The proponent presented their current proposal, which they refer to as Alternative 1A, in their 2012 Addendum.
Table 6.1 of this 147-page document is a “Comparison of Potential Effects between Alternative 2D and Alternative 1A During Operations Phase”. That is, in this table they detail the changes that their current proposal would have from their previous Option 2 proposal. A section of page 2 of this table is presented below (click on it for a larger view, or click here to see the entire table)
That is, compared to their previous Option 2 proposal (which was presented in 2009 in their 620-page Environmental Screening Report), the proponent says the “Net Effect of Alternative 1A” would be a “Positive impact to portage”.
However, as shown here, while the proponent’s Option 2 would not have obstructed the Bala Portage, the proponent’s current Alternative 1A would obstruct the Bala Portage. So the proponent’s statement in their Addendum that there would be a net positive impact to the portage is incorrect.