To: Steve Lines From: Fiona Christiansen. File: Date: September 15, 2015

Transcription

1 Memo To: From: Fiona Christiansen Greenstone Gold Mines (GGM) Guelph ON Office File: Date: CONTEXT As part of the provincial individual environmental assessment (EA) process for the Hardrock Mine, alternatives for the relocation of Hydro One Networks Inc. s (HONI) Longlac Substation and portions of the existing power line were assessed. Although the assessment was part of an individual EA, the process was carried out in accordance with the general requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities. This memo summarizes the decision-making process used to select a preferred alternative for the HONI substation relocation. EA INFORMATION As part of the EA process, extensive work has been undertaken to support the evaluation of alternatives and the assessment of potential effects (available on the Project website). This included the collection of baseline information for components of the natural, social, economic, cultural and built environment over a broad area so that alternatives location could be fully considered. This information was used to inform the assessment of HONI substation alternatives. Although baseline information is not provided in this memo, it will be provided in the EA Report and was also provided to interested parties in early In addition, the EA Report will contain a detailed environmental effects assessment, which will measure and characterize potential effects on valued components of the environment from all components of the Project, including the HONI substation preferred location. CONSULTATION HONI CONSULTATION Alternative options were presented to HONI at a meeting held in November A site inspection was carried out in spring 2015 during which time it was identified that one of the options was relatively wet, which was noted a follow up meeting held in March, Additional discussions were held with HONI and additional options were submitted on April 12 th, Comments from HONI s technical team were received on May 28 th, A teleconference was held with HONI s environment team on August 10, 2015 with a follow up call on August 26, 2015 to clarify the EA process to date and work undertaken. HONI will participate going forward in the Government Review Team meetings. PUBLIC CONSULTATION Ongoing consultation has also been a key component of the EA process, most recently including a round of Public Information Centres (week of July 20 th 2015) and meetings with the Aboriginal Review Team and Government Review Team (July 17 th 2015 th ) regarding the methodology for the alternatives evaluation. Another round of meetings is planned in August 2015 to consult on the

2 Page 2 of 7 results of the comparative analysis, including the selection of a preferred location for the HONI substation. All comments received will be considered and addressed as appropriate in finalizing the assessment. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES A range of alternative methods for the HONI substation location were considered in the comparative analysis as outlined in the attached Comparative Evaluation Table, and the results are described below. An existing HONI substation and portions of the existing power lines must be relocated as they are currently located within or proximate to the open pit. Since the existing substation, transmission line and some of distribution lines will need to be removed to facilitate mine development, leaving this infrastructure in place is not feasible. The existing 44Kv distribution line will be rerouted to follow the new Highway 11 route along the perimeter of the site. This will provide the shortest distance between the two connection points for the transmission line, and will minimize impacts to the environment. Any alternative routes in the region north of the PDA would result in increased vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, and construction costs, with no operational benefit. Routes to the south of the PDA are not considered feasible, since both connecting points for the line are located north of the PDA and skirting the site to the south would result in unacceptable costs from a longer line with no operational benefits. In addition, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation has a stated preference for reducing encroachment and crossing of the Highway 11 corridor. Therefore southern alternatives were not considered for the transmission line relocation. Based on the route for the relocated distribution power line and following initial discussions with HONI, two study areas were identified for the substation location for further assessment. The purpose of the study areas was to identify general boundaries for the potential site of the substation and the general extent of potential effects. Study Area 1 was identified west of Mosher Lake near Old Arena Road, and Study Area 2 was identified north of the open pit on Michael Power Boulevard. These study areas were identified to meet the operational needs and design requirements of HONI, which include: Locating the substation as close as possible to the existing transformer station s load center; Ensuring that the substation is not located on historic tailing sites; and Applying a basic design layout for the station provided by Hydro One. More generally, study areas were identified that would also: Be located near existing access points, and in close proximity to the 115kV line and the rerouted 44kV distribution line; Remain in close proximity to the existing substation and load center to reduce line loss and increase efficiency; Enable easy access to existing roads for maintenance; and

3 Page 3 of 7 Minimize disturbance to natural areas by being located close to existing infrastructure and disturbed areas. In addition to reviewing the two study areas, a desktop investigation was undertaken to consider additional potentially feasible study areas. Study Area 3 was identified east of Kenogamisis Lake along Highway 11. However, this would have required the extension of the existing 115 kv transmission line across Kenogamisis Lake at the narrow choke point at the Highway 11 crossing in order to feed the new substation. This would have resulted in a new 115 kv corridor, which would have had greater effects on existing land use, the local population and natural areas with no operational benefits, so it was not considered further. Study Area 4 was identified further west along the existing 115kv transmission line, but this would have brought the substation too far from the load center, so this was not investigated further, since closer locations were available. Multiple alternatives were identified in Study Areas 1 and 2 for further analysis. The initial screening results are summarized in Table 1 below, and the study areas and locations are identified in Figure 1. Table 1 Screening Results for HONI Substation Relocation Alternatives Preliminary Alternative Study Area 1 / Option 1 Site west of Mosher Lake near Old Arena Road (south side) Study Area 1 / Option 1A/B Site west of Mosher Lake near Old Arena Road (west side) Study Area 1 / Option 1C Site north of the intersection of Highway 11 and Old Arena Road Study Area 1 / Option 1D Site south of the intersection of Highway 11 and Old Arena Road Study Area 2 / Option 2 Site north of open pit on Michael Power Boulevard Study Area 2 / Option 2A Site southwest of intersection of Michael Power Boulevard and Old Arena Road Screened in? Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Rationale This option may provide a suitable location to meet the operational needs of HONI. This option may provide a suitable location to meet the operational needs of HONI. Options 1A and 1B combined as a single alternative for the purpose of the comparative analysis, due to overlapping footprints. Option is located in the Tombill Claim, which would require additional costs to acquire. Reduced efficiency by moving the substation too far from the load center, with no operational benefit. Option is located in the Tombill Claim, which would require additional costs to acquire. Reduced efficiency by moving the substation too far from the load center, with no operational benefit. This option may provide a suitable location to meet the operational needs of HONI. This option may provide a suitable location to meet the operational needs of HONI.

4 Page 4 of 7 Table 1 Screening Results for HONI Substation Relocation Alternatives Preliminary Alternative Study Area 3 / Location east of Kenogamisis Lake Study Area 4 / Location further west of mine site Screened in? No No Rationale Would require a new 115 kv corridor across the narrow crossing of Kenogamisis Lake by Highway 11. Reduced efficiency by moving the substation too far from the load center. Additional effects on land use and the environment with no operational benefit. Reduced efficiency by moving the substation too far from the load center, with no operational benefit. It was determined through initial investigations and desktop research that Study Area 1 was preferred, since sites in Study Area 2 would require extensive construction in wetlands, and would require extension of the 115 kv line around the perimeter of the PDA at a higher cost. However, alternatives at this location were carried forward into the comparative analysis to validate these initial results, and to compare the alternatives against a broader range of environmental and technical criteria. Four conceptual sites were identified in Study Area 1, and two conceptual sites were identified in Study Area 2 as noted above. In Study Area 1, Option 1 is sited south of Old Arena Road, and Option 1A is sited north and west of Old Arena Road. An Option 1B was also identified as an alternate footprint to Option 1A, but for the purpose of this comparative analysis, these options are considered relatively equal due to the overlap in site footprint. Options 1C and 1D are located further west in Study Area 1, near the intersection of Highway 11 and Old Arena Road. Option 1 was the initially identified site in Study Area 1, but following geotechnical studies, concerns with water levels and drainage led to the identification of Options 1A and 1B as alternatives that would address these concerns. Both of these options encroached on claims that are owned by GGM, but this was considered manageable. Options 1C and 1D were also identified as alternatives that would avoid the wetlands and wildlife habitat concerns related to Options 1 and 1A/B. However, despite the benefit of reduced effects on wildlife habitat and wetlands, Options 1C and 1D are less favorable because they are further from the original Longlac TS and require a longer distribution line to connect the new substation. In addition, both of these options are located within the Tombill Claim, which is owned by a third party. The additional costs associated with acquiring this property was identified as a key disadvantage. Options 1C and 1D were therefore screened out of the analysis. In Study Area 2, Option 2 is sited west of Michael Power Boulevard, north of the watercourse connecting Mosher Lake and Barton Bay. Option 2A is sited further north, closer to the intersection of Michael Power Boulevard and Old Arena Road. The options identified in the two study areas represent the most viable locations for the proposed facility. Other locations within the study areas were considered, but did not offer any environmental, operational or economic benefit over those selected.

5 Page 5 of 7 After an analysis of key environmental features and potential effects, Option 1A/B was confirmed to be the preferred alternative. Option 1A/B presented a number of key advantages, including the lowest cost to construct, no disturbance to wetlands, and the lowest effect on wildlife habitat. This option also has the benefit of being close to the existing 115 kv power line, so no extension would be required, and the site is readily accessible. Although this option required the highest removal of forested area, the affected vegetation communities are common throughout the study area. The primary disadvantage of this site was the disturbance to areas of archaeological potential, but potential is low based on work completed to date. A Stage 2 archaeological assessment will be required to confirm if any archaeological resources exist that may be disturbed by construction activities. The final footprint location will be optimized during detailed design based on site conditions and operational needs. The primary advantages of Option 1 are the confirmed absence of archaeological resources, and a lowest cost similar to Option 1A/B. This option would also not require an extension to the 115 kv line. However, the site would require construction of a new 200 to 300 m access road, which would have additional effects on existing vegetation. This site is also located within a wetland community identified as a sparse treed fen, which has been identified as potential habitat for the Taiga Alpine butterfly Species of Concern. The substation footprint would bisect this narrow, linear wetland, not only removing a portion of the habitat, but also affecting wetland function through fragmentation. Due to the potential effects on this sensitive wetland community and Species of Concern, this site was determined to be not preferred. As noted earlier, Study Area 2 was determined to be the least preferred location for the substation. The comparative analysis confirmed that Option 2 would require the highest removal of wetland, and would also affect a number of wildlife habitats, including for Eastern Wood-Pewee, Moose and waterfowl. This option also has the highest construction cost and vegetation clearing, due to the need to re-align and build a new segment of 115 kv power line of about 1.5 km to feed to new substation, and the highest construction complexity and stability issues due to the wetland. In addition, areas of archaeological potential have been identified that would require additional assessment. Option 2A does not have the same construction complexity as Option 2, since it avoids locating the substation in a wetland area. This option does require the highest forest removal, similar to Option 1A/B, and in addition it would result in further vegetation removal through the construction of approximately 2 km of new 115 kv transmission line. This line would have to cross through about 500 m of wetland, resulting in some wetland disturbance and removal, since this distance is too great to be spanned by the line. This option shares the highest construction cost with Option 2 due to the need for the 115 kv transmission line. The Option would also affect habitat for Eastern Wood-Pewee and Moose late winter cover, and areas of archaeological potential have been identified that would require additional assessment. The detailed evaluation of HONI substation relocation alternatives, including consideration of all components of the environment is found in the attached Comparative Evaluation Table. A summary comparison is provided in Table 2.

6 Page 6 of 7 Table 2 Summary of HONI Substation Relocation Analysis Alternative Option 1A/B Option 1 Option 2 Option 2A Key s and s Preferred + No wetland disturbance. + Lowest effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat. + Lowest cost. - Highest forest removal. - Site will require additional assessment prior to construction for areas of archaeological potential, but potential is low based on work to date. + No effects on archaeological resources. + Low cost. - Highest effect on wetland function from disturbance to a sensitive community. - Effects on a Species of Concern and related habitat. - Increased complexity and stability issues due to wetland presence. - Highest wetland removal. - Highest forest removal. - Some effect on wildlife habitat. - Highest cost. - Site will require additional assessment prior to construction for areas of archaeological potential, but potential is low based on work to date. - Increased complexity and stability issues due to wetland presence. - Requires new 115 kv line extension. - Highest forest removal. - Wetland disturbance for new transmission line. - Some effect on wildlife habitat. - Highest cost. - Increased complexity due to wetland presence. - Site will require additional assessment prior to construction for areas of archaeological potential, but potential is low based on work to date.

7 Page 7 of 7 Preferred Alternative: The HONI 44kv distribution power line will be realigned to follow the perimeter of the project footprint along the Highway 11 route. The substation will be relocated west of Mosher Lake, north and west of Old Arena Road. The infrastructure will be designed to HONI standards. It is anticipated that the precise footprint may be refined in the field, during the detailed engineering following additional geotechnical and site investigations. STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Fiona Christiansen Project Manager Phone: (519) Fax: (519) Fiona.Christiansen@stantec.com

8 Barton Bay (West) Geraldton Hardroc k Cree k ± Kenogamisis Lake (Outflow Basin) Open Legend Pit- Full Extent Process Plant Area (see detailed drawing) Study Area 4 Option 1C WC- H Study Area 1 WC- B OldArena Road Option 1A/B S2 Temp Work Camp Option 2A WC- G Mosher Lake Study Area 2 Rosedale Point Trans-Canada Highway 11 WC- A Michael Power Blvd. WC - E Option 2 WC- C Open Pit WC- GH Barton Bay (East) WC- D WC- I Hardrock Road Study Area 3 6 MACLEOD PROVINCIAL PARK Kenogamisis Lake (Central Basin) Tailings Managment Facility Waste Rock Area New Highway 11 Alignment 6 Municipality of Greenstone Landfill Contour Line (10m intervals) Highway Major Road Local Road Existing Power Line StudyAreas Watercourse- Permanent Watercourse- Intermittent Municipal Boundary Provincial Park Tombill Claim Waterbody Wetland (Eco-Site Based) Wetland (Unevaluated- MNRF Data) Hydro One Study Area Other Alternative Study Area W:\active\ \drawing\MXD\EA\APC\Reports\Assessment_Of_Alternatives\ _Fig_5_6_HONI_SubstationAlternatives_ mxd Revised: By: dharvey P V GFP3 WC - GFP2 U DRAFT Marron Lake GFP4 S1 Goldfi eldcre ek Option 1D Tailings Management Facility P WC-T S SWP1 S3 Option 1 WC-L WC- Z SWP3 SWP2 WC- WC- WC- O WC- M SWP4 Lahtis Road Pond A Process Plant Area SW Arm Tributary WC-N Kenogamisis Lake (Southwest Arm) WC- J Pussy Lak e Creek WC-J 1 MUNICIPALITY OF GREENSTONE UNORGANIZED TERRITORY km 1:30, Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 16N 2. Client/Project Figure No. Title Greenstone Gold Mines GP Inc (GGM) Hardrock Project 1 Substation Option 1 Substation Option 1A/B Substation Option 2 Substation Option 2A Other Alternative Locations DRAFT Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Queen's Printer for Ontario, August HONI Substation Alternatives

9 Comparative Evaluation HONI Substation Relocation VC/Criteria Natural Environment Air Acoustic Environment Indicators/Measurable Parameters Climate change as measured by change in GHGs Change in ambient air quality parameters Overall Air Quality Ranking Change in noise and vibration levels Overall Acoustic Environment Ranking Groundwater Surface Water Change in groundwater quantity and flow Change in groundwater quality Overall Groundwater Ranking Change in surface water quantity and flow Change in surface water quality Overall Surface Water Ranking Fish and Fish Habitat Alternative Method Option 1A/B Option 1 Option 2 Option 2A Minor GHG emissions from construction machinery. Minor GHG emissions from construction machinery. Minor GHG emissions from construction machinery. Minor GHG emissions from construction machinery. Minor emissions from construction machinery. Minor emissions from construction machinery. Minor emissions from construction machinery. Minor emissions from construction machinery. Minor air effects can be expected from the temporary use of machinery, but are comparable across all alternatives. Minor noise and vibration effects from construction machinery. Minor noise and vibration effects can be expected from the temporary use of machinery, but are comparable across all alternatives. Minor air effects can be expected from the temporary use of machinery, but are comparable across all alternatives. Minor noise and vibration effects from construction machinery. Minor noise and vibration effects can be expected from the temporary use of machinery, but are comparable across all alternatives. Minor air effects can be expected from the temporary use of machinery, but are comparable across all alternatives. Minor noise and vibration effects from construction machinery. Minor noise and vibration effects can be expected from the temporary use of machinery, but are comparable across all alternatives. Minor air effects can be expected from the temporary use of machinery, but are comparable across all alternatives. Minor noise and vibration effects from construction machinery. Minor noise and vibration effects can be expected from the temporary use of machinery, but are comparable across all alternatives. No effects on groundwater are No effects on groundwater are No effects on groundwater are No effects on groundwater are No effects on groundwater are No effects on groundwater are No effects on groundwater are No effects on groundwater are No effects on surface water are No effects on surface water are No effects on surface water are No effects on surface water are No effects on surface water are No effects on surface water are No effects on surface water are No effects on surface water are Change in fish habitat No effect on fish habitat No effect on fish habitat No effect on fish habitat No effect on fish habitat Fish mortality No effects on fish are No effects on fish are No effects on fish are No effects on fish are Overall Fish and Fish Habitat Ranking Vegetation and Wetlands Change in abundance of vegetation species of interest Change in abundance and condition of vegetation communities Change in wetland function and connectivity Overall Vegetation and Wetlands Ranking No effects on fish or fish habitat are anticipated Removal of forest communities for entire substation footprint required for site development. No change in vegetation distribution and abundance. No loss of or alteration to wetlands. Higher forest removal, but communities are abundant in the region. No wetland removal. No effects on fish or fish habitat are anticipated Removal of forest communities for a large portion of the substation footprint required for site development. Additional vegetation removal required for m access road. No change in vegetation distribution and abundance. Removal of a portion of a sensitive sparse treed fen required for site development. Site development will bisect small linear sparse treed fen, affecting wetland form and function. Major Highest effect on wetland function through disturbance of a sensitive wetland community. No effects on fish or fish habitat are anticipated Removal of forest communities for approximately half of the substation footprint required for site development. Additional vegetation removal required for ~1.5 km extension to 115 kv line. No change in vegetation distribution and abundance. Removal of wetland communities for approximately half of the substation footprint required for site development. Additional wetland disturbance to construct new 115 kv line. Site development will infringe on edge of large wetland community, with minimal effects on overall wetland function. Highest forest removal, and highest wetland removal. No effects on fish or fish habitat are anticipated Removal of forest communities for entire substation footprint required for site development. Additional vegetation removal required for ~2 km extension to 115 kv line. No change in vegetation distribution and abundance. Minor removal and disturbance for the construction of a new 115 kv line through approximately 500m of wetland. Highest forest removal, and minor wetland disturbance.

10 VC/Criteria Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Indicators/Measurable Parameters Change in movement, health and mortality risk of wildlife Change in wildlife habitat Overall Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Ranking Social Environment Community Services and Infrastructure Change in capacity of housing and accommodation Change in capacity of health and emergency services and infrastructure Change in the capacity of recreation and entertainment services and infrastructure Change in the capacity provincial and municipal services and infrastructure Overall Community Services and Infrastructure Ranking Health and Safety Health and safety of mine workers Health and safety of local residents Overall Health and Safety Ranking Economic Environment Cost Labour and Economy Alternative Method Option 1A/B Option 1 Option 2 Option 2A No anticipated effect on wildlife populations. Minor disturbance to Moose late winter cover. Lowest effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat. No expected change to existing community services or infrastructure, since the new substation will maintain the existing electricity network. No anticipated effect on community services and infrastructure. Disturbance to sparse treed fen may affect the population and distribution of the Taiga Alpine butterfly Species of Concern. Removal of a portion of a sparse treed fen, which is classified as appropriate habitat for the Taiga Alpine butterfly Species of Concern. Minor disturbance to Moose late winter cover. Major Effects on Taiga Alpine butterfly Species of Concern and related habitat. No expected change to existing community services or infrastructure, since the new substation will maintain the existing electricity network. No anticipated effect on community services and infrastructure. No anticipated effect on wildlife populations. Minor disturbance to potential Eastern Wood-Peewee habitat, Moose late winter cover and waterfowl stopover and staging areas. Some effects on wildlife habitat. No expected change to existing community services or infrastructure, since the new substation will maintain the existing electricity network. No anticipated effect on community services and infrastructure. No anticipated effect on wildlife populations. Minor disturbance to potential Eastern Wood-Peewee habitat and Moose late winter cover. Some effects on wildlife habitat. No expected change to existing community services or infrastructure, since the new substation will maintain the existing electricity network. No anticipated effect on community services and infrastructure. No effects on health and safety are No effects on health and safety are No effects on health and safety are No effects on health and safety are No effects on health and safety. No effects on health and safety. Capital cost Lower cost since a 115 kv line would not be required. Lower cost since a 115 kv line would not be required. Operational/maintenanc e cost Rehabilitation/closure cost Overall Cost Ranking Operational costs would be comparable for each alternative. Costs to close, remove or rehabilitate infrastructure should be relatively comparable. Lowest cost to establish substation and associated power lines. Operational costs would be comparable for each alternative. Costs to close, remove or rehabilitate infrastructure should be relatively comparable. Lowest cost to establish substation and associated power lines. No effects on health and safety. Increased cost due to the need for a 115 kv connection. Operational costs would be comparable for each alternative. Costs to close, remove or rehabilitate infrastructure should be relatively comparable. Highest cost to construct due to the need for a 115 kv power line. No effects on health and safety. Increased cost due to the need for a 115 kv connection. Operational costs would be comparable for each alternative. Costs to close, remove or rehabilitate infrastructure should be relatively comparable. Highest cost to construct due to the need for a 115 kv power line. Change in labour No effects on local employment are No effects on local employment are No effects on local employment are No effects on local employment are Change in economy Overall Labour and Economy Ranking No effects on income or government revenue are No effects on labour and economy are No effects on income or government revenue are No effects on labour and economy are No effects on income or government revenue are No effects on labour and economy are No effects on income or government revenue are No effects on labour and economy are

11 VC/Criteria Technical Feasibility Indicators/Measurable Parameters Ability to implement /commonly used technology in similar applications Effectiveness/reliability Overall Technical Feasibility Ranking Cultural Environment Heritage Resources Change in archaeological sites Change in architectural or historical resources Overall Heritage Resources Ranking Alternative Method Option 1A/B Option 1 Option 2 Option 2A Substation would meet strict design specifications as required by HONI. Lowest construction complexity. Lowest construction complexity. potential, and further assessment would be required. However, potential is low based on work to date. Substation would meet strict design specifications as required by HONI. Higher construction complexity due to wetland construction. Increased complexity and stability issues due to wetland presence. Site is located in an area with no archaeological potential. Substation would meet strict design specifications as required by HONI. Requires additional construction for the 115 kv line extension. Highest construction complexity due to wetland construction. Major Highest construction effort due to 115 kv line extension. Increased complexity and stability issues due to wetland presence. potential, and further assessment would be required. However, potential is low based on work to date. Substation would meet strict design specifications as required by HONI. Requires additional construction for the 115 kv line extension. Higher construction complexity due to transmission line through wetland. Increased complexity due to wetland presence. potential, and further assessment would be required. However, potential is low based on work to date. No anticipated effects on heritage resources. No anticipated effects on heritage resources. No anticipated effects on heritage resources. No anticipated effects on heritage resources. potential, so further assessment would be required prior to construction. No effects to cultural heritage resources are potential, so further assessment would be required prior to construction. potential, so further assessment would be required prior to construction. Traditional Land and Resource Use Change in Aboriginal communities cultural practices Change in Aboriginal communities traditional land uses (including hunting, fishing, trapping and harvesting) No anticipated effects on Aboriginal cultural practices. natural areas, but should not affect traditional land and use in the broader area. No anticipated effects on Aboriginal cultural practices. natural areas, but should not affect traditional land and use in the broader area. No anticipated effects on Aboriginal cultural practices. natural areas, but should not affect traditional land and use in the broader area. No anticipated effects on Aboriginal cultural practices. natural areas, but should not affect traditional land and use in the broader area. Overall Traditional Land and Resource Use Ranking No effects to traditional land and resource use are No effects to traditional land and resource use are No effects to traditional land and resource use are No effects to traditional land and resource use are Built Environment Change in recreational land and resource use Land and Resource Use Change in navigation Change in commerciallybased land and resource use natural areas, but should not affect land and resource use in the broader area. natural areas, but should not affect land and resource use in the broader area. natural areas, but should not affect land and resource use in the broader area. natural areas, but should not affect land and resource use in the broader area. Overall Land and Resource Use Ranking No effects to land and resource use are No effects to land and resource use are No effects to land and resource use are No effects to land and resource use are OVERALL ALTERNATIVE RANKING Preferred + No wetland disturbance. + Lowest effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat. + Lowest cost. - Higher forest removal. - Site will require additional assessment prior to construction for areas of archaeological potential, but potential is low based on work to date. + No effects on archaeological resources. + Lowest cost. - Highest effect on wetland function from disturbance to a sensitive community. - Effects on a Species of Concern and related habitat. - Increased complexity and stability issues due to wetland presence. - Highest wetland removal. - Highest forest removal. - Some effect on wildlife habitat. - Highest cost. - Site will require additional assessment prior to construction for areas of archaeological potential, but potential is low based on work to date. - Increased complexity and stability issues due to wetland presence. - Requires new 115 kv line extension. - Highest forest removal. - Wetland disturbance for new transmission line. - Some effect on wildlife habitat. - Highest cost. - Increased complexity due to wetland presence. - Site will require additional assessment prior to construction for areas of archaeological potential, but potential is low based on work to date.