TITLE PLACEHOLDER Welcome Environmental Assessment for the Phase 2 Transmission Project Connecting 17 Remote First Nation Communities

Todaywe are here to provide information and gather feedback on the environmental assessment findings documented in the Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR), including: . Baseline data collection . Effects assessment results . Recommended mitigation measures . Engagement efforts We encourage you to review the information and maps, and speak to team members about any concerns or comments. Information is also available on our website: http://www.wataypower.ca/

Examples of transmission lines Wataynikaneyap Power Projects

WATAYNIKANEYAP PROJECTS . $1.6 billion estimated capital cost

Phase 1 – New Transmission Line to . Approximately 300 km of 230 kV line . Undergoing an Individual EA

Phase 2 - Connecting 17 remote First Nation communities currently serviced by diesel generators . 1,500 km of 115 kV and 44 kV transmission lines . Potential first community grid connections in 2021; build out to 2023

Pikangikum Distribution Line . 44 kV and 25 kV distribution line: Red Lake to . Under construction – potential connection in 2018 . Phase 2 - Conversion of distribution line to transmission line

First structure installation for Pikangikum Distribution Line – February 10, 2018. Left to Right: Jonah Strang, Elden Strang, Conrad Quill, Chief Dean Owen, Corey Purcell, Sawna Cheena, Adam Fox, Mat Barbeau, P. A. Garneau, Connor Newson, Terry Jean, Katherine Blake ProjectTITLE and Proponent PLACEHOLDER Background

. Purpose - Toconnect 17 remote First Nation communities in Northwestern to Ontario’s electrical grid

. Proponent - Wataynikaneyap Power L.P. ▪ 51% owned by 22 . 49% owned by Fortis Inc.

Fortis . FortisOntario is a subsidiary of Fortis, an electric and gas utility business with approximately $28 billion in assets, including significant transmission and distribution facilities in Ontario

Golder Associates Ltd. . Designated Lead Environmental Assessment Consultant . Golder is a global employee-owned organization, founded in , that provides independent consulting, design and construction services in specialist areas of earth, environment and energy, with offices across Ontario Project Details, Components and Construction

. Approximately 1,500 km of overhead transmission line . The system includes: ▪ Transmission line: towers, foundations and lines ▪ 21 substations (transformer stations and switching stations) ▪ Access roads, construction camps, watercourse crossings and laydown areas (for equipment during construction)

. 40 metre (130 feet) wide clearing for the transmission line within a 2 kilometre (6,562 feet) wide study corridor - this is the focus of the study area for the Environmental Assessment

Example of a construction camp. Example of a connection facility.

Example of clearing for a transmission line.

Example of a laydown area.

Example of a transformer station.

Example of construction of a transmission line.

Rolls of transmission line conductor at a laydown area. Environmental Assessment Status Update and Schedule

. Baseline studies completed in 2016 and 2017

. Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) will soon be available for review ▪ July to August 2018 is the planned public review period ▪ A copy of the Draft ESR will be available in each community Draft ESR will also be available on the website (www.wataypower.ca)

. Comments will be considered and changes made to the document where needed ▪ Final ESR will be released for review (planned for September 2018)

. At the end of the EA process a Statement of Completion will be issued . Planned field programs in support of permitting include: ▪ Archaeology and cultural heritage surveys ▪ Water crossing surveys ▪ Limited supplemental wildlife surveys in June or July 2016 2017 2018

Round 1 Engagement Round 2 Engagement Meetings Round 3 Engagement Meetings (Oct 2016 –Feb 2018) Meetings (Mar –Jul 2018) (Feb –Sep 2016) Baseline EA Studies Prepare ESR Submit Submit Draft ESR Final ESR Preliminary 2‐km wide 40‐m‐wide right‐ (July (Sep study corridor of‐way 2018) 2018) (Sep 2016) (Jul 2017) Public and Public and Government Government Review Review

Anticipated Statement of Completion (Oct 2018) Ongoing Aboriginal and Stakeholder Engagement We are here Applicable Environmental Assessment (EA) Processes

Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities (Hydro One 1992)

• For applicable 115 kV sections and associated infrastructure Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2003) • For applicable less than 115 kV sections and associated infrastructure, and disposition of resources • Category C process followed

Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2004) • For disposition of resources for applicable less than 115 kV sections within Provincial Parks • Category C process followed Section 67 Canadian EA Act (CEAA 2012) • For sections of the transmission line on First Nation reserve lands

One integrated Environmental Study Report

How We Have Engaged on these EA Processes

. Regulatory announcements – Notice of Commencement of EA . Project website – www.wataypower.ca . Project team contacts . Community meetings – including presentations, panels, handouts, maps, comment and evaluation forms . Traditional Land and Resource Use studies . Newsletters . Community liaison sessions Engagement with Who We Are Engaging With Group 1 – • Bearskin Lake First Nation • As per Interim Delegation in 2013 and • • North Caribou First Nation a Memorandum of Understanding • • North Spirit Lake First Nation between Ontario and Wataynikaneyap • • Pikangikum First Nation signed in 2016 in relation to the Duty • Kasabonika First Nation • to Consult • • Sachigo Lake First Nation • Kingfisher Lake First Nation • • Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug • Slate Falls Nation • First Nation • • Marten Falls First Nation • Wawakapewin First Nation • McDowell Lake First Nation • • Mishkeegogamang First Nation • Wunnumin Lake First Nation • Muskrat Dam First Nation • •

Group 2 – • (NAN) Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal • Grand Council of Treaty #3 groups responsible for representing • Taashikaywin Land Use Planning Group traditional lands and land use plans • Cat Lake and Slate Falls Community Based Land Use Planning Implementation Team that may be affected by the Project • Whitefeather Forest Community Resource Management Authority • Deer Lake First Nation Land Use Planning Group • McDowell Lake First Nation Land Use Planning Group • Wawakapewin First Nation Land Use Planning Group Group 3 – • Ojibway Nation of Saugeen Aboriginal communities and groups • Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishnabek who were engaged in Phase 1 and/or • are owners of Wataynikaneyap • Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation • Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation • Métis Nation of Ontario Region 1 Consultation Committee

Others – People who have identified • Government (municipal, provincial, federal) an interest in the Project • Non-Government Organizations • Crown land interest holders • Land owners • General public Engagement with Group 1 Communities Round Dates Objectives

1. Pre-EA Notification 2013-2014 - Review preliminary 5-km-wide corridors and identify preferred Jan – Sept 2016 corridor - Seek input to revise 5-km-wide corridors to 2-km-wide study corridors 2. Scoping Oct 2016 – Feb 2018 - Review 2-km-wide study corridors and alternatives, including preliminary locations of Project components (temporary and permanent access roads, temporary laydown areas, temporary camps) - Collect traditional land and resource use information - Review draft EA Workplan and Engagement Plans 2a. Update Jun 2017 - Provide newsletter including map of proposed 40-m-wide right of way (ROW) and preliminary Project component locations

3. Review EA findings MNRF Review of Draft Review: including Draft ESR ESR: underway - Baseline data and later final ESR Community Meetings: - Effects assessment results Mar - Jul 2018 - Recommended mitigation Draft ESR review: Jul –Aug 2018 (anticipated) What We Have Heard

Key Topics Identified by Aboriginal Communities: 250

200 200

150

FREQUENCY 100

71 58 51 50 46 30 21 16 16 14 12 11 10 8 66 4 332 1111 0

TOPICS

Key Topics Identified by Stakeholders: 14 13

12

10 9

8 7 6 6

FREQUENCY 4 4

22 2 111111

0

TOPICSTOPICS What is considered in an Environmental Assessment?

Baseline Natural Environment . Vegetation and Wetlands What is the environment like now? . Wildlife Potential Effects . Fish and Fish Habitat Physical Environment What positive and/or negative effects might . Surface Water the project have on the environment? . Ground Water Mitigation . Visual Aesthetics What can we do to reduce/avoid effects? . Air Quality and Climate Change . Noise Net and Cumulative Effects Human Environment Are there effects that cannot be avoided? . Socio-Economics Are there effects that could combine with . Non-Aboriginal Land effects from other projects? and Resource Use . Human Health Determine Significance . Archaeology Are the remaining/cumulative . Cultural Heritage effects significant? . Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests

Environmental Assessment is an important planning tool and process used to: . Identify potential negative effects and benefits of the Project to the environment . Reduce or remove potential negative effects and enhance benefits . Facilitate environmental decision-making . Provide opportunities to comment on how the Project may affect communities and community use of the land Effects Assessment Summary Discipline Potential Effects Assessment Results* Loss of ecosystems from clearing Vegetation . Accidental spills and dust during construction and . Effects not significant . Introduction of weeds and invasive species Wetlands . Requirement to manage/maintain vegetation during operation Effects not significant: Berens, Kinloch, Spirit, Swan, Ozhiski, and Mississa caribou . Loss of habitat ranges, moose, wolverine, bald eagle, . Habitat degradation (e.g., changes in vegetation, air, noise, water) Canada warbler, common nighthawk, olive- Wildlife . Habitat fragmentation (e.g., population connectivity, edge effects) sided flycatcher . Sensory disturbance during construction and operation Significant effects: Sydney caribou range . Direct mortality and little brown myotis (bat). However, they are both considered to be significantly affected at baseline (existing) conditions Loss of habitat Fish and . . Habitat degradation (e.g., accidental spills, sedimentation) Effects not significant Fish Habitat . Direct mortality . Short-term change in quality, primarily during construction Sedimentation Surface . Accidental spills Effects not significant Water . . Removal or diversion of water . Change in water flow at water crossings during construction and operation . Short term, primarily during construction Ground . Change in groundwater quality/quantity/flow Effects not significant Water . Effects from blasting, accidental spills, clearing of vegetation or dewatering at transmission towers . Vegetation clearing and the presence of towers and lines will Visual Effects not significant introduce visual disturbances to the existing landscape . Overall greenhouse gas emissions will decrease due to no longer burning Effects not significant Air Quality diesel to generate electricity Benefits to air quality and climate change and Climate . Emissions from vehicles and equipment expected through reduction in emissions Change . Dust during construction from diesel generating stations . Vegetation clearing (removal of carbon sink) . Short term noise from vehicles and equipment during construction . Noise from the transformer and switching stations Noise Effects not significant . Noise from the transmission line (crackling heard only near the line and mostly during wet conditions) . Potential effects of the project on labour market, economic Positive benefit development and government finances Effects not significant . Housing and Temporary Accommodation - Temporary in-migration of Socio- Project construction workforce and suppliers could increase demand for Benefits expected through ability to economics temporary accommodation in local communities connect additional homes to power . Community Wellbeing - Project construction activities could affect ambient noise levels along the right-of-way; potential for nuisance Effects not significant effects; potential for workforce disruptive behaviours Non- . Access to, use of, or to natural/cultural/recreational features of parks or Aboriginal protected area Land and . Land access and quality for hunters, anglers, trappers Effects not significant Resource . Remoteness and remote tourism outfitters Use . Mining and aggregates, forestry and waterpower . Changes to water quality Human . Air and dust emissions Effects not significant Health . Noise from construction or operations Archaeology . Loss or damage to archaeological resources Effects not significant Cultural . Damage to or alteration of built heritage during construction Effects not significant Heritage Aboriginal . Access to sites may be restricted during construction. and Treaty Effects not significant . Operation may result in increased access to land Rights

* A determination of significance was conducted for criteria with identified net effects (and/or cumulative effects) after mitigation. Vegetation and Wetlands Baseline: . Existing data and data collected through field studies and engagement (including traditional land and resource use studies) . Assessment focused on: upland and riparian ecosystems and wetlands . Field data collected in 2016 using aerial and vegetation surveys (including rare plants) ▪ 173 vegetation survey plots (May-Sep. 2016) with 319 species of plants identified ▪ No Species at Risk (SAR) plants observed ▪ Seven rare plants identified (one fern, one herb, and five mosses) ▪ 23 upland ecosystem types, 20 wetland ecosystem types, and two disturbed ecosystem types identified Potential effects of the project: . Loss of ecosystems from clearing . Accidental spills and dust during construction . Introduction of weeds and invasive species . Requirement to manage/maintain vegetation during operation Upland ecosystem observed during field survey. Criterion Predicted Loss of Ecosystem Types (Ecosystem Type) Red Lake Subsystem Pickle Lake Subsystem

Upland ecosystems 1,819 ha 2,746 ha

Riparian ecosystems 43 ha 70 ha

Wetlands 100 ha 46 ha

To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: . Design the project to avoid sensitive areas Fairy Parasol Moss (Critically . Revegetate cleared areas where possible imperiled in Ontario – S1). . Use measures to control the spread of invasive species . Mechanically clear during operation – no herbicides Assessment results: Vegetation types that will be cleared are common in the Project area and almost all of the following (99%) will remain unchanged: old forests, critical landform-vegetation associations (CLVA) and candidate areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI) Wildlife . Wildlife species to assess were chosen based on: presence in the area, Species at Risk, and engagement results: ▪ Woodland caribou ▪ Canada warbler ▪ Common nighthawk ▪ Moose ▪ Bank swallow ▪ Olive-sided flycatcher ▪ Wolverine ▪ Bald eagle ▪ Horned grebe ▪ Little brown myotis (bat) Baseline: . Existing data and new data collected through field surveys in 2016 and 2017 including: . Remote cameras to record species across the Project area . Helicopter surveys along Project corridor targeting: . areas used by waterbirds . caribou in a focused area . potential bat habitat . breeding bird count surveys . raptor nests, where observed . Nightjar acoustic surveys Potential effects of the project: Photo of sand hill crane . Loss of habitat captured by remote camera. . Reduced quality of habitat because of changes in vegetation, water, air, noise . Habitat fragmentation . Noise disturbance during construction and operation . Direct mortality To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: . Avoid construction during sensitive times (e.g., nesting) where possible . Avoid sensitive habitats where possible . Conduct pre-construction surveys Assessment results: . Animals may avoid areas during construction . During operation, some animals may be attracted to certain areas (e.g. cleared right of way) Photo of nest captured . Some habitat removal – small compared to what is available during field surveys. . There are currently significant effects on: little brown bats through disease (white nose syndrome) and woodland caribou due to existing human disturbance (Sydney caribou range near Red Lake). The Project would contribute no to few further effects on these species. Wildlife Assessment Results

Criterion Red Lake Subsystem Pickle Lake Subsystem Conclusions

Loss of 1,675 ha of Loss of 2,904 ha of Moose Not significant habitat habitat Loss of 20,229 ha of Loss of 24,814 ha of Wolverine Not significant habitat habitat • Existing bat populations not • Loss of 262 ha of • Loss of 520 ha of likely to be self-sustaining due potential maternity potential maternity Little brown to White Nose Syndrome habitat habitat myotis • Project contribution to effects to • 29 potential • No potential little brown myotis are predicted hibernacula identified hibernacula identified to be minor Bald eagle Loss of 428 ha habitat Loss of 688 ha habitat Not significant

Canada warbler Loss of 920 ha habitat Loss of 1,600 ha habitat Not significant

Bank swallow Loss of 140 ha habitat Loss of 485 ha habitat Not significant

Horned grebe Loss of 11 ha habitat Loss of 39 ha habitat Not significant Common Loss of 1,642 ha habitat Loss of 2,325 ha habitat Not significant nighthawk Olive-sided Loss of 127 ha habitat Loss of 395 ha habitat Not significant flycatcher

Photo of wolf captured on remote camera. Photo of moose captured on remote camera.

Photo of Canada lynx captured on remote Photo of Canada goose captured by remote camera. camera. Wildlife - Woodland Caribou ▪ The woodland caribou population in the Sydney range (near Red Lake) are not expected to be self-sustaining at present even without the Project ▪ The Project is expected to result in a small contribution to cumulative effects over baseline conditions ▪ The Project crosses nursery areas, winter use areas, and travel corridors

Caribou Range Project Effects • No loss of nursery and winter use areas • 67.5 ha overlaps existing disturbance Sydney Range • Range disturbance will remain at 64.1% with development of the Project • No potential travel corridors affected • Predicted significant effects • Loss of 50 ha from two nursery areas • No loss of winter use areas • 800 ha overlaps existing disturbance Berens Range • Range disturbance will increase from 31.4% (baseline) to 31.9% (including the Project) • 2 potential travel corridors affected • No significant effects predicted • No loss of nursery and winter use areas • 281 ha overlaps existing disturbance Kinloch Range • Range disturbance will increase from 17.3% (baseline) to 17.4% (including the Project) • 2 potential travel corridors affected • No significant effects predicted • Loss of 69 ha from three nursery areas • Loss of 10 ha from one winter use area • 2,200 ha overlaps existing disturbance Spirit Range • Range disturbance will increase from 29.6% (baseline) to 30.4% (including the Project) • 3 potential travel corridors affected • No significant effects predicted • No loss of nursery or winter use areas • 372 ha overlaps existing disturbance Swan Range • Range disturbance will remain at 24.0% with development of the Project • No potential travel corridors affected • No significant effects predicted • Loss of 43 ha from two nursery areas • No loss of winter use areas • 1,151 ha overlaps existing disturbance Ozhiski Range • Range disturbance will increase from 25.0% (baseline) to 25.2% (including the Project) • 3 potential travel corridors affected • No significant effects predicted • No loss of nursery or winter use areas • 161 ha overlaps existing disturbance Mississa Range • Range disturbance will remain at 10.0% with development of the Project • No potential travel corridors affected • No significant effects predicted

Photos of woodland caribou captured on remote cameras. Fish and Fish Habitat

Baseline data was collected from existing literature and mapping, and followed up with helicopter surveys - focused on criteria species: . Brook Trout . Lake Trout . Walleye . Lake Sturgeon Potential effects of the project:

. Loss or alteration of habitat Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush). . Decreased water quality . Increased access for anglers . Direct mortality To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: . Avoid work in/near water where possible . Avoid construction and maintenance during sensitive time periods (e.g. spawning) . Waterbody crossing structures will be constructed using best management practices and consistent with permit conditions . Maintain a 30m vegetation buffer on water bodies Assessment results: Effects will be minimized or avoided through mitigation.

Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Fish habitat. Fish surveys. Surface Water and Groundwater Surface Water Existing data shows low levels of contaminants in surface water at baseline Potential effects of the project: ▪ Change in surface water quality during construction ▪ Sedimentation ▪ Accidental spills ▪ Removal or diversion of water ▪ Change in water flow at water crossings during construction and operation To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: ▪ Implement the Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan and Waste Management Plans ▪ Monitor sediment and erosion ▪ Monitor in-stream works during construction Assessment results: Effects will be temporary and within the range of conditions present before construction

Groundwater Existing data sources were used to describe baseline conditions for groundwater quality and quantity Potential effects of the project: ▪ Change in groundwater quality/quantity/flow ▪ Effects from blasting, accidental spills, clearing of vegetation or dewatering at transmission towers To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: ▪ Implement the Waste Management, Blast Management, and Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan ▪ Monitor sediment and erosion Assessment results: Effects will be temporary and within the range of conditions present before construction Visual Aesthetics and Visualizations Baseline data collected through a review of existing literature and input from engagement to identify locations of importance for visual quality Potential effects of the project: ▪ Visual impacts from the cleared ROW and transmission towers To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: ▪ Use existing roads and disturbed areas wherever possible ▪ Use existing screening from topography and vegetation to reduce effects ▪ Reclaim temporary access roads and water crossings, laydown areas, staging areas, and construction camps Assessment Results: A small change to some viewing locations is expected Visualizations

Pipestone River – Base Case

Pipestone River - Project Simulation Air Quality, Noise and Climate Change Air Quality Baseline data collected from existing air monitoring stations demonstrate low levels of air contaminants within the Project area Potential effects of the project: ▪ Emissions from vehicles and equipment ▪ Dust during construction To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: ▪ Maintain vehicles and equipment ▪ Use dust control measures Pole delivery for the Pikangikum Assessment results: distribution line project. Effects will be infrequent and during construction only Noise Baseline noise levels were described using existing standards for remote areas Potential effects of the project: ▪ Short-term noise from vehicles and equipment during construction ▪ Noise from substations and the transmission line To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: Benefits to air quality and climate change ▪ Maintain vehicles and equipment expected through reduction in Assessment results: emissions from diesel ▪ Highest noise levels will be closest to area of construction generating stations ▪ Slight increase in noise at substation during operation Climate Change Baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) levels were described using existing data Potential effects of the project: ▪ Emissions from exhaust ▪ Vegetation clearing (removal of carbon sink) To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: ▪ Maintain vehicles and equipment ▪ Limit idling ▪ Carpool Diesel generating station at Kasabonika Assessment Results: Lake First Nation. Overall, GHG emissions will be reduced due to less use of diesel generation Socio-economics Assessment focused on: labour market, regional economy, government finances, housing and temporary accommodation, services and infrastructure and community well-being Potential effects of the project: ▪ Short-term effects to housing, services and infrastructure, and community well-being during construction ▪ Positive effects related to training, employment and business ▪ Negative effects to community well-being (e.g. nuisance noise, public safety) To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: ▪ Implement the Indigenous Participation Plan ▪ Implement the Skills Development and Training Plan ▪ Health and safety training Benefits expected ▪ Worker codes of conduct through ability to connect additional Assessment results: homes to power ▪ Short term negative effects during construction ▪ Positive effects include: ▪ 450-500 full time equivalent jobs during construction ▪ Business and revenue opportunities during construction Human Health Looked at the links between health and noise, air, soil and water quality Potential effects of the project: ▪ Changes to water quality ▪ Air and dust emissions ▪ Noise from construction or operations To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: ▪ Maintain vehicles and equipment ▪ Use dust control measures ▪ Notify communities and stakeholders of work Clearing of the right of way for the Pikangikum Distribution Line Assessment results: Project. Changes to water, air quality and noise are not expected to affect human health Non-Aboriginal Land and Resource Use Assessment focused on: • Parks and Protected Areas • Outdoor Tourismand Recreational Land and Resource Use • Commercial Industry Land and Resource Use (e.g., mining, forestry and aggregates) Potential effects of the project: • Change in access to, or use of natural/cultural/ recreational features of parks or protected areas • Increased access to land for hunters, trappers and anglers • Decreased remoteness • Change in use of land available for mining and aggregates, forestry and waterpower operations To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: • Align the right of way with existing infrastructure • Develop access management plans (including road maintenance and decommissioning strategies) • Engage with land users, including notification of activities Assessment results: • Minimal effects to Parks and Protected Areas and commercial industry land and resource use • Effects may be positive or negative depending on the land user • Hunters, anglers and trappers may experience better access to areas • Commercial outfitters who have benefited from limited access to certain areas in the past may be negatively affected Archaeology and Heritage Resources Archaeological Resources ▪ Stage 1 assessments gathered existing data and information from engagement to identify known/potential archaeological sites ▪ Stage 2 assessments (field surveys) will be completed with the help of First Nation field assistants Potential effects of the project: ▪ Loss or damage to archaeological resources To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: ▪ Avoid known archaeological resources where possible ▪ Complete additional assessments (Stage 2, 3 or 4) ▪ Implement Chance Find Procedure Artifacts discovered at the . ▪ Continue to engage with Aboriginal communities Assessment results: Effects avoided or minimized through mitigation and additional study.

Cultural Heritage Resources Existing data and information was gathered to identify known built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes including: hunting and trapping sites, travel routes, river crossings, and old and abandoned infrastructure (e.g., mines, buildings, churches). Potential effects of the project: Damage to or alteration of built heritage during construction. To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: ▪ Avoid and minimize vibration near known built heritage ▪ Complete pre-construction surveys ▪ Continue to engage with Aboriginal communities Assessment results: Effects avoided or minimized through mitigation and additional study. Church at Wawakapewin First Nation. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests Gathered data through: . Engagement with communities . Communities sharing previously collected traditional land and resource use (TLRU) data . Collecting new Project-specific TLRU data with the help of community researchers Measures that were used to represent Aboriginal and Treaty Rights include: . Availability of wildlife, fish and plant species harvested by Aboriginal people . Location of and access to areas used by Aboriginal communities for wildlife, fish and plant harvesting . Location of and access to spiritual, ceremonial and cultural use sites . Quality of land used for traditional purposes Potential effects of the project: . Lack of ability to continue rights-based activities . Temporary loss of access during construction . Increase in access to land To minimize effects of the project, we propose to: Walleye (Sander vitreus). . Incorporate TLRU data and concerns/issues into Project design to avoid many of the identified TLRU values . Apply all Project mitigation measures recommended in the environmental assessment including those designed to protect air, water, plants, animals, fish and people . Continue engagement with communities to understand and address potential effects on rights and interests

Assessment results: . All effects to Aboriginal and Treaty rights are expected to be mitigated

Smoking Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). HowTITLE Can PLACEHOLDER You Participate?

▪ Provide comments through the web site: http://www.wataypower.ca/ ▪ Provide comments to your Chief and Council ▪ Provide comments to your First Nations Council ▪ Provide comments to your Community Liaison ▪ Provide information on the feedback forms ▪ Speak with the Project contacts

Principal contacts for EA and engagement:

Nancy O’Neill John Reid Environmental Assessment Lead EA Engagement Coordinator Wataynikaneyap Power L.P. New Economy Development Group 300 Anemki Place, Suite B P.O. Box 186 Fort William First Nation, ON, P7J 1H9 Metcalfe, Ontario K0A 2P0 Phone: (807) 577-5955 ext. 112 Phone: 613-355-9205 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Tribal Council and Independent First Nation contacts:

Keewaytinook Okimakanak: Andrea Habinski

Windigo First Nations Council: Breann Morgan

Shibogama First Nations Council: Laura Sayers Donna Brunton

Independent First Nations Alliance: Mary Bea Kenny

Sandy Lake First Nation: Harry Meekis

The EA consultant contact on behalf of Wataynikaneyap for the purposes of the EA: Brett Thompson Project Manager Golder Associates Ltd. 6925 Century Avenue, Suite 100 Mississauga, ON L5N 7K2 Phone: 905-567-4444 Email: [email protected]

Engagement in Wapekeka First Nation. Environmental and Social Management Plans ▪ Implemented for the whole Project (construction, operation and maintenance) ▪ Environmental management: ▪ Construction management plans focused on air, noise, soil, vegetation, wildlife, waste, blasting, concrete, and clean-up and reclamation ▪ Operation and maintenance plans focused on post-construction monitoring and ongoing vegetation management ▪ Social management: ▪ Aboriginal priority for procurement ▪ Aboriginal employment and participation ▪ Aboriginal and stakeholder engagement ▪ Health and safety Consideration of Alternative Corridors ▪ Corridor routing focused on community input - including traditional knowledge and land use - to identify and compare alternatives ▪ Results of environmental studies and engineering input have also contributed ▪ Preferred locations have been identified for the following: ▪ Corridor routes (including consideration of several alternatives) ▪ Other Project components: ▪ Construction camps ▪ Laydown areas ▪ Access roads (temporary and permanent) ▪ Substations ▪ Provincial Park and protected area crossings (consideration of alternative crossing locations) Anticipated Project Permits

Regulator Examples of Permits

Provincial Ministries Environment and Climate Change • Permit to take water (MOECC) • Environmental Compliance Approval (air, noise, wastewater) • Endangered Species Act permit • Far North Act authorization • Public Lands Act –land use permit (tenure), work permit (water crossings and other activities) • Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act ‐ Scientific collectors permit • Crown Forest Sustainability Act ‐ Forest Resource Licence Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) • Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act permit (water crossings) • Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act – authorization to conduct research, work permits • Aggregate Resources Act permit • Forest Fires Prevention Act burn permit Transportation (MTO) • Land Use and Building, Entrance, Encroachment, and Sign permits Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) • Ontario Heritage Act – compliance letter Northern Development and Mines • Mining Act ‐ Withdrawal of lands from staking (MNDM) • Mining Act ‐ consent from mining claim holders Provincial ‐ Other Ontario Energy Board (OEB) • Leave to Construct Technical Standards and Safety Authority • Fuel handling licence (TSSA) Federal Ministries Environment Canada (EC) • Species at Risk Act permit Department of Fisheries and Oceans • Species at Risk Act permit (DFO) • Other authorizations • Navigation Protection Act approval Transport Canada (TC) • Canadian Aviation Regulation approval Department of Indigenous Service • Indian Act authorization Canada (DISC) Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) • Explosives Act permit Other • Land Sharing Protocols First Nations • Other community‐specific protocols Hydro One Networks Inc. • Transmission System Code Agreement Private land owners • Easement consent Other utility companies • Consent to cross • Building Code Act permit Municipalities • By‐law permits –tree removal, burning • Planning Act –permits, amendments