Ministry review of the Class EA for Waterpower Projects

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 April 18, 2008. 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 Class Environmental Assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA)

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Waterpower Class EA which will cover waterpower projects which are subject to the environmental screening requirements of Ontario Regulation 116/01 including:

• projects associated with existing waterpower infrastructure;
• new waterpower projects (under 200 megawatts) on manage driver systems; and,
• new waterpower projects (under 200 megawatts) on unmanaged systems.

When

Class EA submitted: October 22, 2007
First inspection period: October 22 to December 14, 2007
Revised class EA submitted: March 28, 2008
Second inspection period: May 2 to June 6, 2008

Where

The proposed Class EA will apply to waterpower projects across Ontario.

Why

To provide a single Class EA process whereby environmental impacts and benefits of waterpower projects are considered before irreversible decisions are made, providing direction:

• to ensure impacts and benefits of waterpower projects are considered in a consistent manner;
• to provide a framework to address and respond to input from the public, Aboriginal communities and government; and,
• to streamline the environmental approvals processes that are relevant to waterpower projects.

Conclusions

Based on the ministry Review of the EA, the Ministry of the Environment has concluded that the Class EA has been carried out in accordance with Section 13(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act. Further discussion and conditions of approval are proposed to ensure that final government agency concerns and requests for clarification are incorporated into the Class EA.

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 requirements for the preparation and review of an EA. For those proponents and undertakings subject the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

A Class EA submitted for approval under the EAA differs from a project-specific EA. The Class EA is unique because it receives approval for a planning process for an entire class of projects. This allows each project in the class to be carried out in accordance with the requirements and planning process set out in the Class EA. Once the Class EA is approved, the proponent does not need to apply for approval under the EAA for each individual project provided they follow the procedures in the Class EA.

When following an approved Class EA, proponents of individual projects within the class of undertakings 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. A Class EA provides the framework for a proponent to determine, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

Class EAs identify specific categories and sub-categories of undertakings to which the Class EA would apply, and provides a planning process for evaluating the environmental effects of each individual undertaking. The Class EA may require proponents to consider actions to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy potential environmental effects. When preparing a Class EA, the proponent must consult with interested stakeholders including government agencies, public, non-governmental organisations as well as Aboriginal communities and organisations. Once the Class EA is approved, the proponent is required to monitor implementation and effectiveness of the Class EA to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

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

On November 4, 2005 the Minister approved the Ontario Waterpower Association Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects ToR. The ToR set out how the OWA would carry out the process of developing the Class EA and how they would consult with the public. The ToR also establishes the scope and purpose for the Class EA and outlines the content of the Class EA using the requirements of the EAA and MOE standards for all Class EAs as the basis.

1.2 Class environmental assessment

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

On October 22, 2007 the OWA submitted the Class EA to the MOE for approval. The Class EA was made available for public inspection and comment for a seven-week period which ended on December 14, 2007. During this inspection period various comments were submitted, predominantly by government agencies. The comments were mainly suggestions for improvement in the following areas: clarifications and typographical errors; improvements to the flow of the planning process; and coordination and increased direction with respect to the relationship of the Class EA to other legislative approvals processes and the mandate of other agencies. Additional time was then provided in order to allow the OWA to hold discussions and respond to these comments by revising the proposed Class EA. The OWA provided MOE with a revised Class EA on March 28, 2008.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the MOE to prepare a review of the Class EA, known simply as the ministry Review. The Review is the MOE’s evaluation of the Class EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the Class EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA.

The proposed Class EA submitted on October 22, 2007 was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT includes federal and provincial agencies. MOE staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed Class EA, including the range of issues that may arise when implementing projects using the Class EA, as well as the methods the proponent proposes to use in order to address these issues.

In addition, the Review must determine how well the proponent has consulted with others and ensure that the proponent has provided clear and complete documentation of such consultations. For the proposed Class EA, the public, as well as Aboriginal communities and organisations were also notified of the opportunity to review the Class EA and submit their comments to the MOE.

The Review may also indicate what, if any, issues are outstanding and may propose conditions or other mechanisms to address the issues.

Following completion of the Review, the MOE provides for a second inspection period, which provides another opportunity for interested parties to see how their comments and concerns with the proposed Class EA were addressed. During the second inspection period, anyone can submit comments about the Class EA and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the Class EA, or any particular matter relating to the Class EA, to 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 second inspection period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

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

The proposed class environmental assessment

1.4 Description

The OWA is an organization representing more than 95 percent of Ontario’s waterpower generators and a number of associated firms. The OWA is seeking EAA approval for the class of undertakings which includes all waterpower projects planned in Ontario which are subject to the Environmental Screening Process requirements of the Electricity Projects Regulation, Ontario Regulation 116/01. The Class EA would apply to all proponents of waterpower projects which fall within the class regardless of affiliation with the OWA. Figure 1 provides the location of all waterpower projects currently operating in Ontario.

The EAA applies predominantly to public sector proponents. However, in 2001 the MOE extended the EAA requirements to the private sector for electricity undertakings through Ontario Regulation 116/01. This regulation and the associated Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects outline a proponent-led process for determining and addressing the EAA requirements and the environmental implications of electricity projects including waterpower. The Guide is similar to a Class EA and provides a consistent process for all projects which fall within defined categories. With respect to waterpower projects, the Guide identifies how the EAA applies in the following manner:

• Exemption from the EAA for minor modifications to facilities that did not require EAA approval to construct and the total change since construction is less than 25 percent of the name-plate capacity;
• Environmental Screening Process for all new developments under 200 Megawatts (MW);
• Environmental Screening Process for any significant modifications (i.e. increase in name-plate capacity of 25 percent or more) of a facility if still under 200 MW after the modification;
• Environmental Screening Process for any minor modification of a facility with a capacity of 200 MW or more before the modification;
• Individual EA for new developments greater than 200 MW;
• Individual EA for any significant modification of existing facilities if over 200 MW after the modification; and,
• Individual EA for significant modification to facilities with a capacity of 200 MW or greater before the modification.

The Electricity Projects Regulation anticipates the development of sector specific Class EAs to replace the generic Environmental Screening Process (section 8). This Class EA will apply to all waterpower projects for which the Environmental Screening Process requirements of the Guide would have applied. Should this Class EA be approved, proponents would be prohibited from using the Environmental Screening Process. The requirements for projects which are exempt or which require an individual EA will not change.

These EAA requirements are complicated by the fact that Ontario Power Generation has its own Class EA for Modifications to Hydroelectric Projects, which is scheduled to expire on August 19, 2008. Ontario Power Generation will then join the rest of the waterpower industry in following the requirements of the proposed Class EA.

1.5 Evaluation of the class environmental assessment

1.5.1 The class of undertakings

The class of undertakings proposed to be covered by the Class EA is defined in the ToR and includes the activities subject to the Environmental Screening Process requirements of the Guide related to the planning, designing, establishing, constructing, operating, changing, expanding and retiring of new and existing waterpower facilities. Projects which are specifically exempt under the Guide continue to be exempt, and those requiring an individual EA are not included in the class of undertakings to which the Class EA applies.

More specifically, the Class EA provides for three categories of waterpower projects. These include:

• Projects associated with existing infrastructure. These are new waterpower projects, expansions, modifications or redevelopments and are proposed at, near or around existing facilities or water management infrastructure.
• New projects on managed river systems. These are new projects on waterways that are already subject to water level and/or flow regulation.
• New projects on unmanaged river systems. These are new projects on river systems which are not already subject to water level and flow regulation. The Technically Preferred Route (TPR) for the transportation corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. The preliminary design of the proposed undertaking is presented in Volume II of the EA, Appendix B.

Conclusion:

The OWA has provided a clear description of the waterpower class of undertakings.

1.5.2 Reasons for using a class environmental assessment

The Class EA outlines a number of reasons for the development of a Class EA for waterpower projects including the following as described in section 1.4 of the Class EA:

• The waterpower projects included in the Class EA are identical to those already included in the existing approved EA regulatory framework for electricity projects. This Class EA builds on that framework and deals specifically with waterpower.
• Ontario Power Generation has successfully applied an approved Class EA for Modifications to Hydroelectric Facilities for more than 20 years. This Class EA specifically includes modification projects;
• The Class EA has, as a first level screen, sorted projects based on the overall environmental context in which they occur and the known range of waterpower potential in Ontario;
• The Class EA includes environmental evaluation and reporting processes for all projects subject to the class and builds on the provisions of the Electricity Projects Regulation and Environmental Screening Process in the Guide; and,
• The Class EA incorporates a best management approach in terms of public involvement, Aboriginal community engagement, and project design, allowing for flexibility in adapting to and adopting new and better information.

The OWA notes that this Class EA is designed to ensure that proponents of waterpower projects consistently take into account the potential effects that their proposals will have on the environment. The process that is identified in the Class EA will allow proponents to identify potential environmental effects and public, agency and Aboriginal concerns, along with the preferred means of addressing them.

Conclusion:

The OWA has provided acceptable rationale for the development of the Class EA and the MOE is satisfied that it improves upon the Environmental Screening Process in a number of aspects including requiring the development of an Environmental Report for all projects, recommending early coordination with government agencies, and providing a best management approach for public and Aboriginal community involvement.

1.5.3 Similarities and differences among undertakings

The Class EA identifies that waterpower projects have been developed in Ontario for well over a century. During that time, the basis for the production of electrical energy from falling water has not changed. The similarities between projects are that they all involve the generation of electricity through either the use of the natural drop or head of the river and/or involve building a dam to raise the water level and provide the drop needed to create a driving force. Water at the higher level is then carried to a turbine which, when connected to a generator and set in motion, rotates to produce electricity. General similarities in environmental effects of the class of undertakings are discussed in the Class EA.

The project types can also differ in two fundamental manners. The first is that projects covered by the Class EA can range from those which modify existing infrastructure to those which are new facilities where none existed before. The second is that projects may occur in different environmental settings, characterized by whether the river system is managed or unmanaged. Managed and unmanaged waterways are defined in the Class EA based on whether other water management infrastructure (dams, diversions, weirs, etc.) and/or waterpower facilities exist and/or for which a human-made water management regime (i.e. levels and flows) has been established. Projects may differ based on site specific considerations, including but not limited to matters such as aquatic and riparian ecosystems, cultural heritage resources and community and public interest.

Conclusion:

The OWA has provided a sufficient description of the nature of similarities and differences to be expected in undertakings in the Class EA.

1.5.4 Environmental effects of undertakings in the class

The Class EA identifies that the environmental effects of undertakings in the class will vary from project to project based on the environmental context in which they occur. For example, effects could most commonly relate to fish and fish habitat, water level/flow management and aquatic ecology, interests of riparian owners, and interests of water users and water related natural resource uses. Based on these categories, the Class EA provides direction to proponents through the use of a potential effects evaluation matrix on how they can identify the site specific potential positive and negative effects of a project. Furthermore, the planning process in the Class EA requires that the proponent clearly describe the existing environment and evaluate the potential environmental effects of the undertaking.

Conclusion:

The Class EA provides a clear description of the expected range of environmental effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class.

1.5.5 Mitigation of adverse environmental effects

As required by the EAA, the Class EA must include a description of measures that could be taken to mitigate against adverse effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class. Generally speaking, these mitigation measures can seek to do a number of things including reducing the magnitude or duration of an impact and restoring the environment following construction to a pre-construction state.

When reviewing the updated Class EA, and in particular section 4.3.2, the MOE found that it directed users to a range of mitigation related resource materials rather than directly outlining any types of measures that could be used. While the reference to these documents is valuable, to ensure the requirements of the EAA were met, the OWA was asked to include additional information on examples of types of mitigation measures that are available to proponents.

Accordingly, prior to publication of this Review, the OWA updated the Class EA to further describe mitigation measures. The Class EA now includes a new Appendix which provides a suite of approaches to mitigate effects associated with waterpower projects. The OWA notes that these mitigation measures will continue to evolve over time, and has committed to providing users of the Class EA access to the best available information on mitigation measures.

Conclusion:

The Class EA identifies and recognizes the importance of mitigating negative environmental effects and provides examples of measures which could be used to mitigate against adverse effects from projects proceeding under the class.

1.5.6 Consultation process during project planning

A range of consultation activities are specified in the Class EA including mandatory requirements such as Notices of Commencement and Completion as well as optional activities such as project newsletters and websites. The Class EA provides a clear description of the processes which proponents may use to consult with the public, Aboriginal communities and agencies who may be affected by the undertaking. The process provided allows flexibility for proponents to increase the level of public consultation undertaken when and as necessary.

Conclusion:

The Class EA provides an appropriate framework for proponents to use to ensure that adequate consultation takes place with the public, Aboriginal communities and agencies.

1.5.7 Methods for evaluating and determining final designs

When read in its entirety, the Class EA provides a clear planning process and framework for the identification and evaluation of the final design of proposed undertakings including progressive phases of environmental evaluation as follows: conceptualization, definition, assessment, documentation and implementation.

In addition, the MOE is satisfied that an Environmental Report must be produced for each individual project that describes how changes to the original proposal, if any resulted from the environmental evaluation and/or consultation and engagement processes. Also required is a list of all planned avoidance, prevention, mitigation and impact management measures for the project.

Conclusion:

The Class EA provides a clear description of the process to be used to evaluate a proposed undertaking and determine final designs. The process includes measures to consult with the public, Aboriginal communities and government agencies, methods for evaluating effects and methods to avoid, prevent and mitigate against these effects as well as requirements for documentation of the final results and design of the project.

1.5.8 Commitments

As part of the Class EA, the OWA has made a number of commitments including those discussed below:

• The OWA has committed to continually updating the resource materials provided in Appendix B of the Class EA, providing up-to-date reference materials related to cultural heritage, federal-provincial coordination, mitigation measures and other matters.
• The OWA has committed to seek appropriate amendments to the Class EA should the Electricity Projects Regulation be amended to ensure future consistency.
• The OWA has committed to working with the Ministry of Culture to develop guidelines which would accompany the Class EA and provide direction to proponents on assessing and considering impacts to archaeological and cultural heritage features.

Figure 1

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 decision making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformity with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry Analysis

The MOE coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the 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 summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is the requirement for a proponent to consult with interested persons during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. The consultation plan included public information centres (PICs) and follow-up activities, community workshops, maintenance of a 407 East Project website and direct consultation with stakeholders, including both the regional and local municipalities, private sector groups, non-governmental organizations, and provincial and federal government agencies. A program for consulting Aboriginal communities was also in place.

The MOE is satisfied with the level of consultation undertaken by the MTO with the public, the GRT, local municipalities, Aboriginal communities and other interested persons that occurred during the preparation of this EA and concludes that the level of consultation was appropriate for the proposed undertaking. MOE recognises that in the case of Aboriginal communities, consultation will continue. Based on the consultation to date and the on-going discussions between the MTO and several Aboriginal communities, the MOE is satisfied at this time with the consultation that the MTO has undertaken with Aboriginal communities.

MOE is satisfied that the EA adequately documents the consultation methods used by the MTO to engage all interested persons during the preparation of the EA.

Once the EA was submitted to the MOE, additional MOE-driven consultation occurred during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities were provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking, including any particular impacts about which they are concerned. The MTO has continued to consult interested persons such as the GRT and Aboriginal communities, since the EA was submitted.

All comments received by the MOE during the EA comment period were forwarded to the MTO for a response. The remainder of this subsection contains a brief description of the consultation process and highlights some of the commitments that were made as part of the EA and the proposed undertaking. Summaries of the all comments received along with responses to those comments have been prepared by the MTO and are included in Appendix B of this Review. Full text copies of the submissions are included in Appendix C. Given the number of public submissions, only a sample of the public comments received is included in Appendix C.

Consultation with the Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process. The MTO organized a Regulatory Advisory Group (RAG) made up of provincial and federal representatives with a mandated interest in the proposed 407 East Project. The names of the agencies that comprise the RAG are listed in section 4.2.1.2 of the EA.

A total of 13 RAG meetings were held during the course of the EA study process, coinciding with key study phases. A number of meetings were also held with individual regulatory agencies and conservation authorities outside of the RAG forum and with the initiation of preliminary design were held on a monthly basis. These meetings are documented in the Record of Consultation that was submitted with the EA.

The MTO released a draft version of the EA for comment for a 30-day period that ended on July 20, 2009. The comments that were received about the draft EA were considered by the MTO and incorporated into the final version of the EA as necessary.

The final EA was submitted to the MOE for a decision on August 28, 2009, at which time it was sent to the GRT for review and comments. The GRT for this EA included at a minimum, the same members as the RAG, with the exception being those RAG members whom had no concerns with the proposed undertaking. Comments were received from Environment Canada (EC), the MOE, the Ministry of Culture (MCL), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (MEI), the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), Metrolinx, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA).

All comments received were forwarded by the MOE to the MTO for a response. OMAFRA and the OPP had no concerns. The MEI acknowledged that its concerns had been addressed by the MTO through its comments on the draft EA.

MMAH expressed a concern with the creation of new building lots within prime agricultural areas on remnant parcels left over from the acquisition of the necessary right-of-way. This issue pertained to all prime agricultural lands, regardless of whether they are in the Greenbelt. The MTO is committed to working with MMAH to identify remnant parcels of property that are suitable for the continued use as agricultural purposes.

Comments submitted by the MCL concluded that based on the proponent discussions and communications thus far, that the MTO will comply with the MCL’s legislative requirements and mandated interests in the future pertaining to the impact mitigation and conservation of Ontario’s cultural heritage resources located along the Highway 407 East transportation corridor.

Section 3.3 of this Review discusses some of the more substantive GRT comments in detail. These comments were received from the MOE, EC and the MNR.

Consultation with local municipalities

The 407 East Project will be located within the Regional Municipality of Durham and its five constituent local municipalities including, the City of Pickering, the Town of Ajax, the Town of Whitby, the City of Oshawa and the Municipality of Clarington.

Early in the process, the MTO formed a Municipal Technical Advisory Group (MTAG) made up of representatives from the municipalities identified above. Municipal representatives from the surrounding municipalities, including the City of Peterborough, the County of Peterborough, the City of Kawartha Lakes, the County of Northumberland, the Region of York and the Town of Markham, were also invited to attend MTAG meetings on an as needed or requested basis.

According to the EA, a total of 13 MTAG meetings were held during the course of the Study, coinciding with key study phases. The MTO has also consulted individual members of the MTAG and made numerous presentations to municipal and regional Councils.

The draft EA was also made available to municipalities for review. A number of municipalities expressed and continue to express concern with the implementation of the Project, the integration of the Project with existing and future municipal infrastructure, properties that may be displaced by the Project and that the transportation corridor should include highway interchanges at municipally desirable locations. These concerns are briefly outlined in Section 3.3.1 of this Review and Appendix D.

Consultation with the public and other stakeholders

Consultation with interested members of the public was a key component of the MTO's planning process. The public, which includes the general public and other stakeholders such as local businesses and institutions, was provided several opportunities to participate in the preparation of the EA and provide input. Public participation was sought in a variety of ways.

Mailing lists were prepared early in the EA process and interested members were added to the list as the process progressed. The mailing lists provided an on-going means for the MTO to keep the public informed and involved throughout the EA process. At the completion of the Study, the mailing list contained approximately 6,500 individual mailing addresses. As described in Chapter 4 of the EA, other consultation activities included:

• Five PICs;
• Two public workshops and other public meetings;
• Meetings with individual community groups, such as the Ontario Road Ecology Group, Friends of the Farewell and SHIFT (Stop Highways Invest in Feet and Transit);
• Formation and maintenance of a Community Advisory Group (CAG);
• The maintenance of a Project website;
• The provision of a dedicated Project phone line/toll free number; and
• The provision of a Project office.

The consultation events allowed the MTO to gather information covering a wide spectrum of interests for input into the EA planning process.

A draft EA was made available electronically on the Project website and in hard copy format at specific locations for public comment. The MTO incorporated comments as necessary into the final EA before it was submitted to the MOE for a decision.

To announce the submission of the final EA and the availability of the document for review, the MTO posted a Notice of Submission in regionally and locally distributed newspapers within the study area. Direct mailings of the Notice of Submission were also sent to the individuals on MTO’s mailing list. Approximately, 69 comments were received during the comment period. A few comments were received after the end of the comment period. The comments were forwarded to the MTO for a response.

Most of the comments received expressed concern about the proposed undertaking and its impact on wildlife, the local and regional air shed, hydrogeologic features in the study area, loss of agricultural land and the displacement of privately-owned properties, in general.

Approximately 55 of the submissions received were in the form of a form letter. Approximately, 80 further letters that included the same content were sent to the Minister of Transportation. These form letters, which were individually signed, raised concern with the displacement of a specific property on Rundle Road in the Municipality of Clarington. The letters also indicated a concern with the loss of agricultural lands in general, the impact of the Project on migratory birds, and inconsistencies with the planning of the Project and the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement.

A letter submitted by SHIFT (Stop Highways Invest in Feet and Transit), a coalition of non-government organizations, raised concerns with the EA process and the need and justification of the Project. The letter also raises concern with the Project’s conformity with the Greenbelt Plan, the loss of agricultural land, impacts on groundwater and Species at Risk.

In its submission, SHIFT recommends that the EA be amended to include additional information. The submission further includes a list of conditions which the organization recommends be included as part of any approval granted by the Minister.

Please see Appendix B for a summary of the comments received and the MTO's response to those comments. A selection of representative public submissions is also included in Appendix C.

Aboriginal community consultation

Aboriginal rights stem from practices, customs or traditions which are integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal community claiming the right.

Treaty rights stem from the signing of treaties by Aboriginal peoples with the Crown.

Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In addition to the EAA requirements that interested persons be consulted, the Crown must turn its mind to consultation with Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that could be affected 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 established or asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights.

Early in the planning process, the MTO identified Aboriginal communities that may have an interest in, or be potentially affected by, the proposed undertaking. The communities identified include: Curve Lake First Nation, Mississaugas of Scugog Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama), Chippewas of Georgine Island, Chippewas of Beausoleil Island, Hiawatha First Nation, Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation and Alderville First Nation.

Huron-Wendat First Nation also has been identified as having an interest in the Project study area because of historic occupation and related cultural heritage issues.

Aboriginal communities were contacted at each key point in the Study to advise them of the Study progress and upcoming events. Contact included issuance of letters as well as follow-up phone calls and e-mails. All status updates, letters, newsletters and notices of PICs that were distributed to regulatory agencies, municipalities, stakeholders and the public, were also sent to the Aboriginal communities identified. Copies of the PIC display panels and the recommended design plans were also sent to the Aboriginal communities.

The Huron-Wendat First Nation have expressed an interest in the Project and the EA process and have made a request to the MTO to provide participatory funding and related travel expenses. A request for participatory funding has also been made by the Alderville First Nation. The MTO is reviewing these requests.

Once the final EA was submitted, the MOE provided the same Aboriginal communities with a copy of the EA and a request for comments. During the comment period, no comments about the EA were received. The MOE is aware of the Huron-Wendat First Nation’s and Alderville First Nation’s continued interested in the EA. The MTO continues to work with the Aboriginal communities to ensure that any concerns they may have are adequately considered.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The EAA requires a proponent to consult interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of those consultations. The MOE is satisfied that the MTO appropriately followed the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR. The MOE is satisfied that the MTO provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, the public, local municipalities, Aboriginal communities and other interested persons to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. Discussions with several Aboriginal communities are on-going and the MOE will continue to monitor these discussions. The EA documents the consultation methods used by the MTO to engage all interested persons during the preparation of the EA and demonstrates how input from interested persons assisted in the generation, evaluation and refinement of alternatives.

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 potential environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred alternative.

According to the approved ToR, the EA would be prepared in accordance with section 6.1(2) of the EAA. Section 6.1(2) of the EAA outlines the generic requirements of the EAA as outlined briefly in the preceding paragraph. In the approved ToR, summaries of the problems and opportunities were given. Determining and addressing long-term transportation deficiencies and needs in the analysis area, which includes the Region of Durham and surrounding communities to the east and west, became the purpose of the EA study.

A brief summary of MTO’s planning process is outlined below.

Several alternatives to were identified in the approved ToR and carried forward for evaluation in the EA. The alternatives to considered were:

• Do nothing;
• Travel Demand Measures (TDM)
• Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
• Improved Air Transport Service
• Improved and/or New Passenger Rail Service
• Improved and/or New Goods Movement by Rail
• Improved and/or New Marine Service
• Improved and/or New Transit Services
• Improved and/or New Roadways/Transitways
• Combinations of the Above.

After carrying out an inventory and completing a description of the environment, the MTO conducted an analysis of the alternatives to based on criteria originally identified in the approved ToR. The preferred alternative to was identified as the recommended alternative to the undertaking and consists of a combination of travel demand management, transportation systems Management Enhancements and a new transportation corridor including:

• a freeway connecting the existing terminus of Highway 407 at Brock Road in the City of Pickering to Highway 35/115 in the Municipality of Clarington;
• two north-south freeway connections between Highway 407, as extended and Highway 401; and
• a transitway corridor running parallel to the easterly extension of Highway 407 and the two north-south connections to Highway 401.

The development, assessment and evaluation of alternative methods occurred in three stages. The first stage involved a refinement of the analysis area, which was used to consider the alternatives to the undertaking, to reflect the new east-west and north-south transportation corridors proposed as part of the preferred alternative to the undertaking. A preliminary study area is illustrated in Exhibit 7.2 of the EA.

Using criteria originally identified in the approved ToR and refined early in the EA process, the second stage involved the development and evaluation of a long list of route alternatives at a conceptual level. This long list of route alternatives was then screened using criteria that focussed on minimizing direct loss/effects in significant natural, social and cultural areas and features, by avoiding these features, where possible. In arriving at the short list of alternatives routes, 98 different routes were considered by the MTO.

Following the identification of the final short list of alternatives routes, the MTO confirmed the evaluation criteria, indicators and measures that would be used in the net effects analysis of the short list of alternative routes. The Reasoned Argument Method was the primary evaluation method. An arithmetic evaluation method was the secondary method used to confirm the results of the primary. Section 7.4 of the EA provides an overview of the study methodology and evaluation of the short list of alternative routes considered.

The outcome of the net effects assessment was the identification of a Technically Preferred Route (TPR), which is described in Section 7.7 of the EA and shown in Figure 1 above. The TPR is comprised of a 170 metre right-of-way for the transportation corridor, of which 110 m will be used for the proposed highway, while the remaining 60 m are proposed for the use of a future transitway component. Support facilities, including maintenance facilities for the highway and transitway components, commercial vehicle inspection facilities for the highway component and transitway stations have also been identified in the TPR. Highway interchanges have been identified at the majority of major cross roads.

The proposed undertaking involves the protection of lands for the transitway component, including a 60 metre right-of-way on the south side of the east-west highway mainline component and west side of the north-south highway links. Transitway stations have been protected for at the majority of the major crossing road interchanges and have typically been situated in the northwest quadrant of interchanges to maximize the efficiency of transit operations and their potential impact on the highway component. The infrastructure within the transitway and the associated support facilities will be subject to future Class EA studies or the Transit Projects Regulation (Ontario Regulation 231/08), made under the EAA, prior to implementation.

3.2.1 Conclusions

The EA contains an explanation of the problems and opportunities that prompted the study. The MTO considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the undertaking and evaluated a range of alternative transportation corridor alignments and design elements in the study area using criteria that considered the EAA's broad definition of the environment (e.g. including natural, socio-economic, cultural and agricultural environments). The EA provides a description of the affected environment in the study area and identifies the elements of the environment that may be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the alternatives.

The EA further describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking based on those potential environmental effects. In some cases, more information has been requested by the GRT and the MTO has either already provided this information or where necessary, has made commitments to do so. Once received, any additional information will be available for review by interested persons.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is described in Chapter 8 of 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 to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed undertaking.

As discussed earlier in this Review, a number of substantive comments were made during the EA comment period that need to be considered and addressed, as appropriate, before a decision is made about the proposed undertaking. An overview of some of these comments is briefly outlined below. Where a resolution to the concerns raised has been reached, this too is noted.

A complete summary of the detailed comments and the MTO's responses to those comments, including the comments not summarized below, is included in Appendix B. Appendix C contains the full text of all the comments that were received.

3.3.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the EA process completed by the MTO for the 407 East EA were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period.

A number of issues were raised by the GRT and the public. These submissions can be found in Appendix B. All comments, including the MTO's responses can be found in Tables 1 -3.

Air quality

Comments about the air quality impacts of the Project were made by the MOE and the public.

In response to the comments raised by the MOE, the MTO prepared information to supplement the air quality assessment. The supplementary information is included in Appendix C. The MOE air reviewer has concluded that the additional information addresses the concerns raised. Response to the air quality concerns raised by the public are included in Table 2, Appendix D.

Surface water quality

Comments about potential water quality impacts were made by the MOE and EC.

Both the MOE and Environment Canada requested monitoring of water quality, including baseline monitoring, in the proposed stormwater management facilities and study area watercourses, respectively. While the MTO has responded that it is not usually its practice to conduct baseline monitoring, if required by the MOE it can be done. If the proposed undertaking is approved, there will likely be a condition requiring baseline monitoring that should address the concern.

Noise

Comments about noise were made by the MOE.

The MOE reviewer concluded that the noise modelling undertaken to identify the range of potential impacts over the entire study area was satisfactory. The reviewer also concluded that the Noise Impact Assessment satisfactorily identified the areas where further investigation of impacts and noise mitigation through detailed noise modelling was warranted.

The MTO has identified a number of sensitive receptors that will experience increases in ambient levels of noise of greater than 10 decibels (dB) once the highway extension is operational and fully built. Based on information provided by the MOE's noise reviewer, which can be found in material provided in the MOE's Environmental Noise: Certificate Course (1998), increases in noise of this magnitude are considered significant and affected sensitive receptors are considered as candidates for mitigation measures.

Under the MTO's Environmental Guide for Noise (2006), the MTO will consider mitigating noise impacts where it can be demonstrated that the mitigation methods are administratively, economically and technically feasible. Generally, technically feasible means that the mitigation method to be applied must be capable of producing a noise level reduction of at least 5 dB; economically feasible means that the mitigation measures do not exceed a cost of $50,000 to $100,000 per benefited noise receptor; and administratively feasible means that the mitigation measure can be implemented within the transportation corridor right-of-way.

Within the framework of the MTO's Environmental Guide for Noise, it has been determined that there will be fifteen sensitive noise receptors that are expected to experience significant noise impacts, for which the MTO has determined that there are no administratively, technically or economically feasible measures to mitigate the noise impacts. These properties are illustrated in Appendix D and identified as follows:

• 3790 Paddock Road, City of Pickering
• 3795 Paddock Road, City of Pickering
• 3805 Sideline 4, City of Pickering
• 5655 & 5705 Halls Road, Town of Whitby
• 6202 Country Lane, Town of Whitby
• 200 St. Thomas Street, Town of Whitby
• 210 St. Thomas Street, Town of Whitby
• 3015 Ritson Road, City of Oshawa
• 3045 Ritson Road, City of Oshawa
• 4693 Leask Road, Municipality of Clarington
• 4695 Leask Road, Municipality of Clarington
• 5757 Middle Road, Municipality of Clarington
• 3074 Concession Road 6, Municipality of Clarington
• 3090 Concession Road 6, Municipality of Clarington
• 7233 Brown Road, Municipality of Clarington

While the MTO has included the owners of these properties on its Project mailing lists, it is not clear to the MOE whether the property owners are aware of the noise impacts that are likely to occur to their property. The MTO is committed through subsequent design phases to consider and implement additional noise mitigation strategies should they be identified. The MOE encourages the MTO to consult directly with the affected property owners.

Natural environment

Comments about the impact of the East Durham link component of the Project on the natural environment were raised by an area resident and SHIFT.

Concern was specifically raised about how the East-Durham Link component of the proposed undertaking would have an impact on the Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach Wetland Complex, which is a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). In recognition of the sensitivity of the East-Durham Link study area and that the alignment of the transportation corridor had been selected based on minimizing the impact on the PSW, a workshop with various regulatory agencies, conservation authorities, wetland specialists and the public was held in February 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to identify mitigation measures that would minimize impacts to the PSW, preserve groundwater flow and provided wildlife passage.

As a result of the workshop, the MTO has modified the preliminary design of the East-Durham Link to include a 300 metre long bridge over the PSW with a vertical clearance of three metres. The MNR and GRCA have both indicated their acceptance of the proposed mitigation measures.

Natural heritage

Comments related to mitigating and monitoring of natural heritage features (e.g. plants, animals and fish) were made by the MNR, the conservation authorities and EC.

There are a number of occurrences of Species at Risk in the study area. Of particular note, this project may have impacts on Redside Dace, Butternut trees and Blanding’s Turtle. It is anticipated that a permit under section 17(2) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) will be required for works affecting the aforementioned species. In all cases, permit applications under the ESA must include measures that result in overall benefits to the species.

The MTO has developed a mitigation strategy for impacts on butternut trees and has committed to additional work and consultation with the MNR regarding the impact of the Project on Redside Dace. The presence of a Blanding’s Turtle was noted through the review process by a local resident, but has not been independently confirmed by the MNR or MTO's consultants. If a Blanding’s Turtle is encountered in subsequent design or construction phases, the MTO will contact the MNR to determine the ESA requirements.

Implementation

According to the EA, construction methods and staging were considered at a conceptual level that focussed on determining the constructability of the recommended design. Given the length of the undertaking and the 2031 planning horizon that the need and justification of the Project is based on, construction may proceed in phases, commencing in the west and progressing easterly.

A number of municipalities, including the City of Oshawa, the City of Pickering and the Town of Whitby have requested that the undertaking be constructed in its entirety (versus phasing) and opened as a completed facility and/or that the MTO commit to the construction of key interchanges to coincide with the opening of the facility.

Should approval of the EA be granted, the initial number of lanes to be provided on opening day would be determined through subsequent design phases, as would the opening day interchange requirements and associated ramp terminal intersection requirements. The MTO is committed to constructing only those portions of the transportation corridor where demand warrants.

The determination of key interchange requirements for opening day will take into consideration travel demands, network connectivity and accessibility and adjacent land uses. The MTO is committed to carrying out on-going consultation with municipal and regulatory agency staff, stakeholders and the public through the subsequent design phases.

Municipal infrastructure

A number of municipalities, including the City of Pickering, the City of Oshawa and the Town of Whitby have also expressed concern that the bridge structures crossing the 407 East Project do not provide sufficient width for sidewalks and bike lanes to be included on both sides of the crossing streets.

The decision to design crossing structures with sufficient width to accommodate bike lanes and sidewalks was based on a review of existing and future lands uses, existing cycling plans, current infrastructure, existing MTO policies and discussions with municipalities, as appropriate.

The MTO considered the need for sidewalks and bike lanes in the preliminary design of the undertaking and have protected for these elements at the majority of the 407 East crossing structures. Where bike lanes and/or sidewalks have been protected for, the MTO has agreed to construct the bike lanes and/or sidewalks subject to cost-sharing agreements with the appropriate municipality.

At a minimum, the preliminary design has included bike lanes and sidewalks in accordance with any existing infrastructure already in place and regional and local bike plans, respectively. The MTO has also made efforts to ensure that none of the crossing structures have been designed in such a way that the future addition of bike lanes or sidewalks would be precluded.

The municipalities noted continue to express concern with the financial burden of covering the costs for sidewalks and bike lanes on the structures that only protect for (e.g. are constructed to be sufficiently wide), not include these elements. Concerns with the costs and cost inefficiencies associated with retrofitting bridge structures at a later date to include bikes lanes and sidewalks have also been raised.

In its response to the municipalities that raised these concerns, the MTO has indicated its willingness to provide the additional structure width needed for bike lanes and sidewalks at any additional bridge structures, subject to a request being made and a cost-sharing agreement negotiated. The MTO is also committed to revisiting this issue as part of the subsequent design phases and to consulting further with the municipalities noted.

A number of municipalities, including the Town of Whitby and the Municipality of Clarington have requested that additional interchanges to and from the highway component of the undertaking be included at municipally desirable locations. The MTO has indicated in its responses to these municipalities that interchanges have been included at locations where traffic demands are expected to warrant the additional structures. Additional locations can be considered subject to separate EA studies being completed.

Displacement of privately and municipally-owned / managed properties

If approved, the proposed transportation corridor would displace a number of privately, federally and municipally-owned properties.

The City of Pickering has raised concerns with the potential displacement of municipally-managed recreational facilities that are located on lands leased from Transport Canada (TC). The City has requested that the MTO compensate the City for the loss of the recreational facilities and that MTO secure new lands for the facilities to be relocated. In its response to the City, the MTO has agreed to assist the City in relocating the facilities, but notes that under the terms of the lease agreement with TC, TC reserves the right to terminate the agreement without reason provided advance notice of one year is given. It should be further noted that the City’s lease with TC expires in 2012. The MOE is satisfied with MTO's response to the City’s concern.

The Municipality of Clarington has raised concern with the loss of designated industrial lands in the Courtice Energy Business Park and the Courtice Industrial Area and the impact of a local road realignment that will be needed as a result of the Project. Clarington is concerned that the loss of these lands will have an impact on the Municipality’s efforts to increase the non-residential portion of its tax base and has requested that the MTO commit to providing a significant financial contribution towards the implementation of road works adjacent to the affected lands. The MTO has agreed to further consider the opportunity to modify the road network at the same time a local road realignment is undertaken. This issue remains outstanding at this time.

The Town of Whitby has raised a concern that the proposed undertaking will displace municipally-owned lands intended for the future use of a hospital or park and have requested that the MTO provide replacement lands for these purposes. This issue will be dealt with through the MTO's property acquisition process.

As stated earlier, there are still outstanding issues that need to be considered. The decision about whether the undertaking will be approved rests with the Minister and the conclusions of this Review are one of many things the Minister must consider in making a decision.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The MTO has provided responses to all the comments received, including those not summarized above. An errata sheet has been prepared by the MTO, which corrects minor editorial errors in the EA. The errata sheet is included in Appendix D. Some reviewers have reported back to the MOE that their comments have been adequately addressed and/or further work is required to address issues.

During the period between the publication of this Review and before the Minister makes a decision on the approval of the proposed undertaking, further discussion between the MTO, the MOE and applicable reviewers will be necessary to respond to the remaining issues and provide the appropriate information the Minister needs to make a decision about the EA and the proposed undertaking.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the 407 East EA.

This Review concludes that the EA has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The MTO has described in its EA how alternatives were assessed and evaluated in order to arrive at the preferred alternative. The EA assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and proposed undertaking and provides mitigation and monitoring measures to ensure that the potential negative environmental effects will be minimized.

The Review concludes that the MTO has provided sufficient time and opportunity for the GRT, the public, local municipalities, Aboriginal communities and other interested persons to comment on the preparation of the EA. The MOE is satisfied that the EA clearly documents the consultation methods used by the MTO to engage these groups noted above during the EA process. The MTO's consultation methods were found to be in accordance with the requirements of the approved ToR and consistent with the MOE's Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process. The Crown, through the MTO, is committed to on-going consultation with Aboriginal communities throughout the EA process to ensure that any concerns are appropriately addressed.

There are several outstanding issues remaining that still need to be considered. It is normal process for the MOE to seek additional information from proponents about EAs in order to clarify information and potentially identify areas where additional work is warranted. This is part of the process needed to ensure that the Minister has the information that he needs to make an informed decision about the EA and the proposed undertaking.

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Ministry Review. At this time, anyone 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, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister about whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the 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 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; or
• 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 required

If EAA approval is granted, the MTO will still require other approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 11 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• Ontario Water Resources Act – Permits to Take Water for use or dewatering during construction;
• Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act – permits to remove an existing dam from a waterbody may be required;
• ESA – permits may be required for disturbances to butternut trees and the Redside Dace and their respective habitats. An additional permit to undertaking monitoring of these species and to collect data may also be required;
• Environmental Protection Act – Certificates of Approval may be required for the potential displacement of lands previously used for waste disposal purposes;
• Fisheries Act authorization – for harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat; and
• Navigable Waters Protection Act – for any work in a navigable channel.

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requirements

There are several triggers for an EA under CEAA specific to this undertaking. The triggers include the requirement for federal lands to enable this undertaking to be carried out and the need for the federal government to exercise regulatory duties in relation to the undertaking (i.e. issue a permit or license that is included in the Law List Regulations pursuant to the CEAA). The Project includes triggers that are within the mandate of TC and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

Additional triggers relate to oil and gas pipeline crossings and Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railway crossings, overseen by the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), respectively. In both cases, MTO will work with and negotiate an agreement with the pipeline companies and railway authorities and obtain concurrence from the NEB and CTA to ensure that a formal trigger will not be required. Therefore, these components have not been included in the federal screening.

Based on the authority provided in subsection 17(1) of the CEAA, TC and the DFO have delegated the preparation of the screening report to MTO. The screening report, together with any additional technical studies that are prepared to support it, will be used by the federal departments in assessing the project.

In accordance with the Canada-Ontario Agreement on EA, the provincial and federal EAs are being undertaken concurrently. The CEAA EA process is being coordinated through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency while the provincial EA process is being coordinated by the MOE.

Although the requirements of both the EAA and CEAA were coordinated during the EA process, two separate but complimentary reports are being prepared. The provincial EA Report addresses the EAA requirements while a separate federal screening report is being prepared and submitted to fulfill the federal EA requirements. Section 10.3 of the EA provides further details about the federal EA process.

Municipal Approvals

It is anticipated that a number of municipal approvals may be required from the Region of Durham, City of Pickering, Town of Ajax, Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa and the Municipality of Clarington, including, but not limited to:

• Tree Removal Permits;
• Noise by-law exemptions;
• Road Occupancy Permits;
• Road closure by-laws;
• Temporary construction access permits; and
• Municipal sign by-laws.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

An amendment procedure is outlined in Chapter 12 of the EA. This procedure would be used if the EA is approved and an amendment related to the transportation corridor or the EA is required as a result of information obtained during subsequent design phases. Any unforeseen changes to the Minister approved undertaking will be reviewed by the MTO and/or its agent prior to any changes being carried out. As part of the review, MTO and/or its agent will determine the significance of the change in terms of its potential effect to the environment, a stakeholder (including the public), and/or a commitment made in the EA or a condition of approval.

If the MTO determines that a proposed change is not significant, the change will be documented in a Design and Construction Report and will be made available for public review. For any significant changes, the amending procedure will be consistent with the MTO's Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities, 2000 (Class EA). This will include the preparation of a Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) and involve formal public and agency consultation. The bump-up provisions in the MTOs Class EA will apply to any changes identified in the TESR, but not the undertaking as identified in the EA, should it be approved.

Public record locations

You can view the public record for this class environmental assessment during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

• Telephone: 416-314-8001
• Toll-free: 1-800-461-6290

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

Ministry of the Environment

Central Region
5775 Yonge Street, 8^th floor
North York, Ontario
M2M 4J1

• Telephone: 416-326-6700

West Central Region
119 King Street West, 12^th floor
Hamilton, Ontario
L8N 3Z9

• Telephone: 905-521-7640

Southwestern Region
659 Exeter Road
London, Ontario
N6E 1L3

• Telephone: 519-873-5000

Eastern Region
133 Dalton Avenue
Kingston, Ontario
K7L 4X6

• Telephone: 613-549-4000

Northern Region
435 James Street South
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7C 5G6

• Telephone: 807-475-1205

Additional copies of this Notice, the Review and the Class Environmental Assessment are also available for public review at:

Ontario Waterpower Association Office
380 Armour Road, Suite 210
Peterborough, Ontario
K9H 7L7

• Telephone: 705-743-1500
• Toll-free: 1-866-743-1500

Electronic copies of the Class Environmental Assessment may also be downloaded from Ontario Waterpower Association’s web site.

Making a submission?

A five-week public inspection period ending June 6, 2008 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the Class Environmental Assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Ms. Agatha Garcia-Wright, Acting Director
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5
Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Ontario Waterpower Association Class Environment Assessment

Attention: Ross Lashbrook, Project Officer

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act requirements

Requirement #1

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Problem/opportunities	Description of the class of undertakings to which it applies: section 14(2)(1)	The Class EA must describe the undertakings for which approval is being sought. The ToR identifies that the class of undertakings will include the activities subject to the screening requirements of the Electricity Projects Regulation relating to the planning, designing, establishing, constructing, operating, changing, expanding, and retiring of new and existing waterpower facilities.

Analysis of the EA

The projects subject to the Class EA are identical to those included in the Electricity Projects Regulation (i.e. Category B) which, by definition are expected to have predictable environmental effects. The Class EA further refines these projects based on the broader environmental context within which they occur.

The MOE is satisfied with the class of undertakings.

Requirement #2

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Reasons for using a Class EA	A description of the reasons for using a Class EA with respect to undertakings in the class. Section 14(2)(2)	The Class EA must clearly identify the reasons for developing a Class EA for waterpower projects rather than a continuation of the current legislative requirements for the class of undertakings.

Analysis of the EA

The most significant reasons include: it is customized to the issues that the waterpower sector frequently faces; it provides direction to proponents regarding coordination with other approvals processes (including the federal environmental assessment process and other permits from the Ministry of Natural Resources), improving the efficiency of the planning process; there is improved direction to proponents regarding engaging Aboriginal communities; and it places the onus on the industry to monitor compliance and effectiveness of the process.

The MOE is satisfied with the reasons for the development of the Class EA.

Requirement #3

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Reasons for using a Class EA	A description of the similarities and differences to be expected among the undertakings in the class. Section 14(2)(3)	The Class EA must outline the similarities and differences to be expected among the undertakings in the Class.

Analysis of the EA

The similarities are that all of the undertakings in the Class involve the generation of electricity through either the use of the natural drop or head" of the river and /or involve building a dam to raise the water level and provide the drop needed to create a driving force. Water at the higher level is then carried to a turbine which, when connected to a generator and set in motion, rotates to produce electricity.

The differences between the undertakings in the Class are based on the nature of the project and the surrounding geography. These different streams will have a different range of expected environmental effects which will be assessed using the evaluation process outlined in the Class EA.

Requirement #4

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Environmental considerations related to undertakings to which the Class applies.	A description of the expected range of environmental effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class. Section 14(2)(4)	The Class EA must outline the potential environmental effects from undertakings within the class.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA outlines the expected range of environmental effects, recognizing that a wide variety of social, cultural, economic and environmental values may be affected by the projects covered under the Class EA. These impacts will be assessed in accordance with the guidance provided by the Class EA.

Requirement #5

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Environmental considerations related to undertakings to which the Class applies.	A description of measures that could be taken to mitigate against adverse environmental effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class. Section 14(2)(5)	The Class EA must provide reference to the types of mitigation measures which can reduce or mitigate adverse environmental effects from undertakings within the class.

Analysis of the EA

Impact management direction (including mitigation) is provided within the Class EA and specific references are included in the Appendix of material available from the OWA. The Class EA references a standard suite of approaches to mitigate effects associated with waterpower projects and identifies that these measures continue to evolve and improve over time. The OWA has committed to providing access to the best available information on mitigation measures to users of the Class EA.

Requirement #6

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Evaluation	A description of the process to be used by a proponent of a proposed undertaking to consult with the public and with persons who may be affected by the undertaking. Section 14(2)(6)	The Class EA must provide guidance on public consultation processes which proponents can use when planning projects under the class.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA provides guidance on how proponents may consult with the public and those who may be affected by an undertaking. The Class EA provides a flexible framework which can be adjusted based on the public and stakeholder interest in the undertaking and specifies minimum documentation requirements including the preparation of an Environmental Study Report for all projects.

Requirement #7

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Evaluation	A description of the method to be used to evaluate a proposed undertaking with respect to the matters described in paragraphs 4 to 6. Section 14(2)(7)	The Class EA must provide direction on how proponents are to evaluate the impacts of proposed undertakings including assessing potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures which can be utilized and methods to consult with the public.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA applies a consistent evaluation matrix to all projects, focused on environmental effects (positive and negative) related to waterpower. In addition, advice is provided on the coordination of the EA process with other Class EAs and key federal and provincial legislation of relevance to waterpower projects. Further, the Class EA provides direction on how to determine appropriate mitigation measures for a proposed undertaking, and outlines methods for determining the public consultation methods which are appropriate based on the circumstances of the undertaking.

Requirement #8

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Evaluation	A description of the method to be used to determine the final design of a proposed undertaking based upon the evaluation described in paragraph 7. Section 14(2)(8)	The Class EA must provide a framework which allows proponents to identify and describe the proposed undertaking in a level of detail that is appropriate to the setting.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA exceeds the minimum requirements for project screening and requires all projects subject to the Class to prepare an Environmental Report - tantamount to the Environmental review stage of the Guide. The categorization and evaluation criteria provide each project to be assessed based on its complexity. When read in its entirety, the Class EA provides a framework to determine the final design of the proposed undertaking, including conceptualization, definition, assessment, documentation and implementation.

Requirement #9

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	In order to be consistent with the Electricity Projects Regulation and potentially other EA processes, the Class EA will propose to categorize the requirements of these activities similar to the categorization in the Guide.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA categorization is premised on the thresholds in the Electricity Projects Regulation. The requirements for projects in the Class EA go beyond those included in the Guide, notably with the requirements that all project prepare an Environmental Report.

Requirement #10

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	To facilitate consistency between the provincial and federal processes, the Class EA will address federal triggers and thresholds wherever possible and will contribute to the objectives of the Federal-Provincial Agreement on Cooperation on Environmental Assessment, signed November 1, 2004.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA devotes an entire section to the coordination opportunities for projects under the provincial EA and other potential requirements, including the federal EA and federal legislation. In addition, a specific reference document on federal requirements for waterpower projects in Ontario has been developed jointly by the OWA and DFO.

Requirement #11

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The Class EA will specifically recognize that, pursuant to MNR's Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects, modifications to waterpower facilities not subject to the provisions of the Electricity Projects Regulation but requiring a new disposition of rights to Crown resources require and environmental screening.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA specifically recognizes MNR's Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Development Projects and in addition, the Class EA for Parks and Conservation Reserves.

Requirement #12

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The Waterpower Class EA will include a number of administrative provisions to ensure consistency of approach across projects undertaken. Such provisions will include: Documentation requirements for projects Addendums to Environmental Study Reports Part II Orders and resolution provisions Class EA five-year review requirements Monitoring and reporting requirements Requirements for public consultation References to the regulatory requirements of other agencies of direct relevance to waterpower projects.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA includes:

• Documentation requirements for projects
• Addendums to Environmental Study Reports
• Part II Orders and resolution provisions
• Class EA five-year review requirements
• Monitoring and reporting requirements
• Requirements for public consultation

References to the regulatory requirements of other agencies of direct relevance to waterpower projects.

Requirement #13

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The OWA will have lead responsibility for monitoring the Waterpower Class EA and reporting to MOE on an annual basis on those projects undertaken for which information is provided.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA specifies that the OWA has responsibility for monitoring and reporting, and defines the requirements of project proponents to satisfy these requirements.

Requirement #14

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The OWA will have lead responsibility for monitoring the Waterpower Class EA and reporting to MOE on an annual basis on those projects undertaken for which information is provided.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA specifies that the OWA has responsibility for monitoring and reporting, and defines the requirements of project proponents to satisfy these requirements.

Requirement #15

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	All OWA members will be required to submit project reports to the Association to facilitate ongoing monitoring and evaluation.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA requires that all proponents submit project reports to the OWA and includes provisions within the Class EA process to facilitate reporting.

Requirement #16

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The Class EA will propose relative roles and responsibilities in greater detail and will address, in particular, the requirements of the small minority of waterpower proponents who are not OWA members.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA requires that all proponents submit project reports to the OWA and includes provisions within the Class EA process to facilitate reporting. In addition, the Class EA includes a requirement for a proponent-agency coordination meeting for all projects to ensure consistency of process, regardless of a proponent’s membership in the OWA

Requirement #17

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	As a means of keeping the Class EA current, the document will outline the proposed amendment process, including associated notification requirements and opportunities for the public and government agencies to request amendments.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA defines both minor and major amendment processes, including associated notification requirements and opportunities for the public and government agencies to request amendments.

Requirement #18

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The Class EA will explore harmonization with the MNR Class EA process. The Class EA will, at a minimum, meet the requirements for working with MNR, as set out in Section A.4.1 of the Guide.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA details the legislative and regulatory requirements of MNR of most relevance to a waterpower project, and provides advice on the opportunity to integrate these requirements through the Class EA process.

Requirement #19

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The Class EA will explore to the fullest extent possible the opportunities to harmonize process and eliminate duplication.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA features coordination opportunities with other Class EAs, the federal EA process and key federal legislation as well as waterpower-related provincial legislation. In addition, includes a requirement for a proponent-agency coordination meeting for all projects.

Requirement #20

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The potential for coordination with the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will therefore be fully explored in the development of the Class EA. At a minimum, an overview of the triggers for and requirements of the federal legislation (e.g. Fisheries Act, International Rivers Improvement Act, Dominion Water Power Act) will be provided, as will the potential roles of federal responsible authorities.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA specifically recognizes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, identifies the potential triggers for and requirements of the federal legislation (e.g. Fisheries Act, International Rivers Improvement Act, Dominion Water Power Act, Species at Risk Act) and describes the potential roles of federal responsible authorities. Additional guidance is provided in the reference to the Practitioner’s Guide to federal requirements prepared jointly by the OWA and DFO.

Requirement #21

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	3.4 Coordination with the policies and procedures of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in administering of the Fisheries Act and Transport Canada in administering the Navigable Waters Protection Act will be pursued to the extent possible in the Waterpower Class EA.

Analysis of the EA

Detailed guidance is provided in the reference to the Practitioner’s Guide" to federal requirements prepared jointly by the OWA and DFO and incorporated into the body of the Class EA.

Requirement #22

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The Class EA will provide for direct engagement of Aboriginal peoples and communities who may be affected by or have an interest in the waterpower projects subject to the class of undertakings.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA recognizes the distinct interests and potential involvement of Aboriginal communities in waterpower projects.

Requirement #23

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The Class EA will propose a coordinated process in consultation with Hydro One.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA describes the potential relationship between projects that are subject to the Class and the Hydro One Class EA. Projects are treated in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Guide to Electricity Projects (MOE).

Requirement #24

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	A requirement to assess the historical and heritage significance of proposed modifications to (or retirement of) existing waterpower facilities with recognized heritage value will be incorporated into the Class EA planning process.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA incorporates cultural heritage considerations as a core element of the evaluation framework. In addition, best available advice is referenced in the Appendix of resource information. The OWA has also committed to continuing to work with the Ministry of Culture to develop a framework specific to waterpower projects.

Appendix B: Submissions received during initial comment period

Submissions are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Table 1: Public and other comment summary table

Comment #1

Submitter

Public Comments

Summary

No comments received

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #2

Submitter

Conservation Ontario

Summary

All concerns have been addressed in the Environmental Assessment (EA).

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #3

Submitter

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)

Summary

OFAH believes that all projects on an unregulated system should be subject to individual EA process. They are concerned that meeting the basic criteria outlined in the Class EA does not provide adequate screening of projects that could cause irreversible damage. OFAH believes categorizing projects based on number of existing dams, kilometers of river between proposed dam and existing dam would help assess the magnitude of impact.

Proponent’s response

The Class EA has been prepared to be consistent with the approved Terms of Reference and the Electricity Projects Regulation (O. Reg. 116/01) under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The regulation exempts waterpower projects under 200 MW from the individual Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements under Part II of the EA Act, provided that the requirements of the Regulation or any subsequent approved Class EA are met. The Class EA is consistent with the EAA and the Regulation.

Status

The MOE is satisfied with the project categorization approach taken by the OWA.

Comment #4

Submitter

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)

Summary

OFAH submits that sites should be subject to public consultation prior to release to proponents.

Proponent’s response

Comment pertains to the Ministry of Natural Resources Waterpower Site Release and Development Review process and is outside the scope of the EAA, the approved Terms of Reference for the Class EA, and the Class EA document itself.

The Class EA contains extensive consultation requirements to ensure that stakeholders are consulted as part of the planning and conceptual designing of waterpower project proposals.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #5

Submitter

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)

Summary

OFAH feels that the public consultation is flawed. This is because little site specific information is available during the Notice of Commencement. They feel that adding an additional comment period between the Notice of Commencement and Notice of Completion would help provide the public with findings from environmental, social, cultural, and economic impacts/benefits.

Proponent’s response

As described in the Class EA, the Notice of Commencement is issued during the project concept phase, which includes describing the project and the characteristics of the environment, identifying and coordinating other applicable approval requirements, and developing public consultation and Aboriginal engagement plans, as appropriate.

Subsequent phases of the Class EA (described in Class EA sections 4.2 through 4.4) provide for consultation with interested and affected parties, prior to issuance of the Notice of Completion. As suggested, this consultation period typically falls during Phases 2 through 4 of the Class EA, when work is being done to gauge potential effects and required environmental studies are being completed. In addition, for projects on unmanaged river systems, an additional formal notice (Notice of Inspection) is required before issuance of the Notice of Completion.

An outline of the Class EA process is provided in Figure 6, which indicates that consultation and Aboriginal engagement activities continue throughout the Class EA process.

Status

MOE is satisfied with the approach to public consultation outlined in the Class EA.

Comment #6

Submitter

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)

Summary

OFAH also would like the 30 day comment period extended to better accommodate public response.

Proponent’s response

The Class EA sets out a minimum of 30 days for review after issuance of the Notice of Inspection and Notice of Completion. Proponents are encouraged in the Class EA to tailor their consultation process according to the specific needs of each project, which includes the flexibility to extend formal comment periods of desired or warranted.

Status

MOE is satisfied that the comment period is consistent with the Code of Practice: Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Comment #7

Submitter

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)

Summary

OFAH requests that the MNR review table 3 (the evaluation matrix) to verify its accuracy.

Proponent’s response

The MNR (and other agencies) has reviewed and provided comments on Table 3 (now called the Potential Effects Identification Matrix") and they have been addressed in the revised Class EA document.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #8

Submitter

Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO)

Summary

IESO asserts that the Ontario Waterpower Association has submitted a thorough and well thought document. However, the IESO is concerned that the current regulatory process is too lengthy and would like to see the process sped up so that more electricity can be available on the grid.

Proponent’s response

As described in Section 1.3 of the Class EA, the objective of the Class EA is to help ensure that projects are planned in an environmentally responsible manner. An additional objective of the Class EA is to coordinate and integrate the multiplicity of environmental approvals and public involvement processes that are relevant to planning a waterpower project. Adhering to the Class EA will facilitate meeting the core planning requirements for this array of approvals. Common to all of these processes are the themes of environmental responsibility" and public accountability". The Class EA has adopted these themes and is designed is to facilitate coordination with other directly relevant federal and provincial requirements to help ensure effective and efficient public and agency involvement.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #9

Submitter

Association of Power Producers of Ontario (APPrO)

Summary

APPrO submits that the Ontario Waterpower Association has submitted a thorough and responsible Class EA document.

Proponent’s response

Thank you.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #10

Submitter

Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

Summary

OPG is concerned that projects associated with existing structures that presently fall within Reg. 116 are not included. To address this problem OPG requests that the following be included in the list under section 3.1.1:

• Expansion or modification to an existing generation facility that has an initial name plate capacity of 200 MW or more and which results in a less than 25% increase in name plate capacity.
• Expansion or change to an existing generation facility with an initial name plate capacity of less than 200 MW

Proponent’s response

Section 3.1.1 has been revised to include sub-bullet a); however, under Ontario Regulation 116/01 sub-bullet b) also requires a cap" of 200 MW, or a 25% maximum increase, when an existing waterpower project less than 200 MW is changed or expanded. This is reflected in Section 3.1.1.

Status

MOE is satisfied that the revisions made to section 3.1.1 are consistent with the Electricity Sector Regulation.

Comment #11

Submitter

Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

Summary

OPG recommends the definition for a generation station updated to the following:

• Generation Station - is a waterpower facility in which the force of falling water spins turbines to drive generators for electricity production. It is a general term, which includes a powerhouse, dam and a means of carrying water from the headpond to the powerhouse and to the extent applicable carries the same meaning as a generation facility" under Ontario Regulation 116/01 - Electricity Projects.

Proponent’s response

The Glossary has been revised to address this comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #12

Submitter

Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

Summary

Section 4.1.1: OPG is unclear if the project description" refers to the brief description of the project or the detailed document prepared by proponents. If it is the intention that the project description would help the proponent in responding to queries by the public and Aboriginal communities, it is recommended that this be clearly stated.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #13

Submitter

Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

Summary

Section 4.2.1: OPG recommends that the Notice of Commencement stage is too early to invite participation in the process" or to impose any deadline.

Proponent’s response

There is no deadline associated with the Notice of Commencement. However, identifying potentially interested stakeholders early in the Class EA planning process will help ensure proponents to develop a suitable consultation and engagement plan and solicit meaningful feedback prior to major irreversible decisions being made.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #14

Submitter

Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

Summary

Section 4.1.1: OPG submits that the inclusion of alternative approaches to the project" opens up the assessment to alternatives potentially creates an additional step for the proponent that is not required under the guide as well as opening the project no opinions that may not be considered expert. OPG submits that the consideration of alternatives in a Class EA defeats the purpose of providing proponents with a streamlined process.

Proponent’s response

Section has been revised to address comment. Alternative approaches to the project" has been deleted.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #15

Submitter

Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

Summary

Section 8.8 makes no mention that typically minor changes to the undertaking do not require an addendum; OPG would like a statement that reflects this added. Typically, minor change could be considered one where the net effect after mitigation is similar or less that identified in the environmental report for the undertaking.

Proponent’s response

Section 8.8 has been revised to address this comment and to be consistent with the Environmental Screening Process under O. Reg. 116/01. Where minor changes have no potential for new negative effects, the proponent documents this conclusion in the project files. Only where there is potential for new negative effects does the proponent prepare an Addendum.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #16

Submitter

Hydro One Networks

Summary

No comments on Class EA document. Hydro One will provide project-specific comments on individual projects.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Table 2: Government Review Team Comment Summary Table

Comment #1

Submitter

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

Summary

Section 7.3: Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs requests that section references to the ministry should be read explicitly as references to the Ministry of the Environment.

Proponent’s response

Suggested change incorporated.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #2

Submitter

Ministry of Tourism

Summary

No comments received.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #3

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

The MCL feels that there is no clear direction in the final Class EA document about OHA regulations or specific processes or commitments on how to evaluate significance" of historical and heritage sites. The public may not have a clear and consistent understanding of how cultural heritage value will be identified and protected. It is essential that direction be provided in the final Class EA.

Proponent’s response

MCL's suggested revisions to Class EA Section 5.3.8, describing the Ontario Heritage Act and its regulations, address this comment and have been incorporated into the Class EA document. In addition, Appendix B provides references to cultural heritage-related guidance documents from MCL, Parks Canada and others.

Status

Additional discussion between MCL and the OWA necessary. See Appendix C for MCL's recommendations.

Comment #4

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

Section 5.1.2: MCL states this section is unclear about which projects overlap with the MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Class EA. Page 51 indicates that if the OWA Class EA intersects with the Parks Class EA - the OWA Class EA will be followed. It should be noted that the MNR Class EAs are subject to specific cultural heritage guidelines which were developed with MCL. Rationale needs to be provided as to why the OWA Class EA, which requires a lower level of assessment, should take precedence over the MNR Class EA.

Proponent’s response

The OWA Class EA does not require a lower level of assessment than MNR Class EAs. Additional clarity has been added to section 5.1.2 based on MNR's comments.

Status

Additional discussion between MCL and the OWA necessary. See Appendix C for MCL's recommendations.

Comment #5

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

Table 1- It should be noted that provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act extend beyond archaeological fieldwork, proponents and the public should be made aware that other legislative considerations could require coordination on a waterpower project.

Proponent’s response

Section 4.1.2 speaks to coordination with other permit, approval and EA processes that could apply to a project and provides for a specific coordination meeting with relevant agencies.

Status

Additional discussion between MCL and the OWA necessary. See Appendix C for MCL's recommendations.

Comment #6

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

MCL's offer to work with the OWA has been misinterpreted in section 5.3.8. The offer was made in more general terms to help OWA meet its ToR and was not an interest" to be reflected in this section of the Class EA; as such the MCL requests this statement to be removed.

Proponent’s response

OWA appreciates MCL comments on the Class EA document. However, consistent with other MCL comments, the option to develop such guidance materials has been retained in section 5.3.8. The language has been slightly revised to indicate that MCL may choose to work with the OWA to develop guidelines specific to waterpower…"

Status

MOE notes that MCL remains of the position that guidance documents are necessary. See Table Appendix C for further comment from MCL.

Comment #7

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

Table 3: MCL states that Table 3 will not work for heritage evaluation, due to the insufficient guidance in the Class EA on how to identify cultural heritage resources or how to determine environmental effects. Also, when dealing with archaeological resources it is not appropriate to categorize effects as positive or negative high (H), medium (M) and low (L). The MCL recommends deleting Ministry of Culture" (in the second sentence of the foot note on page 38). While the ministry may have a role in setting standards, archaeological licensing, and, in certain circumstances, reviewing cultural heritage assessments and reports, it neither commissions nor manages the work.

Proponent’s response

The purpose of Table 3 is to assist proponents in the identification of potential environmental effects associated with a project. The footnotes for Table 3 have been revised using MCL feedback and recommend the use of qualified heritage consultants. Further guidance related to identification of cultural resources and accessing potential effects is provided in Appendix B.

Status

MOE notes that the footnote has been revised to identify that, regardless of whether high or low" are checked, additional consultation with qualified heritage consultants is necessary.

Additional discussion between MCL and the OWA necessary. See Appendix C for MCL's recommendations.

Comment #8

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

Section 3: MCL notes there are no references or direction for the user regarding Category B projects. MCL staff will assist in determining what references or direction is needed for Category B projects in this section.

Proponent’s response

All waterpower projects subject to Category B of Ontario Regulation 116/01 of the Environmental Assessment Act are subject to the Class EA as described in Class EA section 1.5. Cultural heritage considerations are included for all projects subject to the Class EA pursuant to the definition of environment" in the Environmental Assessment Act and as demonstrated in the Potential Effects Identification Matrix (Table 3) of the Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #9

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

Section 4.0: Class EA Planning Process is not acceptable for cultural heritage evaluations. There are no clear descriptions or explanations as to how the Matrix works, and how one is to determine level of impact (low, med, high etc). There is no clear link or reference to the determination areas of archaeological potential as this relates to the scope of ground disturbances.

Proponent’s response

Section 4.2.2 and Table 3 have been revised to include additional information and clarity on the identification of potential effects.

Status

Additional discussion between MCL and the OWA necessary. See Appendix C for MCL's recommendations.

Comment #10

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

Section 4.2.2: MCL also has concerns regarding subsection 4.2.2 - Environmental, Social, Cultural and Economic Evaluation and Table 3 Evaluation Matrix.

Proponent’s response

Section 4.2.2 and Table 3 have been revised to include additional information and clarity on the identification of potential effects.

Status

Additional discussion between MCL and the OWA necessary. See Appendix C for MCL's recommendations.

Comment #11

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

Section 4.0: MCL would like a mitigation section added to section 4.0 Class EA Planning Process". It does not appear that recommended sections from MCL (August 2007 letter) are included in the revised EA document.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. As described in Section 4.3.2, while there are a suite of standard approaches to mitigation of environmental effects associated with waterpower projects, the state of the science(s) continues to evolve and improve and the toolbox of approaches continues to expand. As listed in Appendix B, the OWA will undertake to provide access to the best available information on mitigation techniques on an ongoing basis, rather than to limit the creativity of proponents through prescriptive measures. The OWA has taken the approach in the Class EA of referring to documents that speak to mitigation techniques, as opposed to listing a small subset of those which may be applicable to projects. The OWA will post and update the list of guidance material on its web site as appropriate.

Status

MOE notes that additional information regarding mitigation measures was included in an updated Class EA prior to publishing of the Review.

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #12

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

MCL would like their requested resource materials (from their August 2007 letter) incorporated into the glossary. As a minimum they would like Ontario Heritage Act Reg. 09/06 to be included.

Proponent’s response

Definitions have been added to the Glossary where there are corresponding references to the term in the Class EA. The description of Ontario Heritage Act in Class EA section 5.3.8 has been revised to address MCL comments.

Status

MOE is satisfied with OWAs position to not include definitions in the glossary where the term is not utilized in the Class EA.

Comment #13

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

MCL requests that the development of heritage guidelines be required through a condition of approval with firm deadlines. The guidelines should be subject to MCL approval.

Proponent’s response

See MCL comment and OWA response for section 5.3.8 of the Class EA, above. This section refers to guidelines to be developed by MCL and OWA.

Status

MOE expects that the OWA and MCL will continue to work together on this matter.

Comment #14

Submitter

Ministry of Culture (MCL)

Summary

Appendix C: MCL recommends the following be added:

1. Fram, Mark. Ontario Hydro Ontario Heritage: A Study of Strategies for the Conservation of the Heritage of Ontario Hydro. Ministry of Culture and Recreation, 1980.
2. Planning for Hydroelectric Generating Stations as a Cultural Resource. Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and Ontario Hydro, 1981.
3. Ontario Hydro’s History and Description of Hydroelectric Generating Stations. Ontario Hydro, 1991.
4. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit – Ministry of Culture, 2006
5. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Parks Canada, 2003

Proponent’s response

1. Added to Appendix B. MCL to provide document to OWA.
2. Added to Appendix B.
3. Added to Appendix B.
4. This reference was removed per additional comments from MCL on February 7, 2008.
5. Added to Appendix B.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this revision.

Comment #15

Submitter

Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

Summary

MOE should establish boundaries on what is acceptable under a Part II Order (pg 84) to ensure that this right is not abused. MTO believes that leaving an open ended timeframe could make the process problematic. The MTO recommends deleting the line that says However, requests received after the 30-day period …may be considered in conjunction with requests received during the 30-day review period.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied that this section of the Class EA is consistent with the draft Code of Practice: Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments.

Comment #16

Submitter

Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

Summary

Section 8.6, second paragraph: MTO would like clarification regarding under what circumstances a Part II order would be considered premature.

Proponent’s response

As described in Section 8.6, Part II Order requests may be considered premature if made before the 30-day Notice of Completion review period has commenced. This is because later stages of the Class EA planning process typically provide opportunities for interested persons to raise concerns and the proponent to attempt to address and resolve them.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #17

Submitter

Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

Summary

Section 8.6, second paragraph: MTO recommends the deletion of the paragraph dealing with Part II Orders as they feel it does not clarify the process, but complicates it.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with the response and revisions.

Comment #18

Submitter

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH)

Summary

Table 1: MMAH recommends the table be updated to include the following pieces of legislature where relevant:

• Greenbelt Act, 2005; Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001; Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994; Greenbelt Plan; Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; Parkway Belt West Plan; and Central Pickering Development Plan.

Proponent’s response

Table 1 lists key, province-wide legislation that typically applies to waterpower projects. The suggested additions are regional in nature and are not expected to be applied to the majority of waterpower projects (due to their location). However, a sentence has been added in the last paragraph of Section 1.3 to indicate that other/additional legislation may apply to a given project.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #19

Submitter

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH)

Summary

Section 4.2.1, 7^th bullet: MMAH feels that this language is vague and requests that it be changed to reflect municipalities who may be affected and/or located either upstream or downstream from a proposed waterpower project.

Proponent’s response

The point is meant to be broad and flexible so as to be inclusive to all municipalities that may be interested in a project. Not all may be upstream or downstream as suggested by MMAH; they may be located away from a watercourse and have an interest in a project due to other project-related infrastructure (e.g., access roads or transmission lines). Clarification has been added that this includes those municipalities that host project-related infrastructure.

Status

It is noted that section 4.2.1 identifies that potentially affected municipalities" must be consulted with.

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #20

Submitter

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH)

Summary

In the revised EA document, there continues to be no mention or discussion about proponents having to address decommissioning and rehabilitation as part of the EA process. It is suggested this should be addressed in the event the proponent ceases to exist and/or the proponent abandons the project.

Proponent’s response

The Class EA process, consistent with Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EA Act, addresses the full project lifecycle. As described in Section 2.1 (Class of Undertakings) of the Class EA, this includes the planning, designing, establishing, constructing, operating, changing, expanding, or retiring of a waterpower project.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #21

Submitter

Ministry of Energy

Summary

The Ministry of Energy supports OWA's changes to the Environmental Assessment process for waterpower projects.

Proponent’s response

Thank you.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #22

Submitter

Ministry of Energy

Summary

Section 7.0 Engaging and Involving Aboriginal Communities", the Ministry of Energy requests that proponent contact the Crown to determine the communities that should be consulted. The Ministry of Energy would like to be informed of all consultative activities to ensure coordination of the Crown and project proponent in fulfilling section 35 Duty to Consult Aboriginal Peoples.

Proponent’s response

Section 4.1.3 of the Class EA requires development of an Aboriginal Engagement Plan. In addition, section 7.3 specifically discusses the identification of the Crown’s Duty to Consult in relation to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Class EA requires that proponent’s document consultative/engagement activities in the Environmental Report (see section 4.4).

Status

MOE is satisfied with response. Inter-ministry discussions underway with respect to further coordination of Crown consultation on waterpower projects.

Comment #23

Submitter

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM)

Summary

MNDM believes that waterpower development and flooding rights may affect Crown land and dispositions of Crown lands, right and resources.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Class EA process addresses this comment; no changes document required.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #24

Submitter

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM)

Summary

MNDM believes any changes to the watershed flow and flooding may affect access to mining lands, mine properties, mine hazards, and underground workings and access to transmission corridors may also affect mining lands and land tenure.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Class EA process addresses this comment; no changes to document required.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #25

Submitter

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM)

Summary

MNDM is concerned that there is no differentiation between run-of-the-river or pumped storage projects and conventional dam and reservoir projects.

Proponent’s response

The Class of Undertakings included in the Class EA is governed by Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EAA and its deterministic, MW capacity-based categorization system. The Class EA goes beyond this such that it categorizes projects based on the environmental context in which they occur (i.e., new projects associated with existing infrastructure, new projects on managed waterways, and new projects on unmanaged waterways). The OWA maintains that this is an alternate, but equally acceptable method of categorizing projects according to their potential for environmental effects.

Status

MOE is satisfied with the project categorization approach taken by the OWA.

Comment #26

Submitter

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM)

Summary

Table 1: MNDM recommends adding, Legislative considerations that may be coordinated for a waterpower project that there are references in the Mining Act (e.g. section 30 (1) (d), 33 (1 and 2), 86 (1 and 2)), that clarify mineral tenure provisions in areas where lands are required for the development of water power.

Proponent’s response

Table 1 lists key, province-wide legislation that typically applies to waterpower projects. However, a sentence has been added in the last paragraph of Section 1.3 to indicate that other/additional legislation may apply to a given project.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #27

Submitter

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM)

Summary

MNDM wants to ensure that the Proposed Class EA for Waterpower Projects is flexible enough to accommodate, or does not preclude any future consultation protocols developed and approved by government.

Proponent’s response

The Class EA requires consultation with agencies and provides flexibility in the consultation methodology, as described in Class EA Section 6.0.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #28

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

MNR wants to ensure that there is a linkage to Water Management Plan and possible implications for the proponent to consider should be described in sufficient detail in the document to ensure a coordinated and efficient consultation and planning process.

Proponent’s response

The Class EA has been revised per the meeting between MNR and OWA on February 8, 2008, to include general language regarding the need to consider the relationship of projects to water management plans.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response and revisions. MNR may have further comments.

Comment #29

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

MNR states that Class EA provide more direction on how to coordinate the Class EA process with other federal and provincial approvals and EA requirements and/or to provide direction on establishing a review team with various stages of involvement throughout the process. MNR would welcome the opportunity to assist in this matter.

Proponent’s response

Additional clarification has been added to Class EA Section 4.1.2 (Project Coordination) to address this comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revisions. MNR may have further comments.

Comment #30

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

MNR would like clarification on the following Project Categorization:

• Projects Associated with Existing Infrastructure
• Projects on Regulated Rivers
• Projects on Un-Regulated Rivers

Proponent’s response

Section 3.0 (Project Categorization) has been revised to provide additional clarity and address this comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revisions. MOE notes that the Glossary of Terms was also revised to define terminology. MNR may have further comments.

Comment #31

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 1.3, 2.1, 5.3.3 general, the MNR requests that these sections be revised to clearly outline those projects proposed within a Provincial Park or Conservation Reserve will be subject to the requirements of MNR's Provincial Parks and Conversation Reserves Class EA, not the OWA Class EA.

Proponent’s response

The OWA has adopted provisions consistent with Section 3.5 of the Provincial Parks and Conversation Reserves Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and MNR has provided further requests to ensure consistent references are made.

Comment #32

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 2.2: MNR recommends including Turbines to this list.

Proponent’s response

Suggested revision incorporated.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #33

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 2.5.2: The message around flow availability is good, but recommends that a section be added about the site release process and what it means to the proponent.

Proponent’s response

Additional reference to the site release process has been added to Section 1.3 (Purpose of the Class EA) and Table 1 (Legislative Considerations).

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #34

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Table 2: MNR recommends revisions to the wording and illustrations in Figure 6 and associated Section 4.4 text (Documentation) wherein a 60 day draft Environmental Report review period for all project types will be required.

Proponent’s response

Review of draft reports, consistent with Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EA Act, is not a requirement of the Class EA process. However, issuance and review of draft reports has been added as a potential consultation technique in Section 6.2.4.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #35

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 3.3, 1^st sentence: The definition of the project" in this section should refer back to page 18 which includes the facility proper" as well as related infrastructure" such as access roads.

Proponent’s response

The definition of what constitutes a project under the Class EA is driven by Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EA Act. Additional clarity has been added to Section 2.1 (The Class of Undertakings).

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #36

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.0, paragraph 2: MNR recommends wording be revised to state that some of the requirements of the MNR's Waterpower Site Release and Development Plan Review Process may be satisfied prior to, during and after the Class EA process.

Proponent’s response

Clarification of this point has been added to Section 1.3.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response.

Comment #37

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Figure 6:

1. Terms, MNR recommends the term residual be replaced with net effects, the term major be replaced with significant and significant be defined in the Glossary (Appendix A) and Notice of Inspection of the Draft ER be replaced with Notice of Opportunity to Review the Draft ER.
2. Incorporation of Additional Illustrations, MNR recommends that the Environmental, Social, Cultural and Economic Impact and Benefit Screening" box refer to Table 3-Evaluation Matrix. The MNR recommends that the Notice of Inspection of the Draft ER requirement be illustrated in Figure 6 as a notice for all projects depending on the environmental effects and potential public/Aboriginal concerns.
3. Reorganization of flowchart, MNR recommends reorganizing the flowchart to clarify the steps in the process.

Proponent’s response

1. Net effects and significant have been substituted in the document. Notice of Inspection of the ER has been retained
2. The appropriate box in Figure 6 refers to Table 3.
3. Figure 6 has been revised for additional clarity.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response and revisions.

Comment #38

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.1.2, 2^nd paragraph, MNR recommends that wording be revised to …the proponent will initiate a meeting with relevant agencies to discuss and determine…

Proponent’s response

Paragraph revised to state that coordination meeting is proponent-led.

Status

MOE is satisfied with this response and revisions.

Comment #39

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.1.2, bulleted list, the MNR believes that there are many additional items that should be discussed at this meeting that are not suggested in the bulleted list. Section 4.4.2, last bullet, MNR recommends that the wording be revised to the MNR will require a 60 day review of the draft for all project types", as part of the Applicant of Record condition.

Proponent’s response

The bulleted list in Section 4.1.2 covers the general topics of discussion; specific items will vary from project to project.

Review of draft reports, consistent with Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EA Act, is not a requirement of the Class EA process. However, issuance and review of draft reports has been added as a potential consultation technique in Section 6.2.4.

Status

MOE is satisfied with the responses.

Comment #40

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.5.1, 1^st paragraph, MNR recommends a statement revision:

A copy of the Statement of Completion must be delivered to the MNR district office along with the comments received during the consultation of the public and agency review, and where applicable, how these comments have been addressed. MNR will review these comments to ensure that the results of the consultation program during the Environmental Assessment phase have been addressed.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to also require filing of Statement of Completion with District MNR office. Statement of Completion requirements listed in section 4.5.1 requires the proponent to document issues and outcomes of public and agency consultation and Aboriginal engagement.

Status

MOE is satisfied with the response.

Comment #41

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 5.1.2, MNR wants it noted that these projects will be screened entirely through the Class EA-RSFD and must comply with the conditions of the Class EA-RSFD before the work permit can be issued to undertake the work.

Proponent’s response

During the February 8, 2008, meeting between OWA and MNR, it was agreed that requiring the provision of the Statement of Completion to the District MNR office satisfies this comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response. MNR may have further comments.

Comment #42

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 5.3.3, last sentence, MNR recommends revision to sentence to reflect the OWA Class EA will not apply to projects within Provincial Parks and Conversation Reserves.

Proponent’s response

The OWA has adopted provisions consistent with Section 3.5 of the Provincial Parks and Conversation Reserves Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and MNR has provided further requests to ensure consistent references are made.

Comment #43

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2: MNR states that these two sections are contradictory and that any change that affects the project categorization should be considered a major amendment.

Proponent’s response

Section 8.2.1 describes minor (e.g., administrative) changes to the Class EA. Section 8.2.2 describes major (e.g., process) changes to the Class EA. Changes to project categorization is shown as a major amendment to the Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #44

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 8.4: MNR states that the Class EA has not provided comprehensive rationale for the inclusion of an urgent situation provision.

Proponent’s response

Clarification has been added that urgent situation provisions do not apply to the construction of new facilities.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #45

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 1.5, 2^nd paragraph: MNR states that wording in the paragraph is not consistent with the Guide. The OWA Class EA should further clarify Category A projects while not subject to Ontario Regulation 116 may be subject to other EA processes including the MNR's RSFD and PPCR Class EAs.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #46

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.4.3, last paragraph: MNR states that the ability to opt out of issuing a Notice of Completion for some projects is not consistent with the Electricity Sector Guide. In all cases a Notice of Completion should be issued.

Proponent’s response

As per the February 8, 2008, meeting between OWA and MNR, this section has been revised to address the comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #47

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 1.3, 3^rd paragraph: MNR states that this statement be revised/clarified to ensure that it is understood that the Class EA will not necessarily meet the requirements of other required approvals.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #48

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Table 1, LRIA Section 14: Clarify requirements under this section of LRIA.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #49

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 2.3, under the heading; Projects associated with existing infrastructure: needs to be clarified, as well as the term those with direct interest".

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #50

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 2.3, under the heading; New projects on a system on a regulated river system, last sentence: the term breadth of interests needs to be defined.

Proponent’s response

Term has been deleted.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #51

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 2.5.3: Interests beyond riparian owners that are not properly captured in Section 2.5.4 water-related natural resources uses.

Proponent’s response

These interests are captured in other sections of the Class EA and will also be identified through Table 3 and subsequent consultation activities.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #52

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 3.1.3, last paragraph before table: MNR recommends that this paragraph should be revised for clarity.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #53

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 3.3, 2^nd paragraph: MNR recommends revision to clarify when the Class EA-RSFD will be triggered.

Proponent’s response

General reference to trigger for MNR Class EA-RSFD included; proponents are instructed in Class EA to identify specific requirements at or before the initial agency coordination meeting.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #54

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Figure 6: MNR recommends that the Go to Part II Order Provision box be followed by a box indicating either issues were resolved, or PIIO denied with or without conditions.

Proponent’s response

Figure revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #55

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.1.1, 4^th bullet: term approaches" should be clarified.

Proponent’s response

Term deleted.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #56

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.1.1, 3^rd paragraph: MNR states that the Plans of Development (POD) will not have the information that is required for a project description. It should be noted that the POD can be used to produce the project description.

Proponent’s response

Term deleted.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #57

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.1.2, last paragraph, last sentence: MNR recommends that a mandatory time period of notification for the Agency meeting to avoid last-minute" invitations and recommend that meetings are schedule periodically throughout the process.

Proponent’s response

Class EA identifies that meeting should be held early in the Class EA process. Proponents and agencies are to work together to identify appropriate meeting schedule(s).

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #58

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.1.3: MNR states that the public meetings and the Aboriginal consultation meetings be separated.

Proponent’s response

Sections 4.1.3, 6.0 and 7.0 speak to separate consultation plans and respective needs of the target groups.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #59

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.2.1, bulleted list: MNR recommends this list should include a minimum consultation period (30 days) for the first notice.

Proponent’s response

The Notice of Commencement is an open notification that a project has been initiated under the Class EA process; there is no corresponding time period for comments.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #60

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.2.1, 9^th bullet: MNR recommends including mining claim holders and other tenure holders in the list of affected parties.

Proponent’s response

The bulleted list includes adjacent and potentially affected riparian landowners and tenants on the water system. It also includes directly interested or affected parties such as businesses and resources licensees.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #61

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.2.2, last paragraph: MNR recommends clarification that the guidance in this section relates to the use of the Evaluation Matrix-Table 3.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #62

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Table 3-Evaluation Matrix: MNR recommends:

1. Sub-heading Energy/Electricity Considerations would be best incorporated in the sub-heading Social and Economic Considerations".
2. Relative Effect column title should be clarified.
3. Consider adding protected area" to the list of considerations under land and resource use consideration".

Proponent’s response

1. Comment noted.
2. Potential Level of Effect" column has been simplified and its use clarified in Section 4.2.2
3. Protected Areas" added to list of criteria.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revisions.

Comment #63

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.2.3, 1^st paragraph: MNR suggests that when consultation plans will change as the screening progresses; this should be reflected in the EA.

Proponent’s response

As described in Section 4.4.1, the Environmental Report must include information about consultation implemented throughout the EA process.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #64

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.3.1, 1^st sentence: MNR recommends revising this sentence to include focus on all potential effects and related mitigation measures.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to include statement that this phase of the Class EA process confirms potential effects and associated analysis. Section 4.3.2 describes impact and issue management strategies.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #65

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.3.1, 2^nd bullet: MNR recommends the statement should be revised to read relative significance of the net effect.

Proponent’s response

The second bullet refers to potential effects; the fourth bullet addresses this comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #66

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.3.1, 4^th bullet: MNR recommends the term residual should be replaced with net effects. Section 4.3.1, list of residual (net negative) effects: MNR recommends direct/indirect effects and cumulative effects should be added to the descriptions and consideration of effects.

Proponent’s response

Class EA document revised to address comment.

Section 4.2.2 revised to indicate that both direct and indirect effects should be considered. Cumulative effects are not a requirement of the EA Act or Ontario Regulation 116/01 and therefore have not been included in the Class EA (except for the discussion of the CEA Act in Section 5.2.1).

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #67

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.3.2, last paragraph, first sentence: MNR recommends revising the sentence to read:

In the interest of time and efficiency, it is the proponent’s best interest to address significant concerns associated with potential environmental effects.

Proponent’s response

Revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #68

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.4.2, 1^st paragraph: MNR suggests the statement is unclear; the draft ER for inspection should be as close to the final report a possible, not less detail.

Proponent’s response

Revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #69

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.4.2, 2^nd paragraph: MNR suggests this paragraph is not necessary, should be removed.

Proponent’s response

The paragraph has been retained. It provides rationale for the Notice of Inspection and direction to proponents on responding to feedback received from the Notice of Inspection (e.g., revising the Environmental Report).

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #70

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.4.3, last paragraph: MNR recommends the Notice of Completion should be required to be published in local newspapers.

Proponent’s response

Section 6.2.3 provides for proponents to use newspapers as a means of providing formal notices in the Class EA process.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #71

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.4.3: MNR recommends providing a list of agencies that should directly receive the Notice based on interest expressed or through mandated legislation.

Proponent’s response

Revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #72

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 5.1: MNR recommends the wording in this section is confusing. Proponency should be clarified.

Proponent’s response

Section 5.1 and subsequent subsections have been revised for greater clarity.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revisions.

Comment #73

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 7.3: Change The Ministry will determine… to The Crown will determine…

Proponent’s response

Revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #74

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 1.3, 1^st paragraph: MNR recommends removing the following sentences: While the proponent of projects should make every effort to avoid or minimize potential environmental impact, it may be impossible to mitigate all of them and There are times when individuals may be affected by a project that would benefit society as a whole.

Proponent’s response

This text has been taken from MOE's Code of Practice for Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments in Ontario, Draft, August 2007.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #75

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Table 1: MNR concerned the table does not identify the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act as a piece of legislation that may relate to Waterpower projects.

Proponent’s response

As suggested, the table does not refer to the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. The Act is among other legislation that is included in the reference in Appendix B of the Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #76

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 1.5, 2^nd bullet: MNR recommends the revision: Cat B projects require a self-screening and will require the preparation of an environmental report.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #77

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 2.3, under the heading: New projects on an unregulated river system: MNR recommends removing last paragraph, content unnecessary.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #78

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 2.5: MNR recommends that avoidance is included in considerations of mitigation and mitigation techniques.

Proponent’s response

Section 1.3 has been revised to address comment. Reference is also provided in other sections such as 4.1.1, 4.3.2 and 4.4.1.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #79

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Table 2: Target Timelines for EA Completion: MNR recommends that this information row be removed as it adds no value to the EA process.

Proponent’s response

Target timelines have been provided as an indication of approximate timelines expected. The table footnote clarifies that target timelines are approximate and may vary.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #80

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 3.2.1, last paragraph, 2^nd sentence: MNR recommends addition of the Class EA for Provincial Parks & Conservation Reserves (Class EA-PPCR) within an existing or recommended Park or Conservation Reserve.

Proponent’s response

The Provincial Parks and Conversation Reserves Class EA has been referenced. The Class EA has been prepared consistent with Section 3.5 of the Provincial Parks and Conversation Reserves Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and MNR has provided further requests to ensure consistent references are made.

Comment #81

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 3.3, 2^nd last sentence: MNR recommends addition of the Class EA for Provincial Parks & Conservation Reserves (Class EA-PPCR) within an existing or recommended Park or Conservation Reserve.

Proponent’s response

The Provincial Parks and Conversation Reserves Class EA has been referenced. The Class EA has been prepared consistent with Section 3.5 of the Provincial Parks and Conversation Reserves Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and MNR has provided further requests to ensure consistent references are made.

Comment #82

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.1.2: MNR recommends including the affected Municipalities in the list of agencies to invite to a project coordination meeting.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to include local municipality(ies).

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #83

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.3.2, 2^nd paragraph: MNR recommends including requirements for the proponent to document any dispute resolution and rationalization of decisions and provide this information to MNR.

Proponent’s response

This information required to be provided in the Environmental Report (see Section 4.4.1). It is also required in the Statement of Completion, which is provided to the District MNR office (see Section 4.5.1).

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #84

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.4.1, 8^th and 9^th bullet: MNR recommends reference to the protection of sensitive information.

Proponent’s response

The Class EA process is meant to be an open and transparent process; however sensitivity of certain aspects of Aboriginal engagement or information is addressed in Section 7.0 (Engaging and Involving Aboriginal Communities).

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #85

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.4.2: MNR recommends that a public information meeting be required at the Notice of Inspection (Draft ER) phase.

Proponent’s response

The consultation process of the Class EA process is flexible and allows proponents to hold public meetings, open houses, or similar, at any point they desire, including at the Notice of Inspection phase.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #86

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.5.4: MNR recommends that the Ministry of Environment (MOE) be provided with copies of these items for their records.

Proponent’s response

The Class EA directs proponents to retain certain Class EA documentation. MOE can request this documentation at any time, in accordance with the provisions in this section of the Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #87

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 5.3.6, 2^nd paragraph: MNR recommends the last sentence be removed and replaced with:

The Class EA process should be coordinated with other permitting requirements such as the PTTW to the extent possible and proponents should anticipate the potential requirement for EBR postings for such instruments.

Proponent’s response

Section revised per MOE comments.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #88

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 6.1.1: MNR recommends as a part of the mandatory requirements for unregulated systems and where a proponent determines it appropriate to have a notice of inspection, a public meeting(s) is held.

Proponent’s response

The consultation process of the Class EA process is flexible and allows proponents to hold public meetings, open houses, or similar, at any point they desire, including at the Notice of Inspection phase.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #89

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 8.7: MNR recommends the following be incorporated in the section:

1. The review of any changes should be done with relevant agencies;
2. Clarify who the Notice of Intention to Proceed goes to;
3. A minimum 30 days response period should be required.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment; is consistent with Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EA Act.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revisions.

Comment #90

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 8.8: MNR recommends the following additions:

1. Request for an Addendum should occur before the expiry date (5 years) for the implementation of the project;
2. Opportunity to request an Addendum have a time limit and the extensions noted not be longer than 1 year;
3. That relevant agencies should need to review and determine/validate if the proposed change to the project is significant.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment; is consistent with Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EAA.

Status

MOE found that additional clarification was necessary in this section and OWA submitted an updated Class EA prior to publishing of the Review and the MOE is satisfied with the revision.

Comment #91

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Table of Contents, Section 4.0 and 4.1 Title: MNR recommends the title be consistent with Section title.

Proponent’s response

Typographical error has been corrected.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #92

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 2.3, under the heading: New projects on a system on a regulated river system: Recommend title change to, New projects on a regulated river system. Section 3.1.2, bullet: Recommend statement should read, Development of a new facility less than 200 MW name plate capacity on a regulated system where there is no existing infrastructure.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment; is consistent with Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EA Act.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #93

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Table 2, column 1: MNR recommends changing the column title to Projects associated with existing infrastructure.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #94

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.0, paragraph 1: MNR recommends reference to ER should be defined as Environmental Report.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #95

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.0, 3^rd bullet: MNR recommends addition of term mitigation" is added before strategies in the sentence.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #96

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.1.1, 2^nd paragraph: MNR recommends replacing POD with Waterpower Site Strategy

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #97

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.2.1, 1^st bullet under A Notice of Commencement must include: MNR recommends replacing Notice of Commencement title be replaced with Project Title.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #98

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.3.2, 1^st paragraph: MNR recommends removing entire paragraph, repetition of proceeding paragraph on page 40.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #99

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Section 4.4.3, 2^nd bullet: MNR recommends replacing conclusions with results.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #100

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Summary

Global Grammatical Revisions - MNR recommends addition of space between a number and MW.

Proponent’s response

Document revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #101

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

With respect to Notice of Completion requirements: MOE suggests the following:

• Projects associated with existing infrastructure, the Notice of Commencement must explicitly state that further notices will only be provided to those who either express in an interest in the project or who are on distribution lists of: potentially affected stakeholders, Aboriginal communities and public/government agencies.
• Update Figure 6 with an asterisk by Notice of Completion regarding the above.
• Update the template for the Notice of Commencement regarding the above.
• Ensure consistency throughout the document on these requirements. Currently, section 3.1.1 and section 4.4.3 do not correspond to the Notice of Completion requirements for each different category.

Proponent’s response

Class EA text revised to address comments.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #102

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.3 - that if there is no participation during the process, there is no requirement for a Notice of Completion, MOE finds that this takes away from the public’s right to review the final report, express issues and requests a Part II Order. We find that this would be inconsistent with the current Environmental Screening Process and request that this option be omitted.

Proponent’s response

Section revised per above, and per meeting between OWA and MOE on February 13, 2008.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #103

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

References to the Regional MOE Office, MOE Regional EA Planner, and Regional EA Coordinator are inconsistent throughout the document and should be revised to always read the MOE Regional EA Coordinator.

Proponent’s response

Document revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #104

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.3 of the Class EA includes a section on this topic, but it does not include any recommendations for coordination. A more detailed section would provide an important benefit for clarifying how future environmental assessment work can proceed efficiently, especially in northern Ontario where transmission projects associated with generation will be more common.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment (corresponding revisions also made to Section 2.1 for additional clarity).

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #105

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

MOE recommends that the language in section 2.5, Environment Affected and the Expected Range of Effects be changed to specify where the expected range of environmental effects. This is important to demonstration that the Class EA meets the requirement of section 14.(2) 4 under the EAA. Specifically, each subsection should include a sentence that begins…environmental effects under this topic may range from X to Y.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #106

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 1.4: MOE recommends changing this section by simplifying the text and dividing this section up between reasons for the Class EA and features of the Class EA.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #107

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 1.5: MOE recommends reference to section 8 of the Regulation in the first sentence.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #108

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 1.5: MOE recommends clarifying that it is the approach of the environmental screening process set out in the Guide to EA Requirements for Electricity Projects that is similar to the Class EA.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #109

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 1.5: MOE recommends clarifying that Category B Projects are conditionally exempt provided they follow the environmental screening process.

Proponent’s response

Comment addressed in Section 1.3.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #110

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Figure 4: MOE recommends that you refer to all Class EA projects as Category B projects.

Proponent’s response

Figure 4 revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #111

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Figure 4: MOE recommends that a section be added here to explain how this Class EA fits into the overall approval framework for new and modified waterpower projects.

Proponent’s response

This is too complex to display graphically; however it is described in Sections 2.1 and 3.1.1. Appendix B of the Class EA includes reference material that outlines the entire waterpower development process (in addition to those related to environmental assessment).

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #112

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Table 1: MOE approvals should include Industrial Sewage Works Certificate of Approval, Certificate of Approval Air for generators and OWRA section 34 PTTW. MMAH section related to the Planning Act approvals needs further explanation. There should be reference to the integration of the Planning Act and the Class EA when an OPA or rezoning is required.

Proponent’s response

Table 1 lists key legislation that typically applies to waterpower projects. The suggested additions are not expected to be applied to many waterpower projects. However, a sentence has been added in the last paragraph of Section 1.3 to indicate that other/additional legislation may apply to a given project.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #113

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.1: MOE recommends that the OWA work together to polish the definition of the class of undertakings by adding closer linkages and references to the Electricity Project Regulation. This will more accurately explain how the regulation designates waterpower projects. Clarification should be made that the Class EA will set out a conditional approval for the class of undertakings.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #114

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.1: MOE recommends other clarifications should be made pertaining to the designation of the life cycle of a waterpower facility and nameplate capacity.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #115

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.1: MOE recommends that this section better outline the requirements of the Class EA pertaining to changes to and the retirement of waterpower projects. Although MOE agrees that retirement of a waterpower project should be part of the Class EA, it seems premature at the initial planning stage to fully assess the implications of retirement before the full range of impacts are known. MOE would therefore like to discuss whether there should be a requirement to plan for retirement at a later date after development is completed.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Provision in the Class EA reflects the requirements to consider retirement as set out in the Electricity Projects Regulation.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #116

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.1: MOE recommends references should be made to the sections of the Regulation that defines transmission associated with generation 1. (4) and 4. (1) paragraphs 8 and 9.

Proponent’s response

Although the reader is referred to Ontario Regulation 116/01, specific references to sections of the regulation have been minimized in the Class EA to alleviate obsolescence and the need to amend the Class EA should the regulation be amended.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #117

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.2: MOE recommends other common components should be included in the list are temporary coffer dams and construction camps. Both of these components potentially have significant environmental impacts.

Proponent’s response

The list provided in the Class EA includes components of waterpower projects, not temporary construction methods or facilities as suggested by MOE's comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #118

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.3: MOE has concerns that the categorization is based too heavily on the general nature of the development. MOE's concern is that there will be both modification projects and projects on regulated systems with highly complicated and contentious issues that warrant a detailed assessment that the process may not provide for. This would not do a good job of serving any participants of the process if Part II Order requests are the only option to ensure that the detailed assessment is conducted.

Proponent’s response

The Class EA has inherent flexibility to address less or more complicated projects within a given category.

Status

The MOE has agreed with the categorization approach proposed by the OWA and finds that the Class EA provides sufficient direction to proponents to expand the study based where warranted.

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #119

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.3: MOE recommends this categorization scheme:

• provide further rationale to justify the need to set out distinct processes for each category; and
• ensure that the process for each category has clear provisions to allow the proponent to, at their discretion, conduct a more detailed assessment if warranted (draft reviews, broad public notice, etc.)

Proponent’s response

Section 2.0 has been revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #120

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.3: MOE's Northern Region is of the view that the OWA should re-build the evaluation matrix as a process for confirming project categorization. This would be more in keeping with the Screening Process in Regulation 116/01 and would allow the evaluation matrix to determine whether the potential environmental effects or public concern require more or less of a detailed assessment.

Proponent’s response

As described in Section 1.3, the Class EA process uses a uses a deterministic approach of classifying projects according to the environmental context in which they occur. Table 3 is used by proponents to identify the potential effects of a given project, regardless of the category it falls into, as a means to ensure appropriate study and consultation will be done in subsequent phases of the class EA process.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the revised Class EA provides additional justification for the project categorization and clearer direction on the use of Table 3.

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #121

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.3: MOE recommends that all process distinctions be removed from this section and replaced with references to the categorization sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3.

Proponent’s response

Sections have been revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #122

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.3: MOE recommends for new projects on a system on a regulated river system - The heading should be changed to read New projects on a regulated river system.

While cumulative effects are not a requirement of the EAA, MOE would like to ensure that for these projects, proponents understand the importance of establishing an appropriate study area / zone of influence to account for the added potential social-cultural-economic effects that may necessitate a high level of planning.

Proponent’s response

Typographical error has been corrected.

The initial stages of the Class EA process, namely Phase 1 and Phase 2, are designed to ensure proponents adequately identify technical and environmental issues for a given project. In addition, the requirement for development of public consultation and Aboriginal engagement plans and direction to hold a project coordination meeting with agencies will help ensure a high level of planning.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #123

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.4: MOE recommends calling this section Differences Among Project Types to make it consistent with the previous section.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #124

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 2.4: MOE recommends in order to better fulfill the requirements of the ToR, addition of a paragraph that starts with wording along the lines of… Differences may be based on the nature of project and the surrounding geography such as: X, Y and Z.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #125

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.0 Introduction: MOE recommends re-ordering the categorization approach in order of importance. Merge with section 3.1.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment; however, this introductory paragraph has been retained separately from Section 3.1.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #126

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.1: MOE recommends referring to all of the projects in the Class EA as Category B projects (add reference to Figure 4).

Proponent’s response

The Class EA makes repeated references to Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EA Act as the basis for project categorization (i.e., Category B waterpower projects under Ontario Regulation 116/01 are those which are subject to the Class EA). Figure 4 has been revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #127

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.1: MOE recommends this section be collapsed by moving the bulleted descriptions of each category into the appropriate subsection below and delete the first two bullets at the top of page 25. MOE recommends that a reference to Table 2 be added to this section.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #128

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Categorization (general comments across each of 3.1.1 - 3.1.3)

For each category, comments are made about the anticipated extent of public interest. MOE recommends that each comment be extended with an explanation of why this is reasonable.

Proponent’s response

For each category, there is an accompanying description providing rationale for the anticipated extent of public interest. For example, Section 3.1.2 of the Class EA states that

These projects may be expected to have potential broader effects and/or public, Aboriginal community and/or agency interest. However, given that projects in this category are restricted to those that take place on river systems already subject to water management, the evaluation and assessment will be primarily focused on the development site, the immediate zone of influence and the potential incorporation of the new operation into the existing water management regime.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #129

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

For each category, MOE recommends that a generalization be made to clarify the distinction between processes, such as…

The planning process for projects of this type has (low / moderate / high) flexibility for the proponent to expand the consultation and engagement program to adapt to the level of interest in the project.

Proponent’s response

Each category has inherent flexibility to expand the public consultation and Aboriginal engagement plans to adapt to the level of interest in the project. For example, Section 4.1.3 states that plans at this stage will be anticipatory and may be refined as the planning process unfolds. In addition, Section 6.2 (Creating a Consultation Plan) states that a proponent should consider…the inherent flexibility of the plan to accommodate unforeseen needs.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #130

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

MOE recommends that all consultation and process requirements include references to the appropriate section of the planning process chapter of the Class EA so as to better focus this section on the rationale for the proposed categorization approach.

Proponent’s response

The complete Class EA planning process (Section 4.0) applies (with few noted exceptions) to all categories of projects. Section 3.0 (Project Categorization) has been revised per MOE comments to remove process-related material.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #131

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.1.1: MOE recommends further polishing of this section in consultation with this the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch to ensure that the project types are more clearly and consistently defined so that the Class EA is not inadvertently adding projects that are not currently subject to, or that conflict with the requirements of the Electricity Projects Regulation.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE notes that, prior to publishing the Review, the OWA further clarified this section to address our concerns.

MOE is satisfied with revisions.

Comment #132

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.1.1: MOE recommends terms defined in the Electricity Projects Regulation require clarification in the Class EA: generation facility, expansion, change and modification (significant).

Proponent’s response

Appropriate sections of Class EA revised to address comment. Recognizing the overarching nature of Ontario Regulation 116/01, adding new definitions to the Class EA for terms that are used but not defined in the regulation was avoided in order to remain consistent with MOE's comments on Section 3.1.1, above.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #133

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.1.1: MOE recommends terms not defined in the Electricity Projects Regulation require clarification: retrofit, redevelopment and existing infrastructure.

Proponent’s response

See response above.

Status

MOE notes that, prior to publishing of the Review, the OWA added a definition for redevelopment. MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #134

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.1.1: MOE recommends this section should also be changed to clarify where expansions and changes can be considered through an Addendum process.

Proponent’s response

Sections 3.1.1 and 8.8 have been revised to address comment.

Status

While section 3.1.1 has not been modified, the changes made to section 8.8 are sufficient.

Comment #135

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.1.1: MOE requests a response to the following question: Has the OWA considered whether small scale waterpower facilities (greater than 5 MW) and the addition of turbines into Water Treatment Plant and/or processing facility intakes for energy efficiency purposes be included here? This speaks to MOE concerns that small scale projects are not subject to a less detailed planning process, based on confirmation of the potential for environmental impacts.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

Status

Based on the Class EA, these situations would require the preparation of an Environmental Report.

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #136

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.1.1: MOE recommends reference to Category A should include reference to sections 6 and 7 of the Regulation and or section 3.2.1 of the Class EA.

Proponent’s response

Although the reader is referred to Ontario Regulation 116/01, specific references to sections of the regulation have been minimized in the Class EA to alleviate obsolescence and the need to amend the Class EA should the regulation be amended.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #137

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.1.3: MOE recommends moving the paragraph about amendments to the Regulation to section 3.1 and add that…the process for making such amendments will be through the minor amendment process.

Proponent’s response

Revisions made to sections 3.1.3 and 3.1 to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #138

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Table 2: MOE recommends referencing Aboriginal communities and remove target timelines.

Proponent’s response

Reference to Aboriginal communities is included in the Involvement row of the table. Target timelines have been kept for illustrative purposes; the table footnote has been revised to indicate that the timelines are approximate and will vary.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revisions.

Comment #139

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Sections 3.2.1and 3.2.3: MOE recommends further polishing of this section in consultation with this Branch to ensure that the references to the Electricity Project Regulation are valid and terms used match with those defined in section 3.1.1.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #140

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.3: MOE recommends re-drafting of the first sentence for clarity and correcting the reference to the Guide to EA Requirements for Electricity Projects.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

It is noted that section 2.1 now includes additional information addressing this comment.

Comment #141

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.3: MOE recommends referencing should be made to the sections of the Regulation that defines transmission associated with generation 1. (4) and 4. (1) paragraphs 8 and 9.

Proponent’s response

Although the reader is referred to Ontario Regulation 116/01, specific references to sections of the regulation have been minimized in the Class EA to alleviate obsolescence and the need to amend the Class EA should the regulation be amended.

Status

MOE has identified additional clarification will be necessary and will be imposed as a Condition of Approval.

Comment #142

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 3.3: MOE recommends simplifying this section and referencing other sections as follows:

• Coordination with Hydro One Class EA when transmission facilities are being assessed separately - refer to section X
• Addressing requirements of MNR's Class EA when transmission facilities are exempt from Regulation 116 - refer to section Y
• Confirming Proponency when transmission associated with generation facilities will be assessed together in this Class EA - refer to section Z.

Proponent’s response

Section 3.3 and Section 2.1 have been revised to clarify the class of undertakings. For additional clarity, as requested by MOE, Section 2.1 directs proponents to Ontario Regulation 116/01 under the EA Act for additional clarity. Specific coordination requirements will vary on a project-by-project basis and include a number of variations and permutations. Section 4.1.2 (Project Coordination) of the Class EA includes provisions for consultation with agencies in order to identify specific coordination requirements of a given project.

Status

MOE notes that these sections have been improved. However, additional clarification will be necessary to ensure the appropriate planning processes are followed and that proponents are clear on their obligations. This will be imposed as a Condition of Approval.

Comment #143

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4: MOE recommends that this section, which is currently based on a conceptual process outline, be modified to include additional wording in each subsection to summarize/set out the key steps/requirements of that subsection.

Proponent’s response

Additional information has been incorporated into Section 4 and Section 6 to address this comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #144

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Figure 6: MOE recommends that once the key steps are summarized in the text of Chapter 4 that Figure 6 be converted into a Table which provides a snap-shot overview of the process by using the following Column headings:

• Phase
• Purpose of Phase
• Summary of Key Steps
• Summary of Requirements and Recommendations

Proponent’s response

A graphical depiction has been retained (and revised) as it provides a better illustration of the Class EA process. The text in Section 4 provides a description of the purpose, requirements and recommendations of each phase.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #145

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.1: MOE recommends that this Phase be re-titled Concept and Definition

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Phase 1 of the Class EA process is used to identify the project concept, the project description and coordination needs. Phase 2 of the Class EA process is used to define potential effects, public consultation and Aboriginal engagement plans, and information needs.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #146

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.1: MOE recommends that this Phase include a requirement for proponents to assemble a list of potentially affected Aboriginal communities, and advice about how to do this.

Proponent’s response

Identifying potentially affected Aboriginal communities is inherent in developing an appropriate engagement plan. Advice on developing such plans is included in Section 7.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #147

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.1.1: MOE recommends adding the following…

it is inappropriate for proponents to break up or piecemeal a larger project into separate components or phases, with each part addressed as a separate project.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #148

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.1.1: MOE recommends making sure the Class EA uses the definition of environment in the Environmental Assessment Act to avoid any confusion.

Proponent’s response

Class EA revised to address comment (e.g., see Section 2.5).

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #149

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.1.2: MOE recommends the timing for the coordination meeting is not clear. Is it before or after the Notice of Commencement?

Proponent’s response

The Class EA proposes that the meeting occur before the Notice of Commencement as shown in Figure 6 and as laid out in the text [i.e., Section 4.1.2 (Project Coordination) occurs before Section 4.2.1 (Notice of Commencement)].

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #150

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.1.2: MOE recommends deletions from the last draft be re-inserted, especially those which denote the responsibility of the proponent to provide government with the information it needs to provide meaningful advice and input.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #151

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.1.2: MOE recommends adding:

It should also be noted that the inability of agencies to participate together at a single consultation meeting still requires the proponent to take best efforts to address matters which may fall under each agency’s mandate.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE notes that this section was not revised as per comment. However, this was simply a recommendation.

Comment #152

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.1.2: MOE recommends that there should be more guidance on the key agencies and which offices should be contacted (i.e. MOE Regional EA Coordinator). MNDM has been missed and should be included.

Proponent’s response

Key agencies are identified; however, specific offices or departments that may participate in such a meeting will vary and will be confirmed by the proponent and the agencies. Key agencies are those that routinely have a regulatory function with respect to waterpower projects.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #153

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2: MOE recommends this section be re-titled to read: Project Screening Stage or Preliminary Evaluation Stage.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Projects are not screened at this phase. The intention with the chosen title is to indicate that the Class EA workplan/activities (e.g., consultation and engagement plans, environmental studies, etc.) are defined in this phase.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #154

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2: MOE recommends the text of the process should be reviewed for consistency for the use of the word screening versus evaluation to describe the Class EA process.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #155

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.1: MOE recommends the timing for the Notice of Commencement needs to be clarified.

Proponent’s response

Figure 6 and the order in which sections are presented in the Class EA indicate the appropriate timing of the Notice of Commencement in the overall Class EA process.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #156

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.1: MOE recommends adding:

Proponents must send a Notice of Commencement by letter to: government agencies, potentially affected aboriginal communities and its targeted / focused stakeholder list.

Proponent’s response

The list in Section 4.2.1 directs the proponent to directly provide the Notice of Commencement to these, and other, groups.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #157

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.1: under the second bullet point, remove local. Tenants should be added to places where owners are listed.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #158

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.1: MOE recommends that the OWA re-consider posting this on the OWA website.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

Status

MOE notes the OWA's commitment to ensuring all notices of commencement are published on the OWA website. MOE is satisfied.

Comment #159

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.2: MOE recommends the definition of negative environmental effect needs to be polished to ensure its evaluation is conducted properly.

Proponent’s response

Environmental effect has been included in the Class EA Glossary (Appendix A). Additional clarity has been provided in Section 4.2.2 as to the use of Table 3.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #160

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.2: MOE recommends the evaluation process will be clearer by identifying the steps to be taken in the evaluation.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #161

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.2: MOE recommends removing application of the tool and add application of the evaluation matrix provided in Table 3.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #162

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Table 3: MOE recommends that evaluation criteria to address transmission lines be provided in this Table.

Proponent’s response

The criteria presented in Table 3 address transmission line components.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #163

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Table 3: MOE recommends the criterion water quality or quantity (ground or surface) and water level, flows and movement (surface or groundwater) under the category of general natural environmental considerations should be replaced with the following four criterion: water quality and quantity (surface water); water quality and quantity (groundwater); water level, flows and movement (surface water); and water level, flows and movement (groundwater).

Proponent’s response

Table 3 revised, as appropriate, to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #164

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.3: MOE recommends the text be modified to show that it is also the responsibility of the proponent to seek out comments and information from interested parties.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #165

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.3: MOE recommends the following be added:

It is expected that a proponent will consult will relevant federal and provincial agencies and municipal authorities, appropriately qualified, persons, potentially affected and interested individuals and the public when completing the evaluation matrix to ensure the identification of potential effects, proposed mitigation and impact management measures, and assessment of net effects are accurate and acceptable.

Proponent’s response

Section 4.2.2 revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #166

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.3: MOE recommends that this section be moved to improve the logical flow of this process.

Proponent’s response

Section maintained in this location as this is where extensive consultation and engagement activities will begin in the Class EA process.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #167

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.3: MOE recommends that the following wording be added: A Public Consultation Plan is mandatory for all projects under this Class EA.

Proponent’s response

This has already been addressed by Section 4.1.3, which requires proponents to develop public consultation and Aboriginal engagement plans or processes.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #168

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.2.3: MOE recommends the inclusion of a series of steps in this section could be used to provide clarity. For example:

1. Develop a Public Consultation Plan as outlined in section 6.0.
2. Implement the Plan through the Class EA process.
3. Adjust the consultation plan as the process proceeds to accommodate an unforeseen level of public interest or lack thereof.
4. Document the results of the public consultation in the ER, addressing the requirements of section 6.3.

Proponent’s response

Section 4 of the Class EA is laid out in a logical, step-wise fashion to address these points. Development and flexibility of the public consultation plan is described in Section 4.1.3; implementation of public consultation is described in Section 4.2.3, and documentation is described in Section 4.4. Additional guidance regarding public consultation plans is provided in Section 6.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #169

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.3.1: MOE finds that this section requires improved flow to set out a traceable process for arriving at net effects.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to clarify.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #170

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.3.1: MOE recommends remove residual effects from the title and add net effects.

Proponent’s response

Class EA revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #171

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.3.1, first sentence: MOE recommends remove the word net before negative effects, and clarify that further work is required if a Low, Medium or High box is checked in the evaluation matrix.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment and provide link to Table 3.1.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #172

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.3.1: MOE recommends that the Class EA process require proponents to provide an assessment of the significance of any net effects or concerns.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment. Note also that Section 4.4.1 (Environmental Report) requires proponents to document the significance of any net effects.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #173

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.3.2: MOE recommends correcting the sequencing of this section relative to the surrounding sections.

Proponent’s response

Sequencing of Section 4.3.1 and Section 4.3.2 has been clarified through revisions to Section 4.3.1.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #174

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.3.2: MOE recommends the EAA requires, and the Terms of Reference committed the OWA to including measures that could be taken to mitigate against adverse effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class. Accordingly, the Class EA is required to include examples of potential mitigation measures which proponents could use depending on project-specific impacts. This list is meant to provide examples and not to provide prescriptive mitigation requirements. Therefore, in order to better demonstrate that the requirement of the Terms of Reference has been fulfilled, a list of commonly applied mitigation measures should be added to this section.

Impact management strategy is defined in the appendix to include mitigation, but there should be a stronger emphasis on it in this section. As written, the perception is focused on the assumption that impacts are acceptable. While some impacts are acceptable, some are not and should be addressed through mitigation measures.

Proponent’s response

As described in Section 4.3.2, while there are a suite of standard approaches to mitigation of environmental effects associated with waterpower projects, the state of the science(s) continues to evolve and improve and the toolbox of approaches continues to expand. As listed in Appendix B, the OWA will undertake to provide access to the best available information on mitigation techniques on an ongoing basis, rather than to limit the creativity of proponents through prescriptive measures. The OWA has taken the approach in the Class EA of referring to documents that speak to mitigation techniques, as opposed to listing a small subset of those which may be applicable to projects. The OWA will post and update the list of guidance material on its website as appropriate.

Section revised to indicate proponent should revisit avoidance/prevention/mitigation strategy in the event that net effects remain.

Status

MOE notes that the updated Class EA did not adequately outline the types of mitigation measures that could be sued to mitigate against adverse effects of undertakings within the Class. Accordingly, prior to the publication of the Review, the OWA updated the Class EA with a new appendix describing potential mitigation measures.

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #175

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.3.2: MOE recommends addressing duplication of text in paragraph 2 and 3 of this section.

Proponent’s response

Typographical error corrected.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #176

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.1: MOE recommends moving language about net effects, mitigation and impact management in the first paragraph to the preceding sections to improve the flow and focus this section on the contents of the Report.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #177

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.1: MOE recommends that the following text be added to clarify the decision points at the end of the process…

At the completion of the evaluation stage, the proponent should be in a position to assess the overall environmental advantages and disadvantages of the project. If the proponent determines that there are no likely significant negative effects, no unresolved concerns or issues, and that the project advantages outweigh any disadvantages, it prepares an Environmental Report to document the results of the evaluation.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment. The ER documents the outcome of the assessment phase of the Class EA process.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #178

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.1: MOE recommends move references to decision points (re: assessing significance of residual effects) into section 4.3.2 as a better fit.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #179

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.1: MOE notes that the order of the contents is not in line with the planning process. Re-order the bullets and add bullets for commitments to future work, monitoring and mitigation.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #180

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.1, under third from last bullet: MOE recommends that this section identify:

• technical reports themselves will be made available upon request
• in some cases, it may be prudent to include the technical reports on specific matters as appendices based on the significance to the overall findings of the report and agency mandates.

Proponent’s response

Additional text has been added below the bulleted list to address this comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #181

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.2: MOE recommends changing Notice of Inspection to Notice of Opportunity to Review Draft Environmental Report.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Notice of Inspection has been retained.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #182

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.2: MOE recommends adding the option of doing a voluntary review of a Draft ER review for the other project categories, using a Notice or other means as determined by the proponent, depending on extent of environmental/social concerns.

Proponent’s response

The issuance of draft reports has been added to the list of consultation techniques to be considered by the proponent (see Section 6.2.4).

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revision.

Comment #183

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.3: MOE recommends deletion of the paragraph proposing that no Notice of Completion is required if there is no interest because it takes away the right to request a Part II Order. However, MOE could support a scaled-back version of this concept only for modification projects provided that the Notice of Completion is provided to: government agencies, Aboriginal communities and the focused stakeholder list.

Proponent’s response

Guidance to proponents regarding language and provision of Notice of Completion has been incorporated into Section 4.4.3 and Appendix C.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #184

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.4.3: MOE recommends that this section should identify that despite a 30-day review period, review agencies/Aboriginal communities should not be placed in the position of having insufficient time to provide comments and timelines may need to be negotiated with them.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. As per Ontario Regulation 116/01 and existing Class EA processes, a reasonable Notice of Completion comment period of 30 days has been proposed for the OWA Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #185

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.5.1: MOE is unsure what is meant by the requirement for a Conclusion of the Class EA…is this meant to be an update from the statement of overall advantages/disadvantages of the project in the ER, based on comments received? If so, this should be clarified. MOE suggests the following… In the conclusion statement, proponents should revisit the conclusions reached in the ER and document any additional changes to the project or commitments made as a result of comments received during the review period. Section 4.5.1: MOE recommends this section requires that the Statement of Completion be forwarded to the Regional MOE office. MOE recommends that the wording be revised to identify Director-EAAB.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comments.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #186

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.5.1: MOE recommends the following wording:

It is recommended that proponents consult with EAAB to verify that no Part II Order requests were received prior to formal submission of the Statement of Completion.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comments.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #187

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.5.1: MOE recommends a statement of clarification be added to this section about how proponents are expected to document comments received, responses and additional commitments without necessarily needing to re-print the ER.

Proponent’s response

This is included as the last two bullets of the list describing Statement of Completion information requirements.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #188

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.5.1: MOE recommends moving the last two sentences of paragraph 1 of this section on page 44.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comments. Sentences moved to end of Section 4.4.1.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #189

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.5.2: MOE recommends re-inserting from the Draft Class EA the statement regarding limitations on the start of construction.

Proponent’s response

Statement added that project remains subject to other applicable permits and approvals.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #190

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 4.5.3: MOE recommends that this section be inserted into section 4.3.

Proponent’s response

Post-construction environmental effects monitoring occurs after the Class EA process. However, a sentence has been added to Section 4.5.3 that the development of environmental effects monitoring requirements is considered during the project assessment phase (i.e., Section 4.3) of the Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #191

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.1.1, first sentence: MOE recommends inserting a new sentence noting: The same applies to this Class EA.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #192

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.1.1, second sentence: MOE recommends inserting:

Building on the requirements of the environmental screening process, this provides good rationale to have such proposals evaluated through this Class EA…

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #193

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.1.1, last sentence: MOE recommends it should be noted that the cooperative approach may be negotiated and must communicated to the MOE Regional EA Coordinator.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #194

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.1.1: MOE recommends that this section cross reference to Section 3.3 Incorporating Projects into the Grid, including a statement about the restrictions on the definition of transmission associated with generation, which prohibits certain project types (such as enabling lines) to use the Waterpower Class EA to meet the requirements of the EAA.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

See comment above.

Comment #195

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.1.2: MOE recommends that the first paragraph on page 50 be re-worded to improve its clarity.

Proponent’s response

Section revised per MNR comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #196

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.3.1: MOE recommends reference to the MNR's policy on Waterpower Site Release and Development Review.

Proponent’s response

Section revised per MNR comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #197

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.3.1: MOE recommends that a schematic Figure be created to identify where the Waterpower Site Release and Development Review process falls relative to the Class EA, federal EA process and other permits and approvals.

Proponent’s response

Figure 8 addresses comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #198

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.3.1, third paragraph, 4^th line: MOE recommends Table 4 be added instead of Table 3.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #199

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.3.6: MOE recommends that the second sentence under the second paragraph of this section be clarified.

Proponent’s response

As described in Section 1.3, an objective of the Class EA is to coordinate and integrate the multiplicity of environmental approvals and public involvement processes that are relevant to planning a waterpower project. Adhering to this Class EA will facilitate meeting the core planning requirements for this array of requirements. Common to all of these processes are the themes of environmental responsibility and public accountability. This Class EA has adopted these themes and is designed is to facilitate coordination with other directly relevant federal and provincial requirements to help ensure effective and efficient public and agency involvement.

The sentence in Section 5.3.6 follows these objectives.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #200

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.3.6: last sentence under the second paragraph: MOE recommends the sentence should be deleted or modified as follows:

The OWA anticipates that there may be a regulatory change in the future so that approval under both the LRIA and section 34 of the OWRA would not be required. However, in the absence of a regulatory change to that effect, both approvals may be necessary for the ongoing operation of a facility approved through this Class EA.

Proponent’s response

Sentence deleted.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #201

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.2.1: MOE recommends using the coordination diagrams produced in the first Draft Class EA

Proponent’s response

Section 5.2.1 (CEA Act) has been revised per feedback from CEA Agency. Coordination diagrams have been deleted.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #202

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 5.2.1: MOE suggests the OWA, MOE and the Agency discuss the best way to depict coordination of the two processes in the form of a figure.

Proponent’s response

See response above.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #203

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 6.1.1: MOE recommends under the Notice of Completion, following to insert government agencies, Aboriginal communities and those on the focused stakeholder list.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #204

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 6.2: MOE recommends this section identify, as per 4.2.3 above, that the creation of a Public Consultation Plan is a mandatory requirement for all projects proceeding through this Class EA.

Proponent’s response

This has already been addressed by Section 4.1.3, which requires proponents to develop public consultation and Aboriginal engagement plans.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #205

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 6.2: MOE recommends adding the following new bullet points:

• Rational for the methods, approaches and techniques proposed.
• Contingency plans identifying that the Public Consultation Plan may be adjusted as necessary.
• Clarify that copies of all correspondence, responses and new commitments (i.e. the results) of the Notice of Completion comment period must also be documented along with the ER.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

The section does not include the bullets recommended. However, MOE finds that the section includes the principles reflected in our comments.

Comment #206

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 6.3: MOE recommends that the last sentence of the first paragraph be modified as follows: In support of the Notice of Completion, the ER must summarize all consultation to date describing:

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #207

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 6.3: following the last bullet point: MOE recommends adding the following Additional consultation following the issuance of Notice of Completion will be documented and summarized with the Statement of Completion.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #208

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 6.3: MOE recommends this section should reference the section on the ER for specific requirements on documentation of consultation efforts.

Proponent’s response

The documentation requirements for the Statement of Completion are already addressed in Section 4.5.1.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #209

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Figure 9 is subject to change. MOE recommends providing a link to the Chiefs of Ontario website instead.

Proponent’s response

Link added to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #210

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 7.0: MOE recommends this section should be modified to include what should be considered when developing a First Nation Consultation Plan.

Proponent’s response

These considerations are included in Section 7.1.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #211

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 7.0: MOE recommends the following segments of information be added to this section and incorporated into the planning process:

For the purposes of consultation with Aboriginal communities, the proponent shall prepare a list of Aboriginal communities that may be potentially affected by or interested in the project. In developing this list, proponents shall obtain information from the links provided on the MOE's website for aboriginal resources and contacts: (www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/ea/english/General_info/GRTList.htm)

The proponent shall mail or deliver notice (or an equivalent letter or information package) to the list of Aboriginal communities.

In addition to sending the Notice of Commencement, the proponent shall consider forwarding the following information to the list of Aboriginal communities:

• project description
• completed environmental matrix
• a request for the community to indicate to the proponent whether it is interested in the project, the nature of its interest and whether it wishes to be consulted/engaged further about the project; and proponent’s contact information.

The ER shall include information on Aboriginal community consultation/engagement, including:

• a copy of the list of Aboriginal communities
• a description of the program and consultation/engagement activities
• indication of which communities expressed an interest in being further consulted/engaged about the project
• the nature of interest that these communities expressed in the project
• information on how concerns have been resolved or addressed; and
• copies of key comments.

Proponent’s response

Specific material to be provided to First Nations is indicated throughout the Class EA planning process in Section 4.

The Aboriginal engagement plan to be developed by the proponent (see Section 4.1.3) will identify any additional needs specific to a given project and the relevant First Nation(s). MOE's list is one resource of several that proponents could use.

The flexibility provided in the Aboriginal engagement plan and the guidance provided in Section 7 of the Class EA will ensure Aboriginal communities are engaged early and throughout the process and that their specific information requirements are identified and addressed by the proponent.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and acknowledges that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is satisfied with the Class EA.

Comment #212

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.0: MOE recommends that the Class EA Administrative Practices sections (8.1 - 8.5) should be the last section of the document and the Part II Order and Addendum sections (8.6 - 8.8) should be moved to the end of Section 4.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Structure of the Class EA proposed is similar to other recently approved Class EAs and the MOE's Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Sector Projects, March 2001.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #213

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.2.1: MOE recommends that OWA propose a process in consultation with MOE based on common elements in other Class EAs.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Process proposed is similar to other Class EA processes.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #214

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.4: MOE recommends that a statement be added to this section…This section is not meant to apply to the construction of new facilities.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #215

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.6: MOE recommends that the wording be revised from Can request the MOE have the project evaluated as in individual EA to can request that the Minister of the Environment or his/her delegate require that an individual EA be prepared for the project. OWA must review the entire document for consistency on this language.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #216

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.6.1: MOE recommends adding to step one that the concerns should be raised as early as possible in the process.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #217

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.6.1: MOE recommends references to MOE Regional EA Planner should be consistent (in this section and throughout the document).

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #218

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.6.1: MOE sees an improvement in clarity to move point #5 on page 85 to section 8.6.5, so that all decision points are contained in the same section.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #219

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.6.3: MOE sees an improvement in clarity to move this section so that it falls before the Early Resolution section.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #220

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.6.3: MOE recommends removing the sixth bullet.

Proponent’s response

OWA maintains that a Part II Order requester should document any inadequacies in the consultation process implemented by the proponent and the response(s) provided to concerns expressed by the requester.

Status

MOE's comment was that the bullet pertaining to alternatives be removed and was not related to the consultation process.

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #221

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.6.5: MOE recommends adding the word all before necessary information.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #222

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.6.5: MOE recommends removing the last sentence, including options.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #223

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Figure10: MOE recommends that this figure be revised to define all acronyms and match the text and the requirements of the EAA for Part II Orders.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #224

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.7: MOE recommends that this section and section 8.8 be integrated, providing one section on Addendums to Environmental Reports, and applicable both where there is a lapse in time of greater than 5 years since the Statement of Completion was filed, or where there is a need to change the undertaking as described in section 8.8.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #225

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.7: MOE recommends that the section include the following:

• a requirement, in both cases, for a Notice of Addendum to be filed.
• where the Addendum is filed due to a lapse in time, the Addendum provisions apply to the Project.
• where the addendum is filed due to a change to the proposed undertaking, the Part II Order provision applies to the significant changes to the undertaking; not the aspects that were previously approved under this Class EA process.
• In both cases, a minimum 30-day review period is to be provided.
• Notification requirements for the Notice of Addendum as per 8.7 (newspaper advertisements, etc).

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE notes that the revisions did not adequately address our comments. Accordingly, prior to publication of the Review, the OWA updated the Class EA to ensure the addendum provisions were consistent with the Electricity Projects Regulation.

Comment #226

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Section 8.8: MOE recommends that clarification be provided about the types of changes and expansions that can be planned through the addendum process. MOE would be please to discuss this with you.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #227

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

Templates

MOE recommends simplifying these templates (refer to the Codes of Practice) and add the statement about the Freedom of Information Act (FIPA).

For the Notice of Commencement Notice, add a statement for those projects to explain that a second broad notice will not occur and the consequences of not participating.

Proponent’s response

Templates are provided as an example to proponents. They have been revised to indicate that they are suggestions only and that proponents will need to adapt them to their specific needs.

Changes have been made to the Notice of Commencement as suggested.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and revisions.

Comment #228

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

MOE recommends a template for the Statement of Completion.

Proponent’s response

Statement of Completion form has been added, based on that developed by MOE for Ontario Regulation 116/01.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #229

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

MOE recommends that for the Environmental Assessment Act definition, state: A provincial statute that has the purpose of the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.

Proponent’s response

Definition revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #230

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Summary

MOE recommends that definitions be provided for water management regime, in consultation with MNR, as well as for other similar terms used in Chapter 2 and 3.

Proponent’s response

Definition revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #231

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Appendix A- CEAA recommends referring to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency as the CEA Agency as defined in Appendix A.

Proponent’s response

Definition revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #232

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Section 2 there may be instances where a waterpower project may be located on federal only land (canals). There should be mention on whether these are subject to Provincial EA Requirements.

Proponent’s response

A project is subject to the Class EA where it is defined as an undertaking to which the EA Act applies, either by the EA Act itself or by its regulations (such as Ontario Regulation 116/01).

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #233

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Section 4 Table 3 note that the CEA Act also includes the effect of the environment on the project.

Proponent’s response

Section 5.2.1 (see Scoping) revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #234

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Page 36 the last statement of the second last paragraph is incorrect. An RA cannot take any further action if is if there is the likelihood that a project will cause significant adverse environmental effect(s) after mitigation, the actions may be a permit/approval, lands or funding. If there is uncertainty on the significant adverse environmental effect(s), the Federal RA can send the project to mediation or a panel section 20(10)(c) of the CEA Act.

Proponent’s response

The section states that a significant unresolved negative effect can preclude federal approval.

Section revised to indicate that, in such instances, projects can be referred to mediation or a review panel.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response. CEAA may have additional comments.

Comment #235

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

CEAA suggests the Coordination section of the Class EA (parts of section 5.2 could easily be simplified and make reference to: the Federal/Provincial Environmental Assessment Coordination in Ontario, A Guide for Proponents and the Public (2007) and Federal Requirements for Waterpower Development Environmental Assessment Processes in Ontario Practitioner’s Guide, (March 2006) guides or any other coordination guides.

Proponent’s response

Coordination-related resource material is listed in Appendix B of the Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #236

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Page 53; include the link in the text or in a footnote.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Specific website links have been avoided as they may change over time. The Class EA instructs proponents to consult with public agencies and contact them for additional information.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #237

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Section 5: The scope of the assessment and scope of the environmental factors will be determined by the Responsible Authorities and may be informed by an evaluation matrix. A federal environmental assessment must assess all factors listed in section 16 of the CEA Act. The CEA Act also requires that the effects of the environment on the project be assessed too. The inclusion of the effects of the environment on the project is often an oversight and should be identified/noted in the Class EA or in an appendix.

Proponent’s response

Section 5.2.1 (see Scoping) revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response. CEAA may have further comment.

Comment #238

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Section 5.2.1: CEAA recommends the following changes be made; federally public consultation is referred to as public participation.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Public consultation used in the context of the Class EA includes this broad range of activities as well.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #239

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Figure 7: CEAA requests that this figure be revised or replaced with a figure from Federal/Provincial Environmental Assessment Coordination in Ontario, A Guide for Proponents and the Public (like Figure 3.1); or Federal Requirements for Waterpower Development Environmental Assessment Processes in Ontario Practitioner’s Guide - Version 1.0, March 2006(like figure 10.1)

Proponent’s response

Figure removed. Reference to coordination guide and Practitioner’s Guide address this comment. In addition, provision of coordination meeting early in the Class EA process (see Section 4.1.2) will allow proponents to better define coordination requirements.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #240

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Page 57: If a water power project is listed on the CEA Act Comprehensive Study List Regulation the proponent and any Federal Departments should work out project specific procedures and work plan for coordination.

Section 5.2.6: CEAA notes Dominion Waterpower Act applies to Indian Reserves too.

Proponent’s response

As described above, Section 4.1.2 provides for a coordination meeting with agencies early in the Class EA process.

Section 5.2.6 revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response regarding Section 4.1.2

CEAA may have additional comments.

Comment #241

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Appendix A: CEAA notes there are some differences between the terminology used in the CEA Act and Provincial EA act (for example the definition of environment and environmental effect and project differ federally and provincially).

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Clarification on terms added at start of Appendix A.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #242

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Appendix B: CEAA recommends including the date and name of the referenced guides or Operational Policy Statements (OPS) as well as the following statement At the time of preparation, the Agency was in the process of updating its EA guides and Operational Policy Statements. Please consult the Agency’s website referenced below for the most up-to-date guides and Operational Policy Statements.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Clarification on terms added at start of Appendix A.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #243

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Include the link where these guides and OPSs can be found as well as the outdated publications.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Clarification on terms added at start of Appendix A.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #244

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Include DFO Ontario-Great Lakes Area publications as a link in the EA.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Clarification on terms added at start of Appendix A.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #245

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Summary

Include DFO's application for a Fisheries Act authorization as a link in the EA.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Clarification on terms added at start of Appendix A.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #246

Submitter

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Summary

Section 2.5.1, second sentence is not clear: These considerations can transcend jurisdictional boundaries, either through legislative mandates and/or implementation protocols. Is this intended to reflect that in Ontario the Ministry of Natural Resources manages the fisheries while DFO manages fish habitat?

Proponent’s response

Yes, this is correct.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #247

Submitter

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Summary

Table 3, under Aquatic Environment: DFO recommends changing fish mortality: to fish injury or mortality (impingement and entrainment; add water before temperature

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #248

Submitter

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Summary

Section 4.5.2: DFO recommends ....related to fisheries (Fisheries Act)… should read: related to fish and fish habitat (Fisheries Act)…

Proponent’s response

Section revised per comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #249

Submitter

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Summary

Section 5.2.1 (Scoping): DFO recommends the following statement should be reworded: For projects covered under the Class EA, the federal scope of assessment may be based on the results of the application of the evaluation matrix in Section 4. Recommended wording: For projects covered under this Class EA, the federal scope of assessment will involve the determination of: the undertakings and activities that must be assessed and the factors that need to be considered in the environmental assessment.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #250

Submitter

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Summary

Section 5.2.2, Fisheries Act (DFO) DFO recommends the following statement should be reworded:

The completion of an undertaking under this Class EA does not remove Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s decision-making authority under the Fisheries Act, but it is expected that a proponent using this Class EA will satisfy the substantive planning requirements related to completing an EA under the CEA Act.

Recommended wording:

The completion of an undertaking under this Class EA does not remove Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s decision-making authority under the Fisheries Act. However, it is expected that a proponent using this Class EA will likely satisfy the requirements for completing an EA under the CEA Act.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #251

Submitter

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Summary

Section 5.2.2, application for a Fisheries Act authorization is also available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/habitat/water-eau/pdf/authorization_application_form.pdf

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #252

Submitter

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Summary

On page 58 - note that DFO also has agreements with Parks Canada.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #253

Submitter

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Summary

Section 5.2.5: Species at Risk Act (SARA) DFO recommends adding SARA section 32 which makes it an offence to kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened.

Proponent’s response

Section revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #254

Submitter

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Summary

Appendix D: DFO recommends that the title be renamed to reflect that these are triggers for a federal environmental assessment.

Proponent’s response

Title revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #255

Submitter

Parks Canada (PC)

Summary

Table 3: PC recommends including cultural views capes as criteria for the evaluation matrix.

Proponent’s response

This criterion is addressed by inclusion of the cultural heritage landscape criterion.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #256

Submitter

Parks Canada (PC)

Summary

Section 5.2.2: PC recommends the document details the agreements with DFO and the Conservation Authorities to review projects.

These agreements exist between Parks Canada and DFO, and likely other federal departments as well. This section should be modified to reflect this.

Proponent’s response

Section has been revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #257

Submitter

Parks Canada (PC)

Summary

Appendix A (definition of Archaeological Resources): PC recommends modifications to read underwater archaeological sites as there are archaeological sites along the Rideau Canal that wouldn't necessarily be considered a marine environment.

Proponent’s response

Definition revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #258

Submitter

Parks Canada (PC)

Summary

Appendix A: On Page 93: Parks Canada would like to see a definition of cultural viewscape included in the glossary.

Proponent’s response

See response above. This criterion is addressed by inclusion of the cultural heritage landscape criterion.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #259

Submitter

Parks Canada (PC)

Summary

Appendix A: PC recommends switching the word marine to underwater in reference to archaeological resources.

Proponent’s response

See response above. Definition revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #260

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

Table 1: EC recommends that the first sentence under Requirement be supplemented with the following text shown in italics:

Provides for the recovery and protection of listed wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of concern and secures the necessary actions for their recovery. Proponents should fully assess the extent to which their projects may impact listed wildlife species and/or habitat suitable for listed wildlife species.

Proponent’s response

Table 3 lists Species at Risk and their habitat as a criterion to be considered and assessed in the Class EA process.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #261

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

Table 1 on page 14 all federal authorities are not required to do an environmental assessment for projects triggering CEAA (e.g., expert federal departments), the first part of the statement under Requirement should be re-worded to read: Responsible (federal) Authorities (as defined under CEAA) are required… These definitions should also be included in the Glossary of Terms and Acronyms (Appendix A).

Proponent’s response

Table 1 revised to address comment. Responsible Authorities are discussed in Section 5.2.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #262

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

The following recommendations to table 3:

Evaluation Matrix page 37 that EC previously made on the July 2007 version 1 of the Class EA were not addressed in the current version; however, EC amended these recommendations:

1. under General Natural Environment… the Criteria: Release of contaminants in soils, sediments (e.g. mercury) should be amended to:
   • Release of contaminants in soils, rock and sediments (e.g. methyl mercury, and other heavy metals).
2. Under Aquatic Ecosystem… that the following be included:
   • Spills of Toxic Substances, and Project Generated Effluents (e.g., hydrocarbons, cement/concrete, leachate/effluents, acid rock drainage, methyl mercury, wood preservatives and other chemicals, etc.).

Proponent’s response

Item 1: Comment noted. EC may request a proponent to undertake such work, where warranted, as part of a particular Class EA project.

Item 2: The potential effects are addressed by the water quality or quantity (surface water) and the water quality or quantity (groundwater) criteria in the General Environmental Considerations section of Table 3.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #263

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

In regard to the Criteria, Release of contaminants in soils, sediments, EC notes that the construction and operation of a waterpower project may potentially release heavy metals if highly mineralized rocks are exposed therefore, EC is of the opinion that these potential effects should be considered.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #264

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

EC recommends that other criteria should be included under Natural Environment…, or under Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem… are potential effects on:

• ice formation and movement in the watercourse
• shoreline bank stability and riparian habitat

Proponent’s response

First bullet is addressed by water temperature criterion. Second bullet is addressed by land subject to natural and human-made hazards and shoreline dependent species.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #265

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

It is EC's opinion, the criteria Erosion and Sedimentation by itself may be too general to capture other adverse effects that bank instability would likely have on riparian zone integrity, notably landform and habitat.

Proponent’s response

This is addressed by the land subject to natural and human-made hazards criteria in the General Natural Environment Considerations section of Table 3.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #266

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

Appendix B: EC is concerned that a large number of potential hydroelectric project sites are located in the Canadian Shield in northern Ontario (where highly mineralized rocks occur), and rock excavation and disposal is often required to implement the project. If pyretic rocks uncovered at a site have a net acid generating potential and are exposed to precipitation and moist air, this would likely result in the formation and discharge of acid drainage. Also, highly mineralized rocks may generate leachate that is contaminated with heavy metals during project implementation. Therefore, improperly managed excavations, and inappropriate disposal of any associated waste rock, would have the potential to cause adverse water quality effects downstream.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. EC may request a proponent to undertake such work, where warranted, as part of a particular Class EA project.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Comment #267

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

If highly mineralized rocks are excavated or exposed, notably acid generating rocks, specific measures may be required to minimize releases of heavy metals into Canadian fisheries waters. EC recommends that the following work be undertaken by project proponent to address this issue:

• Representative sampling of rocks to be disturbed should be undertaken using an appropriate sampling protocol, and analysis of the leachate potential and net acid generating potential and should be undertaken in an accredited laboratory.
• An assessment of potential impacts of any acid rock drainage (ARD) associated with the project on downstream water quality.

EC recommends that the following reference on site assessment procedures, prediction and control of ARD be included under the header Environmental Effects:

• Mine Rock Guidelines, Design and Control of Drainage Water Quality, Report 93301, prepared for Saskatchewan Environment and Public Safety, Mines Pollution Branch, April 1992 by Steffan Robertson and Kristen (BC) Inc.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted; however mining-related reference documents have not been included in Appendix B.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #268

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

Last item under mitigation please note that EC is not the author/publisher of the Interim Standards for and Best Practices for Instream Work. The publishing agency should be changed to the Province of British Columbia.

Proponent’s response

Reference revised to address comment.

Status

MOE is satisfied with revision.

Comment #269

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

The following recommendations that EC made on the July 2007 version of the Class EA, which would now apply to Appendix B, were not addressed in the current version:

• Mitigation - In regard to references listed under this header, EC recommends that the following guidelines and best practices should also be included:
• Environment Canada, Industrial Treated Wood Users Guidance Document, Version 1 -2004
• Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction

Proponent’s response

Comment noted; however treated wood and urban construction -related reference documents have not been included in Appendix B.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #270

Submitter

Environment Canada (EC)

Summary

EC suggests that another appendix be included that references any other standards and best practices for implementation of mitigation, national and provincial environmental quality standards that should be used by proponents to help ensure that projects are implemented in a sustainable manner in accordance with recognized practices, and to establish credible thresholds for the evaluation of significance of adverse environmental effects

Proponent’s response

As described in Section 4.3.2, while there are a suite of standard approaches to mitigation of environmental effects associated with waterpower projects, the state of the science(s) continues to evolve and improve and the toolbox of approaches continues to expand. As listed in Appendix B, the OWA will undertake to provide access to the best available information on mitigation techniques on an ongoing basis, rather than to limit the creativity of proponents through prescriptive measures. The OWA has taken the approach in the Class EA of referring to documents that speak to mitigation techniques, as opposed to listing a small subset of those which may be applicable to projects. The OWA will post and update the list of guidance material on its website as appropriate.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Appendix C: Supplemental information

Contents are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.