recorded all public comments and concerns for the proposed Ivanhoe River projects over the course of the EA

101 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 planning process and will continue to do so throughout the development process. A record of public participation compiled by Xeneca is provided in Appendix D along with all meeting notes and minutes. A summary of the identified issues and concerns raised during the public consultation process is provided in Table 26.

It should be noted that over the course of the public consultation process, two options were presented to the public as potential locations for the Third Falls structure. One of these options was placed inside the boundary of the Northern Claybelt Forest Complex Conservation Reserve, and the other option was placed outside the reserve. In order for the option inside the conservation area to be considered, an amendment that de-regulates the land being used for the project was required from the MNR. As the amendment was not approved, only the out-of-park option for the Third Falls project that was presented is now being considered.

6.4.1 Public Meetings

Four Public Information Centres (PICs) and one Public Information Meeting (PIM) were held throughout 2011 and 2012 in Foleyet and Chapleau. The PICs and PIM were advertised in local media publications (Chapleau Express and Timmins Daily Press) in both English and French; advertisement for the July 6, 2011 PIM was also distributed by the Local Services Board. Copies of the advertisements are included in Appendix D of this report.

The MNR recommended a PIC also be held in the city of Timmins, where several users of the Ivanhoe River reside. However, Xeneca determined that public interest was concentrated primarily in the town of Foleyet, with very few (3-4 individuals) interest among Timmins residents. Xeneca offered to meet directly with members of the interest group in Timmins, but the meeting was declined. The dates and locations of the meetings are summarized below as well as in Table 14.

Table 14: Public Information Centres/Meetings for the proposed Ivanhoe River Projects

Meeting type 1 Date Subject of meeting Location PIC January 13, 2011 Chute and Third Falls Foleyet Community Hall, Foleyet PIC January 27, 2011 Third Falls Foleyet Community Hall, Foleyet PIM July 6, 2011 Chute Foleyet Community Hall, Foleyet PIC July 7, 2011 Chute Royal Canadian Legion, Chapleau PIC July 26, 2012 Chute and Third Falls Foleyet Community Hall, Foleyet 1 PIC: Public Information Centre; PIM: Public Information Meeting

102 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

PIC (Chute and Third Falls) – January 13, 2011

A public information centre for the two proposed Ivanhoe River projects was held in Foleyet, Ontario on January 13, 2011; approximately 40 participants attended. Background project information, including information on the proponent and the site, was presented as a poster display session. Hand-out material, including comment forms were available to those in attendance. An overview of the information provided and collected at each PIC event is attached as Appendix D.

Members of the EA team were available at the January 13th, 2011 meeting to address questions or concerns expressed by the attendees. A list of issues raised through discussions at the PIC and on submitted comment cards is presented below:

 provision of continued recreational access to the site;

 potential effects to the Town’s sewage treatment facility and resultant surface water quality from the proposed undertaking;

 concerns from local anglers about impacts to fishing local spawning sites;

 concerns regarding the alteration of water levels in Ivanhoe Lake;

 concerns that increased access will result in disturbances to wildlife;

 effects of the project on fish migration during low flow years;

 effects of the project on the Pineland Forest, including the potential for chemical vegetation control along the connection line;

 effects of construction traffic and facility operation on the Ivanhoe Road Bridge.

Additional comments (and all comment cards) returned to Xeneca from the PICs are provided in Appendix D.

PIC (Third Falls) – January 27, 2011

Xeneca representatives answered questions from approximately twenty-three (23) attendees on the January 27th, 2011 PIC, which focused specifically on the proposed Third Falls GS. Among those in attendance was a representative of D’Amour Contracting Ltd. Interest was expressed in job opportunities and provision of goods and services to the Xeneca projects. Representatives of White Pine Lodge in Foleyet also expressed interest in the project and some of the economic activity it would generate. Also in attendance were members of the Ontario Provincial Police (Foleyet Detachment) and members of the OPP Liaison Team. The OPP Liaison team expressed interest in establishing a relationship with Xeneca as it moves forward with its projects in

103 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Northeastern Ontario. Requests were made to be placed on Xeneca’s stakeholder list and to receive notices and communications regarding the project.

Several individual members of the public attended as well as representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Among concerns expressed were:

 Project impact on water levels and how water levels on Foleyet Lake and the River would be affected

 Effects on the Foleyet drinking water and water treatment facility

 Effects on fishing

 Effects on recreational uses such as canoeing

Questions were posed regarding:

 species at risk that may be affected

 how much land would be flooded

 where hydro lines would be built

 how much the facility would cost to build

 how much money would be spent locally

 how many jobs would be created

 the public use of access roads

Sign-in sheets and comment cards were filed out by all attendees, and are included in Appendix D of this report.

A representative from the Chapleau Fur Council completed a comment form requesting information on the potential effects of the project on fur bearing aquatic animals losing access to riverine habitat as a result of inundation of riparian land, and whether the proponent would compensate trappers for any financial losses (Appendix D).

Continued recreational access to the river at the project location was also raised as a concern as was the aesthetic value of the falls. Xeneca indicated that they were committed to maintaining river access except as required for public and worker health and safety (i.e.; fencing for security and in hazardous areas).

104 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

In order to address some of the concerns raised during the public consultation process to date, Xeneca scheduled additional public consultation events with local stakeholders, including a meeting with the Ivanhoe Lake Cottagers Association Executive on Wednesday, July 6, 2011 in Foleyet and PIC in Chapleau on July 7, 2011 (see additional details below).

Public Information Meeting (Chute) – July 6, 2011

The July 6, 2011 Public Information Meeting (PIM) was advertised in English and French on June 25th in the Timmins Daily Press and was scheduled from 4 to 6 p.m. at the Foleyet Community Centre, Foleyet, Ontario. The meeting location, date and time was also posted at the Community Centre and distributed by the Local Service Board to community members.

The July 6, 2011 PIM focused on the proposed Chute GS; there were a total of 21 people in attendance representing community interests from Timmins, Ivanhoe Lake Cottagers’ Association, the Town of Foleyet, a local tourism outfitter and lodge owner. The proponent gave a PowerPoint presentation describing the proposed project, the studies conducted and the EA process. Also presented were a number of poster panels, copies of which are presented in Appendix D. At this meeting, the following issues were raised:

 Environmental concerns over the spawning areas and fish habitat in proximity to the project (i.e. residual water flows, water level fluctuations). The proponent explained that extensive biological studies of the area have been undertaken and are ongoing. Spawning sites have been identified as well as year round habitat. Operating plans have been shared with regulatory agencies including MNR and ecological flows must be maintained in the river at all times. During spawning seasons, water levels will be maintained at seasonal averages. It was further explained that the proponent aims to avoid impacts to spawning areas and that possible enhancements to spawning sites will be explored in consultation with MNR.

 Access to fishing areas in proximity to the project. The proponent responded that it intends to maintain and possibly enhance public access to fishing at The Chute site, although some fencing may be put in place to ensure public safety. There will be improvements to road access and boat launching in addition to the creation of parking and rest areas.

 Impact on Ivanhoe Lake levels. The proponent explained that the Ivanhoe Lake Dam is owned and operated by the MNR whose primary objective is to maintain Ivanhoe Lake levels. The proponent will not require or request water to be released from Ivanhoe Lake for its operations.

 Impact on Foleyet water treatment facilities. The proponent noted that the zone of influence of The Chute project and its inundation area is over 7 km downstream from Foleyet and as a result, there will be no impacts to the water treatment facilities.

105 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 Decommissioning plans should the facility permanently cease operations. The proponent explained that there are no plans to decommission these projects. FIT contracts are 40 years in duration, and waterpower facilities have a lifespan of 80+ years and can be retro-fitted to last decades longer.

PIC (Chute) – July 7, 2011

The July 7, 2011 PIC in Chapleau, focusing on the proposed Chute GS, was advertised in English and French in Chapleau Express June 25th and July 2 and in the Timmins Daily Press June 25th and June 29th and was scheduled from 4 to 6 p.m. at the Chapleau Branch of the Royal Canadian Legion.

There were two members of the public who attended the PIC. They were presented with a series of poster panels describing the project, studies conducted and the EA process (Appendix D), they raised the following issues:

 Effects of low flows and turbine design on the river and the drying out of the opposite channel. The proponent responded that the proposed ecological flow for the channel is assumed to be acceptable.

 Changes in water levels at Ivanhoe Lake as a result of operational changes at the Ivanhoe Lake Dam upstream in support of the proposed project. The proponent confirmed that the Ivanhoe Lake Dam is operated by the MNR and that no water would be released by MNR to accommodate the proposed power facility. Any restrictions and environmental flows agreed upon in the ER for the proposed facility would be part of the operational requirements for The Chute site.

 Conceptual drawings were requested showing the location of promised boat ramps and docks. The proponent stated that this would be provided during the development process.

 Effects of sedimentation on upstream spawning sites. It was noted that a sedimentation study was not completed. The EA team (biologist) further explained that large scale sedimentation usually only occurred at large dams and that this was a relatively small structure.

 Clarification was requested in relation to the EA process and future studies proposed before and after submission of the ER document.

Concerns were raised about dam safety and design as the Ivanhoe Lake Dam has experienced breaches on more than one occasion. The proponent advised that a dam safety study for the proposed new dams would be completed by a competent engineering design firm which would address the design in accordance with the known flow history for the site.

106 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

PIC (Chute and Third Falls) – July 26, 2012

On July 26, 2012, Xeneca held a PIC at the Foleyet Community Hall for both proposed Ivanhoe River projects. The PIC was advertised in the Timmins Daily Press in advance of the event. Approximately 26 people attended, including representatives from the MNR, MOE, Michipicoten First Nation, EACOM, Nitah Aboriginal Enterprises, and a local outfitter. The topics that were discussed at the PIC included:

 Decommissioning of the proposed facilities

 Potential environmental effects

 Fluctuations in water level at the Northern Claybelt Conservation Reserve

 Fishing and spawning areas downstream of the project sites

 First Nation Consultation

At this PIC, the proponent noted that there were no plans to decommission the sites in the foreseeable future, but that all decommissioning standards at the time of decommissioning would be followed should such an action be taken. One of the attendees expressed concern over the potential environmental impacts, particularly with regards to the impacts of the proposed Third Falls GS on the conservation reserve located downstream. Some representatives from local contracting companies and service providers expressed interest in becoming involved in the construction phase of the proposed undertakings. Comment sheets and questionnaires were also filled out by several attendees, copies of which are included in Appendix D. From these comment sheets and questionnaires, the attendees noted that they visit the Ivanhoe River for recreational use, nature appreciation, hunting, fishing, trapping, picnicking and snowmobiling. Opinions on the proposed projects were mixed, with some being in favour of the potential benefits to the local economy, and others expressing concern over the projects’ potential impacts on the natural environment, public access, trapping, harvesting of timber, and the Oates Road bridge.

6.4.2 Other Focus Group Meetings

Xeneca met with Air Ivanhoe, a local remote tourism outfitter, on November 2nd, 2010. Gosenda Lodge and Red Pine Lodge (also operating as outfitters) were invited, but were unable to attend. Xeneca presented draft versions of the information panels to be finalized for public information centres (PICs) in Foleyet in January 2011 (Appendix D). Xeneca outlined its corporate profile, the Waterpower Class EA process, and presented conceptual project designs and development timelines. The outfitter was primarily concerned with the proponent’s other proposed projects rather than those on the Ivanhoe River. The operator suggested that a survey of its client base to solicit additional information would be beneficial. The issue of the proposed connection lines

107 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 intersecting forestry land was also raised by Air Ivanhoe. The proponent confirmed that discussions were underway with SFL holders. The meeting notes can be found in Appendix D.

In November 2011, the proponent attended a meeting of the Mattagami Water Management Planning Committee, where Xeneca committed to providing project information to the Standing Advisory Committee (SAC).

6.4.3 Additional Public Consultation

Throughout the EA planning and public consultation process, Xeneca has been contacted by various public interest groups and individual members of the public regarding the proposed development. For general inquiries (e.g. project location, general impacts), the public contacts were referred to the company website (www.xeneca.com) for available project information. Specific and/or extensive lists of concerns were sometimes sent to Xeneca from public interest groups; these are detailed in the following sections. Records of these communications are included in Appendix D of this report.

On March 4, 2011, Xeneca was contacted by telephone by a member of the Ontario Rivers Alliance (ORA), a recently formed citizen’s interest group monitoring new energy project proposals on the province’s northern waterways. The ORA member voiced opposition to Xeneca’s proposed developments on the Ivanhoe River, but noted that it is not the position of the Alliance to oppose all waterpower projects. A discussion followed on the rationale for the Ivanhoe projects and the public consultation process. In response to a request that a PIC be held in Timmins, the caller was informed that the project area is more than 60 km away and that PICs in Timmins were unlikely. However, Xeneca was willing to meet with the ORA to discuss the projects. The ORA was encouraged to remain in contact with the proponent.

A number of concerns were raised in correspondence dated April 3rd, 2011 from the White Pine Lodge to the proponent. These concerns regarded the effect of the projects on fish habitat; more specifically, staging and spawning areas and mitigation strategies. Questions were asked about provisions to protect moose aquatic feeding areas and the presence of the bald eagle and impacts from fluctuating water levels and erosion effects. The economic benefits of the projects were queried along with the loss of fish populations and of aesthetic value of the falls. The owner of the White Pine Lodge stated that the area provides 150 days of fishing which if lost would present serious implications for tourism and outfitters.

In a letter to Xeneca dated April 5th, 2011, the Friends of the Ivanhoe River stated their opposition to the project. A number of questions were presented to the proponent in relation to ecosystem health, mitigation for loss of fish habitat, Lake sturgeon, and liability issues. Answers to these questions are provided in the document titled, Ivanhoe River: The Chute & Third Falls - FAQs in Appendix D, which was also posted on the Xeneca website.

A public usage survey was drafted by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to solicit public input on the proposed undertaking. Prior to the opening of Walleye season, the Chapleau

108 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

District MNR distributed log sheets to local outfitters known to frequent The Chute/Third Falls sites, asking that they record catch/keep data from their clientele. The Ministry also launched an Ivanhoe River Usage Survey on June 6, 2011 with the approval of the proponent in order to assist all parties in gaining a better understanding of usage by recreational anglers and commercial outfitters. Notices and comment boxes were installed at both the Third Falls site and The Chute site (see picture provided in Appendix D). This study held to assist with the identification of the proposed developments’ potential impacts on the fisheries and recreational enjoyment of the Ivanhoe River. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix D. Ministry staff returned to the sites on June 17th, 2011, to collect the comment cards and stopped by one of the outfitters to collect any information recorded to date. There were no comment cards submitted at either site. However, the outfitter provided a number of catch/keep records of angling activities. Most of the angling activity was focused around The Chute site, directly below the rapids from either the shore or from boats, with a total of sixty-five (65) Walleye harvested. Additional visits to the site boxes and to other outfitter operators by the Chapleau District MNR staff was planned throughout the remainder of the summer and fall seasons; the resulting information was provided to the proponent and is included in Appendix D.

In the summer of 2012, correspondence was received from the owners of White Pine Lodge, a tourist establishment based in Foleyet. A number of environmental, social and economic concerns were outlined. In their letter, the lodge owners noted the value of natural waterfalls and the lack of remaining pristine sites in Ontario, the impacts on fish habitat and spawning sites, the potential for erosion and sedimentation of fish spawning areas and reservoirs, the impact on wildlife, the social and economic impacts to local tourism outfitters and the costs and benefits of generating stations to the people of Ontario.

6.4.4 Ivanhoe Lake Cottagers’ Association

The Ivanhoe Lake Cottagers’ Association (ILCA) sent a letter to the proponent on April 3rd, 2011, in which concerns were raised about effects on the natural value of the proposed Chute site. The Association requested a letter stipulating that Xeneca would not request the opening of the Ivanhoe Lake Dam to facilitate their own operations and that the agreement be included in any future sale of the plant. The ILCA requested a meeting with Xeneca, noting that many cottage owners were away at the time of the PICs (in January 2011), but that they would be returning to the area for the spring and summer seasons. A meeting between Xeneca and the ILCA was subsequently held on July 6, 2011, in Foleyet, described below.

At the July 6, 2011 meeting, Xeneca presented an overview of the most recent project design, operating plans, and findings from environmental studies. The meeting focused on the proposed Chute GS (located closer to Ivanhoe Lake than the proposed Third Falls GS). The major concerns expressed by the Association at the meeting were:

109 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 Potential impacts on water levels at Ivanhoe lake;

 Plans for decommissioning;

 Potential impacts on fish habitat and spawning;

 Access to fishing areas;

 General inquiries about the EA process.

During the same meeting, in response to the above concerns, Xeneca explained that the Ivanhoe Lake Dam is owned and operated by the MNR, and that Xeneca will not require or request that the MNR modify operations at the Ivanhoe Lake Dam to benefit electricity production at the proposed Chute and Third Falls facilities. There were no plans to decommission the proposed Chute GS due to the anticipated long life span of the facility. The biological studies conducted to date, as well as the mitigation strategies for minimizing impacts to fish and their habitat, were explained. Xeneca expressed their intention to maintain or enhance public access to fishing sites near the proposed Chute GS. The EA process and Notice of Completion review period were also explained to the meeting attendees.

On July 25, 2011, Xeneca issued a letter to the ILCA to address the latter’s concerns related to the potential for increased water level fluctuations on Ivanhoe Lake. In this letter, Xeneca emphasized that the proposed Chute GS would operate independently of the Ivanhoe Lake Dam, and that modeling results indicated the Chute GS would not impact either Ivanhoe Lake or the Town of Foleyet. Therefore, Xeneca had no plans to use Ivanhoe Lake to benefit operations at the proposed Chute GS. It was also explained that the Mattagami River Water Management Plan would require an amendment to incorporate the operational regime of the Chute GS (though not specifically stated in the letter, the operational regime of the Third Falls GS would be incorporated as well).

On August 14, 2011, Xeneca was sent a letter from the ILCA, in which the latter expressed their unanimous opposition to the project due to concerns over the impact to taxpayers, the lack of decommissioning plans, the impact on habitat within Ivanhoe Lake, and the ILCA’s belief that Xeneca may influence control at the Ivanhoe Lake Dam during low water levels. Xeneca responded on August 16th, 2011, reiterating that the proposed Chute GS would not impact upon Ivanhoe Lake water levels, and that Xeneca would not request changes to operations of the MNR-operated Ivanhoe Lake dam.

6.4.5 Part II Order Requests

In July 2011, the Notice of Completion and the Environmental Report for the proposed Chute GS was issued. Between August 9, 2011, and September 12, 2011, the proponent and the Ministry of the Environment received seven Part II Order Requests from members of the public, asking that the proponent be required to prepare an individual environmental assessment for the proposed

110 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Chute GS. Xeneca continued to engage with all parties to attempt to reach resolutions on the wide variety of issues being raised. One individual raised concerns regarding an archaeological site at the Chutes (very large and culturally modified cedars), the potential for a cultural heritage landscape to be defined within the area, the potential impact on rare plant species and fisheries, and values along the transmission line that had not been appropriately documented. He also was opposed to placement of the proposed Third Falls site within the Northern Claybelt Forest Complex Conservation Reserve, the lack of integration between the Chute and Third Falls proposals, the lack of consultation with First Nations, the cumulative impacts of both generating stations, and the potential for siltation at more than one site on the river. Xeneca attempted to address the concerns of all private citizens who had put forth Part II order requests through ongoing dialogue and meetings.

The Ontario Rivers Alliance raised concerns relating to the cumulative impact of both dams and the potential for methyl mercury contamination, the potential for warming of the headpond, concerns over potential impacts to Foleyet’s water and sewage treatment systems, concerns over the approval process and public consultation methods, concerns over ongoing field studies, fisheries mitigation and public safety, concerns over dam decommissioning and the method of dam operation, and concerns regarding the socio-economic impact, and cumulative impact of both facilities. Xeneca addressed many of the ORA’s concerns in written format, and suggested that the group meet regularly with Xeneca to attempt to address all of their concerns.

One private resident was concerned about the potential for Lake Sturgeon to be impacted at the Chutes. Field studies later confirmed that Lake Sturgeon spawning had only been documented lower in the system, near the Groundhog River confluence.

6.4.6 Industry

KBM Resource Group (KBM) undertook consultation with the Sustainable Forest License holder Domtar Inc. -EACOM under the Pineland Forest Management Plan towards the design of access roads and connection lines for the Chutes project site. KBM consulted with the sustainable Forest License holder Tembec for the Third Falls project site, where the forest resources adjacent to Third Falls are allocated as part of the Gordon Cosens Forest Management Unit. GIS datasets including all road networks, planned harvest block locations and aggregate pit locations were referenced along with specific information based on KBM’s extensive knowledge with forestry management and the land base.

A representative of EACOM Timber Corporation attended the January 13th, 2011, PIC in Foleyet and returned a comment card (Appendix D). A comment was provided that any work to complete required improvements to the existing bridge over Ivanhoe River should be borne by the proponent. It was stated that timber harvesting in the zone of inundation should be conducted by the license holder and that the proponent should initiate dialogue with EACOM. It was suggested that the connection line follow existing roads and that ROW width be increased, that timber removal should be conducted by a local contractor and merchantable wood be sold

111 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 to EACOM. Detailed maps and aerial photos were requested along with a plan for long term road maintenance. Further consultation with EACOM on March 9th, 2011 indicated that existing Pineland Forest roads and bridges could provide access to the site but a roads sharing agreement is required. The proponent commits to developing this agreement with EACOM and to working with traditional forest licence holders in the area for the removal and utilization of merchantable wood from Crown land.

Montcalm Mine has approvals from Ministry of Environment regarding discharge of effluent into the Groundhog River. This approval acknowledges the contribution of waters from the Ivanhoe River into the Groundhog River for proper dilution. Any alteration of flows from the proposed facility development and operation at Third Falls will require the Proponent to work with the appropriate MOE representatives to ensure that these altered flows do not impede the dilution of Montcalm Mine effluent in the Groundhog River.

Xeneca identified to the Ministry of Natural Resources that the distance to the Montcalm Mine outlet from the proposed project sites was approximately 50 km away. Because the Montcalm Mine is located downstream of several large tributaries and downstream of the confluence with the Groundhog River, and because of limited storage at The Chute, no sustained flow alternations would occur, and the total water volume flowing down the river would not change. Therefore no impact on the Montcalm Mine’s ability to dilute water would take place.

6.5 ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT

Xeneca’s general approach to Aboriginal engagement and consultation follows:

 the Ontario Waterpower Association Class EA process and best practices adopted from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) Consulting with First Nations and Métis Communities: Best Practices, Good Business (Ontario Power Authority, July 2008) document; and

 the Government of Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult Guide (AAND 2011).

Using these documents, Xeneca has drafted an Aboriginal Consultation Plan which contains methods and goals for aboriginal consultations during the Class EA period. Highlights of these goals are defined below, a full text of the Aboriginal Consultation Plan can be found in Appendix E.

General Consultation Protocol

Xeneca places great importance on its relationships with potentially affected Aboriginal communities and has created an Aboriginal Relations Liaison position within Xeneca to manage Aboriginal Relations Policy, Guiding Principles and ensure that the consultation requirements of the Class EA are satisfied.

112 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

To support the Crown’s Duty to Consult to the best of its ability Xeneca proposes to:

 Provide project information to potentially affected communities and to be responsive to questions, concerns and input in a timely manner;

 Through the environmental assessment planning process provide all available information and accept from Aboriginal communities all information they wish to share regarding existing and traditional use for those resources and environmental components that might be impacted by the project;

 Ensure that any traditional knowledge shared by a Community is presented in an agreed upon manner to ensure that it remains the property of the Community;

 Afford consideration to any potential adverse impacts to treaty rights in the Class EA planning process;

 Clearly outline the EA consultation and engagement process, and potential project related issues to the Communities;

 Maintain records of correspondence and engagement;

 Reflect on input questions and responses in the EA Report and subsequent processes accurately, respectfully and in a timely manner;

 Seek to have Aboriginal Communities obtain benefits from the projects where reasonably possible;

 Respect an Aboriginal Community’s right not to engage; and

 Provide the Crown requested information concerning the proponent’s Aboriginal consultation and engagement activities.

Xeneca is committed to carry out engagement with identified Aboriginal Communities & Métis Chapters through written correspondence and direct telephone communications, including follow up on numerous occasions if communities are non-responsive. Upon appropriate direct contact, Xeneca has sought meetings with community leaders or designated lead person(s) in order to introduce Xeneca and the projects which may impact that particular community. Upon receiving an invitation from the host Aboriginal Community, Xeneca will conduct and sponsor community engagement sessions. Xeneca is also prepared, when requested, to provide access to its professional staff and consultants to answer technical questions. Finally, where a request is made Xeneca is committed to providing necessary resources to support meaningful engagement including the retention of external consultants to peer review material presented to the communities.

113 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

By meeting these objectives and following the above-noted processes, Xeneca hopes to foster and sustain a mutually respectful relationship with its aboriginal neighbors beyond the requirement to provide consultation support to the Crown.

The following is a list of methods of communication and engagement approaches employed to seek input from the Aboriginal communities involved with the Ivanhoe Projects:

 Providing project information to potentially affected communities and being responsive to questions, concerns a formal engagement letters;

 Follow-up Email(s) and phone call(s);

 Formal invitations to participate in Public Information Centres (PICs)

 Offer to host information sessions in individual Communities;

 Extend invitations and offer financial assistance to participate in Stage II Archaeological field work program;

 Provide financial resources, technical staff and consultants to assist in the review of the Draft Environmental Report and supporting documents;

 In certain circumstances, Xeneca has supported community initiatives, such as Pow-Wow’s when a request has been brought forward by the community; and

 Where Xeneca has received a protocol from the Aboriginal community that provides details on how the communities are to be consulted with, Xeneca has collaborated with the community to create a mutual understanding on a process to proceed.

Consultation through Site Release

The aboriginal consultation and engagement process began as a component of the Crown Land Site Release Process, and has included components of the Class EA planning process in parallel. An application was made for this site through the Crown Land Site Release process in 2007 for The Chutes site and in 2008 for Third Falls. The engagement progress as required by the Site Release Process and the Consultation Process as required by the Class EA process, were connected and where possible completed in parallel. This parallel process was confirmed by the MNR as an acceptable approach in a letter dated May 17, 2011.

While Site Release and the consultation process required by the Class EA were connected and completed in parallel, a separate report updating the MNR on the status of the consultation process for the Site Release process will be completed separately.

114 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Consultation Requirements

The Class EA requires that aboriginal communities be consulted with regards to their rights within treaty and traditional lands and how they may be impacted by project activities. This consultation and engagement is designed to help determine whether the Crown has a legal duty to consult under the Constitution Act of 1982, and is not intended to replace that duty. The Class EA requires that aboriginal engagement includes consultation as required for the general public, as well as, recommending active engagement to determine if the project activities will impact aboriginal uses and values within the area.

What follows below is a description of the major highlights of engagement and consultation as it relates to the Class EA, a full description of all consultation activities, copies of major correspondence and a log of all correspondence can be found in Appendix E. This description is still in draft and it is expected that it will be updated as the consultation process continues towards a final ER. Except where noted consultation and engagement activities referenced include both The Chute Generating Station and Third Falls Generating Station.

Aboriginal Consultation and Engagement Discussion

The ongoing consultation and engagement for the Chute and Third Falls projects starting in 2010 and continuing to the present has provided the communities involved with notification as well as relevant information along with the opportunity to provide input and feedback to Xeneca. The presentation of this draft EA, as well as the continuation of the ongoing processes such as dialogue with several communities towards MOUs and IBAs will continue to provide opportunities for input and issues identification which will be addressed in the final version of this document.

It is expected that the aboriginal engagement and consultation section of the ER document will change as the process proceeds and Xeneca enters into official consultation processes with identified communities. It is also anticipated that issues may continue to arise as the construction and operation progresses. Xeneca is committed to adaptive management and establishing protocols within each community for addressing unidentified issues as they arise post construction and for the lifecycle of the Projects.

6.5.1 Areas under Land Claim

The majority of the identified communities are signatories to the James Bay Treaty 9, except Michipicoten First Nation whom are signatories of the Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850, and the Métis Nation of Ontario. The project is located wholly within the area of Treaty 9.

There is presently a Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement in Principle on file between the Canadian Federal Government and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation which is the Grand Council of Treaty 9, and represents all those communities which are signatories to Treaty 9 (refer to Table 15). At this time a final agreement has not been negotiated.

115 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The Project location is not located within the boundaries of any First Nation reserve lands, nor areas expressly stated as protected through Treaty 9. Communities may assert protections to activities and rights under this treaty which are not explicitly stated within the treaty text. Where those rights are asserted they have been documented as impacts. The Project location is assumed to be within the traditional territories and current usage areas of the aboriginal communities engaged and consulted throughout the Class EA process.

116 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Figure 8: Identified Aboriginal Reserve Lands

117 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

6.5.2 Identified Communities

In the process of developing the Ivanhoe Third Falls and The Chute projects eight (8) First Nations and one (1) Métis community were identified through agency consultation as potentially being impacted by the development. These communities are:

 Brunswick House First Nation

 Chapleau Cree First Nation

 Chapleau Objiwe First Nation

 Flying Post First Nation

 Mattagami First Nation

 Michipicoten First Nation

 Moose Cree First Nation

 MNO Timmins Métis Council

 Taykwa Tagamou First Nation

Below is a table of each community identified and their organizational structure. Wabun Tribal Council has been engaged on behalf of its member communities, as has the Métis Nation of Ontario. Further information on the Wabun Tribal Council engagement can be found in section 6.5.2.11, and the Métis Nation of Ontario in section 6.5.2.6.

118 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 15: Aboriginal Community Organization

Community/Community Council Tribal Council/Region Grand Council/ Nation

Brunswick House First Nation Wabun Tribal Council Nishnawbe Aski Nation

Chapleau Cree First Nation Mushkegowuk Tribal Council Nishnawbe Aski Nation

Chapleau Objiwe First Nation Wabun Tribal Council Nishnawbe Aski Nation

Flying Post First Nation Wabun Tribal Council Nishnawbe Aski Nation

Mattagami First Nation Wabun Tribal Council Nishnawbe Aski Nation

Michipicoten First Nation None Union of Ontario Indians

Moose Cree First Nation Mushkegowuk Tribal Council Nishnawbe Aski Nation

MNO Timmins Métis Council Region 3 Métis Nation of Ontario

Taykwa Tagamou First Nation Mushkegowuk Tribal Council Nishnawbe Aski Nation

The identification of communities was completed through consultation with the Chapleau District office of the Ministry of Natural Resource (MNR) as part of the Crown Land Site Release (Site Release) process. A letter was provided on May 17, 2011 outlining the communities listed above, and the level of interest or participation as part of the Site Release process. A copy of this letter can be found in Appendix E.

In addition, written direction was provided from Transport Canada, with assistance from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, National Defence and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, to further define communities which may have treaty rights, traditional territories or interests within the project areas. By way of correspondence dated October 28, 2011, the federal regulating agencies mentioned above identified communities which had already been identified through consultation with the MNR in May of 2011. A copy of this letter can be found in Appendix E.

6.5.2.1 Brunswick House First Nation

Brunswick House First Nation is a member of Wabun Tribal Council and a signatory to Treaty 9. They have traditionally engaged in hunting and gathering activities on their lands (Brunswick House First Nation). The presently hold two reserves in the Sudbury area, Mountbatten 76A Indian Reserve and Duck Lake 76B Indian Reserve (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2008a).

119 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Brunswick House First Nation has delegated the accommodation aspects to Wabun Tribal Council. Through Wabun Tribal Council, Brunswick House First Nation has indicated that until acceptable accommodation has been arrived at with Xeneca, it will not acknowledge any consultation efforts. While Xeneca respects the approach taken by the community and wishes to work collaboratively, Xeneca continues to engage the community by providing updates and documents on an ongoing basis as required for the EA process.

In the summer of 2011 the community underwent an election and experienced a change in political leadership. During this time Xeneca experienced a problem with documents being returned. The situation was quickly corrected through a series of phone calls to the community and readdressing the documents to a new contact person in the interim until a new Chief was elected.

Summary of Engagement

Brunswick House First Nation was notified about the project in June 2010 when a formal letter was sent introducing the company, notifying the community of the project, the need for a Class EA process, and providing information related to the Site Release. This letter provided contact information for Xeneca and contact information for the MNR if any further information was required.

In September of 2010, Xeneca sent a letter inviting the community to participate in the archaeological studies at the project location. In October 2010, Xeneca sent a letter inviting the community to a preliminary Public Information Centre (PIC) on November 3, 2010. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this PIC was canceled and a formal letter notifying the community of this change was sent on October 25, 2010.

In December, 2010 the Class EA began in earnest and Xeneca sent the community a letter to notify them that this process had begun. This package included copies of the Draft Project Description for both Projects. In April 2011, a second similar letter was sent updating the community on the Third Falls project and included a Draft Project Description.

On May 13, 2011 a package of information was sent to the community containing copies of several important project specific documents. The package included copies of all of the Notice of Commencements which were filed on three separate occasions, along with past communications, a draft Aboriginal Consultation Plan for the communities review and input, and information regarding the continuing archaeological work.

On May 17, 2011 the Chapleau District office of the MNR provided the community with a letter giving the community notice that Xeneca had entered into a formal site release process concurrently with the Environmental Assessment process and that Brunswick House First Nation is an identified community for engagement in the business to business relationships portion of the site release process. This letter also provided additional guidance specifically related to the Site Release Process. MNR also requested the identified communities provide information pertaining

120 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 to the communities identified concerns or aboriginal treaty rights as it related to project developments.

On June 18, 2011 Xeneca provided the community with a copy of “Environmental Report – Ivanhoe River – The Chute Hydroelectric Generating Station Project” and Notice of Completion for their 60 day review and comment under the Class EA process. This Final ER and Notice of Completion was later retracted and is being replaced by this Draft EA of the combined The Chute and Third Falls projects.

On June 29, 2011 Xeneca provided the community summary reports for the Stage 1 archaeological work that was completed on the Third Falls and The Chute project sites. Similar to Xeneca’s September 2010 letter, the community was also invited to participate in the stage two archeological field work.

In August 2011 Xeneca provided a revised Aboriginal Consultation Plan, which included federal consultation requirements, for review and comment. This plan was provided with a letter updating the community on the status of the Class EA review period.

On March 1, 2012 Xeneca provided the community with an updated Project Description for The Chute which detailed several important changes. The cover letter highlighted some of these changes such as a change in inundation area, auxiliary dam area, project site layout, and a change to the location of the power lines as shown on the previous documents.

On July 12, 2012 an email invitation was sent to the community inviting them to a PIC being held for The Chute and Third Falls on July 26, 2012. This email also extended an invitation to host and participate in a meeting within their local community if it was favourable.

Table 16: Brunswick House First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Delivery Date Delivered to

Project Description December 20, 2010 Chief Rene Ojeebah

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Chief Rene Ojeebah

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Kevin Tangie

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Kevin Tangie

Updated Project Description – The March 1, 2012 Chief Andrew Neshawbin Chute

121 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Throughout this period Xeneca has continued to engage Brunswick House First Nation individually and through Wabun Tribal Council. This engagement and consultation process is progressing towards a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on their behalf through Wabun Tribal Council. Please refer to section 6.5.2.11 for further discussion on the status of the Wabun Tribal Council engagement. To date the community has not tabled any specific concerns related to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands or specific community issues. Based on a general understanding of the community’s traditional and current use of the area, potential concerns for the community are listed in Table 26. It is anticipated that following the completion of the MOU process, and prior to the finalization of this ER document, it will be updated to reflect more comprehensive issues and concerns. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, Site Release Process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

6.5.2.2 Chapleau Cree First Nation

Chapleau Cree First Nation is a member of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a signatory to Treaty 9. This community is located approximately 5km southwest of the Town of Chapleau. An original settlement was connected to the Chapleau and Nebskwashi Rivers east of the town of Chapleau, but it was found to be of poor quality and residents instead chose to settle in the Town of Chapleau (Wakenagun Community Futures Development Corporation, 1999).

The Chapleau Cree have engaged Xeneca directly through Chief and Council. During these engagements, they have raised issues which Xeneca has sought to immediately respond to. As directed by Chief and Council, Xeneca has met with its representatives and community members in forums established by the community.

Summary of Engagement

Chapleau Cree First Nation was contacted by Xeneca through email in early June 2010 to set up a meeting to discuss the Project and the Site Release process. This meeting was held on July 12, 2010 and was an informal introductory meeting. After the initial contact but before the first meeting, on June 16, 2010, Xeneca sent the Chapleau Cree First Nation a project background document to introduce the project.

On August 10, 2010 the community hosted a meeting with Xeneca to discuss the projects and the Class EA process. They discussed a wide range of topics, including other Xeneca projects and identified concerns including the use of concrete and the preference to have a run-of-river facility. Xeneca committed to work with them on these items, and hosted a booth at their two day Cree Fest event to raise awareness of the company and Project within the local community.

On January 9, 2011 Xeneca invited Chapleau Cree First Nation to a PIC being hosted for the Ivanhoe projects.

122 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

On January 27, 2011 a formal meeting was held between the community and Xeneca to update the community on the projects and the proposed conceptual design. During this meeting a draft copy of the Project Description was provided for review by the community. Discussions regarding treaty rights and issues related to conceptual design were continued from the August 2010 meeting. In this meeting, the community indicated that they were interested in economic development, particularly those that come from clean, renewable sources. However, they noted that it was also important to be responsible to the environment, and that they would not accept development at any cost. A follow up letter sent on February 2, 2012 is provided in the Appendix E.

On May 17, 2011 the Chapleau District office of the MNR provided the community with a letter giving the community notice that Xeneca had entered into a formal site release process concurrently with the Environmental Assessment process and that Chapleau Cree First Nation is an identified community for engagement in the business to business relationships portion of the site release process. This letter also provided additional guidance specifically related to the Site Release Process. MNR also requested the identified communities provide information pertaining to the communities identified concerns or aboriginal treaty rights as it related to project developments.

On June 9, 2011 an email was sent to the community which provided dates of the archaeological field work being done at the project site and invited them to participate in the field work.

On June 18, 2011 Xeneca provided the community with a copy of the “Environmental Report – Ivanhoe River – The Chute Hydroelectric Generating Station Project” and Notice of Completion for their 60 day review and comment under the Class EA process. This Final ER and Notice of Completion was later retracted and is being replaced by this Draft EA of the combined The Chute and Third Falls projects.

In June 2011 the community was invited to the PIC for Ivanhoe which was held on July 7, 2011

On July 15, 2011 Xeneca provided the community summary reports for the Stage 1 archaeological work that was completed on the Third Falls and The Chute project sites. Similar to Xeneca’s September 2010 letter, the community was also invited to participate in the stage two archeological field work.

123 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

In September of 2011 the Community started a dialogue with Xeneca identifying issues with the process and the project. In the initial correspondence the community identified the need for a ground level cultural assessment.

A meeting was held on November 28, 2011 between Xeneca and the community to discuss the ongoing EA process, issues with the ongoing review and consultation processes and to flush out issues related to culturally modified trees identified in the area. Issues identified during this process are outlined in Table 26.

On February 13, 2012 Xeneca provided the community with an updated Project description for the Chute and Third Falls and committed to coordinate a meeting with Chief and Council regarding the project.

On March 6, 2012 baseline study reports were provided to the community for their review and comment based on the comments of the Chapleau Cree at the November 2011 meeting.

Another meeting was held between the community and Xeneca on August 7, 2012 in which Xeneca provided updated information on the project and information on the archaeology and the environmental field work. The community identified many issues with the project and the process including: the appearance of the project, industry surrounding habitat suitable for use by different species, Methyl mercury contamination, water quality and water temperature, the facility design (run-of-river being the preference), health of the fish population, a request to continue fish studies if project is constructed, request for a visual representation of the project to gain a better understanding of what it would look like. This meeting also included some components of the business to business relationship building required for the site release process. Issues identified during this process are outlined in Table 26.

Beginning on September 25, 2012, Xeneca began to establish a process to support the consultation process and establish a framework for a site visit to The Chutes in order to address concerns related to culturally modified cedar trees. Chief Keeter Corston suggested that a tour of the project site be conducted by the Regional Elders Group and Xeneca staff along with a Board member of Xeneca. Chief Corston also proposed that a larger meeting be held with members of the Chapleau Cree and that Xeneca’s non-disclosure agreement be shared with the First Nation.

On October 17, 2012 a site visit occurred which included Xeneca, Chief and Council, members of the community, Regional Elders, Regional Women Water Keepers, as well as members from the Ministry of Natural Resources. The purpose of this site visit was to discuss issues related to the culturally modified trees and the community had identified at the site and to discuss the significance of cedar trees to the community, as well as to discuss ongoing procedural aspects of the consultation between Chapleau Cree and Xeneca.

124 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

On February 23, 2013 in follow up to issues brought up from the Site Visit and through ongoing consultations Xeneca issued a letter which addressed concerns of the community related to the dam construction type, protections of culturally modified cedar trees, economic partnership conditions, naming rights of the Chute project and provided an artistic rendering of the Project.

Table 17: Chapleau Cree First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Date Delivered to

Project Description January 27 & February 2, Chief Keith Corston 2011

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Chief Keith Corston

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Chief Keith Corston

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Chief Keith Corston

Updated Project Description – February 13, 2012 Chief Keith Corston The Chute

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Throughout this period Xeneca has continued to engage Chapleau Cree individually, Mushkegowuk Tribal Council has not been involved on their behalf. This engagement and consultation process is progressing towards a Memorandum of Understanding. To date the community has tabled several specific concerns related to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands and specific community issues. A summary of these issues can be found Table 26. It is anticipated that following the completion of the MOU process and prior to the finalization of this ER document, it will be updated to reflect more comprehensive issues and concerns. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

6.5.2.3 Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation

This community is a member of Wabun Tribal Council and is a signatory of treaty number 9 (First Nations Communities, 2009).This community has three reserve areas: Chapleau 61A Chapleau 74 and Chapleau 74A (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2013). Traditional activities for this community are hunting, gathering, fishing and trapping (Wabun Tribal Council, 2013).

125 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation has delegated the accommodation aspects to Wabun Tribal Council. Through Wabun Tribal Council, Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation has indicated that until acceptable accommodation has been arrived at with Xeneca, it will not acknowledge any consultation efforts. While Xeneca respects the approach taken by the community and wishes to work collaboratively, Xeneca continues to engage the community by providing updates and documents on an ongoing basis as required for the EA process.

Summary of Engagement

Chapleau Objiwe First Nation was notified about the project in June 2010 when a formal letter was sent introducing the company, notifying the community of the project, the need for a Class EA process, and providing information related to the Site Release. This letter provided contact information for Xeneca and contact information for the MNR if any further information was required.

On May 17, 2011 the Chapleau District office of the MNR provided the community with a letter giving the community notice that Xeneca had entered into a formal site release process concurrently with the Environmental Assessment process and that Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation is an identified community for engagement in the business to business relationships portion of the site release process. This letter also provided additional guidance specifically related to the Site Release Process. MNR also requested the identified communities provide information pertaining to the communities identified concerns or aboriginal treaty rights as it related to project developments.

126 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Completion was later retracted and is being replaced by this Draft EA of the combined The Chute and Third Falls projects.

On July 12, 2012 an email invitation was sent to the community inviting them to a Public Information Centre being held for The Chute and Third Falls on July 26, 2012. This email also extended an invitation to host and participate in a meeting within their local community if it was favourable.

Table 18: Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Date Delivered to

Project Description December 20, 2010 Chief Anita Stephens

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Chief Anita Stephens

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Chief Anita Stephens

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Chief Anita Stephens

Updated Project Description – The Chute March 1, 2012 Chief Anita Stephens

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Throughout this period Xeneca has continued to engage Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation individually and through Wabun Tribal Council. This engagement and consultation process is progressing towards a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on their behalf through Wabun Tribal Council. Please refer to section 6.5.2.11 for further discussion on the status of the Wabun Tribal Council engagement. To date the community has not tabled any specific concerns related

127 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands or specific community issues. Based on a general understanding of the community’s traditional and current use of the area, potential concerns are summarized in Table 26. It is anticipated that following the completion of the MOU process, and prior to the finalization of this ER document, it will be updated to reflect more comprehensive issues and concerns. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, Site Release Process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

6.5.2.4 Flying Post First Nation

Flying Post First Nation is a member of Wabun Tribal Council and a signatory to Treaty 9. They presently hold a reserve in the Smooth Rock Falls Area, Flying Post 73 (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2008b)

Flying Post First Nation has delegated the accommodation aspects to Wabun Tribal Council. Through Wabun Tribal Council, Flying Post First Nation has indicated that until an acceptable accommodation has been arrived at with Xeneca, it will not acknowledge any consultation efforts. While Xeneca respects the approach taken by the community and wishes to work collaboratively, Xeneca continues to provide updates and documents to the community on an ongoing basis as required for the EA process.

Summary of Engagement

Flying Post First Nation was notified about the project in June 2010 when a formal letter was sent introducing the company, notifying the community of the project, the need for a Class EA process, and providing information related to the Site Release. This letter provided contact information for Xeneca and contact information for the MNR if any further information was required.

128 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

On May 17, 2011 the Chapleau District office of the MNR provided the community with a letter giving the community notice that Xeneca had entered into a formal site release process concurrently with the Environmental Assessment process and that Flying Post First Nation is a local aboriginal community for engagement in the site release process. This letter also provided additional guidance specifically related to the Site Release Process. MNR also requested the identified communities provide information pertaining to the communities identified concerns or aboriginal treaty rights as it related to project developments.

On June 13, 2011 Xeneca provided the community summary reports for the Stage 1 archaeological work that was completed on the Third Falls and The Chute project sites. Similar to Xeneca’s September 2010 letter, the community was also invited to participate in the stage two archeological field work.

129 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 19: Flying Post First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Date Delivered to

Project Description December 20, 2010 Chief Murray Ray

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Chief Murray Ray

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Chief Murray Ray

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Chief Murray Ray

Updated Project Description – The Chute March 1, 2012 Chief Murray Ray

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Throughout this period Xeneca has continued to engage Flying Post First Nation individually and through Wabun Tribal Council. This engagement and consultation process is progressing towards a MOU on their behalf through Wabun Tribal Council. Please refer to section 6.5.2.11 for further discussion on the status of the Wabun Tribal Council engagement. To date the community has not tabled any specific concerns related to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands or specific community issues. Based on a general understanding of the community’s traditional and current use of the area, potential concerns are summarized in Table 26. It is anticipated that following the completion of the MOU process, and prior to the finalization of this ER document, it will be updated to reflect more comprehensive issues and concerns. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, Site Release Process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

6.5.2.5 Mattagami First Nation

Mattagami First Nation is a member of Wabun Tribal Council and a Signatory of Treaty 9. They presently engage in a wide variety of activities in their traditional lands including hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, ATVing, and promoting ecotourism (Matagami First Nation, 2013). They reside on one reserve Mattagami 71 (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2008c).

Mattagami First Nation has delegated the accommodation aspects to Wabun Tribal Council. Through Wabun Tribal Council, Mattagami First Nation has indicated that until acceptable accommodation has been arrived at with Xeneca, it will not acknowledge any consultation efforts. While Xeneca respects the approach taken by the community and wishes to work collaboratively, Xeneca continues engage the community by providing updates and documents on an ongoing basis as required for the EA process.

130 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Summary of Engagement

Mattagami First Nation was notified about the project in June 2010 when a formal letter was sent introducing the company, notifying the community of the project, the need for a Class EA process, and providing information related to the Site Release. This letter provided contact information for Xeneca and contact information for the MNR if any further information was required.

On May 17, 2011 the Chapleau District office of the MNR provided the community with a letter giving the community notice that Xeneca had entered into a formal site release process concurrently with the Environmental Assessment process and that Mattagami First Nation is an identified community for engagement in the business to business relationships portion of the site release process. This letter also provided additional guidance specifically related to the Site Release Process. MNR also requested the identified communities provide information pertaining to the communities identified concerns or aboriginal treaty rights as it related to project developments.

131 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 20: Mattagami First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Date Delivered to

Project Description December 20, 2010 Chief Walter Naveau

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Chief Walter Naveau

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Chief Walter Naveau

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Chief Walter Naveau

Updated Project Description – The Chute March 1, 2012 Chief Walter Naveau

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Throughout this period Xeneca has continued to engage Mattagami First Nation individually and through Wabun Tribal Council. This engagement and consultation process is progressing towards an MOU on their behalf through Wabun Tribal Council. Please refer to section 6.5.2.11 for further discussion on the status of the Wabun Tribal Council engagement. To date the community has not tabled any specific concerns related to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands or specific community issues. Based on a general understanding of the community’s traditional and current use of the area, potential concerns are summarized in Table 26. It is anticipated that following the completion of the MOU process, and prior to the finalization of this ER document, it will be updated to reflect more comprehensive issues and concerns. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, Site Release Process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

132 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

6.5.2.6 Métis Nation of Ontario

The Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) provides a host of services to all Métis individuals in Métis Nation communities and Regions in Ontario.

Xeneca is working with the MNO through their Lands, Resources and Consultation Branch collaboratively in order to establish a consultation protocol that will involve regional meetings and will include opportunities for review and input on project developments by representatives from the Timmins Community Council, and any other interested Community Councils. The MNO has provided their consultation protocol to Xeneca with the intent that it be used as a model to develop a consultation process and aid in the implementation of an MOU that addresses capacity and accommodation requirements between the two parties.

As part of the consultation strategy, any written correspondence materials provided to Community Councils were also copied to the MNO for their information purposes.

Summary of Engagement

The MNO was notified about the project in June 2010 when a formal letter was sent introducing the company, notifying the community of the project, the need for a Class EA process, and providing information related to the Site Release. This letter provided contact information for Xeneca and contact information for the MNR if any further information was required.

On October 1, 2010 the MNO issued a letter of support to Xeneca, which described the conditions under which the MNO would support the development of the proposed project and process and would be willing to engage with Xeneca on the permitting processes as required.

In October 2010, Xeneca sent a letter inviting the community to a preliminary Public Information Centre (PIC) on November 3, 2010. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this PIC was canceled and a formal letter notifying the community of this change was sent on October 25, 2010.

On January 7, 2011 Xeneca invited the MNO to a PIC being hosted for the Ivanhoe projects.

133 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 the Stage 1 archaeological work that was completed on the Third Falls and The Chute project sites. This included an offer inviting the community to participate in the stage two archeological field work.

In June 2011 the community was invited to the PIC for Ivanhoe which was held on July 7, 2011

On December 17, 2012 Xeneca provided the community with copies of all the updated draft information available for the revised Draft of the Ivanhoe The Chute and Third Falls ER for their review and comment.

Table 21: Métis Nation of Ontario ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Date Delivered to

Project Description May 13, 2011 Melanie Paradis

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Melanie Paradis

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Melanie Paradis

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Melanie Paradis

Updated Project Description – The Chute March 1, 2012 Melanie Paradis

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Presently Xeneca is still in negotiations with the Métis Nation of Ontario, progressing towards a final agreement and MOU. To date the Nation has not tabled any specific concerns related to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands or specific community issues. Based on a general understanding of the community’s traditional and current use of the area, potential concerns for

134 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 are summarized in Table 26. It is anticipated that following the completion of the MOU process, and prior to the finalization of this ER document, it will be updated to reflect more comprehensive issues and concerns. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, Site Release Process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

6.5.2.7 Michipicoten First Nation

Michipicoten First Nation is not a member of a Tribal Council; however, they are a member of the Union of Ontario Indians. They are signatories to the Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850 and may have traditional territory in the Treaty 9 area. The land base for this community is highly disrupted as the community was subjected to several forced moves. This community engages in fishing, hunting and trapping activities (Michipicoten First Nation, 2013). As a result there are several reserve lands, the largest of which is the Gros Cap Indian Village 49A. A listed reserve for this community, Chapleau 61 is within Sudbury District (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2008d).

Summary of Engagement

Michipicoten First Nation was notified about the project in June 2010 when a formal letter was sent introducing the company, notifying the community of the project, the need for a Class EA process, and providing information related to the Site Release. This letter provided contact information for Xeneca and contact information for the MNR if any further information was required.

In September of 2010, Xeneca sent a letter inviting the community to participate in the archaeological studies at the project location.

On June 13, 2011 Xeneca provided the community summary reports for the Stage 1 archaeological work that was completed on the Third Falls and The Chute project sites. Similar to

135 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Xeneca’s September 2010 letter, the community was also invited to participate in the stage two archeological field work.

In June 2011 the community was invited to the PIC for Ivanhoe which was held on July 7, 2011

On March 1, 2012 Xeneca provided the community with an updated Project description for the Chute which detailed several important changes. The cover letter highlighted some of these changes such as a change in inundation area, auxiliary dam area, project site layout, and a change to the location of the powerlines as shown on the previous documents.

Table 22: Michipicoten First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Date Delivered to

Project Description December 20, 2010 Chief Joe Buckell

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Chief Joe Buckell

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Chief Joe Buckell

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Chief Joe Buckell

Updated Project Description – The Chute March 1, 2012 Chief Joe Buckell

136 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Throughout this period Xeneca has continued to engage Michipicoten First Nation individually. To date the Nation has not tabled any specific concerns related to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands or specific community issues. Based on a general understanding of the community’s traditional and current use of the area, potential concerns are summarized in Table 26. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, Site Release Process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

6.5.2.8 MNO Timmins Métis Council

The MNO Timmins Métis Council is a member of Region 3 of the MNO. They have traditional territories in the lands surrounding the Projects however are not signatories to Treaty 9. They presently engage in hunting, fishing, trapping and harvesting activities in their traditional areas (Métis Nation of Ontario, 2013)

Xeneca initially worked primarily through the MNO’s central office in Toronto to funnel information to MNO Timmins Métis Council including the draft Class EA report and all associated background reports. With the guidance and direction of MNO Central Office, a meeting was established in January 2013 with MNO Timmins and other local councils in Region 3, this meeting is discussed in the summary below.

Summary of Engagement

In February 2011 the community was notified about the Project and that the Class EA had begun in writing. This package included a copy of the Draft Project Description for the Project.

On May 17, 2011 the Chapleau District office of the MNR provided the community with a letter giving the community notice that Xeneca had entered into a formal site release process concurrently with the Environmental Assessment process and that Timmins Community Council is a local aboriginal community for engagement in the site release process. This letter also provided additional guidance specifically related to the Site Release Process. MNR also requested the identified communities provide information pertaining to the communities identified concerns or aboriginal treaty rights as it related to project developments.

137 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Completion was later retracted and is being replaced by this Draft EA of the combined The Chute and Third Falls projects. On the same date Xeneca provided the community summary reports for the Stage 1 archaeological work that was completed on the Third Falls and The Chute project sites. This included an offer inviting the community to participate in the stage two archeological field work.

On January 23, 2013 with the assistance of the MNO Central Office, a meeting was arranged with MNO Timmins along with other local councils within Abitibi Temiscamingue / James Bay Consultation Committee (Region 3) in Timmins. At this meeting, a project overview along with the environmental and archaeological work that had been completed on these projects was presented.

Table 23: MNO Timmins Métis Council ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Date Delivered to

Project Description February 15, 2011 Ms. Natalie Durocher

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Ms. Natalie Durocher

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Ms. Natalie Durocher

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Ms. Natalie Durocher

Updated Project Description – The Chute March 1, 2012 Ms. Natalie Durocher

138 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Throughout this period Xeneca has continued to engage MNO Timmins Métis Council individually and through Region 3 of the Métis Nation of Ontario. This engagement and consultation process is progressing towards a Memorandum of Understanding on their behalf. Please refer to section 6.5.2.6 for further discussion on the status of the Métis Nation of Ontario engagement. To date the community has not tabled any specific concerns related to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands or specific community issues. Based on a general understanding of the community’s traditional and current use of the area, potential concerns are summarized in Table 26. It is anticipated that following the completion of the MOU process, and prior to the finalization of this ER document, it will be updated to reflect more comprehensive issues and concerns. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, Site Release Process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

6.5.2.9 Moose Cree First Nation

The Moose Cree First nation is a member of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council, and a signatory to Treaty 9. They have a reserve located on Moose Factory Island, however their traditional territory extends south towards Kapuskasing. The community engages in traditional harvesting, fishing and hunting activities within their lands. They are also extensively engaged in resource management and infrastructure development projects in their traditional territories (Canadian Business Ethics Research Network).

Xeneca engages with the Moose Cree regularly through quarterly teleconferences set up by the MNR Hearst Aboriginal Resource Liaison Officer (RLO). These calls provide an avenue for Xeneca to update the community on the status for all projects that are within the traditional territories of the Moose Cree and also provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions. To date the community has expressed minimal interest in The Chute and Third Falls, however they continue to be updated.

Summary of Engagement

Moose Cree First Nation was notified about the project in June 2010 when a formal letter was sent introducing the company, notifying the community of the project, the need for a Class EA process, and providing information related to the Site Release. This letter provided contact information for Xeneca and contact information for the MNR if any further information was required.

In September of 2010, Xeneca sent a letter inviting the community to participate in the archaeological studies at the project location.

139 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

On June 2, 2011 a meeting was held with the Community where Xeneca presented the project and provided information on environmental impacts and cumulative effects. The discussion centered around the impacts of multiple generating stations on the river. A draft copy of the Ivanhoe Aboriginal Consultation Plan was distributed and the community was asked to provide input and comment.

In late June 2011 the community was invited by email to the PIC for Ivanhoe The Chute which was held on July 7, 2011

140 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 24: Moose Cree First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Date Delivered to

Project Description December 20, 2010 Chief Norm Hardisty

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Chief Norm Hardisty

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Chief Norm Hardisty

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Chief Norm Hardisty

Updated Project Description – The Chute March 1, 2012 Chief Norm Hardisty

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Throughout this period Xeneca has continued to engage Moose Cree First Nation individually. This engagement and consultation process is progressing towards an Impact Benefit Agreement (IBA) with regards to any impacts that can be demonstrated to affect the treaty or traditional territorial rights of the Moose Cree. To date the community has not tabled any specific concerns related to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands or specific community issues. Based on a general understanding of the community’s traditional and current use of the area, potential concerns are summarized in Table 26. It is anticipated that following the completion of the IBA process, and prior to the finalization of this ER document, it will be updated to reflect more comprehensive issues and concerns. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, Site Release Process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

6.5.2.10 Taykwa Tagamou First Nation

Taykwa Tagamou First Nation (TTN) is a member of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and is a signatory to Treaty Number 9 however some of their traditional territory may fall within lands under the Robinson Superior Treaty Area. This community holds two reserves in the Cochrane area, Newpost 69 and Newpost 69A (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2008e).

141 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Summary of Engagement

On May 9, 2011 TTN was notified about the Project and that the Class EA had begun in writing. This package included a copy of the Draft Project Description for the Project.

On May 17, 2011 the Chapleau District office of the MNR provided the community with a letter giving the community notice that Xeneca had entered into a formal site release process concurrently with the Environmental Assessment process and that Taykwa Tagamou First Nation is a local aboriginal community for engagement in the site release process. This letter also provided additional guidance specifically related to the Site Release Process. MNR also requested the identified communities provide information pertaining to the communities identified concerns or aboriginal treaty rights as it related to project developments.

142 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 25: Taykwa Tagamou First Nation ER Milestone Dates Summary

Milestone Date Delivered to

Project Description May 9, 2011 Chief Linda Job

Notice of Commencement May 13, 2011 Chief Linda Job

Notice of Completion – Version 1 June 18, 2011 Chief Linda Job

The Chute Environmental Report June 18, 2011 Chief Linda Job

Updated Project Description – The Chute March 1, 2012 Chief Linda Job

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Xeneca has engaged TTN directly through Chief and Council. During an engagement on another unrelated Xeneca project in May 2012 TTN indicated that they do not feel that the Ivanhoe projects fall within the scope of their traditional territories, but are watching how Xeneca manages and works with other neighbouring communities.

This engagement and consultation process is progressing towards an MOU as it relates to other sites being developed by Xeneca. To date the community has not tabled any specific concerns related to aboriginal treaty rights, traditional lands or specific community issues as it relates to the Ivanhoe projects. Based on a general understanding of the communities traditional and current use of the area potential concerns are summarized in Table 26. It is anticipated that following the completion of the MOU process, and prior to the finalization of this ER document, it will be updated to reflect more comprehensive issues and concerns. Consultation and engagement with this community will continue throughout the Class EA process, Site Release Process, construction, and into the lifecycle operations of the project.

6.5.2.11 Wabun Tribal Council

Wabun Tribal Council provides a host of services to its member communities including health, employment and technical services. They represent Brunswick House First Nation, Chapleau Objiwe First Nation, Flying Post First Nation, and Mattagami First Nation. In addition they represent Beaverhouse First Nation, Matachewan First Nation and Wahgoshig First Nation which are not within the engagement and consultation areas for this project and therefore were not included in consultations activities directly.

143 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

As part of the consultation strategy, any written correspondence materials provided to each represented community were also copied to Wabun Tribal Council for their informational purposes.

Xeneca acknowledges the approach taken by Wabun Tribal Council as it relates to consultation on the Projects. This position was made clear during an initial teleconference call in 2010 with the member communities and Wabun Tribal Council, wherein the participating Chiefs and Councillors made it clear that they were delegating their authority to Wabun Tribal Council to negotiate an appropriate economic arrangement prior to moving forward on the consultation process. Notwithstanding their position, Xeneca has been sharing, and will continue to share, all of the relevant project information as required for the Class EA process.

Summary of Engagement

On September 2, 2010 an introductory teleconference was held between Wabun Tribal Council and Xeneca to discuss protocol and process.

In response to the September teleconference an in person meeting was held with representatives from member communities, Wabun Tribal Council and Xeneca on October 14, 2010. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the relationship between Xeneca and the communities, as well as to introduce the projects and to develop an ongoing consultation and engagement protocol.

Shortly after the October 14, 2010 meeting, Xeneca and Wabun Tribal Council began to work on drafting an MOU. Xeneca continued to keep Wabun Tribal Council apprised of the consultation activities, notifying them of a mail out to communities by email prior to the information being released. The MOU discussion continued in another face to face meeting February 17, 2011 where further issues related to relationship building, trust and communications were discussed. MOU discussions continued on into October 2011 when conditions of an agreement were presented and an agreement in principle was struck.

Current Status of Consultation and Engagement

Presently Xeneca is still in negotiations with Wabun Tribal Council towards a final agreement and MOU. It is anticipated that by the time this Draft ER has been published an MOU will be completed and that community engagement and consultation will proceed for the final ER publication.

6.5.3 Communities with Minor Consultation

Some communities were consulted in minor ways to gauge their interests or prior to the 2011 MNR letter which identified communities which may have interests in the Project. The consultation for these communities is not extensive and as such no attachments are included in the appendices.

144 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

6.5.3.1 Constance Lake First Nation

Constance Lake First Nation was notified about the project in June 2010 when a formal letter was sent introducing the company, notifying the community of the project, the need for a Class EA process, and providing information related to the Site Release. This letter provided contact information for Xeneca and contact information for the MNR if any further information was required.

In September of 2010, Xeneca sent a letter inviting the community to participate in the archaeological studies at the project location.

Consultation with this community was discontinued in May of 2011 as they were not on the identified communities list provided by the Federal or Provincial Agencies and they had not identified interests in participating in the process.

6.5.3.2 Missanabie Cree First Nation

Missanabie Cree First Nation was notified about the project in June 2010 when a formal letter was sent introducing the company, notifying the community of the project, the need for a Class EA process, and providing information related to the Site Release. This letter provided contact information for Xeneca and contact information for the MNR if any further information was required.

In September of 2010, Xeneca sent a letter inviting the community to participate in the archaeological studies at the project location.

145 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Consultation with this community was discontinued in May of 2011 as they were not on the identified communities list provided by the Federal or Provincial Agencies and in a phone conversation with the Chief the community identified that the projects were outside their traditional territories.

6.5.3.3 North Channel Metis Council

On July 12, 2012 an email invitation was sent to the North Channel Métis Council inviting them to a Public Information Centre being held for The Chute and Third Falls on July 26, 2012. This email also extended an invitation to host and participate in a meeting within their local community if it was favourable.

6.5.3.4 Northern Lights Métis Council

On July 23, 2012 a letter was provided to the Northern Lights Métis Council notifying them that Xeneca was applying for a work permit application for geotechnical investigations in the Project area. This letter was provided to the other major communities identified, and is included as an item in the logs in Appendix X.

6.5.3.5 Sudbury Métis Council

On July 12, 2012 an email invitation was sent to the Sudbury Métis Council inviting them to a Public Information Centre being held for The Chute and Third Falls on July 26, 2012. This email also extended an invitation to host and participate in a meeting within their local community if it was favourable.

146 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

7. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS

Environmental assessment legislation in Ontario defines an effect as:

“(a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of any such change on health and socio-economic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations persons, or on any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance and (b) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment, whether any such change occurs within or outside of Canada.”

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to identify all the ecosystem components that make up the environment (biological, social and economic) within the project area, and evaluate how the project would affect these valued ecosystem components during its construction, operation and end of life cycles. The EA team has adopted the conceptual hierarchy of avoidance, prevention and mitigation for the project. Where an impact cannot be avoided or prevented, mitigation measures were considered.

Mitigation measures include:

 Reducing the magnitude and duration of the impact;

 Repairing the situation post-impact to return to a pre-impact state;

 Offsetting the impact through other means.

Investigations undertaken in support of this project identified the anticipated effects of the project, at both the generating station site and ancillary components. Once identified, the EA team worked collectively to apply its expertise to finding solutions to avoiding, mitigating or minimizing the identified effects.

Project effects and management strategies considered by the EA team during the preparation of conceptual site designs, construction plans and operation plans, and those identified through the consultation program, are presented in the following section.

The results of the project life-cycle potential impact analysis based on available data and information and recommended mitigative measures are presented and discussed within this report. Additionally, the results of the technical investigations completed by the EA team members are provided in the Annexes which accompany this document. A discussion of the projects effects provided in Sections 7.1 through 7.4. A summary of the recommended mitigation measures and assessment of the potential for residual effects is presented in tabular format for the reader’s convenience in Table 26.

147 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The effects based on changes in water levels in the Ivanhoe River were estimated through the use of HEC-RAS modeling. Details on the inundation levels created can be found in Section 5.1, and details on the steady state HEC-RAS modeling are presented in Annex I of this report. The proposed daily fluctuations in headpond water levels for the two facilities are presented in graphical form in Annex I.

Those effects and management strategies associated with the operation of the facility, especially in the headpond and variable flow reach, are summarised in the Proposed Operating Flows and Levels report found in Annex I and the Natural Environment Characterization and Impact Assessment report found in Annex III.

7.1 IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

7.1.1 Water Quality

Mercury

A largely known effect of hydropower is the dispersion of mercury in impounded waters due to headpond creation. All hydroelectric projects that inundate previously unflooded land present the potential to increase mercury levels in the inundated areas, which can bioaccumulate in the food chain and affect the health of higher organisms such fish or humans.

While mercury levels in relation to hydropower are well studied in large reservoirs, there is relatively little information pertaining to small-scale impoundments. Accurate predictions based on a model are not possible at this time due to the lack of available literature on small waterpower projects and impoundments available for validation.

Although the combined inundation area for the Ivanhoe projects is relatively small (113.2 ha), there is no way to completely mitigate for mercury creation in headponds. However, some steps can be taken to minimize the risk of elevated mercury. Inundation will be minimized to the greatest extent possible, and avoid wetlands where possible. Vegetation in the proposed headponds will be removed prior to flooding, thereby removing a major potential source of methyl mercury.

The 113.2 ha inundation area will flood 10 different types of ELC forest communities; 13.9 ha of the inundated area is composed of 4 different types of wetland. Further details on the type and size of communities being inundated can be found in the in Annex III.

The proponent has met with regulators in order to determine suitable programs for surface water and Hg in fish flesh for both pre-op and post-construction period based on the MOE SW Guidance Document. Based on 2012 fish sampling, mercury concentrations in all large fish samples exceeded the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines, while mercury concentrations in all but forage fish sample were above CCME guidelines. Additionally, concentrations in forage fish were 3-4 times higher upstream of Third Falls than

148 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 upstream of The Chute (Annex IV). These baseline measurements will be taken into consideration during post-construction monitoring studies.

Any baseline and post-construction data on mercury levels collected for the Ivanhoe River will contribute towards amassing data in order to create predictive models for future small-scale hydropower projects.

Temperature and Oxygen Levels

Note to Reviewer: The assessment of anticipated temperature effects is provided in Annex 1. Xeneca has recently received comments on this assessment and is currently working to address them. Accordingly, the information below may be changed to reflect those comments and will be included in the Final ER.

The total proposed head associated with the Chute and Third Falls facilities are 9.5 m and 9 m, respectively, and water withdrawal will be across the entire depth of the water column. With these heads, surface and bottom waters are typically similar in temperature. Additionally, the proposed headponds are quite small, with a storage capacity of only a few hours under normal operating conditions. As a result, water temperature within the headponds is not expected to change significantly from that of the inflowing river (Annex 1). Under extreme drought conditions the combined residence time in both headponds could be up to 5 days and a small increase in water temperatures may result.

Similarly, due to the relatively small size of the headponds and the short residence times, dissolved oxygen levels are not expected to be materially affected by the proposed undertaking (Annex 1).

Contamination

The construction phase of the project presents the potential for spills or leaks of hazardous substances, increased sediment suspension, and introduction of foreign materials to the watercourse. These risks are well known, and appropriate mitigation strategies have been developed through industry best management practices that successfully minimize the risks of these occurrences. The various actions that will be taken can be found in the Water Quality section of Table 26.

7.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation

Rapid changes in shoreline water levels can increase erosion. Where pore water in the soil dissipates too quickly, pore pressure can loosen soil grains and cause loss of stability in the soil structure, thereby enhancing erosion. By limiting the rate of change of upstream water levels, this erosion mechanism is avoided.

149 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

In order to minimize erosion effects, the maximum daily fluctuations of upstream water levels will be limited. The daily fluctuation of water levels in the headponds of the Chute and the Third Falls will not exceed 1 m and 0.3 m, respectively. These maximum daily fluctuations were selected to minimize the magnitude of pore pressure changes of the soil along the shoreline, and by extension reducing the amount of shoreline erosion in the headpond. By limiting the daily fluctuation, vegetation will be able to naturally re-establish along the shoreline, thereby limiting the erosion potential.

A geomorphic assessment was conducted on the Ivanhoe River in order to determine the projects’ potential impacts on erosion, sedimentation and sediment transport. The complete report is included in Annex I of this ER, and the results of the assessment are summarized below.

It was determined that operations at the two generating stations will likely only accentuate existing channel processes in the study area. The inundation of smaller rapids in the headponds will likely result in the gradual deposition of sediment at these locations. The deposition of sediment will also likely occur at the upstream ends of each headpond, as well as in the areas immediately upstream of the dams. Though limited scouring may occur in the upstream portions of the headponds and backwater areas, the eroded sediment would be deposited within a relatively short distance downstream, thus making the impact local in nature.

Although the rate of infilling could not be predicted, it was concluded that infilling of the two headponds should be relatively slow, as fine sediment will generally be transported past both generating stations by the current.

Water level fluctuations resulting from operations are not anticipated to result in major erosion impacts on the channel banks in the headponds. Additionally, given that flows downstream of the Third Falls facility would be equivalent to pre-construction conditions, erosion effects downstream of the tailrace area should not be altered significantly from existing conditions. The development of the Chute GS and Third Falls GS is not expected to result in impacts to the overall geomorphology of the channel downstream of the Third Falls facility.

In order to confirm the predictions made in the geomorphic assessment, erosion and sedimentation monitoring has been planned for 5 years following the start of operations.

7.1.3 Species at Risk

The Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) exist to prevent Ontario indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct populations from becoming extirpated or extinct. Investigations at the project site identified Lake Sturgeon (Southern Hudson Bay – James Bay population), a species of Special Concern listed on the SARO under ESA,, in the project area. The results of these investigations show that the species appears to be restricted to the lower reach of the Ivanhoe River near the confluence with the Groundhog River due to a barrier created by the falls found approximately 7.5 km upstream of the confluence with the Groundhog River.

150 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Fluctuations in water levels hold the potential to affect Lake Sturgeon spawning habitat. However, the run-of-river operations at Third Falls will re-naturalize fluctuations created at The Chute, and true run-of-river operations at both facilities during spawning periods will eliminate any fluctuations and associated impacts to Lake Sturgeon within the project area. As such, there will be no impacts to Sturgeon.

No other Species at Risk were identified within the project area.

7.1.4 Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat

Effects to aquatic wildlife and habitat will occur during various phases of the Ivanhoe River projects. Effects on aquatic species and habitat types due to construction, inundation, and operations are discussed below and summarized in Table 26. More detailed information can be found in the Natural Environment Characterization and Impact Assessment Report in Annex III.

During construction, the risk of impact to fish and habitat lies in the temporary disturbances caused by potential changes to water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, cofferdam installation, and dewatering. These activities are commonly undertaken during the construction of in-water infrastructure, and industry best practices will ensure that the impacts are minimized. It should be noted that despite mitigative measures, there still lies potential for fish injury or mortality due to dewatering and blasting. Specific mitigation actions are outlined in Table 26.

Following the completion of the facility, in order to reduce the potential for negative habitat impact upstream during modified run-of-river operation at The Chute, the maximum daily fluctuations of upstream water levels will be limited. The operating plan parameters proposed herein for daily fluctuation have been chosen to be less than the amount of seasonal and inter- annual fluctuation that has been occurring naturally over time in the upstream river reach. This does not eliminate the potential for effects, but it limits the potential extent of impact while still maintaining the socio-economic benefit of shifting some electricity production to times when electricity usage is high in the Province.

To reduce the potential for impacts downstream of The Chute during intermittent operations, the following approach was employed when selecting operating parameters:

1. Timing of event: Special attention was given to the timing of aquatic habitat events and the relationship to the range of natural flows that could occur during these periods. Where intermittent operation may occur during the identified periods, the bypass flow to be provided while the facility is stopped was given special consideration.

2. Sizing of bypass flows: Bypass flows were considered in the context of the associated water depth, flow velocity and wetted perimeter in the Variable Flow Reach. The objective is to minimize the amount of water released during times when the facility is stopped, while providing enough water to minimize stress on the aquatic environment.

151 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

3. Controlled ramping of flows: To minimize the sudden release of water that occurs during start up, a ramping procedure was developed. The ramping procedure requires the facility

to start at minimum turbine capacity (QTmin) and gradually ramp up output until the desired operating rate is reached.

4. Limiting maximum turbine flow (QLim): During intermittent operation, the turbine flow will be set to not exceed an upper limit to minimize the amount of flow variability that occurs on a daily basis.

The proposed operating parameters have been designed with the objective of avoiding significant impacts on the downstream habitat associated with the project. It should be noted that operating parameters for turbine flows depend on the final design and equipment selected at construction. As such, some variation in the identified parameters may occur, however the objectives of the mitigation and ecological flows (QEA) provided will not change.

Walleye and White sucker Spawning Habitat

The design of the facilities is intended to minimize the footprint of the project components and, in combination with the proposed operating parameters, is believed to avoid significant impacts on the upstream habitat that has been studied. At the Chute site, approximately 1300 m2 of spawning habitat will be lost to the footprint of the facility. The majority of this loss will be mitigated through the resurfacing 1000 m2 of the tailrace with appropriate cobble and substrate. The remaining 300 m2 will require compensation strategies created in conjunction with MNR and DFO.

Headpond inundation will impact fish habitat within the Ivanhoe River and various tributaries. Spawning locations for Walleye and White suckers has been identified within the Ivanhoe River; 1500 m2 of this habitat has been identified as losing functionality, as this area will not remain within the preferred range of water depth and velocity for spawning. Modeling results show that an additional habitat area located 5 km upstream of Third Falls is at the lower end of the range of preferred velocity following inundation, with the potential to move outside the preferred range. Any loss of spawning habitat will be mitigated through compensation strategies created in conjunction with MNR and DFO.

In order to mitigate any impacts of water level fluctuations during the Walleye and White sucker spawning period, the Chute facility will operate as run-of-river starting in the spring when water temperatures reach 4°C in the spring and ending 33 days after water temperatures reach 12°C in order to protect larvae.

Brook trout

The presence of Brook trout has been confirmed in the main channel of the Ivanhoe River upstream of both the Chute and Third Falls through the fisheries assessments conducted in support of the project. Depending on the time of year and available habitats for spawning,

152 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 juvenile development, foraging and thermal refuge Brook trout may also be present in the river’s tributaries which will be affected by inundation. The full extent of the backwater effect on the tributaries within the headponds was not determined prior to the 2011 and 2012 field seasons and biologists only conducted visual surveys of the first 100m of these tributaries upstream of their confluence with the Ivanhoe River. Inundation of tributaries has been known to adversely affect Brook trout spawning habitat by affecting vegetative cover, water temperature and sedimentation over their spawning habitats.

Xeneca has reached an agreement in principle with the MNR and committed to conducting field surveys in the summer of 2013 at potential Brook trout spawning tributaries to document the extent of Brook trout habitat in the areas affected by inundation. The results of the Summer field surveys will inform discussion between Xeneca and MNR and DFO on the requirements for follow-up spawning surveys to take place in the Fall of 2013. If Brook trout habitat critical to a particular life stage for Brook trout is predicted to be impacted by the inundation of the headpond and tributaries, Xeneca will enter into discussions with MNR and DFO regarding the compensation measures that will be required to offset any potential losses of Brook trout habitat.

The results of summer 2013 surveys of groundwater sources for potential brook trout habitat as well as any required proposed mitigation measures and conceptual compensation information will be incorporated into the final ER in advance of the issuance of the Notice of Completion. Final monitoring efforts and, if required, compensation requirements may be further defined in the Fisheries Act Authorization for the project.

Northern Pike

Operations also have the potential to affect northern pike spawning habitat in The Chute headpond, as the emergent vegetation used as spawning habitat will not survive the proposed 1 m water level fluctuations. In order to maintain spawning habitat, exposed habitat areas will be re-vegetated of with species tolerant to water level fluctuations or new vegetation beds will be established outside of the ZOI. Run-of-river operations will be implemented during the spawning season to prevent egg desiccation in remaining spawning beds

Impingement and Entrainment

Impingement and entrainment of fish at hydroelectric facilities is a well-known effect. While the potential for impact cannot be completely eliminated, it can be minimized through the design of trash racks and intake velocities based on fish swimming capabilities and size. In order to mitigate fish injury and mortality through impingement or entrainment at the Ivanhoe facilities, several measures will be taken. In order to keep fish out of the intake, trash racks will be installed at each turbine with spacing of 48 mm. In addition, the velocity of the water entering the turbines will be 0.75 m/s, which has been analyzed against the swimming capabilities of adult fish,

153 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Despite these mitigative measures, juveniles and small bodied fish will likely continue to pass through the trash racks. In addition, smaller individuals have lower swimming capabilities and may not be able to escape an intake velocity of 0.75 m/s. However, due to their size, smaller fish are more likely to survive passing through the turbines.

If high levels of impingent or entrainment are found post-construction, potential modifications can be made to prevent entrainment and impingement, such as lighting, electrical barriers, air bubbling and sound barriers.

Fish Passage

Fish migration may be impacted by the construction of new infrastructure on the Ivanhoe River. Currently, natural barriers exist at both The Chute and Third Falls prevent upstream fish passage, and as such, the project will have no effect on upstream passage. There is no existing information available on downstream fish passage at the site but it is reasonable to assume that, from time to time, fish do pass from upstream of the site to downstream. The facility is not anticipated to include a specific mechanism for encouraging fish to pass downstream. During periods of high flow, when active spilling is occurring, fish will most likely continue to pass downstream, through the west channel. It is reasonable to assume that passage events are currently linked to high flow situations when higher than normal velocities carry fish downstream. Therefore the development is not anticipated to impact significantly on downstream passage as this opportunity will remain.

Benthic Habitat

Benthic species in the Ivanhoe River rely on shallow, fast water habitat for production, and provide food for the fish populations of the river. Approximately 20,400 m2 of benthic production habitat will be lost due to inundation following the construction of the Ivanhoe River projects. Altered benthic productivity represents a residual effect and will result in the requirement of a Fisheries Act Authorization and a compensation plan that will be established with DFO and MNR. The significance of the effect on benthic habitat and productivity will be dependent on compensation discussions with DFO and MNR in advance of the final ER.

7.1.5 Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat

Effects to terrestrial wildlife and habitat will occur during various phases of the Ivanhoe River projects. Effects on terrestrial species and habitat types due to construction, inundation, and operations are discussed below and summarized in Table 26. More detailed information can be found in the Natural Environment Characterization and Impact Assessment Report in Annex III.

Construction is likely to cause general disturbance to wildlife through vegetation clearing and the use of heavy machinery. These activities are expected and best management practices have been developed over the course of other hydropower project developments. These effects will not be completely eliminated, however they will be minimized to the maximum extent possible through

154 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 the various measures list in Table 26 (Terrestrial wildlife – General Disturbance to habitat during construction). Following the completion of construction, the areas cleared for construction purposes will be re-vegetated.

Impacts to terrestrial and wetland habitats resulting from project footprint and headpond inundation can be reduced through the following measures:

 Minimize access and restrict construction vehicles to existing access routes and staging areas

 Retain vegetation to the extent possible and clearly delineating the area for clearing/grubbing to ensure that only required areas are cleared;

 Clearing comply with the requirements of all applicable permits and approvals, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, and the Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual

 Trees not be felled into the water and felling trees into the proposed site wherever possible

 Brush be disposed of by burning or chipping, with a preference for chipping wherever practical. When burning is carried out, it will be under permit with the MNR and according to the Forest Fires Prevention Act

Approximately 0.45 ha of Fresh, Clayey: Cedar – Conifer (B084) will be permanently lost due to infrastructure footprint. This forest community is common to the area and the impact of the loss will not be significant in relation to the total habitat availability in the area.

Headpond creation at both project sites will also affect terrestrial habitat. Inundation will transform a total of approximately 113.2 ha of terrestrial habitat, 13.9 of which is composed of wetland communities. The lost area is composed of 10 different ELC forest communities; the details of inundated areas can be found in the Natural Environmental Characterization and Impact Assessment Report in Annex III.

Significant Wildlife Habitats

Within the inundated area, several communities are considered to be Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) for various species. The impacts to SWHs have been assessed and mitigated where necessary in order to minimize impacts to species who requires these habitats.

The inundation area will cover 35.9 ha of SWH for the Canada Warbler. This area is small in relation to the abundance of habitat in the surrounding landscape, and will not affect the Canada Warbler. Activities will be scheduled to avoid nesting periods if possible, and if tree removal should be necessary during the breeding bird period, and avian biologist will conduct nest searches.

155 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

There will also be losses to SWH for the common nighthawk and the olive-sided flycatcher. The clearing of vegetation for headpond inundation will not pose a direct impact to valuable habitat for nesting and foraging for either species.

Significant habitat for the northern long-eared bat can also be found within the inundation area. In order to avoid impacts to the species, vegetation will be removed outside of hibernation times (September through to April).

The Fresh, Clayey: Cedar – Conifer (B084) community found upstream of The Chute is considered to be SWH as a Moose Aquatic Feeding Area (MAFA) due to its adjacency to wetland habitat. The loss will not directly affect the wetland which provides the primary moose feeding habitat. The B084 community is common throughout the region, and the loss will not be significant.

Inundation will also result in the loss of 7.2 ha of marsh breeding bird SWH and 13.9 ha of amphibian SWH. Pre-construction surveys will be completed to identify any breeding within the wetland communities, and habitat would be removed outside the breeding period if possible. It is predicted that over time, the wetland habitat will re-establish.

Approximately 1.6 ha of rare-treed SWH, Fresh Silty to Fine Loamy: Elm – Ash Hardwood (B105), will be lost due to inundation, reducing this community by 80% within the project area. In order to mitigate the loss of this rare habitat, seeds will be harvested from the community, raised by a nursery in Northern Ontario, and replanted within suitable habitat to maintain genetic integrity.

Other Habitat Loss

Otter denning was documented 8 km upstream of the Third Falls facility. Dens may be impacted by an increase in water levels, however the most significant level changes occur within the first 6 km of the Third Falls headpond. In order to mitigate effects such as direct mortality, inundation will not occur during the winter or ice-over period in order to ensure no mortality due to individuals become trapped. Following inundation, operational water fluctuations will be within 25 cm, which should not affect den entrances. Following construction, monitoring will occur to ensure that otters continue to populate this area.

The project area also consists of bald eagle habitat, with one nest was identified during studies. The clearing of vegetation in the project area will not affect the function of bald eagle habitat, and the active nest will be protected by a 400-800 m radius during construction.

156 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

7.2 IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS

7.2.1 Navigation

The Ivanhoe River is not used for commercial navigation but is used for recreational purposes. As mentioned previously, the Ivanhoe River is a recognized canoe route which provides a waterway link to James Bay. The construction of a dam across a navigable waterway will require an approval by Transport Canada under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Access to the Ivanhoe River is via a boat launch immediately downstream of the project site. This point provides a link to backcountry hunting and fishing activities not accessible by road. The Chute is by-passed via established portage routes located on both banks. The proposed facility will require the re-establishment of portages to mitigate impacts in relation to flooding and the project footprint. Special arrangements will be made during the construction phase of the project in order to ensure public safety during this time.

Recreational use and enjoyment of the waterway was discussed during the Public Information Centres and other stakeholder consultation events. Members of the public in attendance appeared to be satisfied with these management strategies.

Navigation impacts downstream of the site could result during times of modified run-of-river operation in the Variable Flow Reach, from The Chute control structure to the end of the Third Falls tailrace. During certain hours, the flows and water depths would be lower than those presently experienced. At other times, flows and water depth would be greater than normal.

Intermittent operation would occur only in periods while flows are low, some of which occur during the winter months when the river is frozen and not navigable. During summer months, the proponent is committed to the determination of minimum flows that would occur when the facility is stopped to mitigate potential restrictions to watercraft.

7.2.2 Public Health and Safety

Public safety during construction and operation of the project has been identified as a concern. Those effects and management strategies associated with the construction and operation of the facility are summarised in the Proposed Operating Flows and Levels report found in Annex I and in the Construction Management plan found in Annex II. During construction, public access to hazardous construction areas will be restricted through the use of signage and fencing. Alternative access will be provided during this time.

7.2.3 Civil Structure and Private Property

An October 2010 land title search in the vicinity of the project area noted that the nearest privately owned lands were the CNR Railway and those in the Town of Foleyet approximately 20 km south of the project location outside of the proposed 6.4 km inundation area of the Chute.

157 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

The following steps were taken in developing the proposed operating parameters for the Project to mitigate impacts to Civil Structure and Private Property:

The maximum upstream operating water level was carefully set based on the results of the HEC- RAS Study to specifically avoid infringing on the pre-construction High Water Mark at any civil structure or private property. The proposed operating values were reviewed to ensure that any backwater inundation effect does not exceed the natural High Water Mark in areas where the potential for impact exists. The operating plan parameters proposed in Annex II for daily fluctuation were reviewed to ensure that impact on civil structures would not be a concern. During flood passage, where the natural flow exceeds the maximum turbine capacity, the facility will be operated to minimize flood impacts upstream by operating the spillway, turbine and bypass structures accordingly. The spillway and bypass structures will be sized and designed to provide the amount of flood passage capacity required to meet the objectives of the operating plan. This step will be assessed in more detail in the detailed engineering design stage.

The proponent acknowledges that they will have to consider potential erosion and safety impacts to bridges and water crossings located which may be used for construction or affected by inundation or operations. The proponent is aware that any required improvements to the bridge in support of the project will be the responsibility of Xeneca. Any potential impacts to the bridge must be anticipated and satisfactorily addressed with the bridge owner and the province before any regulatory permits are issued. The proponent also acknowledges that further consultation with the traditional forest licence holders will be required in the planning of the connection line construction program.

7.2.4 Potable Water Supply

Consideration was given to the effects of the project on surface water quality, including the potential use of the waterway as a potable water supply. A search of the Ministry of the Environment’s electronic Water Wells database did not return any well records within a 1-km radius of the project zone of influence. The intake for the water supply and the outflow for the sewage treatment facility for the Town of Foleyet are located approximately 20 km from the proposed facility, outside of the proposed 6.4 km inundation area. As a result, the proposed facility will not impact the operation of these facilities. Therefore, permanent or seasonal domestic water supplies that might draw from the Ivanhoe River will not be affected by the development.

There are potential adverse effects on water quality during construction due to erosion and sedimentation, accidental spills, clearing, backfilling, contouring and excavation. As a result, standard construction and industry best management practices will be maintained during the construction program to prevent accidental spills, control erosion and sedimentation, and to manage any groundwater that must be removed from excavations. Spill prevention and emergency fuel supply containment measures (as required by Technical Standards and Safety

158 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Authority) will be required within the facility throughout the operational period; mitigation measures are described in detail in Table 26.

During operation, potential effects on water quality may occur as a result of accidental spills and sedimentation as a result of shoreline erosion caused by inundation and water level fluctuation in the headpond. These effects will be mitigated through the implementation of appropriate spill management planning and best management practices. Monitoring for shoreline erosion will occur and management strategies will be developed if effects are determined to occur.

7.2.5 Area Aesthetics

Preserving the natural aesthetics of the waterway and surrounding area will be considered as part of the proposed development. As mentioned previously, the area of the falls at both sites have an aesthetic value with local residents and tourists as well as Aboriginal community members. People engage in camping, hiking, fishing, picnicking and other associated outdoor pursuits in the area. A Usage Survey was conducted by the MNR is agreement with the proponent in order to determine recreational values in the area. During the survey, 59 comment cards garnered information on recreational use. 69% of respondents indicated enjoyment of the falls as one of the reason for visiting, while 66% listed appreciation of nature as a reason. Beyond the general usage checklist, 30% of the survey cards included additional comments regarding the aesthetic values of the area.

Maintaining or enhancing vegetative buffers between the river, roads, and any ancillary works will be a consideration during detailed design to preserve the aesthetic quality of the area; proposed mitigation measures are provided in Table 26.

7.2.6 Employment & Economic Effects

Construction and operation of the project will generate a positive economic effect in the Township of Foleyet, the Town of Chapleau and the City of Timmins resulting in opportunities for employment of community members. Similar employment opportunities will also exist for the Taykwa Tagamou Nation and the Chapleau Cree First Nation (Fox Lake Reserve).

Economic benefits will include employment, expenditures on materials, equipment and services and contribution of renewable energy to the Provincial supply mix. The proposed The Chute and Third Falls generating stations will have a total installed capacity of approximately 3.6 MW and 3.9 MW, respectively. Waterpower creates jobs, generates revenue for the taxpayers of Ontario, and is the longest lived and most reliable source of renewable electricity:

 Direct economic activity to build a waterpower project in Ontario is approximately $5 million per megawatt. Generally, about half of this amount is spent locally (approximately $9 million in the case of this project), in procuring construction labour & materials, consulting and legal services, trucking and other services such as accommodation, food and fuel.

159 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 Direct job creation (construction) is estimated to be approximately 36,000 person hours of work. Indirect job creation is estimated to be approximately 54,000 person hours of work supporting the project and personnel.

 A significant return to the people of Ontario paid through Gross Revenue Charges (GRC) and provincial and federal income taxes. Return to the people of Ontario will continue past the 40 year contract, likely as long as the facility is in operation.

 Waterpower lasts. Many power plants built in the early 1900s are still in operation and with regular maintenance and upgrades can last for many generations. In comparison, the life span for other sources of renewable power is: nuclear 40 years, wind 20 years, solar 20 years.

Although jobs will be created, remote tourism operators are concerned that their businesses will suffer as a result of increased access to otherwise inaccessible areas. The operators promote themselves based on the remoteness and the unique experience that visitors will have. Many visitors come to experience backcountry hunting and fishing, The MNR, with approval from the proponent, began conducting a value based survey on June 6th, 2011 of river users. The results from this survey have facilitated the identification of the potential impacts to these businesses.

7.3 IDENTIFIED ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCERNS

A summary of the specific issues identified during Aboriginal consultation process is presented in tabular format as Table 26. The table identifies how resolution to each identified issue has been or may be resolved, and whether any outstanding issues or concerns remain.

The MNR has notified aboriginal communities who may have interests in the project of Xeneca’s request for site release and Xeneca commits to engage in discussion with communities throughout the EA and permits and approvals processes. The project is located within an area covered under Treaty 9; however project sites are not located on any First Nations reserve lands or lands allocated to any other aboriginal community. Memorandums of Understanding are being negotiated and asserted rights to traditional hunting and harvesting will be maintained in treaty areas. The project location is in an area where a land claim is on file between the Federal Crown and Nishnawbe Aski Nation which is the Grand Council of Treaty 9. An Agreement in Principle has been reached but no final agreement has been settled. Until a final agreement has been reached, it is unclear what, if any, impact the project may have on the land claim area.

Ongoing engagement and consultation with Aboriginal communities will continue after completion of EA.

Development impacts to plant or animal species of cultural, spiritual or medicinal significance to aboriginal communities. The clearing and grubbing of land for the construction of The Chute and Third Falls facilities and inundation areas will result in some loss of vegetation. The area of disturbance within the overall boundaries will be kept to a minimum and clearing will only occur

160 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 where necessitated by construction. Any areas disturbed during construction will be repaired, revegetated and stabilized.

Xeneca met with the FIRST NATION Chapleau Cree First Nation representatives on site in October 2012 to investigate the potential for Culturally Modified Trees (CMT). A potential CMT was identified on an island downstream of the proposed Chute project site. This tree is located outside of clearing areas, but will be clearly marked and shielded from flyrock during construction.

A culturally significant stand of mature Eastern White Cedar was also identified by Chapleau Cree First Nation in the vicinity of the truck turnaround. Prior to commencement of construction activities, a registered professional forester will delineate the mature trees. The truck turnaround area may shift slightly to avoid removal of these mature cedars. The significant trees will be protected by fencing and barriers which will remain in place throughout the entire construction period. Use of heavy equipment in the area and the backing up of any heavy equipment will be done with caution in order to protect the canopy. In addition, areas to be cleared during construction will be minimized and clearly demarcated, and construction staff will be provided with training on identifying culturally modified trees.

Project construction may result in the removal of culturally significant eastern white cedar trees during clearing for the inundation area. An estimate of the number of mature cedar trees that may be removed will be undertaken and a protocol for their removal will be developed with the communities.

Similar concerns about water quality, clarity and temperature, including methyl mercury effects, have been raised by First Nations, members of the public and regulators. These issues are discussed in Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. As noted, existing mercury concentrations in fish already exceed consumption guidelines.

Concerns were expressed by First Nation community members that development of the dam will present a barrier to navigation and may conflict with traditional lifeways of communities. The proposed facility will require the re-establishment of portages to mitigate impacts in relation to flooding and the project footprint. Special arrangements will be made during the construction phase of the project in order to ensure public safety during this time.

Aboriginal-run tourism operators have expressed concerns that their businesses will be impacted by development. These operators are concerned that their businesses will suffer as a result of increased access to otherwise inaccessible areas. The operators promote themselves based on the

161 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 remoteness and the unique experience that visitors will have. Many visitors come to experience backcountry hunting and fishing, The MNR, with approval from the proponent, began conducting a value based survey on June 6th, 2011 of river users. The results from this survey will facilitate the identification of the potential impacts to these businesses.

Hunting, harvesting, foraging and trapping activities may be disrupted by construction activities as access will be restricted around the facility and associated infrastructure to address security and public safety. This access restriction is limited and there is abundant similar area available both upstream and downstream of the projects for activities. Access will be maintained to the waterway and around the facility (boat launch and portages) and water management planning principles taken into account during project planning and incorporated into operating plan for the facility. Consultation with MNR SIP has identified no trap lines within the area of influence of the project.

Concerns about impacts to furbearing mammals were raised by First Nation communities. Otter denning was documented 8 km upstream of the Third Falls facility. Dens may be impacted by an increase in water levels, however the most significant level changes occur within the first 6 km of the Third Falls headpond. In order to mitigate effects such as direct mortality, inundation will not occur during the winter or ice-over period in order to ensure no mortality due to individuals become trapped. Following inundation, operational water fluctuations will be within 0.25 m, which should not affect den entrances. Following construction, monitoring will occur to ensure that otters continue to populate this area.

Development activities may impact the use of the area by waterfowl for foraging and nesting activities. These impacts are considered to be negligible based on communities present in the surrounding landscape Activities will be scheduled to avoid sensitive nesting, rearing, mating, or staging periods. Marsh breeding bird surveys will be completed pre-construction to identify breeding species of marsh birds within the wetland habitat. Removal of woody vegetation will be conducted outside of the bird breeding period (April 15-August 8).

The Construction Management Plan will be finalized to include instructions and protocols for minimizing the disturbance to wildlife during the construction program. Development activities may impact food bearing plants and impact foraging and harvesting activities of some communities. The clearing and grubbing of land will result in a loss of some vegetation. The area of disturbance within the overall site boundaries will be kept to a minimum and clearing will only occur where necessitated by construction. High visibility snow fencing will be installed to restrict heavy equipment traffic to the area identified for clearing to avoid any unnecessary loss of vegetation. Any area disturbed during construction will be repaired, revegetated, and stabilized.

Habitat changes as a result of development may result in changes in populations of large game such as moose and caribou which communities rely on for food and other products. To mitigate collisions, construction vehicles will be restricted to existing access routes and staging areas and

162 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 access will be minimized. Vegetation will be retained to the extent practicable. Connection line poles should be situated at either end of a wetland to eliminate the need for pole installation within the wetland limits. Post-construction monitoring will be conducted to confirm that moose continue to use Moose Aquatic Feeding Habitats within the zone of inundation.

To meet construction standards, portions of the facilities will need to be constructed with concrete. The proponent will consider alternative dam design and construction methodology to utilise alternate materials and methods (rock fill, etc) to minimize the use of concrete wherever possible. Ongoing engagement and consultation with Aboriginal communities will continue after completion of EA.

7.4 CONSIDERATION OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS

This section presents the issues identified specifically related to potential accidents and malfunctions during operation.

The environmental assessment of the undertaking must consider the effects to the environment if an accident or malfunction were to occur during the construction or operation of the projects. Consideration must be given to such events as spills and leaks, power failures, toxic substances, and worker and public health and safety.

As the mitigation measures and best management practices detailed in Table 26 of this document will be implemented, it is unlikely that spills and leaks would occur during the construction period. The engagement of an environmental monitor to oversee construction activities should further ensure the prevention of releases of deleterious substances to the environment. Additionally, the health and safety of all contractors and construction crews on both federal and provincial lands will be subject to Ontario Regulation 231.91 which governs construction projects in Ontario. The health and safety of operational staff at the generating stations will be governed by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Public access will be restricted during the construction activities at the project sites and along the connection lines.

Toxic substances are rarely employed at hydroelectric generating stations. Generally, only small quantities of normal industrial lubricants are required for operation. A generator for emergency power supply at the generating stations will be required, necessitating the installation of an above-ground storage tank (AST) for fuel. The installation and operation of the AST will be subject to the Technical Standards and Safety Act.

A power failure at the generating stations will result in the inability of the powerhouses to discharge water which will affect project revenues. Should this power failure occur during peak flow periods, the proponent will be responsible for ensuring that peak discharge can be passed downriver.

163 TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

General Natural Environment Exhaust emissions from • implement standard construction site best management practices Low negative impacts - impacts mitigated or Air quality equipment, vehicles and Construction & Operation • reduce equipment engine idling eliminated where ever possible, Environmental Yes onsite generator • limit the use of emergency generator during operation to emergency situations Compliance Approval will be required

no receptors as defined under the EPA within 3 Noise from generation Air quality Operation • design facility to reduce noise emissions beyond the powerhouse. kilometers of either project site. Noise screening No equipment and detailed design will be reviewed with MOE.

• utilize approved waste disposal sites and best practices for VOC/organic waste disposal • Appropriate disposal containers will be available for the prompt disposal of waste No impacts anticipated - proper handling of • full disposal containers will be removed to the appropriate waste disposal facility on a regular VOC/organic waste onsite and offsite disposal at Air quality Odours from waste Construction basis Yes an approved disposal location will mitigate • Organic/food waste will be collected daily and stored in closed, animal resistant containers potential impacts until disposed of at an approved waste disposal site or incinerated on-site according to project permitting standards

Positive effects due to GHG offsets by building a hydroelectric generating station to generate 13,300 Air quality GHG Offsets Operation • Waterpower can offset GHG emissions from coal. MWh of renewable energy represents the Yes displacement of 9.217 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

• project personnel will control dust at work sites when it is warranted by the conditions Dust emissions from • a water truck or alternate method will be used to suppress dust on all project roads and work Low negative impacts - impacts mitigated or Air quality construction activities and Construction areas when required as a result of dry or dusty conditions Yes eliminated wherever possible, C of A required vehicles • dust control techniques will be implemented prior to reaching critical conditions • trucks will be required to use dust covers when traveling through populated areas

• implement standard construction site best management practices • construction machinery should arrive on site in a clean condition • ensure a spill response plan and appropriate emergency response measures are in place • contractors will have prepared and will follow a Care of Water Plan • use mechanical means (not chemical) to clear and manage vegetation • stabilize all waste materials above the high water mark • all concrete work will be completed in dewatered areas, water will not be reintroduced to dewatered areas until concrete is cured • project personnel will be made aware of safe concrete handling procedures. Concrete Introduction of sediment, handling will employ watertight forms, spill contingencies, and designated truck clean out pits. chemicals or organic materials • earthworks will be scheduled to minimize duration of exposure Low negative effect - impacts mitigated or Water quality (surface and into surface water through Construction • turbidity of water close to construction site will be monitored; eliminated wherever possible through Yes groundwater) general construction activities • contain material when working near water bodies using cofferdams, silt curtains, sediment implementation of mitigation measures along shoreline of waterway traps and settling ponds as appropriate • removal of riparian vegetation will be minimised • no excavation or borrowing will be done without the appropriate plans, surveys, permits, and approvals in place • where practical, existing borrow sites and associated roads, trails or cut lines will be used instead of developing new sites • aggregate borrow will be located in upland locations and separated from streams and lakes by a minimum 30 m wide buffer of undisturbed terrain in order to minimize potential for siltation • borrow area will be staked to prevent accidental over-extension of the affected area TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• Ensure that all rock materials placed into the river have been prewashed. • Construct and remove the cofferdam during an appropriate low flow period (generally during the summer months). Increased sediment suspension • Ensure that construction takes the least possible time by having all construction materials and and transportation in surface necessary equipment available prior to construction or removal of the cofferdam. Low negative effect - impacts mitigated or Water quality (surface and water as a result of in-water Construction • Avoid construction and removal during the time typically associated with spawning and egg eliminated wherever possible through Yes groundwater) works construction and incubation times of warm water fish species (typically April 1 to July 15). Specific timing implementation of mitigation measures removal of cofferdams windows should be agreed to with the local MNR as part of the permitting process; • If the water velocities make it impossible to isolate the cofferdam construction from the channel using a silt curtain or equivalent, adhere to all applicable standard best management practices available to the industry;

• spill prevention and containment measures to be put in place throughout operational period • ensure that workers are adequately trained in the implementation of a prepared spill response plan and the requirements for storage and transport of hazardous material • ensure availability of spill control equipment and materials • no storage of hazardous materials within 150m of water bodies • provide impervious dikes and liners around oil, fuel and chemical storage areas • avoid in-water works during periods of high precipitation • refuel machinery on impermeable pads or pans designed to allow full containment of spills a minimum of 30m from water bodies • fuelling and maintenance activities should occur within an area where sediment erosion Impacts possible in the event of Water quality (surface and Contamination from spills or control measures and all precautions have been made to prevent oil, grease, antifreeze or other accident/malfunction; impacts mitigated or Construction & Operation Yes groundwater) leaks of hazardous substances materials from inadvertently entering the ground or the surface water flow eliminated wherever possible through • monitor area for leakage; in the unlikely event of spillage the supervising engineer would halt implementation of mitigation measures all construction activities and corrective measures would be implemented; any spills would be immediately reported to the MOE Spills Action Centre (1.800. 268.6060) • All hydrocarbon fuels, oils, and lubricants will be stored in a secondary containment area • Drip pans will be installed on equipment to intercept minor leaks • Sumps will be installed including an oil trap to prevent contaminated water from being pumped into a water course • All fuel or lubricant contaminated materials will be collected and trucked to an approved regional disposal facility, or will be treated with in situ bio-remediation techniques approved by the Proponent and Regulators

• trees and woody debris generally will be removed from the inundation area prior to headpond filling Effects possible but difficult to predict given the • Average increase in water residence times within the headponds during summer low flow available information about the dynamics of conditions will be limited to between 5 hours to 2 days (up to 5 days combined residence time mercury generation in small impoundment areas. Inundation may alter water under severe drought conditions) Water quality (surface and quality (methyl-mercury and Construction & Operation • Increased water surface area due to inundation is relative to watershed area is less than 1% The proponent has met with regulators and Yes groundwater) heavy metals) in reservoir • headpond created in association with the project will be relatively small and have well developed suitable programs for surface water and moving water compared to other hydropower projects where mercury generation has occurred Hg in fish flesh for both pre-op and post- • pre- development monitoring for mercury in fish tissue and surface water has been completed construction period based on the MOE SW and will be used as baseline information for monitoring programs in the early operational Guidance Document (Feb 2012). period. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• maximum suspended sediment concentration should not decrease the Secchi disc reading by Effects will be mitigated or eliminated wherever more than 10% possible. Post-construction monitoring will be • Limit maximum daily fluctuations of upstream water levels applied at specific locations within the project’s Increase in suspended • Limit the rate of change of upstream water levels zone of influence to confirm that no major erosion Water quality (surface and sediment due to erosion and • Limited scouring may occur in the upstream portions of the headponds and backwater areas, impacts are occurring. Should it be determined Operation Yes groundwater) intermittent facility but the impacts will be local in nature. that operations are resulting in important erosion operations • Water level fluctuations resulting from operations are not anticipated to result in major and sedimentation impacts, an adaptive erosion impacts on the channel banks in the headponds. management plan will be developed to modify • Erosion effects downstream of the tailrace area of Third Falls should not be altered operations. Additional mitigation measures will be significantly from existing conditions. developed as required.

• Minimum ecological flows have been proposed and will be finalized in consultation with regulators, which consider aquatic habitat requirements (including water quality) downstream of the facility Under normal conditions the shallow depth of the • Average increase in water residence times within the headponds during summer low flow inundation areas at the Chute and Third Falls Reduced dissolved oxygen conditions will be limited to between 5 hours to 2 days (up to 5 days combined residence time projects are not likely to result in temperature levels as a result of headpond under severe drought conditions) stratification and/or release of temperature Water quality (surface and stratification, increased water • Increased water surface area due to inundation is relative to watershed area is less than 1% Operation stratified water into the downstream channel Yes groundwater) temperature and altered • Following inundation, the headponds of the proposed Chute and Third Falls projects will which would affect dissolved oxygen levels flows and mixing downstream have an average increased depth of 1 and 1.8 m respectively. Maximum depth increases will not beyond natural conditions. Under a severe of the facilities exceed 6 m. drought scenario operations and water • Third Falls will operate as a Run of River facility and normalise the peaking operations of The temperatures may affect dissolved oxygen levels. Chute • Temporary storage would occur during night time hours when additional solar absorption is limited

• During studies, sturgeon have only found below the fastwater features 17km downstream of Lake Sturgeon are not located within the project the Third Falls facility. Species at risk and their Decrease in functionality of zone of influence. The combined facility operating • The Third Falls headpond will be operated to attenuate the peaking operations of The Chute habitat Lake Sturgeon habitat (SARO Construction & Operation strategy will create run of river flows for Sturgeon No which will maintain natural flows and levels downstream of Third Falls effectively returning (SAR) Species of Special Concern) downstream of the project and maintain the flows to run-of-river conditions. functionality of their habitat.

The areas to be cleared are small in relation to the Loss of 35.9 ha of significant • Retain an avian biologist to conduct nest searches ahead of tree removal, if trees must be abundance of habitat on the surrounding Significant earth or life wildlife habitat for the Construction removed during the breeding bird period. landscape outside of the habitat area. The impact Yes science features Canada warbler through • Remove woody vegetation outside the breeding period (April 15-Aug 8 inclusive) will be negligible in the vicinity of the project clearing of inundation area area.

Loss of significant wildlife By remaining within the high water mark, habitat • Remove woody vegetation outside the breeding period (April 15-Aug 8 inclusive) habitat for the common will remain functional. Habitat for both species is Significant earth or life • Clearing of vegetation does not pose a direct impact to valuable habitat nighthawk and the olive-sided Construction & Operation common within the area, and loss due to Yes science features • Water level to increase by a maximum of 20 cm, which is unlikely to impact nesting or flycatcher through clearing of inundation is marginal in comparison to total foraging habitat inundation area habitat in the region TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Effectiveness monitoring pre-construction will identify cavity trees suitable for bat maternity Loss of Significant wildlife • Conduct bat habitat assessments to identify the presence of maternity roosts; remove woody colonies in areas of headpond clearing. There are Significant earth or life habitat for Northern long- Construction vegetation outside bat hibernation times (September-April) no known hibernacula within the study area. The Yes science features eared bat through clearing of • Remove woody vegetation outside the bat hibernation period (September through April) loss of a relatively small amount of this forest is the inundation area not expected to have any impact on this species’ overall regional population.

Loss of rare treed significant • Seeds will be harvested from this community in 2013 and re-planted to maintain genetic 1.6 ha of this forest community will be inundated wildlife habitat - Fresh Silty to Significant earth or life integrity of the rare-treed community. by the construction of the Third Falls GS; however Fine Loamy: Elm-Ash Construction Yes science features • A nursery within Northern Ontario should be contracted to grow seedlings which this rare habitat type can be re-established after Hardwood (B105) through can be planted within suitable habitat after construction of the facilities. facility construction. clearing of inundation area

• water levels will increase by a maximum of 20cm in the river channel adjacent to Moose Aquatic Feeding Area and will be restricted to the existing high water mark and will not impact Monitor to confirm that moose continue to use Alteration of 6.5 ha of moose adjacent forest cover that is required by moose for shade and cover Moose Aquatic Feeding Habitats within the zone aquatic feeding areas as a Significant earth or life • similar wetland communities are present within the surrounding landscape of inundation. Effect minimal as impacted area result of construction Construction & Operation Yes science features • over time wetland communities will be re-establish and potentially provide additional open only represents 2% of the ELC polygon in which activities, inundation and water communities with submergent wetland plants habitat was noted. Habitat is also abundant in water level fluctuations • restrict construction vehicles to existing access routes and staging areas and minimize access surrounding area. • retain vegetation to the extent practicable

Loss/alteration of 7.2 ha of wetland habitat for marsh • Marsh breeding bird surveys will be completed pre-construction to identify breeding species Significant earth or life breeding birds as a result of of marsh birds within the wetland habitats Impacts are considered to be negligible based on Construction & Operation Yes science features construction activities, • Remove woody vegetation outside of the bird breeding period (April 15-August 8) communities present in the surrounding landscape inundation and water level • It is predicted that over time, other wetland communities will be established fluctuations

Increased erosion near area Land subject to natural or with evidence of bank Erosion control undertaken in the event that Operation • Area should be monitored for erosion due to substrate type (fine sands and clays) No human made hazards slumping upstream of Nova project is affecting current processes Road

• limit use of machinery in and around watercourses and sensitive terrestrial areas • clearly define access and transportation routes to minimize disturbance • use woody debris and non-merchantable logs from corridor clearing to establish brush piles and downed logs adjacent to the cleared right-of-way to improve habitat • allow for detour around sensitive habitat areas Construction Management Plan will be further Terrestrial wildlife General disturbance to habitat • use mechanical means (not chemical) to clear and manage vegetation refined through permitting to include protocols (numbers, diversity, Construction Yes during construction • limit removal of vegetation during construction/maintenance to maintain habitat connectivity and procedures for minimizing the disturbance to distribution) • schedule activities to avoid migratory bird and bat nesting periods wildlife during the construction program. • all construction traffic should adhere to speed limits and construction crews should be aware of the potential for wildlife crossings • any roadway mortalities of herpetofauna should be reported and a reduction in speed limits should be imposed in specific areas to prevent additional mortalities TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• Road routes will use existing trails where possible and will avoid identified values • Installing water crossings in accordance with MNR guidelines for access roads, water crossings Xeneca’s has conducted extensive desktop and culvert installation including erosion control measures; assessments to select the road alignment and will • Minimizing road widths; Terrestrial wildlife ground truth the selected route to avoid identified • Harvesting all merchantable timber; (numbers, diversity, Access road construction Construction values through the spring and early summer of Yes • Re-vegetating disturbed areas; distribution) 2013. The significance of the residual effects • Avoiding wetlands where possible and, if possible, clear during winter; associated with road construction will be • Installing gates as required to minimize hunting, fishing, etc. activities and protect determined and included in the Final ER. wildlife/fish; and • Installing speed limits to protect wildlife.

• The area of disturbance within the overall site boundaries will be kept to a minimum and Loss of vegetation and clearing will only occur where necessitated by construction. The clearing and grubbing of land will result in a Terrestrial wildlife terrestrial wildlife during • High visibility snow fencing will be installed to restrict heavy equipment traffic to the area loss of some vegetation and in turn potential (numbers, diversity, powerhouse construction Construction & Operation identified for clearing. wildlife habitat. In-direct impacts also have Yes distribution) activities - clearing, grubbing • Travel paths, stockpile areas and staging areas will be carefully planned and followed. potential to occur during active construction (i.e. and stockpiling • Vegetation clearing will occur outside of bird breeding season noise) • Any area disturbed during construction will be repaired, revegetated, and stabilized

• Where possible, avoid important habitats • Where possible, activities will be scheduled to avoid sensitive nesting, rearing, mating, or Construction Management Plan will be finalized to Terrestrial wildlife staging periods General disturbance to include instructions and protocols for minimizing (numbers, diversity, Construction & Operation • All food and food waste will be properly stored and disposed of to prevent attracting wildlife Yes wildlife the disturbance to wildlife during the construction distribution) • All Project personnel will use proper care and caution when operating vehicles to avoid program. collisions with wildlife •Wildlife are relocated as required during the work and after the work has been completed

• The one active nest was identified will be protected by a 400-800 m radius buffer. Terrestrial wildlife Construction related impacts will be mitigated Alteration of Bald Eagle • Clearing of vegetation does not pose a direct threat to bald eagle nesting. (numbers, diversity, Construction & Operation through use of buffer zones. Post-construction No habitat • The proposed water level increase is not anticipated to impact bald eagle foraging and will distribution) monitoring is not required. not impact perch trees

• Forests of this composition; structure and age are relatively common at a landscape level Loss of terrestrial habitat due • Construction vehicles will be restricted to access routes and staging areas to localized clearing and • Vegetation will be retained when possible grubbing of approximately Natural vegetation and • Trees will be felled into the proposed site when possible, and will not be felled into the Low impact - forest community type is common in 0.45ha Fresh, Clayey: Cedar – Construction Yes habitat linkages water the area Conifer (B084) forest • Clearing will comply with all applicable permits and approvals community associated with • Area for clearing and grubbing will be clearly delineated facility footprints • Brush disposed of by burning or chipping, with a preference for chipping TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• Most communities are abundant within the project region, although community type B105 Fresh Silty to Fine Loamy: Elm-Ash Hardwood is considered to be significant (see Significant Vegetation loss is an unavoidable impacts. earth or life science features; Loss of rare treed significant wildlife habitat-Fresh Silty to Fine However, the majority of ELC communities are Loss of 113.2 ha of terrestrial Loamy: Elm-Ash Hardwood (B105)) abundant in the area and not significant. Any loss habitat comprised of 10 • Construction vehicles will be restricted to access routes and staging areas Natural vegetation and to significant habitat will be mitigated different ELC forest Construction & Operation • Vegetation will be retained when possible Yes habitat linkages appropriately in context of that habitat (see communities due to • Trees will be felled into the proposed site when possible, and will not be felled into the Significant earth or life science features; Loss of inundation water rare treed significant wildlife habitat-Fresh Silty to • Clearing will comply with all applicable permits and approvals Fine Loamy: Elm-Ash Hardwood (B105) ) • Area for clearing and grubbing will be clearly delineated • Brush disposed of by burning or chipping, with a preference for chipping

• Chute headpond fluctuations will be limited to 1 m, which will affect emergent vegetation Level fluctuations above 25cm will result in • Third Falls headpond fluctuations will remain within 25 cm, which will not affect emergent permanent loss of aquatic vegetation as it will not Loss/alteration of riparian and vegetation be able to re-establish. Operational impacts will Natural vegetation and emergent vegetation in Operation • Impacts to local fish populations and their habitats and required compensation will be be monitored post-construction. The significance Yes habitat linkages headponds due to water level discussed with DFO and MNR and included in the final ER of the effect on riparian and emergent vegetation fluctuations • Post-construction shoreline vegetation surveys to determine which, if any, shoreline and productivity will be dependant on vegetation communities are establishing after dam construction compensation discussions with DFO and MNR.

• schedule construction of ROW to minimize ground disturbance (winter) • stop activities when ground conditions could potentially severely disturb soil profile (high precipitation, etc.) No impacts anticipated - proper implementation • be prepared to alter construction activities as a result of sudden thaw conditions of construction management plan and best • stabilize high traffic areas with gravel surface layer or other suitable cover material Soil and sediment quality Soil compaction Construction management practices will mitigate impacts No • establish a designated construction access route to minimize area of impact wherever possible. Soil compaction will reverse • time construction activities to minimize effects on surface vegetation and subsurface rooting naturally over time if left undisturbed. zones • vehicles and equipment access will be restricted to the minimum area necessary • conduct site reclamation activities as soon as possible following the disturbance

• transport blast rock to lay down area for stockpile and/or crushing • install mechanical erosion control measures at blast rock storage site near water body • re-use blast rock for aggregate and shoreline stabilization • apply water to dry soil/rock to minimize dust No impacts anticipated - proper implementation Management of excavated • instruct workers and equipment operators of dust control methods of construction management plan and best Soil and sediment quality materials (blast rock, fill, Construction No • install mechanical barriers to prevent run off from dust piles into water bodies management practices will mitigate impacts aggregates, etc.) • If Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) is determined to be an issue, an ARD Management Plan will be wherever possible. prepared including measures for avoidance, mitigation, and treatment methods for ARD as well as long-term storage methods for acid-generating spoils which would entail isolation of spoils from water and air to prevent leaching

Effects of project on Northern • Third Falls operations will be used to attenuate fluctuations created by storage and release Significant natural heritage Operational commitment outlined in Operation Claybelt Forest Complex Construction & Operation upstream at The Chute GS. This will create flows within natural fluctuation inside the No features and areas Plan for the facility. Conservation Reserve boundaries of the Northern Claybelt Forest Complex Conservation Reserve TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem

• Planning for flooding of new reservoirs should avoid the winter/ice over period when filling could cause direct mortality by drowning furbearing mammals in their dens • Impacts associated with construction would be limited to small areas within the structural footprint Construction related impacts will be mitigated Effects on otters and their • Inundation effects could remove existing denning sites, however new shoreline areas with through timing restrictions. Post-construction Shoreline Dependent habitat in the Third Falls suitable denning habitat will be created following inundation monitoring will be conducted to assess the impact Construction & Operation Yes Species headpond (near Nova Road • Suitable habitat for aquatic mammals is abundant in the surrounding landscape on the denning of aquatic mammals. No impacts Bridge) •Avoid initial inundation during winter or ice-free period to avoid drowning of mammals in predicted during operations due to 25 cm dens maximum fluctuation. • Post-construction monitoring to confirm that otters are still using the river for denning • Water level fluctuations will remain within 25 cm in the Third Falls headpond and will not impact denning during operations

Loss/alteration of 13.9 ha of Impacts of this loss to amphibian habitat is • Pre-construction amphibian calling surveys will be completed to identify any amphibian Wetland Dependent wetland habitat for expected to be negligible based on wetland Construction & Operation breeding within wetland communities. Yes Species amphibian species due to communities present within the surrounding • It is predicted that over time, other wetland communities would establish headpond inundation landscape

Xeneca’s has conducted extensive desktop • Some crossing structures may result in the permanent loss and alteration of fish habitat assessments to select the road alignment and will • Impacts to local fish populations and their habitats will be discussed with DFO and MNR as Alteration of habitat ground truth the selected route to avoid identified part of overall strategy for dealing with fish habitat at water crossings Fish Habitat associated with water Construction values through the spring and early summer of Yes • DFO Operational Statements will be adhered to in order to minimize impacts to fish and fish crossings for access roads 2013. The significance of the residual effects habitat. associated with road construction will be • further mitigation measures will be developed and included in final ER determined and included in the Final ER.

•The cofferdam is anticipated to be constructed in accordance with the appropriate in-water timing window dictated by the Ministry of Natural Resources in order to avoid spawning. • During construction, it is assumed that flow will be maintained uninterrupted downstream The impacts related to construction at the through staging and sequencing of construction. proposed powerhouse intake will be limited • Type A cofferdams will be used for all phases of construction (filled with clean, local granular primarily to the alteration of habitat through the Temporary disturbance to fish material) construction of the intake channel and the habitat associated with • Construction best management practices will be implemented to minimize the risk of off-site Fish Habitat Construction temporary loss of habitat related to the Yes cofferdam footprints and migration of sediments as well as adherence to in-stream timing window restrictions for construction of the coffer dam. Any sensitive dewatering construction activity. habitat temporarily disturbed by construction and • Dewatering will be done in a controlled manner so as not to discharge turbid water to the dewatering activities will be re-established receiving watercourse. following project completion • The discharge point in the receiving watercourse will be carefully chosen as an area with low scour potential (i.e. bedrock bottom) and will be monitored to ensure that the filtering is effective in removing excess sediment. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Through resurfacing the tailrace, the majority of spawning habitat lost in construction to footprint 2 will be re-established post-construction. The Alteration or loss of 6000 m remaining lost 300 m2 represents a residual effect of aquatic habitat due to 2 2 • Approximately 4700 m of the lost habitat is bedrock and not considered to be valuable to fish habitat and fish productivity and will result project footprint, 1300 m of aquatic habitat in the requirement of a Fisheries Act Authorization Fish Habitat which is walleye and white Construction 2 Yes • Approximately 1000 m of altered valuable spawning habitat in the tailrace will be returned for the HADD of fish habitat and a compensation sucker spawning to pre-construction conditions by resurfacing the area with appropriate substrates plan that will be established with DFO and MNR. habitat/benthic production habitat The significance of the effect on fish habitat and productivity will be dependant on compensation discussions with DFO and MNR.

Construction of earthen Bedrock habitat lost is not considered significant as embankment occupying an Fish Habitat Construction • The auxiliary dam will impact shoreline aquatic habitat mainly comprised of bedrock. the habitat is not important for any life stages of Yes approximate footprint impact 2 VEC fish. area of 1222m

Alteration due to inundation is unavoidable and represents a residual effect to fish habitat and fish productivity and will result in the requirement of a 2 Alteration of 1500 m of Fisheries Act Authorization for the HADD of fish valuable walleye spawning habitat and a compensation plan that will be Fish Habitat Construction • Compensation planning will be completed in consultation with MNR and DFO Yes habitat due to headpond established with DFO and MNR. inundation The significance of the effect on fish habitat and productivity will be dependant on compensation discussions with DFO and MNR.

Based on modeling, habitat should remain within the preferred velocity range for spawning. Monitoring will be undertaken to confirm. Potential alteration of 21, 000 • Modeling results show the habitat area 5 km upstream of Third Falls will experience water 2 m of walleye spawning velocities at the lower range of preferred velocity following inundation. In order to ensure Fish Habitat Construction & Operation Should habitat conditions fall outside of the Yes habitat due to headpond that this habitat remains within the preferred range, post-development monitoring will be preferred range, channel or operational inundation undertaken modifications to return the habitat within functional range will be considered in consultation with MNR and DFO

Altered benthic productivity represents a residual effect and will result in the requirement of a Fisheries Act Authorization and a compensation 2 Alteration of 20, 400 m of • year-round minimum flows of 0.5 cms in the spillway channel at The Chute will maintain the plan that will be established with DFO and MNR. Fish Habitat fastwater habitat for benthic Construction viability of some habitat Yes production • Compensation measures will be planned in consultation with DFO and MNR The significance of the effect on benthic habitat and productivity will be dependant on compensation discussions with DFO and MNR in advance of the final ER. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Pre-construction potential spawning site Alteration of Brook trout • Additional study of tributaries to detail existing spawning habitat will occur in the summer of identification and post-construction effectiveness Unknown due to Fish Habitat habitat in inundated Construction 2013. Should impacts be confirmed, compensation measures will be determined in consultation monitoring will be conducted to fill current data outstanding data tributaries with MNR and DFO gaps. Compensation for any confirmed habitat losses will be discussed with MNR and DFO

• Both facilities will implement run-of-river operations during the spring spawning period in order to maintain maximum spawning habitat functionality within the project area. Adequate flow will be maintained over spawning habitat to ensure that it continues to function Run of river operations and operational Alteration of walleye and effectively for walleye spawning and egg incubation commitment to maintain appropriate conditions Fish Habitat white sucker spawning habitat Operation No • At the Chute a minimum flow of 10 cms will be allocated to the west channel during for egg incubation and dispersal will maintain due water level fluctuations. spawning spawning habitat • In order to ensure that this habitat remains within the preferred range, post-development monitoring will be undertaken

Lost Northern Pike spawning habitat represents a residual effect and will result in the requirement of • Emergent vegetation along the shorelines of tributaries in the headpond at The Chute a Fisheries Act Authorization for the HADD of fish provides ideal habitat for Northern Pike spawning. Operational fluctuations of over 25 cm will habitat and a compensation plan that will be result in the loss of emergent vegetation established with DFO and MNR. Alteration of Northern Pike • Loss of Northern Pike habitat will be mitigated by re-vegetation of exposed habitat areas Fish Habitat spawning habitat due to Operation Yes with species tolerant to water level fluctuations or the establishment of new vegetation beds Compensation will be undertaken through re- water level fluctuation for spawning outside of the ZOI vegetation of exposed areas or through the • Run-of-river operations will be implemented during the spawning season to prevent egg creation of new aquatic vegetation beds for desiccation in remaining spawning beds spawning outside the zone of influence. Run-of- river operations during spawning will prevent desiccation of eggs.

• respect all-in water timing restrictions • isolate in-water construction area before or after in-water timing restrictions to avoid impacts • employ best management construction practices including work site isolation and sediment Changes to water quality as it control measures Construction Management Plan will be finalized to will affect fish due to • blasting will occur outside of warm water fish spawning and incubation periods (April 1 to include instructions and protocols for minimizing Fish Habitat potential erosion and Construction Yes July 15, specific requirements to be established with DFO and MNR) the disturbance to aquatic ecosystem during the sedimentation during • other blasting mitigation measures may include bubble curtains, isolation and dewatering of construction program. construction activities blast area, use of smaller charges, staggering of blasts • conduct environmental monitoring to ensure that predicted conditions are accurate • Prompt and effective clean up and restoration once construction is complete

The morphology of the river at both The Chute • the downstream falls at Third Falls represent a likely barrier/impediment to upstream fish and Third Falls represent barriers to upstream fish Fish migration Upstream fish passage Operation movement. passage, the proposed projects should not present No • the vertical drops at The Chute location also restrict upstream fish passage additional impacts to upstream fish passage and migration. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

It is reasonable to assume that passage events are • Minimum ecological flows have been proposed and will be finalized in consultation with currently linked to high flow situations when regulators higher than normal velocities carry fish Fish migration Downstream fish passage Operation Yes • During periods of high flow, when active spilling is occurring, fish will most likely continue to downstream. Therefore the development is not pass downstream, through the west channel. anticipated to impact significantly on downstream passage as this opportunity will remain.

See Fish Habitat Section Fisheries above

• Use of explosives will be controlled to minimize effects to fish and fish habitat • Blasting program will be designed using the "Guidelines for the Use of Explosives In or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters" Minimal impacts possible following mitigation. A Fish injury or mortality during • Restrictions on instantaneous pressure increase in open water Fisheries Act Authorization to destroy fish by Fish injury or mortality construction and blasting Construction Yes • Restrictions on types of explosives means other than fishing from DFO may be activities • MNR in-water timing window restrictions required. • Use of bubble curtains or blast mats, removal of fish prior to blasting, smaller charges and staggered blasts

• Fish salvage will be undertaken by a registered biologist in the area to be dewatered in order to prevent stranding and mortality. Minimal impacts possible following mitigation. A Fish injury or mortality due to • Type A cofferdams will be used Fisheries Act Authorization to destroy fish by Fish injury or mortality cofferdams and dewatering Construction Yes • All rock materials placed in river will be prewashed means other than fishing from DFO may be activities • Construction time period minimized to the greatest extent possible required. • Avoid cofferdam construction and removal during spawning period

• rapidly decreasing flows during modified run-of-river operations may strand fish Fish stranding due to • Operational monitoring will document any stranding that may occur Monitoring will determine whether mitigative Fish injury or mortality operational headpond Operation Yes • Mitigation, if stranding is identified, includes habitat adjustments at key areas or restrictions strategies are necessary fluctuations on down ramping allowing more fish to escape exposed areas

• Engineer facility intake and design velocities to account for fish swimming capabilities; entrance velocity will be 0.75 m/s • Trash racks will be installed at each turbine with spacing of 48 mm Some entrainment and impingement is expected, Fish impingement or • If intake structures cannot be designed with low velocities potential modifications can be however these occurrences will be minimal due to Fish injury or mortality entrainment resulting in injury Operation Yes made to prevent entrainment and impingement including lighting, electrical barriers, air mitigation measures. Monitoring will occur post- or mortality bubbling and sound barriers. construction. • Juveniles and small bodied fish will likely continue to pass through the trash racks, however smaller fish are more likely to survive passing through the turbines TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• Areas will be identified in advance of construction and receive added protection and scrutiny during routine construction inspections particularly during the periods before and after rain events. • Sediment and erosion control measures will be installed prior to construction and maintained diligently throughout the construction operations. • Planting of vegetative cover will then follow in the next growing season. • Maintenance and inspection of the vegetative cover will continue until such time as the Overland flow paths within disturbed areas are sufficiently stabilized through vegetative growth to prevent overland runoff the construction areas have Erosion and of suspended materials. Adhere to all applicable standard best the potential to carry Construction No sedimentation • If construction finishes in a cleared area, with insufficient time left in the growing season to management practices available to the industry construction-related sediment establish vegetative cover, an overwintering treatment such as erosion control blankets, fibre to the watercourse. matting or equivalent will be applied to contain the site over the winter period. • Stockpile and staging areas will be well removed from the watercourse and be isolated with sediment and erosion control measures to prevent migration of material to the watercourse and natural areas. • Excess material from in-water excavation will be removed immediately from the channel area and temporarily stockpiled in suitable locations identified by the design drawings and on-site areas approved by an environmental inspector.

• Geomorphic studies have shown very few signs of channel instability • Third Falls to attenuate any fluctuations downstream of the facility Operations will be established to minimise erosion Increased shoreline erosion • Limit maximum daily fluctuations of upstream water levels where possible. Follow-up monitoring will be Erosion and and sediment deposition due • Limit the rate of change of upstream water levels Operation completed to determine where erosion and Yes sedimentation to inundation and water level • Where the erosion survey has identified potential for shoreline erosion or ice scour, inspect sedimentation are occurring as a result of fluctuations and monitor for signs of erosion through monitoring stations over the first five years of operations operation to document degree of erosion and develop and implement additional mitigation measures as required

• Limit maximum daily fluctuations of upstream water levels • Limit the rate of change of upstream water levels • Facility will operate as a modified run of river facility with run of river operation during A headpond will be required for the project and Water levels, flows and Increase in water level and Operation extreme high and low flow periods of the year residence times will increase. However, effects of Yes movement (surface water) residency time in headpond • Average increase in water residence times within the headponds during summer low flow this change should not be significant conditions will be limited to between 5 hours to 2 days and up to 5 days combined residence time under severe drought conditions

DFO authorization for seasonal minimum • Facility will operate as a modified run of river facility (run of river operation during extreme environmental flow in variable flow reach will be high and low flow periods of the year) Variation in flows within sought following consultation with regulators and Water levels, flows and • The operation of the Third Falls headpond will moderate and re-naturalise the flows from downstream variable flow Operation incorporated into the approved operating plan for Yes movement (surface water) the Chute reach below the Chute the facility. Final operations plan and ER will be • Specific flows and flow allocation between the east and west channels at the Chute are still updated to reflect operational discussions with under discussion with MNR. The results of these discussions will inform the final ER. MNR.

Changes to the effective • The Montcalm Mine outlet is located approximately 50 km away from the proposed project No impact anticipated - The dilution of effluents Water levels, flows and dilution of effluents from the sites, downstream of the confluence with the Groundhog River. Operation from Montcalm Mine will not be affected by No movement (surface water) Montcalm Mine as a result of • Third Falls will operate as a Run of River facility and normalise the peaking operations of The operations at The Chute GS and Third Falls GS. variable flows Chute TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Impacts of variable flows on No impact anticipated - The sewage treatment Water levels, flows and • The Foleyet sewage treatment plant is located 20 km upstream of the proposed Chute GS, sewage treatment plant in Operation plant is located beyond the project's zone of No movement (surface water) and 14 km upstream of the anticipated upper limit of the inundation zone Foleyet influence

• Headpond volume limited to approximately 275,000 m3 which represents no more than a few hours water storage during intermittent operations • Average increase in water residence times within the headponds during summer low flow conditions will be limited to between 5 hours to 2 days (up to 5 days combined residence time Under normal conditions the shallow depth of the under severe drought conditions) inundation depths the Chute and Third Falls Changes to thermal regime of Changes to overall • Increased water surface area due to inundation is relative to watershed area is less than 1% projects are not likely to result in temperature waterway within headpond thermal regime of Operation • Following inundation, the headponds of the proposed Chute and Third Falls projects will stratification and/or release of temperature Yes as a result of inundation and waterway have an average increased depth of 1 and 1.8 m respectively. Maximum depth increases will not stratified water into the downstream channel. storage exceed 6 m. Under a severe drought scenario water • Third Falls will operate as a Run of River facility and normalise the peaking operations of The temperature may experience a slight increase. Chute • Temporary storage would occur during night time hours when additional solar absorption is limited

• Limit maximum daily fluctuations of upstream water levels (1m at the Chute, 0.25m at Third Falls) • Limit the rate of change of upstream water levels • Third Falls will operate as a Run of River facility and normalise the peaking operations of The Drainage, flooding and Alteration from natural Chute Effects possible - dynamic modeling shows facility Operation Yes drought patterns patterns • Both facilities will operate as run of river operation during extreme high and low flow will modify normal flooding patterns periods of the year • Final facility design to ensure flood passage capacity and public safety issues are adequate to meet the requirements of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act approval following the completion of the EA

Aboriginal Community

• Xeneca met with local aboriginal community on site to investigate and identify potential CMTs • Prior to construction a forester will identify and delineate buffers around mature trees which will be fenced for the duration of construction Project construction may • Fencing will be placed to avoid impacts within the tree's drip line and inspected regularly Identified CMTs will not be affected by Spiritual, ceremonial, result in impacts to culturally • Heavy equipment will be utilised with caution to avoid impacts to the tree's canopy construction. Xeneca will continue with ongoing cultural, archaeological or modified trees (CMTs) on an Construction No • The identified culturally modified trees are located outside of clearing areas and will not be engagement and consultation with Aboriginal burial sites island downstream of the removed communities after completion of EA. proposed Chute project site. • Trees will be clearly marked and shielded from flyrock during construction. • Workers will be advised to follow the Discovery Protocol and to notify their supervisor immediately for instructions if they encounter any trees they suspect may have been culturally modified

• Xeneca met with local aboriginal community on site to investigate and identify potential culturally significant trees Project construction may • Prior to construction a forester will identify and delineate buffers around mature trees which Identified culturally significant trees will not be Spiritual, ceremonial, result in impacts to a stand of will be fenced for the duration of construction affected by construction Xeneca will continue with cultural, archaeological or culturally significant eastern Construction No • Fencing will be placed to avoid impacts within the tree's drip line and inspected regularly ongoing engagement and consultation with burial sites white cedar trees near the • Heavy equipment will be utilised with caution to avoid impacts to the tree's canopy Aboriginal communities after completion of EA. truck turn around area • The identified significant trees are located outside of clearing areas and will not be removed, • Trees will be clearly marked TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• Workers will be advised to follow the Discovery Protocol and to notify their supervisor Xeneca will continue with ongoing engagement Project construction may Spiritual, ceremonial, immediately for instructions if they encounter any trees they suspect may have been culturally and consultation with Aboriginal communities result in the removal of cultural, archaeological or Construction modified after completion of EA. An acceptable protocol for Yes culturally significant cedar burial sites • An estimate of the number of mature cedar trees that may be removed for the project has the removal of the trees will be developed with trees in the inundation area been made, and a protocol for their removal will be developed with the community. the community.

• At all times there will be flow provided downstream Resolution of this issue is difficult given differences Spiritual, ceremonial, Spirit, (movement) of the • This minimum value will vary monthly based upon base flow conditions and will range from in cultural perceptions. Xeneca will continue with cultural, archaeological or water to be impeded by Construction & Operation 20 cms during the spring (freshet) and a minimum of 3 cms (during the dry summer months). Yes ongoing engagement and consultation with burial sites construction of the dam. • Third Falls will operate as a run-of-river facility. Downstream of Third Falls the river flow Aboriginal communities. will be the same as the pre project condition.

• The area of disturbance within the overall site boundaries will be kept to a minimum and The clearing and grubbing of land will result in a Project construction may result clearing will only occur where necessitated by construction. Spiritual, ceremonial, loss of some vegetation though clearing will be in the removal of culturally • High visibility snow fencing will be installed to restrict heavy equipment traffic to the area cultural, archaeological or significant medicinal plants (such Construction limited where possible. Xeneca will continue with Yes identified for clearing. burial sites as sage, sweetgrass, tobacco ongoing engagement and consultation with • Travel paths, stockpile areas and staging areas will be carefully planned and followed. etc.) Aboriginal communities after completion of EA. • Any area disturbed during construction will be repaired, revegetated, and stabilized

• limit use of machinery in and around watercourses and sensitive terrestrial areas • clearly define access and transportation routes to minimize disturbance • use woody debris and non-merchantable logs from corridor clearing to establish brush piles Construction Management Plan will be finalized to and downed logs adjacent to the cleared right-of-way to improve habitat include protocols and procedures for minimizing • allow for detour around sensitive habitat areas Spiritual, ceremonial, Development may impact plant the disturbance to wildlife during the construction or animal species of cultural or • use mechanical means (not chemical) to clear and manage vegetation within ROW cultural, archaeological or Construction & Operation program. Yes spiritual significance to • limit removal of vegetation during construction/maintenance to maintain habitat connectivity burial sites Xeneca will continue with ongoing engagement communities (bears, wolves etc.) • schedule activities to avoid migratory nesting periods and consultation with Aboriginal communities • all construction traffic should adhere to speed limits and construction crews should be aware after completion of EA. of the potential for wildlife crossings • any roadway mortalities of herpetofauna should be reported and a reduction in speed limits should be imposed in specific areas to prevent additional mortalities

• existing falls at both facility locations present a barrier to navigation • provide for and maintain portage and canoe passage around the site to ensure safe passage Navigation and portages will be affected during during and following construction construction. Effects possible during operation. Spiritual, ceremonial, Development of the dam will present a barrier to navigation • Existing portage routes will be maintained wherever possible Safe navigation passage will be provided for cultural, archaeological or Construction & Operation Yes and may conflict with traditional • consult with MNR and local users to determine periods of use and potential mitigation recreational users of the river. Portage routes will burial sites lifeways of communities strategies be subject to review under the Navigable Waters • Maintain portages or identify alternate routes if existing routes are within construction area. Protection Act • Install signage at portage entrances. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• Implement standard construction site best management practises Quality and Clarity of water may • Contractors will have prepared and will follow a Care of Water plan Spiritual, ceremonial, • Time activities to minimize impact to water quality and clarity, and minimize the duration of be affected by development, Low negative impacts - impacts reduced through cultural, archaeological or which would impact an important Construction & Operation activities Yes mitigation where ever possible burial sites cultural and spiritual value for • isolate cofferdam construction with a silt curtain or equivalent; if unable, then adhere to all many communities applicable standard best management practises • See Water Quality (surface and groundwater) section above

The loss of culturally used Cedar, Ash, birch, tamarack, and • The area of disturbance within the overall site boundaries will be kept to a minimum and The clearing and grubbing of land will result in a spruce trees surrounding the clearing will only occur where necessitated by construction. Spiritual, ceremonial, loss of some vegetation though clearing will be Project site as a result of project • High visibility snow fencing will be installed to restrict heavy equipment traffic to the area cultural, archaeological or activities and flooding may Construction limited where possible. Xeneca will continue with Yes identified for clearing. burial sites impact community cultural and ongoing engagement and consultation with • Travel paths, stockpile areas and staging areas will be carefully planned and followed. spiritual activities as well as Aboriginal communities after completion of EA. production of traditional tools • Any area disturbed during construction will be repaired, revegetated, and stabilized and traditional lifeways

• limit disruptions to traffic flow by maintaining adequate access along travelled routes, and alternate access if required • avoid sensitive time periods and advise residents of planned activities that may cause a disruption in schedule • monitor condition of gravel roads and if construction traffic is causing damage, that repairs Recreational fishing is a significant driver for are undertaken promptly tourism operators on the Ivanhoe River. Further Impacts to aboriginal run tourism Employment Construction & Operation • Public trails will be maintained through the work area (where safe to do so) or be information is required about the significance of Yes operators on the waterway temporarily rerouted using appropriate measures (signage etc.) showing alternative routes to residual effects on fish and fish habitat prior to the ensure continued safety for recreational users of the trail system. completion of the Final EA. • install gates and fencing • Xeneca offered the use of landscaping and other measures to be employed to reduce visual impact. • access to fishing areas will be maintained and possibly enhanced.

• Planning for flooding of new reservoirs should avoid the winter/ice over period when filling could cause direct mortality by drowning furbearing mammals in their dens • Impacts associated with construction would be limited to small areas within the structural Furbearing mammals may be impacted by fluctuating water footprint Construction related impacts will be mitigated • Inundation effects could remove existing denning sites, however new shoreline areas with through timing restrictions. Post-construction Traditional land or levels in the headpond during the winter months and alteration suitable denning habitat will be created following inundation monitoring will be conducted to assess the impact resources used for Operation Yes of habitat resulting in a change in • Suitable habitat for aquatic mammals is abundant in the surrounding landscape on the denning of aquatic mammals. No impacts harvesting activities trapping which may impact •Avoid initial inundation during winter or ice-free period to minimize drowning of mammals in predicted during operations due to 25 cm traditional lifeways and economic dens maximum fluctuation. resources of aboriginal peoples. • Post-construction monitoring to confirm that otters are still using the river for denning • Water level fluctuations will remain within 25 cm and will not impact denning during operations TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• Activities will be scheduled to avoid sensitive nesting, rearing, mating, or staging periods • All food and food waste will be properly stored and disposed of to prevent attracting wildlife Construction Management Plan will be finalized to Development activities may impact use of the area by • All project personnel will use proper care and caution when operating vehicles to avoid include instructions and protocols for minimizing Traditional land or waterfowl for foraging and collisions with wildlife the disturbance to wildlife during the construction resources used for nesting activities which could Construction & Operation • Wildlife are relocated as required during the work and after the work has been completed program. Yes harvesting activities impact subsistence, harvesting, • Marsh breeding bird surveys will be completed pre-construction to identify breeding species hunting and cultural activities of of marsh birds within the wetland habitats Impacts are considered to be negligible based on communities • Remove woody vegetation outside of the bird breeding period (April 15-August 8) communities present in the surrounding landscape • It is predicted that over time, other wetland communities would establish

• access will be restricted around the facility and associated infrastructure to address security Hunting, harvesting, foraging and public safety Low negative impacts - Access restriction is limited Traditional land or and trapping activities may be • access will be maintained to the waterway and around the facility (boat launch and portages) and there is abundant similar area available both resources used for disrupted by construction Construction Yes • Water management planning principles taken into account during project planning and upstream and downstream of the projects for harvesting activities activities (being unable to access site areas) incorporated into operating plan for the facility activities. • Consultation with MNR SIP has identified no trap lines within the projects area of influence

• The area of disturbance within the overall site boundaries will be kept to a minimum and clearing will only occur where necessitated by construction. Traditional land or Development activities may impact food bearing plants and • High visibility snow fencing will be installed to restrict heavy equipment traffic to the area The clearing and grubbing of land will result in a resources used for Construction & Operation Yes impact foraging and harvesting identified for clearing. loss of some vegetation. harvesting activities activities of some communities • Travel paths, stockpile areas and staging areas will be carefully planned and followed. • Any area disturbed during construction will be repaired, revegetated, and stabilized

Fish species health and abundance may be impacted by Traditional land or Further information is required about the activities related to development, • Xeneca will be conducting field surveys for Brook Trout through the summer of 2013 resources used for thus impacting harvesting and Construction & Operation significance of residual effects on fish and fish Yes • Compensation for any confirmed habitat losses will be discussed with MNR and DFO harvesting activities subsistence activities of certain habitat prior to the completion of the Final EA. communities during specific times of the year

Habitat changes as a result of Monitor to confirm that moose continue to use • restrict construction vehicles to existing access routes and staging areas and minimize access Traditional land or development may result in Moose Aquatic Feeding Habitats within the zone changes in populations of large • retain vegetation to the extent practicable resources used for Construction & Operation of inundation. Effect minimal as impacted area Yes game such as moose and • Connection line poles should be situated at either end of a wetland to eliminate the need for harvesting activities only represents 2% of the total habitat area in the caribou which communities rely pole installation within the wetland limits on for food and other products region

Project located on any First Project Sites are not located on any First Nations Lands subject to land Nations reserve lands or lands • Memorandums of Understanding with identified local communities are being negotiated, asserted rights reserve lands or lands allocated to any other aboriginal Construction & Operation No claims allocated to any other aboriginal to traditional hunting and harvesting will be maintained in treaty areas. community. The Project is located within an area community. covered under Treaty 9. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Resolution of this issue is difficult given differences Culturally significant in cultural perceptions. To meet construction • proponent will consider alternative dam design and construction methodology to utilise Rivers and waterways - waterway, some local standards, portions of the facilities will need to be Construction & Operation alternate materials and methods (rock fill, etc.) to minimise the use of concrete wherever Yes Culturally significant communities opposed to use constructed with concrete. Ongoing engagement possible of concrete in waterways and consultation with Aboriginal communities will continue after completion of EA

• trees and woody debris generally will be removed from the inundation area prior to headpond filling • Average increase in water residence times within the headponds during summer low flow Effects possible but difficult to predict given the conditions will be limited to between 5 hours to 2 days (up to 5 days combined residence time available information about the dynamics of Increase in methyl mercury under severe drought conditions) mercury generation in small impoundments. concentrations in waterway and • Increased water surface area due to inundation is relative to watershed area is less than 1% increase in mercury Other Operation • headpond created in association with the project will be relatively small and have well The proponent has met with regulators and Yes contamination in the local fish population impact community moving water compared to other hydropower projects where mercury generation has occurred developed suitable programs for surface water and health. • pre- development monitoring for mercury in fish tissue and surface water has been completed Hg in fish flesh for both pre-op and post- and will be used as baseline information for monitoring programs in the early operational construction period based on the MOE SW period. Guidance Document (Feb 2012). • existing mercury concentrations in large fish in the project area exceed provincial and federal consumption guidelines.

• Minimum ecological flows have been proposed and will be finalized in consultation with regulators, which consider aquatic habitat requirements (including water quality) downstream Under normal conditions the shallow depth of the of the facility inundation and conceptual design facilities and • Average increase in water residence times within the headponds during summer low flow inundation depths the Chute and Third Falls Increase in temperature and conditions will be limited to between 5 hours to 2 days (up to 5 days combined residence time projects are not likely to result in temperature water quality impacts could under severe drought conditions) stratification and/or release of temperature Other Operation Yes adversely impact local • Increased water surface area due to inundation is relative to watershed area is less than 1% stratified water into the downstream channel communities • Following inundation, the headponds of the proposed Chute and Third Falls projects will which would affect dissolved oxygen levels have an average increased depth of 1 and 1.8 m respectively. Maximum depth increases will not beyond natural conditions. Under a severe exceed 6 m. drought scenario operations and water • Third Falls will operate as a Run of River facility and normalise the peaking operations of The temperatures may affect dissolved oxygen levels. Chute

Visual impacts of the facility Ongoing engagement and consultation with Other could interfere with cultural Construction & Operation • An artistic rendering was prepared and provided to the local aboriginal community for their review. No representations of the landscape Aboriginal communities will continue.

Land and Resource Use

Effects possible - road upgrades and ongoing Facilitation of access to • Install gates, fencing and signage to limit unauthorised public access maintenance activities could result in increased general area as a result of • Operational staff to monitor for signs of unauthorised access and report to appropriate local Access Operation access to the area. Xeneca will monitor impacts Yes upgrades/maintenance of area authorities/MNR and consult with users to mitigate any negative access roads and bridges • Restrict vehicles to access roads only impacts while maintaining benefits. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• access will be restricted in the immediate area of the facility and associated infrastructure to Access restriction is limited and there is abundant Reduced public access to address security and public safety similar area available both upstream and Access water and land areas in Construction & Operation • access will be maintained to the waterway and around the facility (boat launch and portages) Yes downstream of the projects for recreational proximity to facilities • Water management planning principles taken into account during project planning and activities. incorporated into operating plan for the facility

• Select transportation routes to minimize effects on community traffic patterns and levels. Road Traffic; Disruption of • Provide roadside warning and flagmen, road closures, speed restrictions, truck lighting, load No significant impacts anticipated – proper remote areas via additional restrictions, and equipment inspections as required implementation of best management practices will Access Construction No road traffic carrying heavy • Access to construction areas would be limited; presence of construction vehicles will be clearly mitigate concerns and return resource to baseline construction equipment indicated via appropriate signage levels following construction • Surveys show limited traffic on existing access roads

• provide for and maintain portage and canoe passage around the site to ensure safe passage. The Ivanhoe River is a • Existing portage routes will be maintained wherever possible Short term low negative impacts until construction recognized canoe route; • consult with MNR and local users to determine periods of use and potential mitigation is completed. Safe navigation passage will be Navigation project construction and Construction strategies provided for recreational users of the river. Yes components may impede • Install signage at portage entrances. Portage routes will be subject to review under the navigation • Installation of appropriate signage, safety boons and nautical markers in accordance to Navigable Waters Protection Act Transport Canada’s requirement

Impacts to riparian Riparian rights or No riparian landowners will be affected by the landowners associated with Operation • the project and inundation will be located entirely on Crown land No privileges development inundation

Positive impact - Xeneca is willing to make some Potential impacts to the boat • provide for and maintain portage and canoe passage around the site. modest improvements to the current boat launch, launch downstream of the • Boat launch potentially enhanced. such as securing boat launch location and design, Recreational use Operation Yes Chute either through access or • consult with MNR and local boaters to determine periods of use and minimum water level based on stakeholder input, though prior approval water level fluctuation requirements is required by the MNR and other regulatory agencies.

• No OFSC trails in the vicinity of both projects, though ice-fishing reported to occur near the Potential impacts to Chute project. Recreational use snowmobiling/ATV use due Operation Low negative impacts anticipated. Yes • Consult with MNR and local users to determine periods of use and potential mitigation to roads strategies

Popular recreational camping • Xeneca offered the use of landscaping and other measures to be employed to reduce visual area is located adjacent to the Low negative impact- Xeneca will work together Recreational use Construction & Operation impact. Yes Chute; reduced recreational with recreational users in the area. • design facility to reduce noise emissions beyond the powerhouse. enjoyment of campsite.

Public access and hiking trail • provide for and maintain access on hiking trails around the site to ensure safe passage. on Eastern shore near the • Existing routes will be maintained wherever possible Low negative impact- Xeneca will work together Recreational use Chute; access to general area, Construction • consult with MNR and local users to determine periods of use and potential mitigation Yes with recreational users in the area. reduced recreational strategies enjoyment of trails. • Maintain trails or identify alternate routes if existing routes are within construction area.

• keep trap lines and trails clear of slash No impact anticipated - impacts to the habitat of Angling, hunting Effects on bear and moose • minimize alteration and turbidity of fish habitat targeted species are anticipated to be negligible in Construction & Operation No opportunities hunting • minimize harassment of wildlife proportion to the availability of suitable habitat • keep staging areas tidy and free of litter surrounding the area. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Effects on local fishing Further information is required about the Angling, hunting • Should economic impact on commercial interests be ascertained, Xeneca will enter into opportunity due to altered Construction and Operation significance of residual effects on fish and fish Yes opportunities discussions on avoidance, mitigation and /or compensation habitat habitat prior to the completion of the Final EA.

Project activities on trapping Trapping Construction & Operation • Consultation with MNR SIP has identified no trap lines within the projects area of influence No traplines will be affected by the development No lines in the area

Baitfish harvesting • Consultation with MNR SIP has identified no bait fish harvesting areas within the projects No baitfish harvesting will be affected by the No issues Construction & Operation No activities area of influence development

• Maintaining or enhancing vegetative buffers between the river, roads, and any ancillary The projects will permanently works should be a consideration during detailed design to preserve the aesthetic quality alter the local landscape by • Minimize site clearing. Landscape to rehabilitate the construction site. inundating the Ivanhoe River. • Apply Best Management Practices and traffic planning to contain construction equipment in Access roads will also alter the designated work areas. Negative impact anticipated due to construction Views or Aesthetics viewscape in the local area. Construction & Operation Yes • Use natural materials in the new structures wherever practicable. and operation of the dams. The powerhouse/dam • Use landscaping to rehabilitate the construction area in keeping the surrounding conditions structure will change the local and traditional recreation uses landscape in the immediate • Vegetation will be re-established and maintained below the height of the transmission line vicinity of Ivanhoe River due to safety and line maintenance requirements.

• The development will conform to the principles of the existing Mattagami River Water Management plan so The Ivanhoe River is An existing land or • WMP will be updated to account for the Chute and Third Falls projects Ongoing engagement and consultation with managed under the resource management Operation • The construction of the Chute and Third Falls projects to the WMP will not affect the Mattagami WMP SAC will continue after No Mattagami water plan operations of other facilities completion of EA management plan • Water management planning principles taken into account during project planning and incorporated into operating plan for the facility

• restrict clearing to approved right-of-way to minimize area of impact Positive impact - Timber removal represents a Harvesting of merchantable Forestry Construction • negotiate with license holder and MNR to permit for the harvesting/clearing of forest potential benefit to local SFL holder by Yes timber during construction resources within the proposed inundation area/road construction prior to construction/flooding sale/processing of merchantable timber.

• make useable fuel wood available to local communities No impacts anticipated - following removal of Processing of non- • chip brush and slash to minimize fire hazards Forestry Construction merchantable timber, ROW and inundation area No merchantable timber • site ROW along existing access where possible to limit soil/habitat disturbance will be maintained. • ROW maintenance should be completed using mechanical (not chemical) controls

Four mining claims partially contained within the Third • Four mining claims in vicinity as verified through CLAIMMAPS on Feb 12, 2013. Withdrawal Mine claims Construction & Operation No impacts anticipated No Falls project area (held by order under Mining Act Section 35 surface rights only withdrawn for potential waterpower Xtrata) sites. Cultural Heritage Resource Considerations

Disturbance or destruction to • Stage 1 archaeological review identified areas or high archaeological potential within the No impacts anticipated - Since no evidence for significant archaeological sites project area archaeological resources were identified in the Archaeological sites Construction & Operation No associated with construction • Stage 2 assessment did not identify any archaeological resources located in the study area for Stage 2 assessment report. a Stage 3 study is not or inundation both the Chute and Third Falls projects. required. Thus, no further action required. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Disturbance or destruction to Unknown due to • Xeneca will be conducting Stage 1 and 2 assessments along identified road alignments in the Results of assessments will be included in the Final Archaeological sites significant archaeological sites Construction outstanding data and spring of 2013. ER along access roads information

Disturbance or destruction to • Results of Stage 1 did not identify potential for built heritage structures within the project Buildings or structures heritage buildings or Construction & Operation No further action required. No area. structures

No impacts anticipated - Since no cultural Cultural heritage Disturbance or destruction to • Results of Stage 1 did not identify potential for cultural heritage landscapes within the project resources were identified in the study area during Construction & Operation No landscapes cultural heritage landscapes area. Stage 2 study confirmed that there were no cultural resources present at either site the Stage 2 assessment, a Stage 3 study is not required. Thus, no further action required.

Social and Economic The location of people, Impacts to riparian property No riparian landowners will be affected by the businesses, institutions or Construction & Operation • No private riparian land exists within the projects area of influence No or businesses development public facilities

Tourism and enjoyment • access will be restricted around the facility and associated infrastructure to address security Access restriction is limited and there is abundant The location of people, values might be negatively and public safety similar area available both upstream and businesses, institutions or affected due to construction, Construction • access will be maintained to the waterway and around the facility (boat launch and portages) Yes downstream of the projects for recreational public facilities restricted pathways and other • Water management planning principles taken into account during project planning and activities. activities incorporated into operating plan for the facility

• All vehicles and equipment used during operation or maintenance must use effective exhaust Effects of noise pollution on and intake mufflers. Community character, recreational users camping, • Observe applicable municipal bylaws, the Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law A short-term negative impact until construction is enjoyment of property or canoeing, fishing, and hunting Construction & Operation • Limit construction to daylight hours as necessary to limit potential on wildlife and people completed. Based on noise screening, project will Yes local amenities in close proximity to the • Prior to commencing operation an Environmental Compliance Approval – Noise (ECA be compliant with the MOE's NPC guidelines project –Noise) must be obtained • Noise and vibration monitoring as required

• Direct employment: the employment created in the construction industry (usually on-site) as a result of the development of the Project by promoting contract bids and offers of service from local communities like Chapleau, Foleyet, Timmins and other surrounding areas. • Indirect employment: Place a strong preference on local spending where possible for goods Construction activities will Employment - Local and and services like trucking, gas, food and accommodation during the construction phase of the Positive impact - construction and operation support direct and indirect Construction Yes regional labour supply Ivanhoe projects represents a potential benefit to local communities local employment • Induced employment: employment created in the total economy resulting from the expenditure of income generated through the direct and indirect impacts. This can lead to a multiplier effect because an injection of extra income in the community leads to more spending, which creates more income.

Operation and management • Encourage local spending where possible for goods and services like trucking, gas, food and Long term Positive impact – operation of the Employment - Local and of project facilities will lead Operation accommodation in sufficient quantity and at competitive cost throughout the duration of the projects represents a potential benefit to local Yes regional labour supply to one to two full-time operation phase of the projects. communities positions TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Construction of project will • Use of local labor force during construction phase will be maximized by utilizing suitable skill involve influx of temporary sets anticipated to be available in the nearby communities Local, regional or workers which may affect • Create a short-term increase for rental housing in Foleyet, Timmins and Chapleau Short-term effects on - construction activities Construction Yes provincial economies local population by addition • Potential for additional demand on local public services such as waste disposal, health care, represents potential benefit to local communities of strain on resources and police, housing, food and gas during construction may lead to expansion of services in the infrastructure general area.

• install gates and fencing • consult with MNR and local users to determine periods of use and potential mitigation strategies • Maintaining or enhancing vegetative buffers between the river, roads, and any ancillary Remote tourism operators works should be a consideration during detailed design to preserve the aesthetic quality potential increase of public • Minimize site clearing. Landscape to rehabilitate the construction site. Local, regional or access through new road • Apply Best Management Practices and traffic planning to contain construction equipment in Operation Low negative impact. Yes provincial economies construction may deter designated work areas. tourists and affect remoteness • Use natural materials in the new structures wherever practicable. of area • Use landscaping to rehabilitate the construction area in keeping the surrounding conditions and traditional recreation uses • Vegetation will be re-established and maintained below the height of the transmission line due to safety and line maintenance requirements. • Apply Best Management Practices

• project personnel will be prepared and be familiar with the site Fire Preparedness Plan • fire fighting equipment will be available to all workers and the location of such equipment will be outlined in the Fire Preparedness Plan • Locations of equipment and muster points will be advertised as necessary around the site No impacts anticipated - proper implementation Public health and/or Forest or brush fires caused as • project personnel will be familiar with fire-fighting techniques and the use of supplied of construction management plan and best Construction & Operation No safety a result of project activities equipment management practices will mitigate impacts • uncontrolled fires will be immediately reported to the nearest fire emergency service and the wherever possible. MNR in the case of an uncontrolled fire on Crown land • smoking will only be permitted in designated smoking areas equipped with fire extinguishers • disposal and storage of waste will be into proper waste containers to prevent fires

No impacts anticipated - proper implementation Public health and/or Accidental Spills as a result of of construction management plan and best Construction • Project personnel will be prepared and be familiar with the Spills Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan for the project sites No safety project activity management practices will mitigate impacts wherever possible.

• provide and maintain routes for the public to be able to bypass the site (portage, etc.) • All roadwork will follow MNR Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings (1990) • Implementation of transportation planning and safety measures during construction • Restriction of public access to the site during construction (fencing, signage, etc.) No impacts anticipated - proper implementation Public health and/or Safety issues associated with • proper barriers and warning devices installed following construction to restrict public access of construction management plan and best Construction No safety facility construction to intake/tailrace areas during operation, including safety booms, fencing and signage management practices will mitigate impacts • Public trails will be maintained through the work area (where safe to do so) or be wherever possible. temporarily rerouted using appropriate measures (signage etc.) showing alternative routes to ensure continued safety for recreational users of the trail system. • Public use of the waterway (e.g. kayaking, fishing, swimming) will be restricted in the immediate vicinity of the projects for safety reasons. TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

Safety issues concerning • A public safety measures plan will be developed for the site to identify hazards and suggest No impacts anticipated - proper implementation Public health and/or navigation and recreation mitigation measures to address identified safety issues Operation of public safety measures plan will mitigate No safety associated with facility • proper barriers and warning devices installed following construction to restrict public access impacts wherever possible. operation to intake/tailrace areas during operation, including safety booms, fencing and signage

• Appropriate disposal containers will be available for the prompt disposal of waste • full disposal containers will be removed to the appropriate waste disposal facility on a regular basis • Organic/food waste will be collected daily and stored in closed, animal resistant containers No impacts anticipated - proper implementation until disposed of at an approved waste disposal site or incinerated on-site according to project Public health and/or Production of waste in and of construction management plan and best Construction & Operation permitting standards No safety around work site management practices will mitigate impacts • keep staging areas tidy and free of litter wherever possible. • Bear awareness training will be provided to all Project personnel. • Implement a waste collection and disposal system which will include good site practices such as systematic collection of waste with any associated on-site storage in weather-protected areas and careful disposal of waste at a registered waste disposal site.

• trees and woody debris generally will be removed from the inundation area prior to headpond filling • Average increase in water residence times within the headponds during summer low flow Effects possible but difficult to predict given the conditions will be limited to between 5 hours to 2 days (up to 5 days combined residence time available information about the dynamics of under severe drought conditions) mercury generation in small impoundments. Water contamination due to • Increased water surface area due to inundation is relative to watershed area is less than 1% Public health and/or methyl mercury or other Construction & Operation • headpond created in association with the project will be relatively small and have well The proponent has met with regulators and Yes safety hazards moving water compared to other hydropower projects where mercury generation has occurred developed suitable programs for surface water and • pre- development monitoring for mercury in fish tissue and surface water has been completed Hg in fish flesh for both pre-op and post- and will be used as baseline information for monitoring programs in the early operational construction period based on the MOE SW period. Guidance Document (Feb 2012). • existing mercury concentrations in large fish in the project area exceed provincial and federal consumption guidelines.

• The Ivanhoe projects do not pose flood risk. Emergency operation strategies will be developed in Damage to and safety of Public health and/or Dam Operating Plan Foleyet in the case of dam Operation No impacts anticipated No safety • The Foleyet t is located 20 km upstream of the proposed Chute GS, and 14 km upstream of the failure or flood anticipated upper limit of the inundation zone

• Hydraulic modeling and consultation with the Town of Foleyet has determined that the Town of Foleyet drinking No potential for impact - consultation and maximum extent of headpond inundation (6.4 km) will not impact the intake for the drinking Water supply water and waste water Operation investigation show that inundation will not have No water or waste water outflow (located approx. 20 km upstream of the proposed facility services the ability to impact utilities. location)

• Oates Bridge is located approximately 2 km upstream of the proposed Chute project location. Nova Road Bridge is located approximately 11 km upstream of the proposed Third Impacts of altered flows on Civil structures Operation Falls site. There is a Bailey bridge located near the Chute. (need more info on this bridge) No impact anticipated No bridge(s) • Xeneca will monitor the condition of the bridges and indemnify them against damage caused by inundation or operations TABLE 26: Identified Issues, Summary of Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects

Environmental Residual Effect Issue Phase of Development Mitigation Resolution / Result Component (Yes/No)

• maintain and enhance vegetative buffers between the river, roads, and any ancillary works to preserve the aesthetic quality of the area for recreational enjoyment of the river • infrastructure design should consider aesthetics to provide the minimal visual impact while remaining economically feasible Low negative impacts - impacts will be mitigated • install gates and fencing Impacts to the remote/rural to the greatest extent possible through the design • Minimize site clearing. Landscape to rehabilitate the construction site. Aesthetic image of the aesthetic of the project area; of the facility and operational plan. Access controls Construction & Operation • Apply Best Management Practices and traffic planning to contain construction equipment in Yes surrounding area decreased aesthetic and will be implemented to discourage more use of designated work areas. intrinsic value the site thereby maintaining the rural residential • Use natural materials in the new structures wherever practicable. nature of the site • Use landscaping to rehabilitate the construction area in keeping the surrounding conditions and traditional recreation uses • Vegetation will be re-established and maintained below the height of the transmission line due to safety and line maintenance requirements. Energy/Electricity Operation of facility in parallel with the existing power grid will provide minor impact on the Reliability Voltage support Operation • Capacity of new power generation units are relatively small Yes overall power system reliability and power quality (voltage and frequency) Operation of the projects will improve distribution customer service reliability in this area. The power generation units will be able to provide a black • The island mode of operation could require the change of the interconnection protection and start and island mode of operation (assuming that Security Black Start capability Operation control scheme/settings in the HONI distribution system. Further consultation with HONI is allowed by HONI) to continue to supply or Yes required. electrically energize in a safe, controlled and reliable manner, part of the distribution system, including customer load that is separated from the rest of distribution system. Operation of the new power generation units will • Appropriate mitigation technical measures will be proposed in the control system of the Electricity flow patterns Power flow system Operation redistribute power flow in the existing distribution Yes power grid and new generation units if required system. Operation of the new power generation units will • Appropriate mitigation technical measures will be proposed in protection and control system affect existing protection and control settings in Other Protection control settings Operation Yes of the power grid. the distribution system. The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

8. EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECTS

The effects of the environment on the projects may be of short duration, such as a heavy rainfall event, or longer duration such as the anticipated effects of climate change on the projects.

Disruptions in energy transmission and generation would result in decreased economic returns for the proponent. The powerhouses will be equipped with a back-up generator to ensure that station service power can be restored to the facilities should a grid failure occur. However, the facilities cannot be operated (i.e. generation cannot recommence) until the electrical grid can accept the power generated. In this situation, no water would be passed through the powerhouses, but would be directed through the bypasses designed into the facilities. The design of these bypasses will represent at least the pre-project capacity of the natural falls. This aspect of the approval process will be dealt with after the environmental assessment process is completed, as the detailed engineering design is being finalized.

8.1 PRECIPITATION AND FLOODING

Operations during extreme events, such as floods, droughts and safety emergencies may need to deviate from the normal operating parameters to manage flows and mitigate impacts. Proposed operational changes in response to floods are described in Section 5.6.

It should be noted that the facilities are not designated to mitigate the effects of naturally occurring events such as floods and droughts. However, there are circumstances where the existence of the facilities can either aid in managing such an event or pose an additional risk. The flood risk aspects are managed, in part, through the government approval under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act of the engineering plans and specifications for the designs of the facilities. The purpose of this process is to ensure that the flood passage capacity of the facilities is adequate and that the risk to property and public safety is duly considered. This aspect of the approval process will be dealt with after the environmental assessment process is completed and when the detailed engineering design is being finalized.

8.2 EXTREME WINTER CONDITIONS

Extreme cold weather conditions may lead to a build-up of ice at the intake that could necessitate plant shut-down and an interruption to the delivery of electricity to the provincial supply grid.

8.3 EXTREME SUMMER CONDITIONS

Drought conditions could necessitate the shut-down of the facilities and an interruption to the delivery of electricity to the provincial supply grid as a result of reduced flows within the river.

8.4 LIGHTNING STRIKES

A direct hit on one of the facilities may lead to facility shut-down and prolonged interruption to the delivery of electricity to the provincial supply grid.

186 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

8.5 ACCIDENTAL FIRES

Lightning strikes as well as manmade fires could result in uncontrolled forest/brush fires which may interrupt the operation of one or both of the facilities and the delivery of electricity to the provincial supply grid. Forest fires may also limit the ability of personnel to access the facilities to conduct operations or maintenance.

8.6 EARTHQUAKES

The continual shifting of large segments of the earth's crust, called tectonic plates, causes more than 97% of the world's earthquakes. Eastern Canada is located in a relatively stable continental region within the North American Plate and, as a consequence, has a relatively low rate of earthquake activity. Nevertheless, large and damaging earthquakes have occurred here in the past, and will inevitably occur in the future.

The project area is located in the Northeastern Ontario Seismic Zone, and according to Natural Resources Canada (http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca) this zone experiences a very low level of seismic zone activity. Natural Resources Canada reports that from 1970 to 1999, on average, only one or two magnitude 2.5 or greater earthquakes were recorded in this area, and two magnitude 5 earthquakes (northern Michigan and northwest of Kapuskasing) have occurred in this region. The location of the projects in this low seismic activity area presents a low potential for the facilities to be affected by this type of geological event.

8.7 CLIMATE CHANGES AND OTHER WEATHER RELATED EFFECTS

According to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (www.nrtee- trnee.com), widespread impacts are expected across Canada as a result of increasing temperatures and moisture levels. Among the changes predicted, the Round Table is forecasting that Ontario will experience increased disruptions to energy generation and transmission. Among the many predictions offered, there includes a doubling in the frequency of extreme rain events and increasing costs to providing community services in Canada during the 21st century.

The proposed Operating Plan (Annex I) includes a description of how the facility will be operated under extreme flooding events. Though the facility is not designed for the purpose of mitigating natural flooding events, it may assist in mitigating impacts on the downstream reaches of the river.

187 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

9. COMPENSATION

The construction of the Chute and Third Falls facilities and the associated inundation and operational effects on the river are anticipated to have permanent residual effects on aquatic species and habitat within the project’s zone of influence as a result of impacts to habitat critical to the life history requirements of several aquatic species including Walleye, Northern Pike and benthic invertebrates. These effects may impact recreational and First Nations fisheries. Compensation will be required to further mitigate these potential effects and to offset the loss of habitat functionality.

Further discussions between MNR, DFO and Xeneca will be required through the draft review period to develop conceptual compensation requirements which will inform the assessment of significance to be presented in the final environmental report.

188 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

10. RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS AND SIGNIFICANCE

A summary of the specific issues identified during the regulatory agency and public consultation process is presented in Table 26. Those issues that have been marked as a residual effect in the last column in Table 26 have been carried over to Table 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance (found below) for further analysis.

The residual effects of a project are those that are expected to remain despite the application of mitigation measures. Section 4.3.1 of the OWA Class EA for Waterpower Projects (April 2012) provides criteria for assessing significance:

Value of Resource

The value or importance placed on the resource by stakeholders or society at large as determined through consultation and the consideration of overall environmental requirements. The value may be related to the relative abundance of the resource, the interest of participating parties, etc.

High Value of the resource which will be affected is considered high. The resource has some form of regulatory status or protection, generates a high level of public interest, is considered scarce or is essential to the integrity of the regional economic and/or ecological environment.

Medium Value of the resource which will be affected is neither high nor low. The resource is acknowledged as an important part of the regional ecological and economic environment, but is not essential. Interest has arisen through consultation but has not been a focus issue.

Low Value of the resource which will be affected is considered low. The resource is abundant, does not significantly contribute to the regional economy or environment, and no concerns have arisen through consultation.

Magnitude

The magnitude of an effect refers to the extensiveness, scale, degree, or size of that effect. As the assessment of this criterion has a high potential to be subjective/qualitative, and measures of scale vary between effects, each level of magnitude has several specific measures for the means of clear definition. When possible, pre-established quantitative scales of magnitude specific to a given effect should be used and referenced. Mitigation measures and strategies or conditions may affect the magnitude of a residual effect to some degree.

189 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

High Effect will exceed regulatory or guideline criteria and/or remains controversial by the majority of stakeholders and/or is deemed high by expert judgment/historic precedence, and/or exceeds the carrying capacity of the surrounding ecosystem.

Medium Effect will noticeably change or exceed existing conditions. The change remains - within regulatory or guideline criteria, is capable of being absorbed by the surrounding ecosystem, and is not considered controversial by the majority of stakeholders

Low Effect will only be evident at or slightly above existing conditions, will be well within the carrying capacity of the surrounding ecosystem, and will have low social impact as shown through public consultation.

Geographic Extent

The geographic area over which the effect would occur. This can relate to either a linear distance (km) or area (km2), depending on the issue or effect being described.

<1 Effect will be limited to less than a 1km (distance/area) from the project site

1-10 Effect will be limited to between 1 and 10 km (distance/area) from the project site

11-100 Effect will be limited to between 11 and 100 km (distance/area) from the project site

101-1,000 Effect will be limited to between 101 and 1,000 km (distance/area) from the project site

1,001-10,000 Effect will be limited to between 1,001 and 10,000 km (distance/area) from the project site

>10,000 Effect will be extend beyond 10,000 km (distance/area) from the project site

Frequency and Duration

The frequency of when an effect might occur intermittently over a given period of time. Generally, events that occur less frequently or for a more limited period of time are considered less significant.

190 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Frequency:

<11 The effect will occur less than 11 times per year

11-50 The effect will occur between 11 and 50 times per year

51-100 The effect will occur between 51 and 100 times per year

101-200 The effect will occur between 101 and 200 times per year

>200 The effect will occur more than 200 times per year

Continuous The effect will be occur continuously

Duration:

<1 The effect will occur for less than a month

1-12 The effect will occur for between 1 month and a year

13-36 The effect will occur for between 1 and 3 years

37-72 The effect will occur for between 3 and 6 years

>72 The effect will occur for more than 6 years

Reversibility

Whether or not the effect is reversible if the activity or component of the project which is causing the effect is halted, altered or removed. Irreversible impacts are considered more significant than reversible impacts.

Reversible Existing conditions would be re-established if the cause of the effect is halted, altered or removed

Irreversible Existing conditions would not be re-established if the cause of the effect is halted, altered or removed. In the event that reversibility is unknown, the effect should be considered irreversible.

Waterpower facilities typically have a lifespan in excess of 80 years and can be refitted to last decades longer. The longevity of waterpower projects mean that, once constructed, they are more likely to be upgraded or refitted rather than decommissioned. As a result, when considering the reversibility of residual effects, the physical footprint of the facilities and the inundation area are considered as permanent and irreversible. Additionally, those project components or activities that are required for maintenance or public safety are likewise considered permanent while the facility exists. If these components were to be decommissioned and removed it is conceivable that the environment would return to its natural state but, when compared to the

191 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 timeframe for other project effects, these effects are not considered Reversible. Other activities or effects which could be modified or halted through changes to management or operations or the implementation of further mitigative measures are considered reversible.

Ecological/Social Context

The significance of an effect may be considered more or less significant when considered against an environment that is untouched or has been previously impacted by other activities or issues. The focus during the determination of the significance of the effect is on the change brought about on the existing environment by the project. Therefore, changes to a relatively pristine environment are considered more significant than changes to a previously impacted environment.

Relatively Pristine The value or resource being affected has not been previously influenced

Previously Impacted The value or resource being affected has already been influenced by other source(s)

Likelihood of Effect

Some mitigation measures may address the potential of residual effects by reducing the likelihood of their occurrence rather than by reducing the magnitude of the effect.

High The effect is highly likely to occur

Medium The effect may occur

Low The effect is still unlikely to occur

By applying and considering all of the listed criteria, residual effects can be classified as either Not Significant, or Significant within the context of the project and the environment in which it is proposed. The project may also have residual effects which are considered Positive which should be considered and weighed against the potential significant adverse effects.

An assessment of the residual effects (including the positive impacts) of the proposed undertaking are presented in Table 27.

10.1 RESIDUAL NATURAL HERITAGE EFFECTS

Erosion, air quality, and water quality during construction

Effects of construction activities such as exhaust, noise, odour, dust emissions, introduction of foreign and organic materials to surface water, increase in sediment suspension and transportation, and contamination from spills and leaks represent residual effects of low significance. These effects are unavoidable components of construction, but mitigation through

192 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 best management practices will reduce these effects to acceptable levels. These effects are also considered reversible when the construction activity is halted.

Erosion and water quality during operation

The nature of intermittent operations at the Chute may result in a residual effect of increased suspended sediment in the project area. The significance of this impact is kept low by monitoring potential erosion areas that may contribute to increased sedimentation and using mechanical and vegetative controls where necessary. Studies based on hydraulic modelling show that erosion is unlikely and impact from sedimentation is predicted to be low. Monitoring will be initiated for 5 years following the start of operations in order to confirm these predictions.

Loss of Significant Bird Wildlife Habitat

Habitat of the Olive-sided flycatcher, Canada warbler, and Common nighthawk will be cleared from the inundation pre-construction. The significance of losing this habitat is low, as there is an abundance of habitat outside of the project area.

Changes in Otter Denning and other Shoreline Mammal Habitat

Otter denning was documented 8 km upstream of the Third Falls facility. Dens may be impacted by an increase in water levels, however the most significant level changes occur within the first 6 km of the Third Falls headpond. In order to mitigate effects such as direct mortality, inundation will not occur during the winter or ice-over period in order to ensure no mortality due to individuals become trapped. Following inundation, operational water fluctuations at Third Falls will be within 25 cm, which should not affect den entrances. Following construction, monitoring will occur to ensure that otters continue to populate this area.

Loss of Rare Tree Habitat

Loss of rare treed habitat (Fresh Silty to Fine Loamy: Elm-Ash Hardwood, B105) within the project area will have a residual effect, however this effect is considered to be of low significance as seeds will be harvested from the community and re-established outside of the project area after facility construction.

Disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitat during construction and maintenance

Construction and maintenance will cause unavoidable disturbance to wildlife and is therefore residual. Similar to residual air quality and noise impacts during construction, construction best management practices will be applied through a Construction Management Plan in order to minimize effects and maintain low significance.

193 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Loss/alteration of vegetation during construction activities

The loss of vegetation within the construction footprint is an expected and unavoidable effect of the project. This loss is considered to be of low significance as the areas will be carefully planned and clearing will be kept to a minimum.

Loss of moose aquatic feeding areas as a result of construction and operation

It is anticipated that the appropriate implementation of identified mitigation measures will reduce impacts to terrestrial and wetland habitats, including moose aquatic feeding areas, and species to a not significant level.

Permanent and temporary loss of main channel spawning habitat for Walleye, White suckers, and Northern Pike

Multiple fast-water features have been identified in the project area, some of which have confirmed spawning activity for various species. These features will be permanently altered by construction footprint, inundation and water level fluctuations. While effects on these habitat features will be residual, they will be mitigated by various measures, keeping the significance of impacts low. Facilities will be operated as true run-of-river when water temperature reaches 4°C until 33 days post when water temperatures reach 12°C in order to maintain functionality and protect larvae. In addition, compensation will be pursued in conjunction with DFO as part of obtaining authorizations under the Fisheries Act. Effects due to construction and temporary work will be mitigated through construction best management practices and activities taking place during appropriate in-water timing windows.

Loss/alteration of habitat for Brook trout in Tributaries

As field studies to date do not explicitly address the spawning habitat available for Brook trout in tributaries, Xeneca will assume that a residual effect exists until further studies are complete in order to either confirm or deny this assumption. These studies will be completed through the spring and summer of 2013 and will inform the final environmental report.

Loss/alteration of benthic habitat and changes to benthic diversity

During construction and operation of the proposed project, areas of benthic productivity will be altered as a result of the transition of headpond areas from a river-like to lake-like environment. While it is expected that benthic productivity will continue, alterations to species composition and diversity are anticipated. Due to the nature of the river and the proposed inundation, mitigation or compensation for these effects in proximity to the affected habitats will be challenging. In advance of the final ER, discussions with MNR and DFO will be required to determine the potential for alternative means of compensation which will inform final impact assessment.

194 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

10.2 RESIDUAL SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS

As outlined in Section 7 there are a number of potential residual socio-economic issues and effects associated with the construction and operation of The Chute and Third Falls facilities. Due to the remote, rural nature of the project area these issues are largely related to issues of increased or reduced access and impacts to navigation, aesthetics and recreational uses such as hunting, fishing and camping. Through consultation and project planning Xeneca and the project team have developed avoidance and mitigative strategies which will be implemented to reduce the project’s effects on these identified socio-economic values. These measures include

 Ensuring public access around the facilities is maintained through construction and operation while recognizing that some restrictions will be required immediately around the facilities to maintain public safety.

 Constrain facility operations to reduce effects on navigation, recreational enjoyment and public safety.

 Utilise existing infrastructure such as roads and bridges to the greatest extent possible to reduce the disturbance of native species and while maintaining existing access to the project area

 Adhere to construction and design best management practices to reduce environmental and aesthetic impacts associated with construction and operation which may affect user’s enjoyment of the area

 Additional mitigative strategies and commitments as identified in Table 26

Xeneca will also discuss and incorporate requirements for fish habitat compensation with DFO and MNR to offset effects on fish populations and habitat associated with inundation and operations which have the potential to affect recreational fisheries in the project area. These conceptual compensation requirements will be reflected in the final environmental report and considered when making a final assessment of the significance of the project on the recreational fishery present within the project area.

It is expected that the appropriate implementation of these measures and mitigative strategies will reduce any residual effects of the project to a not significant level. Additionally, the construction of the two Ivanhoe River facilities is expected to have a number of socio-economic benefits, both for local communities and for the Province of Ontario.

195 TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Environmental Residual Effect Value of Geographic Duration Ecological/ Likelihood of Issue Phase of Development Magnitude or Frequency Reversibility Significance Component (Yes/No) Resource Extent (km) (months) Social Context Effect

General Natural Environment Exhaust emissions from Relatively Air quality equipment, vehicles and Construction & Operation Yes High Low 1-10 13-36 Reversible High Not Significant Pristine onsite generator

Relatively Air quality Odours from waste Construction Yes High Low < 1 13-36 Reversible Low Not Significant Pristine

Previously Air quality GHG Offsets Operation Yes High Low > 10,000 Continuous Reversible High Positive Impacted

Dust emissions from Relatively Air quality construction activities and Construction Yes High Low 1-10 13-36 Reversible High Not Significant Pristine vehicles

Introduction of sediment, chemicals or organic materials Water quality (surface Relatively into surface water through Construction Yes High Low 11-100 13-36 Reversible Low Not Significant and groundwater) Pristine general construction activities along shoreline of waterway

Increased sediment suspension and Water quality (surface transportation in surface Relatively Construction Yes High Low 11-100 13-36 Reversible Low Not Significant and groundwater) water as a result of in-water Pristine works construction and removal of cofferdams

Water quality (surface Contamination from spills or Relatively Construction & Operation Yes High Low 11-100 13-36 Reversible Low Not Significant and groundwater) leaks of hazardous substances Pristine

Inundation may alter water Water quality (surface Relatively quality (methyl-mercury and Construction & Operation Yes High Medium 11-100 > 72 Reversible Medium Not Significant and groundwater) Pristine heavy metals) in reservoir TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Increase in suspended possible for Water quality (surface sediment due to erosion and up to 9 Relatively Operation Yes High Low 1-10 Reversible Low Not Significant and groundwater) intermittent facility months of Pristine operations every year

Reduced dissolved oxygen levels as a result of headpond Water quality (surface stratification, increased water Relatively Operation Yes High Low 11-100 < 11 Reversible Low Not Significant and groundwater) temperature and altered Pristine flows and mixing downstream of the facilities

Loss of 35.9 ha of significant Significant earth or life wildlife habitat for the Relatively Construction Yes Medium Low 11-100 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant science features Canada warbler through Pristine clearing of inundation area

Loss of significant wildlife habitat for the common Significant earth or life Relatively nighthawk and the olive- Construction & Operation Yes Low Low 11-100 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant science features Pristine sided flycatcher through clearing of inundation area

Loss of Significant wildlife Significant earth or life habitat for Northern long- Relatively Construction Yes Low Low 11-100 1-12 Reversible Low Not Significant science features eared bat through clearing of Pristine the inundation area

Loss of rare treed significant wildlife habitat - Fresh Silty to Significant earth or life Relatively Fine Loamy: Elm-Ash Construction Yes Medium Medium 1-10 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant science features Pristine Hardwood (B105) through clearing of inundation area

Alteration of 6.5 ha of moose aquatic feeding areas as a Significant earth or life Relatively result of construction Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low 1-10 Continuous Irreversible Medium Not Significant science features Pristine activities, inundation and water level fluctuations TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Loss/alteration of 7.2 ha of wetland habitat for marsh Significant earth or life breeding birds as a result of Relatively Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low < 1 Continuous Irreversible Medium Not Significant science features construction activities, Pristine inundation and water level fluctuations

Terrestrial wildlife General disturbance to Relatively (numbers, diversity, Construction Yes Medium Low 11-100 13-36 Reversible High Not Significant habitat during construction Pristine distribution)

Terrestrial wildlife (numbers, diversity, Access road construction Construction Yes distribution)

Loss of vegetation and Terrestrial wildlife terrestrial wildlife during Relatively (numbers, diversity, powerhouse construction Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low 1-10 13-36 Continuous Reversible High Not Significant Pristine distribution) activities - clearing, grubbing and stockpiling

During construction Terrestrial wildlife General disturbance to period and then Relatively (numbers, diversity, Construction & Operation Yes High Low 11-100 Reversible Medium Not Significant wildlife once every few Pristine distribution) years for maintenance

Loss of terrestrial habitat due to localized clearing and grubbing of approximately Natural vegetation and Relatively 0.45ha Fresh, Clayey: Cedar Construction Yes Low Low < 1 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant habitat linkages Pristine – Conifer (B084) forest community associated with facility footprints

Loss of 113.2 ha of terrestrial habitat comprised of 10 Natural vegetation and Relatively different ELC forest Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low 11-100 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant habitat linkages Pristine communities due to inundation

Loss/alteration of riparian Natural vegetation and and emergent vegetation in Operation Yes habitat linkages headponds due to water level fluctuations TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem

Effects on otters and their Shoreline Dependent habitat in the Third Falls Relatively Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low 11-100 Continuous Reversible High Not Significant Species headpond (near Nova Road Pristine Bridge)

Loss/alteration of 13.9 ha of Wetland Dependent wetland habitat for Relatively Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low < 1 Continuous Irreversible Medium Not Significant Species amphibian species due to Pristine headpond inundation

Alteration of habitat Fish Habitat associated with water Construction Yes crossings for access roads

Temporary disturbance to fish habitat associated with Relatively Fish Habitat Construction Yes Low High < 1 13-36 Reversible High Not Significant cofferdam footprints and Pristine dewatering

2 Alteration or loss of 6000 m of aquatic habitat due to 2 project footprint, 1300 m of Fish Habitat which is walleye and white Construction Yes sucker spawning habitat/benthic production habitat

Construction of earthen embankment occupying an Relatively Fish Habitat Construction Yes Low Low < 1 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant approximate footprint Pristine 2 impact area of 1222m

2 Alteration of 1500 m of valuable walleye spawning Fish Habitat Construction Yes habitat due to headpond inundation

Potential alteration of 21,000 2 m of walleye spawning Relatively Fish Habitat Construction & Operation Yes High Medium 1-10 Continuous Reversible Medium Not Significant habitat due to headpond Pristine inundation

2 Alteration of 20, 400 m of Fish Habitat fastwater habitat for benthic Construction Yes production TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Alteration of Brook trout Unknown due to Fish Habitat habitat in inundated Construction outstanding data tributaries

Alteration of Northern Pike Relatively Fish Habitat spawning habitat due to Operation Yes High Low 11-100 < 1 Reversible High Not Significant Pristine water level fluctuation

Changes to water quality as it will affect fish due to Relatively Fish Habitat potential erosion and Construction Yes High Low 11-100 13-36 Reversible Low Not Significant Pristine sedimentation during construction activities

Previously Fish migration Downstream fish passage Operation Yes Low Low 11-100 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant Impacted

See Fish Habitat Section Fisheries above

Fish injury or mortality Relatively Fish injury or mortality during construction and Construction Yes Medium Low < 1 < 1 Irreversible Medium Not Significant Pristine blasting activities

Fish injury or mortality due Relatively Fish injury or mortality to cofferdams and Construction Yes Medium Low < 1 13-36 Reversible Low Not Significant Pristine dewatering activities

Fish stranding due to Dependant on Relatively Fish injury or mortality operational headpond Operation Yes Medium Low 11-100 Reversible Medium Not Significant operations Pristine fluctuations

Fish impingement or Relatively Fish injury or mortality entrainment resulting in Operation Yes Medium Low 11-100 Continuous Irreversible Medium Not Significant Pristine injury or mortality

Increased shoreline erosion possible for Erosion and and sediment deposition due up to 9 Relatively Operation Yes Medium Low 11-100 Irreversible Low Not Significant sedimentation to inundation and water months of Pristine level fluctuations every year

Water levels, flows and Increase in water level and Relatively movement (surface Operation Yes High Low 11-100 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant residency time in headpond Pristine water) TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Water levels, flows and Variation in flows within movement (surface downstream variable flow Operation Yes water) reach below the Chute

Changes to thermal regime of Changes to overall waterway within headpond Relatively thermal regime of Operation Yes Low Low 11-100 < 11 Irreversible Low Not Significant as a result of inundation and Pristine waterway storage

frequency Drainage, flooding and Alteration from natural dependant on Relatively Operation Yes Medium Low 1-10 Irreversible High Not Significant drought patterns patterns flood or drought Pristine event frequency

Aboriginal Community

Project construction may Spiritual, ceremonial, result in the removal of Relatively cultural, archaeological or Construction Yes High Medium 11-100 > 72 Irreversible High Not Significant culturally significant cedar Pristine burial sites trees in the inundation area

Spiritual, ceremonial, Spirit, (movement) of the Relatively cultural, archaeological or water to be impeded by Construction & Operation Yes High Medium 11-100 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant Pristine burial sites construction of the dam.

Project construction may result Spiritual, ceremonial, in the removal of culturally Relatively cultural, archaeological or significant medicinal plants Construction Yes High Low 11-100 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant Pristine burial sites (such as sage, sweetgrass, tobacco etc.)

Development may impact plant Spiritual, ceremonial, or animal species of cultural or Relatively cultural, archaeological or spiritual significance to Construction & Operation Yes High Medium 11-100 > 72 Irreversible High Not Significant Pristine burial sites communities (bears, wolves etc.)

Spiritual, ceremonial, Development of the dam will present a barrier to navigation Previously cultural, archaeological or Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low 1-10 > 72 Reversible High Not Significant and may conflict with traditional Impacted burial sites lifeways of communities

Quality and Clarity of water may Spiritual, ceremonial, be affected by development, Relatively cultural, archaeological or which would impact an Construction & Operation Yes High Low 11-100 Continuous Reversible Medium Not Significant Pristine burial sites important cultural and spiritual value for many communities TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

The loss of culturally used Cedar, Ash, birch, tamarack, and spruce trees surrounding Spiritual, ceremonial, the Project site as a result of Relatively cultural, archaeological or project activities and flooding Construction Yes High Medium 11-100 13-36 < 11 Irreversible High Not Significant Pristine burial sites may impact community cultural and spiritual activities as well as production of traditional tools and traditional lifeways

Impacts to aboriginal run Employment tourism operators on the Construction & Operation Yes waterway

Furbearing mammals may be impacted by fluctuating water levels in the headpond during Traditional land or the winter months and alteration Relatively resources used for of habitat resulting in a change Operation Yes High Low 11-100 Continuous Reversible High Not Significant Pristine harvesting activities in trapping which may impact traditional lifeways and economic resources of aboriginal peoples.

Development activities may impact use of the area by Traditional land or waterfowl for foraging and Relatively resources used for nesting activities which could Construction & Operation Yes High Low 11-100 Continuous Irreversible Medium Not Significant Pristine harvesting activities impact subsistence, harvesting, hunting and cultural activities of communities

Hunting, harvesting, foraging Traditional land or and trapping activities may be Relatively resources used for disrupted by construction Construction Yes High Low < 1 > 72 Irreversible High Not Significant Pristine harvesting activities activities (being unable to access site areas)

Traditional land or Development activities may impact food bearing plants and Relatively resources used for Construction & Operation Yes High Medium 11-100 > 72 Irreversible High Not Significant impact foraging and harvesting Pristine harvesting activities activities of some communities

Fish species health and abundance may be impacted by Traditional land or activities related to resources used for development, thus impacting Construction & Operation Yes harvesting activities harvesting and subsistence activities of certain communities during specific times of the year TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Habitat changes as a result of Traditional land or development may result in changes in populations of large Relatively resources used for Construction & Operation Yes High Low 11-100 > 72 Irreversible High Not Significant game such as moose and Pristine harvesting activities caribou which communities rely on for food and other products

Culturally significant Rivers and waterways - waterway, some local Relatively Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low < 1 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant Culturally significant communities opposed to use Pristine of concrete in waterways

Increase in methyl mercury concentrations in waterway and increase in mercury Relatively Other Operation Yes High Medium 11-100 > 72 Reversible Medium Not Significant contamination in the local fish Pristine population impact community health.

Increase in temperature and water quality impacts could Relatively Other Operation Yes High Low 11-100 < 11 Reversible Low Not Significant adversely impact local Pristine communities

Land and Resource Use

Facilitation of access to general area as a result of Previously Access Operation Yes Medium Medium 11-100 Continuous Reversible Medium Not Significant upgrades/maintenance of Impacted area access roads and bridges

Reduced public access to Previously Access water and land areas in Construction & Operation Yes Medium Medium < 1 Continuous Irreversible High Not Significant Impacted proximity to facilities

The Ivanhoe River is a recognized canoe route; Relatively Navigation project construction and Construction Yes Medium Low < 1 13-36 Reversible Medium Not Significant Pristine components may impede navigation

Potential impacts to the boat launch downstream of the Previously Recreational use Operation Yes Medium Low < 1 1-12 Continuous Irreversible Medium Positive Chute either through access Impacted or water level fluctuation TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Potential impacts to Relatively Recreational use snowmobiling/ATV use due Operation Yes Medium Medium 11-100 1-12 < 11 Irreversible Medium Not Significant Pristine to roads

Popular recreational camping area is located adjacent to Relatively Recreational use the Chute; reduced Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low < 1 Continuous Irreversible Medium Not Significant Pristine recreational enjoyment of campsite.

Public access and hiking trail on Eastern shore near the Relatively Recreational use Chute; access to general area, Construction Yes Medium Low < 1 13-36 Reversible Medium Not Significant Pristine reduced recreational enjoyment of trails.

Effects on local fishing Angling, hunting opportunity due to altered Construction and Operation Yes opportunities habitat

The projects will permanently alter the local landscape by inundating the Ivanhoe River. Access roads will also alter the viewscape in the Relatively Views or Aesthetics Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low 1-10 Continuous High Not Significant local area. The Pristine powerhouse/dam structure will change the local landscape in the immediate vicinity of Ivanhoe River

Harvesting of merchantable Relatively Forestry Construction Yes High Medium 11-100 < 11 Irreversible High Positive timber during construction Pristine

Cultural Heritage Resource Considerations

Disturbance or destruction to Unknown due to Archaeological sites significant archaeological sites Construction outstanding data and along access roads information

Social and Economic

Tourism and enjoyment The location of people, values might be negatively Previously businesses, institutions or affected due to construction, Construction Yes Medium Medium 1-10 Continuous Reversible High Not Significant Impacted public facilities restricted pathways and other activities TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Effects of noise pollution on Community character, recreational users camping, Relatively enjoyment of property or canoeing, fishing, and Construction & Operation Yes Low Low < 1 Continuous Reversible High Not Significant Pristine local amenities hunting in close proximity to the project

Construction activities will Employment - Local and Previously support direct and indirect Construction Yes High Medium 101-1000 13-36 Reversible High Positive regional labour supply Impacted local employment

Operation and management Employment - Local and of project facilities will lead Previously Operation Yes Low Low 101-1000 Continuous Reversible High Positive regional labour supply to one to two full-time Impacted positions

Construction of project will involve influx of temporary Local, regional or workers which may affect Previously Construction Yes Medium Medium 101-1000 13-36 Reversible Medium Not Significant provincial economies local population by addition Impacted of strain on resources and infrastructure

Remote tourism operators potential increase of public Local, regional or access through new road Relatively Operation Yes Medium Medium 101-1000 Continuous Reversible Medium Significant provincial economies construction may deter Pristine tourists and affect remoteness of area

Water contamination due to Public health and/or Relatively methyl mercury or other Construction & Operation Yes High Medium 11-100 > 72 Reversible Medium Not Significant safety Pristine hazards

Impacts to the remote/rural Aesthetic image of the aesthetic of the project area; Relatively Construction & Operation Yes Medium Low < 1 Continuous Reversible Medium Not Significant surrounding area decreased aesthetic and Pristine intrinsic value

Energy/Electricity

Previously Reliability Voltage support Operation Yes High Low > 10,000 Continuous Reversible High Positive Impacted

Previously Security Black Start capability Operation Yes High Low > 10,000 < 11 Reversible High Positive Impacted

Previously Electricity flow patterns Power flow system Operation Yes High Low 1001-10,000 Continuous Reversible High Not Significant Impacted TABLE 27: Residual Environmental Effects and Significance

Previously Other Protection control settings Operation Yes High Low 1001-10,000 Until installed Reversible High Not Significant Impacted The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

11. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects can be defined as long term changes that may occur as a result of the combined effects of each successive action on the environment. Cumulative effects may result from interacting effects of multiple projects in a given area, or multiple activities acting on a single ecosystem component. The assessment of cumulative effects examines past, present and “reasonably foreseeable” future activities in addition to the activities posed by the project, and how these would affect the valued ecosystem components within the project area, and beyond, if necessary.

The assessment of cumulative effects outlined below is based on a precautionary approach and the professional judgement of the EA team. Additional insight on potential cumulative effects may emerge during studies typically conducted at the permitting and approvals stage, and will therefore be discussed with the regulating authorities at that time.

The potential cumulative effects of the proposed development are discussed in the following sections:

11.1 IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES

There are known activities within the area that should be considered along with any residual effects of The Chute and Third Falls projects in order to undertake an assessment of cumulative effects. These projects or activities are described below.

Water Management - Ivanhoe Lake Dam

The existing Ivanhoe Lake Dam is located approximately 40 km upstream from The Chute site. The MNR owns and operates the dam to provide flood control and to maintain recreational water levels on Ivanhoe Lake. The dam operating regime is currently specified in the Mattagami River Water Management Plan. Operation of the Ivanhoe Lake Dam may potentially impact the levels and flows at the proposed Chute GS resulting in cumulative effects on recreation, operations, and aquatic or terrestrial natural heritage. The proponent does not intend to ask the MNR to modify operations at the Ivanhoe Lake Dam in order to benefit operations at the Chute and Third Falls facilities.

Forestry Harvesting

The forest resources on Crown land adjacent to the Chute and Third Falls sites are currently allocated under a Sustainable Forest Licenses to Domtar Inc-EACOM (Pineland Forest Management Unit) and Tembec (Gordon Cosens Forest Management Unit) and forestry operations are planned within the general area.

207 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Access Roads

The area around the two projects is transected by a number of forestry access roads and recreational trails

Mining

11.2 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

An analysis was undertaken to determine cumulative effects associated with the interaction between each known residual effect of the project and other past, present and future planned projects and activities within the study area.

Air quality

Impacts to air quality associated with the project (dust, odour, exhaust, etc.) are all expected to occur mainly during the construction phase of the project and will be curtailed during operation. Given the mitigative measures which will be taken and the remote nature of the projects, these impacts are anticipated to be both short term and minor and therefore not significant.

Additionally, the projects will generate sustainable and renewable energy and, in combination with other green energy projects, contribute to the improvement of air quality and public health in Ontario by facilitating and compensating for the shutdown of coal fired generation facilities throughout the province.

Flow and inundation effects on water quality, movement and erosion

The alteration from natural flow patterns as a result of the operation of three projects (the existing Ivanhoe Lake Dam and the two proposed Xeneca facilities) on the Ivanhoe River has the potential to have cumulative effects. Low negative impacts are anticipated as dynamic modeling shows that the facilities will modify normal flooding patterns but will operate as run-of-river facilities during high and low flow periods. Additional mitigation entails limiting maximum daily fluctuations in upstream water levels and their rate of change. In order to manage the activities, a communications protocol between the operators of the Ivanhoe Lake Dam and the Xeneca facilities (Third Falls GS and The Chute GS) will be implemented. Operating strategies for The Chute GS and the Third Falls GS will be incorporated into the Mattagami River Water Management Plan. Xeneca is also proposing to monitor the watercourse for the effects of

208 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 erosion and ice scour following the construction of the facilities and, if required, develop management strategies in consultation with regulators to address identified impacts.

The proposed Third Falls site would create an inundation area that would reach to the tailrace of the proposed The Chute site. The Third Falls project would create a backwater effect that would prevent the downstream reach from draining during intermittent operation, and run-of-river operations at Third Falls would re-naturalize fluctuations created by intermittent operations at The Chute.

Because the Montcalm Mine is located downstream of several large tributaries and downstream of the confluence with the Groundhog River, and because Third Falls will be operated to re- naturalize the flows downstream, no sustained flow alternations would occur, and the total water volume flowing down the river would not change. Therefore no impact on the Montcalm Mine’s ability to dilute water would take place.

Disturbance of terrestrial wildlife and vegetation

The construction and operation of The Chute and Third Falls facilities will result in an increase in traffic in local access roads as well as the construction of additional roads and connection line ROW. In combination with the existing access roads and forestry activity these activities will have the potential to disturb terrestrial wildlife. While construction activity will result in higher traffic volume and activity, it will not continue once the project is operational. Access road planning to the project site was determined in close consultation with the forest management companies with the purpose of incorporating access with existing forestry roads wherever possible. Accordingly the cumulative impact of new road construction and use in addition to existing uses is not anticipated to be significant.

Given the relatively large area over which the disturbance will be distributed and the fact that wildlife in the area is disturbed through forestry activity regardless, the overall impacts are not anticipated to be significant.

Typically, there is a shoreline reserve where forestry harvesting is not permitted. The clearing of the terrestrial vegetation along shorelines and headponds is required to mitigate potential mercury effects and water quality effects associated with inundation. As the inundation associated with the proposed projects affects a very narrow band of vegetation along the headponds and is not anticipated to have a significant effect on terrestrial species.

Employment and forestry

There exists a potential benefit to the local and regional population in that the construction of The Chute GS and Third Falls GS may result in the prolonged or additional hiring of local labour and local construction material sourcing (i.e. aggregate). This potential benefit exists alongside the potential negative impact of losses in the tourism industry.

209 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

New road construction will require the clearing of a 10 – 30 m ROW. There may be sections along new access roads where more than 30 m of new ROW will be required. This also presents the potential increased benefit of timber harvesting which can provide local employment opportunities and merchantable wood.

210 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

12. MONITORING & FOLLOW-UP PROGRAMS

Proposed monitoring and follow-up programs are presented below. Additional programs may emerge through on-going consultation within the regulatory approvals stages of the development planning.

12.1 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

Prior to construction, the Construction Management Plan (CMP) presented in Annex ll will be enhanced to incorporate any construction management strategies outlined in the ER and supporting annexes as well as any permit application or federal approval/authorization requirements. The final CMP will be submitted to the regulators as supporting documentation for construction permits and approvals.

The proponent will:

 Ensure that all necessary regulatory permits and approvals (federal and provincial) have been obtained prior to the start of any site preparation or construction activities.

 Ensure that all contractors are familiar with and are applying the identified mitigation measures outlined in the CMP and industry/regulator best management practices.

 Ensure that controls to minimize environmental effects during construction (e.g. sediment fencing) are regularly inspected and functional, and conduct inspections after any event which might disturb the control measure (e.g. a heavy rainfall event).

 Ensure that the identified Culturally Modified Tree (CMT) is shielded during construction

 Ensure that the mitigation measures being applied are not creating adverse environmental effects, and that mechanisms are in place for corrective and remedial action to address these if they occur.

 Ensure that all signage and required traffic control measures, including posted speed limits, remain in appropriate locations as construction proceeds and in good visual condition.

 Ensure that all site restoration activities have been implemented.

12.2 POST-CONSTRUCTION / OPERATION MONITORING

Xeneca has prepared a conceptual post-construction monitoring table detailing various aspects of monitoring that will be necessary following the completion of both facilities. This table will be prepared based on the suggestions of the project team and the monitoring requirements identified by regulators through the course of the EA. The post-construction monitoring table will be further developed into a comprehensive post-construction monitoring plan through project

211 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 permitting and approvals following the completion of the EA as detailed design details become available.

212 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Table 28: Post-Construction Monitoring Actions

Environmental Monitoring Frequency Component Monitoring Methodology Reporting and Timing Trigger for Action Parameter

Fish Communities Fish community sampling to obtain post construction CPUE and TBD during permitting Should the fish community monitoring results reveal The results will be submitted to relative abundance to compare to pre-construction conditions and negotiations changes in the fish community that are of concern for the OMNR within 3 months of each determine whether fish community and abundance have changed. fisheries management objectives for the river, Xeneca will survey being done discuss appropriate mitigation strategies with the Chapleau Fish community sampling will follow the Riverine Index Netting District OMNR. (RIN) protocol.

Benthic Benthic invertebrate sampling in habitats throughout entire ZOI to TBD as part of negotiations Should results reveal changes in the benthic community that The density, the diversity and Invertebrates compare pre and post construction benthic invertebrate for Federal Fisheries Act are of concern, Xeneca will discuss the implementation of characteristics of the community communities to determine whether or not community structure has Authorization appropriate mitigation strategies with the Chapleau District will be statistically compared changed. MNR and DFO. Discussion of conceptual mitigation among years using Analysis of strategies will be undertaken as part of the draft ER review. Variance (ANOVA). Sampling for benthic invertebrates will occur on one occasion during the monitoring year using Hester-Dendy artificial substrate samplers The results will be submitted to (H-D sampler). OMNR and DFO within 3 months of each survey being done

Aquatic Habitat Monitoring the effectiveness of all aquatic compensation habitats TBD as part of negotiations Should results reveal that habitat is not functioning as TBD as part of negotiations for constructed as part of Federal Fisheries Act Authorization in order to for Federal fisheries Act intended or that identified objectives are not being realized Federal fisheries Act ensure that habitat is functioning as intended and that the objectives Authorization Xeneca will discuss strategies with DFO to ensure that the Authorization related to each compensation habitat area have been achieved. desired habitat function is achieved and objectives met.

Monitoring of Walleye spawning habitats where velocity and depth TBD as part of negotiations Should post development monitoring reveal that the TBD as part of negotiations for have been predicted to remain within the preferred range for for Federal fisheries Act habitats are not functioning within the preferred ranges for Federal fisheries Act Aquatic Biota and Habitat Walleye spawning. Required to ensure that predictions with respect Authorization Walleye spawning discussions with DFO will ensue and the Authorization to post development depth and velocity at these habitats were construction of additional compensation habitat will be accurate and that the habitat continues to function within the considered. preferred depth and velocity ranges for Walleye spawning. Fish stranding Monitor for fish stranding in the constructed habitat area in the Should occur in spring If stranding is detected, consider habitat adjustments at key The results will be submitted to tailrace area (east channel) downstream of The Chute GS summer and fall to account areas to provide a pathway for stranded fish to retreat OMNR and DFO within 3 for seasonal variation in and/or restrictions on down ramping that will reduce the months of each survey being habitat usage by fish. rate of water level change done Should occur for two years following construction Fish Entrainment Fish mortality from entrainment and impingement.to determine Should occur in first year Should intake velocities be outside of predicted ranges to The results will be submitted to and impingement whether entrance velocity and trash rack spacing is adequate to following construction when protect fish from entrainment and mortality or should OMNR and DFO within 3 mitigate fish mortality from entrainment and impingement turbine is operating at entrainment or impingement be detected modifications to months of each survey being maximum capacity the intake can be made to prevent entrainment and done impingement including lighting, electrical barriers, air bubbling and sound barriers

213 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Headpond Upstream and downstream shoreline vegetation surveys. Should occur every two years Monitoring is for information purposes only and no trigger The results will be submitted to Vegetation Surveys To determine which, if any, shoreline vegetation communities are following construction for a action applies OMNR within 3 months of each establishing in the headponds after dam construction. period of ten years survey being done

Bat Roost Surveys Bat roost surveys prior to construction to determine if headpond Once immediately prior to If headpond clearing will result in the elimination of Report on findings to be vegetation clearing will result in removal of roosting habitats clearing of headpond vegetation with potential to be used for bat roosting submitted within 3 months of vegetation discussion with MNR will be required to determine survey being done

Habitat required actions as per the Endangered Species Act habitat protection provisions. Otter Surveys To determine if Otters continue to use the Ivnahoe River following Incidental observations to If otters are not found using the river following The results will be submitted to development occur each time field crew is development discussions with MNR will occur to determine OMNR within 3 months of each on river conducting other if the development is the cause and to determine survey being done

Vegetation and Significant Wildlife monitoring appropriate course of action. Water Levels The headpond water level will be monitored from a water level At 15 minute intervals for Should the headpond water levels deviate outside the The results will be submitted to gauge located on the upstream side of each powerhouse. duration of facility lifetime. Target Operating Zone, an Incident Report following MOE and OMNR annually (See ER document Section 3.6.5 Compliance Considerations) standard compliance procedures outlined by MNR will be submitted. Flow Rates Total instantaneous discharge readings would be a combination of At 15 minute intervals for Should the downstream flow targets deviate outside the The results will be submitted to gauged/measured flows through each facility and calculated duration of facility lifetime. Target Operating Zone, an Incident Report following MOE and OMNR annually discharge from the spillway. standard compliance procedures outlined by MNR will be (See ER document Section 3.6.5 Compliance Considerations) submitted. Ice Scour A monitoring location with soft sediments and potential for ice Year 1 and year 5 of Based on the results of the assessment, the operating plan The results will be submitted to

Operation scour will be established prior to construction in an accessible area operation will be adjusted to mitigate where a significant adverse MOE annually for each between these two facilities. effect is determined to occur as a result of modified monitoring year. The monitoring location will be documented with photographs operation. taken during low flows in late summer and in winter while modified operation is ongoing to determine if and how much ice breakage and wedging occurs. (See Operating Plan Section 5.4 Ice Scour) Water temperature Water temperature monitors have already been installed on the Hourly data will be Should stratification effects occur, the results will be The results will be submitted to Ivanhoe River headponds Water temperature in the river will be monitored for duration of reviewed with MOE/MNR to develop an adaptive MOE and MNR annually monitored on an hourly basis. facility lifetime management plan. (See ER document Section 3.6.5 Compliance Considerations)

A temperature profile with measurements taken every meter of Three times a year during the The results will be submitted to depth will be conducted at the impoundment to determine if spring freshet, the summer MOE annually for years 1, 2 and thermal stratification is occurring in the impoundment. low-flow period and the fall 3 of operation. (See Surface Water Quality Report Section 4.2) mid-flow periods in years 1, 2 and 3 following Surface Water development. Surface Water Samples will be collected from five locations including the upstream Post-development water Should significant changes happen, the results will be The results of the post- Quality reference, impoundment of the Chute, downstream of The Chute, quality samples will be reviewed with MOE to determine if additional sampling or development monitoring will be impoundment of Third Falls, and downstream of Third Falls collected three times a year investigation into the source of the changes is necessary. compared to pre-construction respectively. Parameters below will be measured: during the spring freshet, the condition and reported to MOE pH, conductivity, alkalinity; summer low-flow period and annually for each monitoring Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS); the fall mid-flow periods in year.

214 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Cations (Mg, Na, Ca, K); years 1, 2 and 3 following

Anions (Cl, SO4); development, as Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC); recommended by MOE 2012. Total phosphorus; Nitrate, nitrite, ammonia and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN); Total metals; Low level total mercury (0.1 ng/L detection limit); and, Low level methyl mercury (0.02 ng/L detection limit). Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity and turbidity will be measured in the field using YSI model 650 TDS multi-meter. (See Surface Water Quality Report Section 4.2 Water Sampling) Fish Tissue Mercury Fish sampling will be conducted according to the MNR RIN Sampling will be conducted in Should significant changes happen, the results will be The results of the post- Concentrations protocol and recommendations of MOE Permit To Take years 3, 6 and 9 after reviewed with MOE to determine if additional sampling or development sampling will be WaterGuideline 2012. development to assess investigation into the source of the changes is necessary. compared to baseline results Large fish: total mercury – 10 samples; methyl mercury – 5 samples, mercury accumulation in fish Data will also be provided to local communities so that and reported to MOE annually of at least 25 to 55 cm length; tissue. community members are aware of any consumption for each monitoring year. Forage fish: total mercury and methyl mercury – 5 composite restrictions. samples, of 5 to 10 individuals of yearling perch or other cyprinid

Mercury species. Fish will be sampled from The Chute impoundment, Third Falls impoundment, and Downstream of Third Falls to assess project impacts. (See Surface Water Quality Report Section 4.3 Fish Sampling) The river channel will be monitored to determine if the headponds A series of monitoring Should monitoring program identify that erosion or The results of the post- are filling in and if the rapids below The Chute dam are eroding. ‘stations’ will be installed and sedimentation significantly occurs due to the facility development monitoring will be A comprehensive monitoring program will quantify differences in re-established annually for the operation, An adaptive management plan will be compared to pre-construction pre- and post-construction channel form and processes, including first 5 years of operation, and developed to modify operations in the scenario that condition and reported to MOE lateral migration, vertical channel adjustments, change in channel then year 7 and year 10. significant negative impacts are observed during annually for each monitoring capacity, substrate adjustment, and general channel performance. construction or post-development. year.

Control A few benchmarked cross-sections will be placed at the headpond of each proposed facility and in between. Pebble counts and photography stations would be incorporated as monitoring approaches. Erosion and Sedimentation (See Geomorphology Report Section 6 Future Work)

215 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

13. REGULATORY APPROVALS AND PERMITS

Following the successful completion of the EA and the completion of detailed engineering design, the proponent will make application to various federal, provincial and municipal agencies for regulatory permits, approvals and authorizations. These permits, approvals and authorizations are required before site preparation or construction, or prior to the commissioning of the facility.

A list of the regulatory permits that may be required for this undertaking is presented below in Table 29. Note that at the time of writing of this draft report, amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) were being proposed. The amended act, proposed to be called the Navigation Protection Act (NPA), would list the major waterways for which regulatory approval is required prior to the placement or construction of a work and expand the list of low risk works that can be pre-approved due to their low potential impact on navigation. The specific requirements of the proposed undertaking with respect to the NWPA/NPA may therefore change depending on the amendments that are ultimately incorporated into the Act. Similarly, proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act may see a shift in the DFO’s focus from reviewing all projects on all waters to those that may have significant impacts on Canadian fisheries. Amendments to Section 35 of the Fisheries Act may result in authorizations no longer being required for activities having only temporary effects on fish habitat (Richler, 2012). The amendments that are ultimately adopted into the Fisheries Act will determine which activities and works associated with the proposed development of The Chute GS and Third Falls GS will require authorizations under Section 35.

Table 29: List of Potential Regulatory Approvals

Permit and Legislative Requirement Agency Federal Authorization for Works and Undertakings Affecting Fish Fisheries and Oceans Habitat - Fisheries Act [Section 35(2)] Canada Authorization for Destruction of Fish by Means other than Fisheries and Oceans Fishing - Fisheries Act (Section 32) Canada Requires construction of fish-ways – Fisheries Act (Section 20) Fisheries and Oceans Canada Requires fish guards or screens to prevent entrainment of fish at any Fisheries and Oceans water diversion or intake – Fisheries Act (Section 30) Canada Requires sufficient flow of water for the safety of fish and flooding Fisheries and Oceans of spawning grounds as well as free passage of fish during Canada construction – Fisheries Act (Section 22) Species at Risk Act (SARA) – authorizations, as applicable Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Environment Canada Approval for Construction in Navigable Waters – Navigable Transport Canada Waters Protection Act (Section 5) (Marine)

216 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Explosives Act - Temporary Magazine Licence Natural Resource Canada Provincial Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) – Section 14 - Location Ministry of Natural Approval and Plans and Specifications Approval Resources Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) – Section 23.1 - Water Ministry of Natural Management Plan amendment Resources Public Lands Act (PLA) – Work Permits (Parts 1-5, as required). Ministry of Natural Resources Public Lands Act (PLA) – Land Use Permit or Licence to Construct Ministry of Natural Resources Public Lands Act (PLA) – Licence of Occupation Ministry of Natural Resources Public Lands Act (PLA) – Water Power Lease Agreement Ministry of Natural Resources Public Lands Act (PLA) – Grants of Easements (Policy PL 4.11.04) Ministry of Natural Resources Public Lands Act (PLA) – Lease Ministry of Natural Resources Endangered Species Act (ESA) – permits and agreements, as Ministry of Natural applicable Resources Crown Forest and Sustainability Act (CFSA) - Forest Resource Ministry of Natural Licence and Overlapping Licence Agreement Resources Crown Forest and Sustainability Act (CFSA) – Use/maintenance Ministry of Natural agreement Resources Forest Fires Prevention Act (FFPA) - Burn permit on Crown Land Ministry of Natural Resources Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) – Aggregate Permit Ministry of Natural Resources Permit to Take Water – Ontario Water Resources Act Ministry of the (Section 34), Category 2 (construction) and 3 (operation) Environment Environmental Compliance Approval (Industrial Sewage) – Ontario Ministry of the Water Environment Resources Act (Section 53) Environmental Compliance Approval (Air and Noise) – Ministry of the Environmental Environment Protection Act (Section 9) Waste Generator Registration – Environmental Protection Act Ministry of the [Section 18(1)], Ontario Regulation 347 Environment Notice of Project and Registration of Contractors – Ministry of Labour Construction Regulation 213/91 Ontario Energy Board Act (OEBA) - Electricity Generation Licence Ontario Energy Board Potentially leave to construct (section 92) and Wholesaler license if

217 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

transmission connected. Note would also require market authorization from the IESO if transmission connected. Municipal Road Use Agreement Municipality Building Permit Municipality Fire Protection and Prevention Act (FFAPA) - Burn Permit Municipality

218 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

14. COMMITMENTS

The following commitments are made by the proponent, Xeneca Power Development Inc. in order to ensure the development of a sustainable waterpower project;

General

 The proponent is committed to ensuring compliance with the ER as a contract with the people of Ontario.

 The proponent is committed to the adoption and application of the mitigation measures outlined within this document for both the construction and operation of the proposed undertakings according to applicable legislation (i.e. adherence to Construction Management Plan and best management practices, such as applicable DFO Ontario Operational Statements as listed at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/habitat/os-eo/provinces- territories-territoires/on/index-eng.htm). This may be achieved through the hiring of an environmental inspector for the duration of the construction program and through operator training on environmental issues within the operational phase of the projects.

 The proponent will apply the mitigation measures for erosion and sedimentation presented in the Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (see Annex II). Such mitigation measures include phasing construction to minimize the duration of soil exposure, maximizing the retention of existing vegetation cover, installing silt fences around stockpiles of erodible material, and monitoring the effectiveness of the mitigation measures throughout the construction period. The proponent will further develop the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Annex II) before the start of the construction phase for the proposed undertakings.

 The proponent will monitor incoming flows to the headpond of the Chute and outflows from the Third Falls tailrace to ensure that natural flows continue to pass into the Northern Claybelt Forest Complex Conservation Reserve.

 The proponent is committed to the development and implementation of a regular reporting process including a Project Implementation Report. The format and content of this report will be discussed with local stakeholders and agencies to meet their needs.

 The proponent is committed to the protection and conservation of culturally modified trees (CMTs) and culturally significant trees in proximity to the project sites. Through consultation with First Nations communities, the proponent has developed an understanding for the cultural significance of these trees, and has discussed their location and protection with First Nations communities. No trees have been identified within planned construction areas; identified trees in close proximity to the construction area will clearly marking and protected. In addition, construction staff will be trained in the identification of CMTs.

219 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

 In the unlikely event that bridges within the project`s headpond are affected, the proponent is committed to indemnifying the bridge owners for damages and repairs.

Facility Operations

 The proponent is committed to verifying the specific operational parameters as identified in the post construction monitoring table and in consultation with regulators and to documenting any updates in the operational plan for the facility.

 During intermittent operations, The Chute facility will continue to pass the volume of water which would pass the facility naturally over the same 24h period.

 The operation of the facility will be aligned with the existing Mattagami River WMP during a comprehensive review in 2014. The Chute and Third Falls Operating Plan will be made available to all identified stakeholders (please see the Plan in Annex I and reference to stakeholder list) for consideration during the EA review process and for discussion in subsequent stages of the development. The approved Operating Plan will become part of the Mattagami River WMP through a Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Section 23.1, Water Management Plan amendment. After the approval of the amendment, Xeneca will participate in the Mattagami River WMP process.

 To ensure that the project will not have any deleterious effect on the Clay Belt Conservation Reserve located downstream of the project zone of influence the Third Falls project will re- naturalize the flows.

 Xeneca is committed to operating within the existing flows provided by the upstream Ivanhoe Lake Dam.

Consultation

 The proponent is committed to realizing a signed Memorandum of Understanding with the Wabun Tribal Council.

 The proponent is committed to continuing to engage specific community and Aboriginal stakeholders on relevant issues after the issuance of the Notice of Completion and Statement of Completion.

 The proponent is committed to sharing all information from studies as well as the operational strategy proposed for the site with the interested First Nation, Aboriginal and other communities.

 Xeneca will work with the recreational fishing community, local tourism operators and other interested parties to ensure that access, fisheries, tourism values and aesthetics are not negatively affected by the project. Xeneca is also willing to facilitate access by improving

220 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

boat launches, parking and portages where possible, and maintaining established portage routes whenever possible. Recognizing that there is a potential conflict between these two objectives, given the remote aesthetic of the area, Xeneca will seek to reach a mutually agreeable solution with stakeholders.

Further Investigations

 Xeneca will be undertaking the following assessments through the Spring and Summer of 2013 and incorporating the results into the final environmental report in advance of the issuance of the notice of completion:

 Archaeological investigations along proposed access road alignments

 Habitat assessment along proposed access road alignments

 Habitat assessment of potential Brook trout habitat tributaries within zone of influence.

 The proponent will update the Construction Management Plan based on advanced project design to include instructions and protocols for minimizing the disturbance to valued ecosystem components.

 Based on First Nation input, alternative materials other than concrete will be considered in construction pending approval by the MNR.

 The proponent will document and verify impacts associated with inundation and flow effects within the zone of influence upstream (inundation area) and downstream (variable flow reach) of the facility.

 The proponent will continue to actively solicit the involvement of participating Aboriginal communities in any cultural heritage assessment activities to be undertaken for the project.

221 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

15. CONCLUSIONS

Xeneca Power Development Inc. proposes to construct and operate The Chute and Third Falls hydroelectric power generating stations (GS) on the Ivanhoe River. This document describes the environmental assessment (EA) carried out as part of the planning process for the proposed projects.

Throughout the environmental planning process, Xeneca has endeavoured to understand the environment in which the projects would be built by undertaking an extensive information and data collection program. Data on areas of the environmental setting of the project was collected by discipline experts including:

 Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessments;

 A natural environment characterization and impact assessment;

 Erosion study on the riverine system in the zone of influence;

 Database analysis and mapping exercise and wetland assessment and flyover to route the connection line and access roads;

 A statistical analysis of historical hydrological data;

 A hydraulic model study analysis;

 Geomorphological assessment

 Conceptual engineering design; and

 Baseline surface water quality study

A comprehensive agency and public consultation program also contributed key information towards the identification of the potential adverse and positive environmental effects of the projects. While Xeneca is committed to continuing the discussion with local groups, it is anticipated that any identified issues can be resolved. Agency approval for the proposed operating strategy and permitting and authorizations in support of construction will be sought following consultation with regulators and incorporated into the final design of the facility and its components.

Aboriginal and First Nation engagement was undertaken with each community’s leadership as part of the business to business Aboriginal consultation initiative by the proponent. A comprehensive engagement initiative with each community located within, or having traditionally used the project area has been underway since issue of the Notice of Commencement and will continue beyond Notice of Completion and into project implementation. Additionally, the Stage 1 and Stage 2 archaeological assessments of the project

222 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 determined that there were no cultural resources which would be impacted by the project. Further archaeological assessments are being conducted through the spring of 2013 to address the potential for cultural resources to be present along the proposed access roads for the project.

Throughout this document, management strategies have been developed and applied to known impacts in order to avoid, prevent or minimize any identified adverse environmental effects of the project. It is the conclusion of this environmental assessment that the planned undertaking will result in residual adverse effects. An analysis of the identified residual adverse environmental effects was undertaken to determine their significance, and commitments for any required additional measures for the further management of these potential residual effects have been made.

The majority of the identified adverse effects were determined to be “not significant”, meaning that they are not likely to cause unacceptable harm to environmental quality, productive capacity of the effected environment, or the socio-economic and cultural attributes of the area.

There are however adverse environmental effects that have been identified that will require further assessment or discussions with regulators through the spring and summer of 2013 before the determination of residual effects and significance can be completed. The results of these studies and discussions will but incorporated into the final environmental report along with agency draft review comments in advance of the issuance of the ER associated with the Notice of Completion.

There are also many positive environmental effects associated with the project which are considered to off-set the adverse environmental effects associated with the project, these include:

 Tangible Economic Outcomes for the Local Communities and the Regional / Provincial Economy:

o Benefit to the local SFL holder by sale/processing of merchantable timber along the connection line and access road ROWs, and the merchantable timber to be harvested from the area of inundation.

o Direct job creation (construction) is estimated to be approximately 36,000 person hours of work. Indirect job creation is estimated to be approximately 54,000 person hours of work supporting the project and personnel.

o Direct economic activity to build a waterpower project in Ontario is approximately $5 million per megawatt. Generally, about half of this amount is spent locally (approximately $9 million in the case of this project), in procuring construction labour & materials, consulting and legal services, trucking and other services such as accommodation, food and fuel.

223 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

o Employment and training opportunities (planning, construction and operation phases of the project);

o A significant return to the people of Ontario paid through Gross Revenue Charges (GRC) and provincial and federal income taxes. Return to the people of Ontario will continue past the 40 year contract, likely as long as the facility is in operation.

 Creation of reliable and secure green energy for the province and reduced Greenhouse Gas emissions:

o The project will reduce CO2 emissions by eliminating the need for an equivalent amount of electricity to be produced through the combustion of fossil fuels.

o Benefits to the population, commerce and industries of Ontario by providing more reliable and consistent renewable power to the provincial grid for many years to come. Many power plants built in the early 1900s are still in operation and with regular maintenance and upgrades can last for generations to come.

o The operation of the facility in the existing power grid will be compatible with the overall power system reliability and power quality (voltage and frequency) objectives while improving distribution customer service reliability in this area, from a sustainable and consistent power source.

 The generation of electricity through a renewable energy supply in support of the province’s Green Energy Act.

Preliminary planning discussions towards the development of various management strategies are outlined in this document, and the proponent will continue to work with the regulators and other interested parties in support of securing approvals for this undertaking. The application of the recommended management strategies and adherence to the identified commitments by the proponent will help to realize a sustainable renewable energy development project.

224 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

16. REFERENCES

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). (2011). First Nation Profiles. Retrieved from http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Index.aspx?lang=eng

Ali, M. A., and M. Anctil. 1977. Retinal structure and function in the Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) and sauger (S. canadense). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:1467–1474.

Auer, N.A. 1982: Identification of larval fishes of the Great Lakes Basin with emphasis on the lake Michigan Drainage. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Special Pub. 82-3: 744pp.

Ayer, J.A. 1993. Geology of Foleyet and Ivanhoe townships; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5851, 42p.

Banton, E. and Racey, G. 2009. “Draft Boreal Ecosite Factsheets.” Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: Northwest Science and Information Department.

BAR Environmental and NLK Consultants. 1995. Environmental effects monitoring: predesign and study design report for Abitibi Price Inc., Iroquois Falls Div. 68p.

Bourke, P., Magnan, P. and Rodríguez, M. A. (1997), Individual variations in habitat use and morphology in brook charr. Journal of Fish Biology, 51: 783–794. doi: 10.1111/j.1095- 8649.1997.tb01999.x

Brunswick House First Nation. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://brunswickhousefirstnation.com/about.asp

Bry, C. 1996. Role of vegetation in the life cycle of pike. In: Pike Biology and Exploitation, Ed. J.F. Craig. pp 46-67. Chapman and Hall, London.

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage and A.R. Couturier. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Available online at: http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp?lang=en

Canadian Business Ethics Research Network. (n.d.). Moose Cree first nation. Retrieved from http://www.cbern.ca/research/projects/workspaces/cura_project/case_studies/moose_cree_first_n ation/

Casselman, J.M. 1996. Age, growth, and environmental requirements of pike. Pages 69-101 in J.F. Craig, editor, Pike: biology and exploitation. Chapman and Hall, London

Chapman L. J. , W.C. Mackay and C.W. Wilkinson. 1989. Feeding flexibility in northern pike (Esox lucius): fish versus invertebrate prey. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46:666-669.

225 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Chutes Hydropower Development Conceptual Site Development Layout-Plate 1-9. Hatch Engineering. October 2009.

Colby, P.J., R.E. McNicol, and R.A. Ryder. 1979. Synopsis of biological data on the Walleye Stizostedion v. vitreum (Mitchill 1818). FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Fisheries Synopsis 119.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 107 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

Cook, M.F. and E.P. Bergersen. 1988. Movements, habitat selection, and activity periods of northern pike in Eleven Mile Reservoir, Colorado. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 117:495-502.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2010. Birds of North America Online. Available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna. Accessed Dec. 14, 2010.

Curry R.A., D. Sparks, and J. van de Sande. 2002. Spatial and temporal movements of a riverine Brook trout populations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 131:551-560.

D’Amelio, S, J. Mucha, R. Mackereth, and C.C. Wilson. 2008. Tracking coaster Brook trout to their sources: combining telemetry and genetic profiles to determine source populations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 28:1343-1349.

D’Amelio, S. and Wilson C. 2008. Genetic Population Structure among Source Populations for Coaster Brook trout in Nipigon Bay, Lake Superior. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 137:1213-1228.

Dayton, Frank. Telephone conversation regarding Foleyet and surrounding. September 2012. deGeus, B. 2011. Erosion Sensitivity Analysis Kapuskasing River Hydroelectric Candidate Sties Xeneca Power Development. AquaLogic Consulting.

Department of Justice Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act. Available online at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/S-15.3/page-1.html.

Diana, J.S. 1980. Diel activity pattern and swimming speeds of northern pike (Esox lucius) in Lac Ste. Anne, Alberta. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 1454-1458.

Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists.

Dynesius, M. and Nilsson, C. 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266:752–762.

226 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Eakins, R. J. 2010. Ontario Freshwater Fishes Life History Database. Version 3.88. On-line database. (http://www.fishdb.ca), accessed 25 November 2010.

Egglishaw,H.J. 1969. The distribution of benthic invertebrates on substrata in fast-flowing streams. Journal of Animal Ecology. Vol.38. No.1 pp19-33.

Environment Canada. Daily Discharge for Ivanhoe River at Foleyet (04LC003). [Online] 25 June 2009. http://www.wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/graph/graph_e.html?stn=04LC003

Environment Canada. Daily Discharge for Groundhog River at Fauquier (04LD001). [Online] 25 June 2009. http://www.wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/graph/graph_e.html?stn=04LD004

Eschmeyer, P. H. 1950. The life history of the Walleye, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum (Mitchell),in Michigan. Mich. Dept. Cons. Bull. Inst. Fish. Res. No. 3. 99 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Federal Requirements for Waterpower Development Environmental Assessment Processes in Ontario – Practioner’s Guide, Version 1.0, March 2006.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Overhead Line Construction Operational Statement, v. 3.0, 2007.

Fisheries and Ocean Canada (DFO), 2010, Practitioners Guide to the Risk Management Framework for DFO Habitat management Staff, August, 2010

Franklin, D.R. and L.L. Smith Jr. 1963. Early life history of the Northern Pike, Esox lucius L., with special reference to the factors influencing the numerical strength of year classes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 92: 91-110.

Fraser, D. J., and L. Bernatchez. 2005. Adaptive migratory divergence among sympatric brook charr populations. Evolution 59:611–624.

Gibson, D.W., Aubrey, S. and Armstrong, E.R. 1984. Age, growth and management of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) from a section of the Abitibi River. MS Rep. Ont. Min. Nat. Res. 33p.

Golder and Associates Limited 2004. Report on 2004 Lake Sturgeon Study, Spring 2004. Reference number: 04-1192-010. Sudbury, Ontario

Golder and Associates Limited 2005. Report on 2005 Lake Sturgeon Study, Spring 2004. Reference number: 05-1198-004. Sudbury, Ontario

Golder and Associates Limited 2006. Report on 2006 Lake Sturgeon Study, Spring 2006. Reference number: 06-1198-004. Sudbury, Ontario

Government of Ontario. 2007. Endangered Species Act. Available online at: http://www.e- laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm.

227 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Groundhog River Provincial Park http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/supportingdocs/alus/landuseA-P.htm; http://www.wildlandsleague.org/display.aspx?pid=72&cid=227

Haig, D. 1998. Pishkanogami Canoe Route. Quaterly Journal of the Wilderness Canoe Association, 25(2).

Harvey, B. 2009. A biological synopsis of northern pike (Esox lucius). Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2885:v +31p.

HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual, Version 4.1. USACE Hydrologic Engineering Centre. January 2010.

Hogan, T. 2008. Impingement and Entrainment: Biological Efficacy of Intake Alternatives. Presented at the 2008 Desalination Intakes Solutions Workshop. Alden Research Laboratories. Fort Collins, Colorado. Oct. 16 and 17, 2008

Holm E., N.E. Mandrak, and M.E. Burridge. 2009. The ROM field guide to freshwater fishes of Canada. Royal Ontario Museum.

Hydrological Memo Report 13 – Ivanhoe: The Chute, Ivanhoe River. BPR Engineering, December 01, 2010.

Hydrology Review for Ivanhoe River Hydropower Sites. Hatch Engineering. November 3, 2009.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, First Nation Profiles, http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Index.aspx?lang=eng

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jones, NE and G Yunker. 2009. Riverine Index Netting Manual of Instructions V.2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, River and Stream Ecology Laboratory. 36 pp.

Kempinger, J.J. 1988: Spawning and early life history of Lake Sturgeon in the Lake Winnebago system, Wisconsin. American Fisheries Society Symposium 5: 111 -122.

Kerr, Steven J., A.J. Dextrase, N.P. Lester, C.A. Lewis, H.J. Rietveld. 2004. Strategies for Managing Walleye in Ontario. 24pp.

KGS, EAG and NHCL. 1991. Evaluation of fish habitat mitigation at six hydrotechnical projects: Oldman Dam, Little Jackfish, Mattagami, Conawapa, Little Bow and Moose River. Prepared for Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Central Arctic Region. Winnipeg Manitoba, Canada. 440p.

Kristmanson, J.D. 1989. Mattagami River creel survey, 1988. (Draft). Ont Hydro Tech. Rep. 30p.

228 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

LaHaye, M., A. Branchaud, M. Gendron, R. Vendron and R. Fortin. 1992.Reproduction, early life history,

Lancaster,J. and Hildrew, A., 1993. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. Volume 12(4) 385-393

Lawson, K. 1983. Biology, age, growth and angler harvest of lake sturgeon (Acipencer fulvescens) of the Groundhog-Mattagami Rivers, 1982. Ont. Min. of Nat. Res., Kapuskasing, Ontario. 49p.

Lee, H.A., and Scott, S.A., 1980. Northern Ontario engineering Geology Terrain Study, Database Map, Folyet. Ontario Geological Survey, Map 5102, scale 1:100 000.

Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 2010. Bill 184: An Act to protect species at risk and to make related changes to other Acts. Royal Assent: May 17, 2007.

Local Service Board of Foleyet (LSBF), 2012. Telephone conversation regarding Foleyet and surrounding. October 2012.

Matagami First Nation, 2013. Mattagami first nation - home page. Retrieved from http://mattagami.com/

McCrudden, C. 1982. Gill netting as a mark-recapture technique on the Frederick HouseRiver. Ont. Min. of Nat. Res. Tech. Report, Cochrane, Ontario. 12p.

McSweeney & Associates. 2010 “Timmins Complete Manifold Data 2010.” Manifold Data Ming Inc. Super-demographics.

Métis Nation of Ontario. (2013). About the métis nation of ontario. Retrieved from http://www.metisnation.org/about-the-mno/the-metis-nation-of-ontario

Michipicoten First Nation. (2013). Michipicoten - who we are. Retrieved from http://www.michipicoten.com/who-we-are/

Minister of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AAND), (March 2011).Aboriginal consultation and accommodation updated guidelines for federal officials to fulfill the duty to consult (R3-111/2012E-PDF). Retrieved from Government of Canada website: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte- text/intgui_1100100014665_eng.pdf

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 1985. Ivanhoe River – Big River Inventory. Internal MNR Document.

Ministry of Natural Resources, 1988. Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings.

229 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2002. Natural Hazards Technical Guides; River and Stream Systems Erosion Hazard Limit Technical Guide.

Ministry of Natural Resources, 2002. Water Management Planning Guideline for Waterpower.

Ministry of Natural Resources, 2006. Policy Report: C1702. http://www.lio.ontario.ca/imf- ows/sites/clupa/xmlReader.jsp?xsl=XML/web-primary.xsl&polid=C1702 accessed May 2013

Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008. Policy Report: G1770. http://www.lio.ontario.ca/imf- ows/sites/clupa/xmlReader.jsp?xsl=XML/web-primary.xsl&polid=G1770 accessed May 2013

Ministry of Natural Resources. 2009. The lake sturgeon in Ontario. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Peterborough, Ontario.

Ministry of Natural Resources Chapleau, 2009. Pineland Forest Survey

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2010a. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp.

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2010b. Waterpower Site Information Package for Ivanhoe River – The Chute #4LC18.

Ministry of Natural Resources, 2011. 2011-2021 Forest Management Plan (FMP) for the Pineland Forest. Retrieved from http://www.appefmp.mnr.gov.on.ca/eFMP/home on 8th October 2012

Ministry of the Environment, Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects, March 2001.

Ministry of Transportation, Fact Sheets: Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control During Construction of Highway Projects, Appendix E, MTO, 2007.

Moretto, Y.,Higuti,J. and Takeda,A.M. 2003 Spatial Variation of the Benthic Community in the Corumbá Reservoir, Goiás, Brazil. Maringá, V. 25 23-30.

Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2010. Element Summary Report for Danaus plexippus Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. Accessed in October 2010. Available http://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/nhicIndex.jsp

National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, Climate Prosperity – a Canadian Perspective, http://www.climateprosperity.ca/eng/studies/climate-impacts/degrees-of- change/nrtee-degrees-of-change-poster-map-eng.pdf

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/zones/eastcan-eng.php

230 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI), 2011. Xeneca Power Hydroelectric Developments Transmission Line and Access Road Natural Environment Preliminary Analysis. March, 2011.

Nordeng, J. 1983. Solution to the “char problem” based on Artic Car (Salvelinus alpinus) in Norway. Canadian Journel of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:1372-1387

Nowak, A.M. 1984. Status of the lake sturgeon fishery, lower Groundhog River, Kapukasing District 1982-1984. Ont. Min. of Nat. Res., Tech. Rep. 59p.

Nowak, A.M. and Hortiguela, M. 1986. Status of the lake sturgeon fishery in two reaches of the Mattagami River, Cochrane. Ont. Min. of Nat. Res. Tech. Rep. 25p.

Nowak, A.M. and MacRitchie, I.C. 1984. A study of the Frederick House River, Cochrane District, 1981-1983. MS Report, Ont. Min. of Nat. Res., Cochrane. 99p.

OBBA. 2001. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas: guide for participants. Available http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/download/obba_guide_en.pdf

OGSEarth, Bedrock Geology. Available: http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and- minerals/applications/ogsearth/bedrock-geology [Accessed 15 April, 2013]

Oldham, M.J. and W.F. Weller. 2000. Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Available online at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/herps/ohs.html

Ontario Nature. 2010. Ontario’s Reptile and Amphibian Atlas. Available on-line at http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/index.php (Updated Sept. 15, 2010). Accessed Dec. 14, 2010.

Ontario Power Authority, (July 11, 2008). Consulting with first nation and métis communities: Best practices, good business. Retrieved from website: http://caid.ca/OntPowConPol071108.pdf

Ontario Power Generation Environment Department – Environmental Construction Guidelines Manual, Electricity Production – Hydroelectric, July 2003.

Ontario Power Generation Inc., Tembec Industries, Brookfield Power and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OPG et al.). 2006. Mattagami River System Water Management Plan. Final Report.

Ovido M. and J.C. Philippart 2005. Long range seasonal movements of northern pike (Esox lucius L.) in the barbell zone of the River Ourthe (River Meuse basin, Belguim). Aquatic telemetry: advances and applications. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry held in Europe. Ustica, Italy, 9-13 June 2003. Rome, FAO/COISPA. 2005. 295p.

231 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Power, G. 1980. The brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis. Charrs-trout fishes of the genus Salvelinus, W. Junk, The Hauge Netherlands. Pages 141-203.

Price, W.A., 2005. List of potential information requirements in metal leaching and acid rock drainage assessment and mitigation work. CANMET Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories, MEND Report 5.10E, 24 pages.

Raney, E.C., and E. A. Lachner. 1942. Studies of the summer food, growth, and movements of young yellow pike-perch (Stizostedion v. vitreum) in Oneida Lake, New York.

Rawson, D.S. 1957. The life history and ecology of the yellow Walleye, Stizostedion vitreum, in Lac la Ronge, Saskatchewan. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 86:15-37.

Richler, I., The Recent Fisheries Act Amendments, October 2012.

Ryder, R.A. 1977. Effects of ambient light variations on behavior of yearling, subadult and adult Walleyes (stizostedion v. vitreum). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34(10):1481– 1491.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Galt House Publications Ltd., Oakville, Ontario. Reprinted in 1998.

Seyler, J. 1997a. Biology of Selected Riverine Fish Species in the Moose River Basin. Northeast Science & Technology (NEST). Information Report IR-024. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Cochrane District. Large River Ecosystem Unit. ISBN 0-7778-5601-8. May 1997.

Statistics Canada. Population and Dwelling Counts, for Canada, Provinces and Territories, and Designated Places. 2006 and 2001 Censuses.

Terry L. Margenau, P. W. Rasmussen and J. M. Kampa 1998. Factors Affecting Growth of Northern Pike in Small Northern Wisconsin Lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 199818:3, 625-639

Timmins Industry Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.timmins.ca/visitors/explore- timmins/industry on 23rd March 2013.

USGS. Verified Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels. [Online] 05 April, 2011. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/sws/fieldmethods/Indirects/nvalues/index.htm

Terrapoint #: 2009-161-C; 2009-172-C; and 2009174-C. Terrapoint. October 1, 2010.

Terrapoint #: 2008-172-C (C1 and C2 inclusive). Terrapoint. August 5, 2009.

Thurston, P.C., Siragusa, G.M., and Sage, R.P., 1977. Geology of the Chapleau Area, Districts of Algoma, Sudbury and Cochrane; Ontario Division of Mines, GR157, 293p. Accompanied by Maps 2351 and 2352, scale 1:250 000 and Map 2221, scale 1:253 440.

232 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013

Timmins Economic Development Corporation (Timmins), 2011.City of Timmins 2011 Economic Report Final Draft.Retrieved from http://www.timminsedc.com/en/resources/2011%20Economic%20Forecast.pdf on 26 September 2012.

Town of Chapleau, 2013. Chapleau Community Profile. http://www.chapleau.ca/en/invest/resources/ChapleaCommPro.pdf accessed May 2013

Wabun Tribal Council. (2013). Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation Profile. Retrieved from http://www.wabun.on.ca/first-nation-profiles/chapleau-ojibwe-first-nation

Wakenagun Community Futures Development Coproration. (1999). Chapelau cree community profile. Retrieved from http://www.wakenagun.ca/PDF/Chapleau Profile.pdf

Witzel, L.D. and H.R. Maccrimmon. 1983. Redd-site selection by Brook trout and brown trout in southwestern Ontario streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 112(6):760-761.

World Health Organization (WHO), 2007. Extremely Low Frequency Fields: Environmental Health Criteria Monograph No. 238. www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/elf_ehc/en/index.html Xeneca Power, 2011. Email from Grace Yu of Xeneca Power to Dave green of NRSI dated June 2 2011 providing construction details and footprint areas of impact.

233