Environmental Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was March 6, 2009. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the EA and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

Hydro One Networks Inc.

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes: the planning, designing, constructing, operating and maintaining of a new 180 kilometre double-circuit 500 kilovolt transmission line and associated facilities between the Bruce Power Complex and Hydro One’s existing Milton Switching Station.

When

EA submitted: December 1, 2008
EA comment period: December 5, 2008 – January 30, 2009
Ministry review comment period: March 13, 2009 to April 17, 2009

Where

Adjacent to the existing transmission line from the Bruce Power Complex, near the Municipality of Kincardine, generally southeast to the Milton Switching Station, in the Town of Milton.

Why

The proposed undertaking is intended to support provincial efforts to increase electricity supply to meet the long-term needs of the peopleof Ontario; to retire coal fired generation capacity; and to develop renewable energy generation facilities along with the current reliance on nuclear generation.

Conclusions

The Ministry Review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and contained sufficient information to either assess the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking or make commitments about how they would be assessed.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and potentially affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the MOE for review and approval. The approved ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On April 4, 2008, the Minister approved the ToR for the Bruce to Milton Transmission Reinforcement Project. The approved ToR set out how Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with interested persons during the preparation of the EA. The approved ToR established the rationale for the construction of a new 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line and the methodology for the evaluation of alternative methods of carrying out the proposed undertaking. The approved ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the MOE for review and approval.

On December 1, 2008, Hydro One submitted the Bruce to Milton Transmission Reinforcement Project EA to the MOE for approval of the proposed transmission line and associated facilities (the proposed undertaking). The EA was made available for inspection and comment by interested persons for a seven-week period between December 5, 2008 and January 30, 2009.

1.3 Ministry review

The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and interested Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the MOE. All comments received by the MOE are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the proposed undertaking.

The EAA requires the MOE to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the MOE's evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA, and whether the evaluation of alternatives and environmental effects in the EA are sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. MOE staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, GRT and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to mediation or the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

The proposed undertaking

Background

In October 2005, the province, through the Ministry of Energy, now the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (MEI), reached an agreement with Bruce Power to produce another 1,500 megawatts (MW) of electricity capacity through the refurbishment and restart of Bruce A Units 1 and 2 at the Bruce Power Complex. In addition, as part of the province’s renewable energy initiatives, over 700 MW of wind power development has been approved for the Bruce Peninsula area. An additional 1,000 MW of wind power development potential has also been identified by the MEI.

By 2009, with the restart of Bruce Units A 1 and 2 and the addition of committed wind generation, the available generation in the Bruce area will exceed the existing transmission capability for transmitting power from the Bruce area to the rest of Ontario. The existing transmission system in this area has a capacity of approximately 5,000 MW which is just adequate to transmit the current generation output of the area. With the new wind and nuclear generation resources, the total Bruce area generation is expected to reach approximately 8,000 MW. The estimated shortfall in transmission capacity in the Bruce area is approximately 3,000 MW. Without interim measures or reinforcement to the Bruce transmission system, output from the Bruce nuclear units or wind generating units will have to be curtailed to operate within the capability of the current Bruce transmission system.

The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) is a corporation reporting to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure and is responsible for planning for the province’s long-term energy demands and ensuring an adequate, reliable and secure energy supply. although near-term and interim measures can be implemented to minimize the amount of undelivered energy, the OPA has determined that a new 500 kV transmission line out of the Bruce area is required as soon as practicable to provide a long-term solution to this shortfall. Based on the above profile of generation additions along with the existing transmission capacity, reinforcement of the existing transmission system is required by 2009. Given the lead time for approvals and construction of a new transmission line, the earliest possible in-service date is estimated to be December 2011.

Description of the undertaking

The purpose of the undertaking is to implement the OPA recommendation to construct a new double-circuit 500 kV line between the Bruce Power Complex and Hydro One’s existing Milton Switching Station located in the Town of Milton, to be in-service by December 1, 2011.

The undertaking includes the planning, designing, constructing, operating and maintaining of new transmission facilities between the Bruce Power Complex and the Milton Switching Station. The proposed transmission line would have a capacity of 500 kV and is approximately 180 kilometres (km) long. To accommodate the proposed transmission line, the existing corridor will need to be widened by between 53 and 61 metres (m). The proposed route follows the north-eastern side of the existing corridor from the Bruce Power Complex to a switchover zone in the north-western portion of Halton Hills, where it switches to the south-western side of the existing corridor (see Figure 1). The route passes through four counties (Bruce, Grey, Wellington and Dufferin), one regional municipality (Halton) and eleven lower tier municipalities (Kincardine, Brockton, Hanover, West Grey, southgate, Wellington north, Erin, East Luther Grand Valley, East Garafraxa, Halton Hills and Milton).

The proposed transmission line and related facilities will include the following components:

  • A transmission line approximately 6 km long within the Bruce Power Complex: 3 km of 500 kV single-circuit line from the Bruce A Transformer Station (Bruce A TS) and 3 km from the Bruce B Switching Station (Bruce B SS) to Bruce Junction
  • A, 500 kV double-circuit line approximately 173 km long from Bruce Junction to the Milton Switching Station (Milton SS) along a widened corridor (53 – 61 m wider)
  • Approximately 728 new towers, very similar to the towers used for the existing transmission line. The towers are approximately 49 m high with a 7.8 m wide base. The average span between towers is approximately 250 m
  • Modifications at the Milton SS, Bruce A TS and Bruce B SS to accommodate the termination of the two 500 kV circuits and to provide telecommunication upgrades for status information and control capability
  • Modifications to Bruce Junction to accommodate additional cross-overs for the new transmission line
  • Modifications to the existing transmission facilities as required to accommodate the new facilities

Construction activities associated with the proposed undertaking will include:

  • Vegetation clearing
  • Access road construction
  • Installation of tower footings, erection of towers and cable installation
  • Corridor restoration after construction

Regular operational activities will also be undertaken, including:

  • Inspection patrols of the line by foot and helicopter
  • Right-of-way management activities, such as periodic tree cutting, brush control and selective herbicide application
  • Maintenance activities on the new towers due to aging, weather damage or other events

If EAA approval is granted, the proposed undertaking must be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA; any proposed conditions of approval; and will include the details outlined above. In addition, Hydro One must obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Figure 1: Route of the proposed transmission line

Please contact enviropermissions@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

Results of the ministry review

The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the proponent’s decision making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and the appendices outline the EA planning process and demonstrate how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 MOE analysis

The MOE coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the approved ToR have been met. The MOE concludes that the EA followed the framework set out in the approved ToR, addressed the commitments made in the approved ToR, and demonstrated how the required components of the EAA have been met.

Appendix A of this Review summarizes this analysis and identifies how the requirements of the approved ToR have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is the need to consult with interested persons during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be done prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR. This plan included maintenance of a website, holding public meetings, provision of newsletters to update interested persons, and allowing for the review of a draft EA.

The MOE is satisfied with the level of consultation with the public, the GRT and local municipalities that occurred during the preparation of this EA and concludes that the level of consultation was appropriate for this proposed undertaking. The EA adequately documents the consultation methods utilized by Hydro One to engage the public, the GRT, local municipalities and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA. In addition, consultation with interested Aboriginal communities has been ongoing since the submission of the EA.

Once the EA is submitted to the MOE, additional MOE-driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and interested Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the MOE on whether the requirements of the approved ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the MOE during the EA comment period were forwarded to Hydro One for a response. Summaries of the all comments received along with Hydro One’s responses are included in Tables 1 to 3. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B of this Review.

Consultation with the Government Review Team and municipalities

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process. The GRT was actively involved in identifying concerns, developing and assessing alternatives, and developing mitigation measures. Hydro One convened meetings at key project milestones to update the GRT and to listen and respond to any concerns. In addition, a process of ongoing dialogue was maintained throughout the entire EA process.

Consultation also took place with the municipalities (both upper and lower-tier) through which the proposed transmission line would cross. Hydro One formed a Municipal Advisory Group comprised of municipal staff and elected officials who had expressed an interest in meeting at key milestones during the preparation of the EA. These meetings gave the municipalities an opportunity to receive updates from Hydro One and its technical experts and to provide input and discuss concerns.

The GRT and municipalities were also given an opportunity to review the draft EA. Comments received were considered and incorporated into the final EA as necessary.

Hydro One’s consultation process is outlined in the EA. Appendix E of the EA provides more details about the consultation process, including a summary of the comments made during the consultation process and how they were considered by Hydro One.

Once the final EA was submitted to the MOE for a decision, it was sent to the GRT and the upper and lower tier municipalities for review and comment. Section 3.3.1 of this Review discusses the comments received in more detail.

Several members of the GRT had no concerns with the EA. Other GRT members raised concerns about the potential effect to wetlands, the Niagara Escarpment viewshed, proximity to highways and proposed mitigation measures.

Nine municipalities submitted comments, mostly expressing satisfaction with the EA. Comments were received about the impact of construction equipment on local roads and the need for continued involvement in discussions about local habitat preservation and restoration.

Public consultation

Consultation with the interested public was a key component of Hydro One’s planning process. The public, which includes the general public, interest groups and property owners, was provided with several opportunities to participate in the preparation of the EA and to provide input. Public participation in the EA process was achieved in a variety of ways.

Mailing lists were prepared during the ToR stage of the EA process and were carried forward during the preparation of the EA. Interested members of the public were added to the list throughout the EA process. The mailing lists provided an on-going means for Hydro One to update the public on the EA process and to request comments. Other consultation tools used by Hydro One included newspaper ads, newsletters, a telephone hotline and a project website.

Initially Public Information Centres (PICs) were held in seven communities along the route of the transmission lines. More focussed PICs were held as the planning focussed on the communities where the route of the proposed line could vary from what was initially identified in the approved ToR. As necessary, Hydro One also had individual meetings with potentially affected property owners.

Many of the same tools used to consult the public were also used by Hydro One to consult the GRT, municipalities and interested Aboriginal communities.

A draft EA was made available by Hydro One for public review. Hydro One incorporated comments as necessary into the final EA before it was submitted to the MOE.

Hydro One has engaged in extensive consultation with the public about its proposal and the approvals process. The details of this consultation process can be found in the EA and Appendix E.

To announce the submission of the final EA and the availability of the document for review, Hydro One posted a Notice of Submission in 17 newspapers in the study area. One comment was received during the seven-week comment period. The commenter, who is an affected landowner, cited the need for a fair and transparent compensation process, sometheing to which Hydro One has already committed. The incoming comment and Hydro One’s response is summarized in Table 2 of this Review.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to the EAA requirement that interested persons be consulted, the Crown and proponents must turn their minds to consultation with Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that could be impacted by the proposed undertaking. This is because it is well established in law that the Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal communities where it is contemplating action that may adversely affect aboriginal or treaty rights. The law also recognizes that the Crown may delegate aspects of the duty to proponents.

The Crown, as represented in this case by the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, delegated procedural aspects of the Crown’s consultation responsibilities to Hydro One for this proposed undertaking. Details of the delegation are found in Appendix Q of the EA.

Some of the procedural aspects delegated by the Crown to Hydro One include, but is not limited to:

  • Attempting to build positive relationships with Aboriginal communities
  • Giving notice to, and informing Aboriginal communities about the proposed undertaking
  • Explaining the regulatory and approvals process
  • Offering assistance, including financial assistance
  • Meeting with, and receiving and considering correspondence to determine whether the Aboriginal community has concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposed undertaking on their aboriginal or treaty rights, asserted rights or associated interests

From the outset, Hydro One identified First Nations and Métis communities that may have an interest in, or be potentially affected by, the proposed undertaking. The First Nations communities included the: Chippewas of Nawash; Chippewas of Saugeen; Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council; Six Nations Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council; Mississaugas of the New Credit; and the Huron Wendat.

Métis communities were also included in Hydro One’s consultation plan. These include the Georgian Bay Métis Council; the Grey Owen Sound Métis Council; the Saguingue Métis Council; and the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO).

During the preparation of the EA, Hydro One met with the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy (Haudenosaunee) and Six Nations Elected Council, and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) (comprised of the Chippewas of Saugeen and the Chippewas of Nawash) on several occasions to discuss the proposal.

Hydro One and the SON entered into a Protocol Agreement which set out general principles and a process under which the two parties would work together to identify potential effects of the proposed undertaking and measures to mitigate those effects. Hydro One also provided funding to the SON to assist its participation in the EA process.

Hydro One has met with the Haudenosaunee and the Six Nations Council on several occasions while the EA was being prepared. Hydro One entered into a Protocol Agreement with the Haudenosaunee to facilitate greater communication between the two parties and to set out a general process for discussing further concerns. An Archaeology and Burial Agreement has also been established. This agreement clarifies roles, responsibilities and protections of burials, and artefacts/funerary objects which may be discovered by archaeological studies.

Hydro One has provided the Mississaugas of the New Credit and the Huron-Wendat First Nation with regular project updates since early 2007. They have also offered to meet with the communities to discuss any concerns they may have.

Hydro One initiated contact with individual Métis Councils early in the planning process. In early 2008, the MNO indicated to Hydro One that they represent all Métis people in Ontario and would coordinate and facilitate discussions with the potentially affected communities. Hydro One signed a Protocol Agreement with the MNO in September 2008. One of the key goals of the agreement is the enabling of the MNO to engage, communicate and consult Métis citizens living in the vicinity of the project about the proposed undertaking and assess its potential effects on Métis rights and interests. The Saugeen Métis Council (formerly the Saguingue Métis Council) has informed the MOE that the MNO no longer represent them.

Hydro One presented the Aboriginal communities with an opportunity to review the draft EA. Comments received were incorporated into the final EA as appropriate.

The Aboriginal engagement and consultation process undertaken by Hydro One is summarized in the EA with more detail provided in Appendices P to S.

Once the final EA was submitted, the MOE provided the same Aboriginal communities with a copy of the EA and a request for comments. At the request of the MNO, the Moon River Métis Council was added to the consultation list and also provided with a copy of the EA for its review.

During the comment period, comments were received from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation and the Saugeen Métis Council. Their comments relate to the need to do further consultation with Aboriginal communities and the potential impacts of the proposal on matters of Aboriginal interest (hunting, gathering, cultural heritage).

The MNO submitted comments to the MOE just prior to the completion of this Review. The comments will be considered following the publication of this Review.

Please see Table 3 for a summary of the comments received during the comment period and Hydro One’s responses to those comments.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The EA has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the approved ToR and demonstrates how the required components of the EAA have been met.

Hydro One followed the consultation process outlined in its approved ToR. Overall, the MOE believes that Hydro One provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. The EA clearly documents the consultation methods used by Hydro One to engage the GRT, the general public and Aboriginal communities during the EA process. The EA clearly sets out the concerns raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed in the future by commitments made in the EA, including commitments for ongoing engagement and consultation with Aboriginal communities and other interested persons.

3.2 EA process

EA is a planning process that requires the proponent to identify an existing problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives, and select a preferred undertaking.

This EA was prepared in accordance with section 6(2)(c) of the EAA. Hydro One proposed, and received approval through the ToR, to focus the EA on only the evaluation of alternative methods. In the approved ToR, Hydro One proposed a route for the proposed transmission line that generally follows the route of existing transmission line. The alternatives methods to be looked at during the EA process were potential refinements to this proposed reference route and design considerations.

At the ToR stage, three potential route refinement options were proposed. According to the approved ToR, during the EA process the three route refinement options, as well as any other identified through consultation with interested persons, would be evaluated to determine the final route of the proposed line. No other potential route refinements were identified through consultation so Hydro One proceeded to evaluate the three original options. These route refinements are located in the Halton Hills, Camp Creek and Hanover areas.

Hydro One alternatives evaluation process was succinctly summarized in the EA with details provided in relevant parts of the appendices. Hydro One first established a study area for the EA to provide geographical and temporal context for the route refinement alternatives and its evaluation. The environment within this study area was then described. The environment described was broken down into two broad areas - the natural environment and the socio-economic environment. Each environment was then broken down into smaller categories. The natural environment included physiography, soils, surface and ground water, vegetation, environmentally significant areas, wildlife, and aquatic ecosystems. The socio-economic environment included a description of existing land uses, the Niagara Escarpment, community profiles, First Nations and Métis Traditional Land uses, the cultural environment and agriculture.

After describing the environment, Hydro One undertook the assessment of route refinement options. The three route refinement options were evaluated against a number of natural, socio-economic, agricultural, technical and cost considerations. For a route refinement to be selected, it had to offer a significant environmental advantage relative to the proposed reference route. At the end of the evaluation, Hydro One determined that the only refinement to the reference route that offered a significant environmental advantage was in the Halton Hills area. The preferred location of the proposed switchover is within a quarry located south of Highway 7 in the Town of Halton Hills. Adjusting the location of the transmission line in this area was found to be advantageous as it avoids a number of property displacements and minimizes the effects on a provincially significant wetland and residential development located north of Highway 7.

Design considerations were also briefly outlined in the EA. These include the selection of tower location, tower height and span length. Hydro One identifies these as considerations that are typically considered through communication with directly affected landowners. For example, tower height and span length are ongoing considerations at a number of locations.

After finalizing the reference route, Hydro One outlined the potential effects to the environment of the construction and operation of the proposed transmission line. methods to manage any negative effects were also identified.

3.2.1 Conclusion

Overall, the MOE is satisfied with the proponent’s decision-making process. The EA contains a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity. Hydro One evaluated a range of alternative route refinement options in the study area and used criteria that considered the broad definition of the environment (this includes natural, socio-economic, cultural, and agricultural environments). The EA has provided a description of the affected environment in the study area. The EA has identified the elements of the environment that may be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the alternatives. The EA describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking based on those potential environmental impacts.

In some cases, more details could have been provided in the EA (for example, details about the Halton Hills switchover zone) rather than referring the reader to supporting documentation for the information. Nevertheless, the MOE is satisfied that the EA demonstrates, in a relatively logical and transparent process, why the preferred alternative was selected.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is clearly described in the EA (see also section 2 of this Review), and was evaluated based on the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. A broad definition of the environment was used in order to evaluate all potential impacts.

While the procedural and legislative requirements of the ToR and EAA have been met, concerns were raised during the public, government and Aboriginal community review of the EA that need to be addressed before a decision about the proposed undertaking can be made. A copy of each comment received is contained in Appendix B of this Review. Also, a summary of all comments, including Hydro One’s responses and the MOE's level of satisfaction, can be found in Tables 1 to 3 in this Review.

3.3.1 Key concerns

Key concerns raised during the first comment period included the need to minimize the effects to environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and the Niagara Escarpment, the potential impact of the proposed transmission line on highway alignments, and ensuring proper development and implementation of mitigation measures. Concerns were also raised by the SON regarding consultation with the community and the potential effects of this proposed undertaking and of other energy projects existing in or proposed for the Bruce area on their community.

Below is a discussion of each key concern and how they have been considered and/or addressed.

Wetlands/watercourses

The proposed transmission line would pass through the watersheds of three conservation authorities (CAs). The main concern raised by the CAs – Grand River CA, Halton Region CA, Saugeen Valley CA – relate to the potential construction impacts on local wetlands/watercourses and the resulting effects on terrestrial and aquatic resources. Hydro One will require a permit from the CAs under regulations made under the Conservation authorities Act related to the development and interference with wetlands and alteration to shorelines and watercourses. A general theme to the comments from the CAs was the outlining of permitting requirements. In response to the CAs, Hydro One consistently reiterated its commitment to ensuring that any potential effects to wetlands would be minimized (sometimes references to information in the EA were made) and its commitment to work with the CAs to develop site-specific mitigation plans at the permitting stage.

The MOE is satisfied that Hydro One has adequately responded to the concerns of the CAs. Many of the concerns raised are appropriately addressed at the permitting stage.

Niagara Escarpment

The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) expressed concerns about the potential visual and aesthetic impact of the proposed transmission line on the Niagara Escarpment. Hydro One requires a development permit under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA). In its comments, the NEC noted that many of its previous comments made during the EA process had been adequately dealt with but there were still some concerns related to permitting requirements that needed to be addressed. In response to the NEC comments, Hydro One reiterated its commitment to address the NEC requirements within the NEPDA process.

The NEC has stated that it anticipates that Hydro One will work cooperatively with the NEC to address any outstanding issues, as well as any other additional requirements, both visual and ecological, through the permitting process. MOE is satisfied that Hydro One has adequately responded to the concerns of the NEC as any outstanding issues can be dealt with during the permitting process.

Mitigation measures

One of Hydro One’s key goals related to the mitigation of environmental effects is ensuring that the proposed undertaking will not result in a net loss of habitat, and where practicable, will result in a net gain. To do this, Hydro One is proposing to develop a number of biodiversity and stewardship initiatives in consultation with interested parties such as the CAs, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Aboriginal communities, and stewardship groups. At least two workshops have been held to identify the criteria to select projects to be included in this Biodiversity Initiative.

The development of the Biodiversity Initiative is in its infancy and as such, few details about it are provided in the EA. As a result, several commenters (for example, MNR, MOE, Town of Halton Hills, Region of Halton) requested more information about the Biodiversity Initiative. Questions included: how was it to be developed; what ecological criteria would be used; when it was to be developed; how would the project be implemented; and, how would Hydro One keep interested persons informed? In response to comments, Hydro One reiterated its commitment to developing the Biodiversity Initiative in consultation with all the relevant persons in a timely manner. To further deal with the concerns raised, the MOE is proposing to develop a condition of approval about the Biodiversity Initiative. The wording of the condition would be discussed with Hydro One and any other parties, as appropriate.

The MOE is satisfied that with information already contained in the EA and a proposed condition of approval, the concerns raised about the Biodiversity Initiative will be addressed.

Highway realignment

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) raised concerns about the impacts that the proposed transmission line might have to existing highway alignments and future alignments due to any widening /revision of the highways–both horizontally and vertically. Concern was also raised about the potential for vehicle collisions with a tower if it is not setback far enough from the highway. In response to the MTO's comments, Hydro One stated that the final locations of the towers are yet to be established and committed to review plans for tower locations with the MTO prior to construction.

The MTO has indicated to the MOE that it is satisfied with Hydro One’s responses to its comments.

Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON)

The SON has two broad categories of concerns.

The first concern is that the EA fails to consider all the environmental effects that may be caused by the proposed undertaking. According to the SON, this proposed undertaking will open up the Bruce area, and the SON territory, to industrial-scale electricity production, facilitating the development of many individual generation and transmission projects. The SON states that the environmental effects of all the potential projects together must be considered by Hydro One. The SON position is that the Minister must not give approval until he is satisfied that the required consultations with respect to the project as a whole (as defined by the SON) have taken place, or at a minimum, that a meaningful consultation process has been established and is operating effectively.

In response to this concern, Hydro One states that it is outside of its mandate to consider the effects of the other transmission and generation projects in the Bruce Area within the context of an EA for this proposed undertaking.

The SON's second major concern relates to technical shortcomings of the EA with respect to the direct impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed undertaking. Specifically, the SON is concerned that the construction timeline may not allow for the full, effective or timely implementation of additional study programs or mitigation measures. The SON's position is that Ministerial approval of this EA should not be given until it is determined that Hydro One’s construction schedule can accommodate needed additional study and other mitigation measures.

In response to this second concern, Hydro One states that it has made commitments to the SON to carry out more studies after property rights have been obtained. The SON should also be aware that some agencies, such as the MNR, have also requested similar post-property rights acquisition studies. Hydro One has stated that areas of interest will be identified in the coming months, and construction will not begin in the affected areas until the post-EA studies are complete.

The MEI is attempting to set up a SON-MEI working group to discuss the range of energy projects within the SON territory. At this time, the MOE is satisfied with Hydro One’s responses to the SON's concerns. Hydro One is still reviewing the SON's comments in detail and intends to, in conjunction with the Crown, consider and, as appropriate address all of the SON's concerns. Table 3 contains the responses that Hydro One has provided to date.

3.3.2 Conclusion

At this time, based on the MOE's review of the responses from Hydro One, it appears that concerns have been adequately addressed. The MOE, however, is currently seeking confirmation of the adequacy of the responses from the applicable GRT and municipal commenters. In some cases, such as with the MTO, SVCA and NEC, that confirmation has already been received.

The MOE is also satisfied that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of approval, or through additional work that must be carried out by Hydro One.

Summary of the ministry review

This Review concludes that Hydro One has prepared the EA in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA, and has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the proposed undertaking. The Review has explained the MOE's analysis for the Bruce to Milton Transmission Reinforcement Project EA.

The Review concludes that the EA has assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and proposed undertaking, and provided sufficient mitigation and monitoring measures to ensure that the potential negative environmental effects of the undertaking will be minimized. The MOE is satisfied that the EA assessed the potential environmental effects for the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking, and provides a description of the mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

The Review concludes that Hydro One has provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, the general public and other stakeholders to comment on the preparation of the EA. The MOE is satisfied that the EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by Hydro One to engage these groups during the EA process. The EA clearly sets out the concerns raised and how they were addressed by Hydro One. Hydro One’s consultation process was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the approved ToR.

Hydro One and the Crown are committed to a continued consultation process with interested Aboriginal communities. Hydro One made significant strides in its consultation efforts by signing Protocol Agreements with three separate communities (SON, MNO, Haudenosaunee/Six Nations) which were intended to guide the consultation process both during and after the preparation of the EA. In the EA and its appendices, Hydro One clearly documented the efforts it made and the results of those efforts to consult Aboriginal communities.

An EA determines if, on the basis of the environmental effects of an undertaking, the undertaking should be allowed to proceed. The MOE is of the view that this undertaking, if implemented in its entirety, would be consistent with the purpose of the EAA. It will address the anticipated shortfall in transmission capacity from the Bruce area and Hydro One has demonstrated that the balance of positive and negative environmental effects of constructing, operating and maintaining the proposed transmission line are better than the effects of doing nothing.

4.1 Summary of proposed conditions of approval

If an undertaking is approved under the EAA, there are several standard conditions imposed such as the requirement to conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints received during all the phases of the undertaking.

Potential site-specific EAA conditions of approval proposed for this undertaking include:

  • Reporting on the resolution of outstanding issues outlined in section 9.5 of the EA (for example, Biodiversity Initiative, relocation of Orton Park and the Holstein Rodeo)
  • Addressing the procedure in section 6.1.3 of the EA that outlines how changes will be made to the proposed undertaking

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested persons, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the MOE about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Review. During the comment period, any person can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, MOE staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA, and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the approved ToR, the EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA and the Review comment periods, and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

  • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking
  • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
  • Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional approvals/permits required

If EAA approval is granted, Hydro One will still require other legislative approvals or permits to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 7 of the EA outlines additional approvals and permits that may be required. These may include but are not limited to:

  • Letter of Exemption under the Navigable Waters Protection Act
  • Fish habitat review under the Fisheries Act
  • Aeronautical obstruction clearance for height hazards under the Aeronautical Act
  • Species at Risk removal permit under the Endangered Species Act, 2007
  • Development permit under the Conservation authorities Act
  • Work permit under the Public Lands Act
  • Development permit under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act
  • Access and use permits from municipalities and townships
  • Crossing information from utilities
  • Railway work permits from Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways

Public record locations

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

Hydro One Networks Inc.
483 Bay Street, north Tower, 15th floor
Toronto, Ontario

Municipal Offices and Libraries
Locations in the Counties of Bruce, Grey, Wellington and Dufferin and Region of Halton.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act requirements

Please contact enviropermissions@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix A.

Appendix B: Submissions received during initial comment period

Please contact enviropermissions@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix B.

Appendix C: Supplemental information

Please contact enviropermissions@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix C.