Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities. November 16, 2016

Transcription

1 Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities November 16, 2016

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HISTORY INTRODUCTION Class Definition Rationale for the Class Environmental Assessment Similarities and Differences Among Project Types Applicant and Proponent PURPOSE OF PROJECTS COVERED BY THE CLASS DEFINITION Transmission Lines Transmission Stations New Technology CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS Establish Need Alternatives to the Undertaking Do Nothing Alternative Transmission Alternatives Environmental Analysis Study Area Definition Initial Notification Class Environmental Assessment Screening Process Environmental Inventory Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Methods Selection of Preferred Alternatives Project Acceptability Draft Environmental Study Report Final Notification Assess Acceptability Review and Decision by the Minister / Part II Order Request Statement of Completion Subsequent Communication with Interested Parties i

4 3.7 Effects Monitoring Addendum to the Environmental Study Report CONSULTATION Consultation Principles Consultation with First Nations and Métis Communities Consultation with Government Officials and Agencies Consultation with Municipalities Consultation with the Public Consultation Methods Consultation Methods Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Notice Requirements Notification Techniques Newspaper Advertisements Direct Mail or Unaddressed Mail or Flyers Project Website Other Notification Techniques Social Media CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION Amending this Class Environmental Assessment Document Minor Amendment Major Amendment Potential Delay in Project Implementation Phase-in Period Emergency Situations Monitoring Five-Year Review Coordination with Other Approval Processes Provincial and Federal EA Coordination Coordination with other Class Environmental Assessments ii

5 6.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECTS Transmission Lines Overhead Transmission Lines Underground Transmission Lines Transformer Stations General Basic Operation Alternative Designs Site Requirements Station Equipment Construction Operation/Maintenance Telecommunication Stations Consideration of Climate Effects Consideration of Cumulative Effects Decommissioning Electric and Magnetic Fields REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A - Glossary of Terms, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Measurement Units Appendix B - Subsequent Communication with Interested Parties Appendix C - Environmental Inventory Appendix D - Initial Notification Requirements Appendix E - Examples of Typical Mitigation Measures Appendix F - Electric and Magnetic Fields Appendix G Exemption Order OHK Appendix H Proponent Annual Monitoring Report Appendix I Other Legislation Appendix J Record of Consultation iii

6 iv

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 A Typical Transmission Line Application (conventional)... 9 Figure 2 A Typical Transmission Line Application (narrow based)... 9 Figure 3 A Typical 230 kv Transformer Station Figure 4 A Typical 115 kv Transformer Station Figure 5 A Typical Telecommunication Tower Figure 6 - Class Environmental Assessment Process Figure 7 - Component Parts of a Typical Transmission Line Figure 8 - Typical Right-of-Way Width for a 115kV Two-Circuit Transmission Line Figure 9 - Typical Right-of-Way Width for a 230kV Two-Circuit Transmission Line Figure 10 - Components of a Typical Simple Transformer Station Figure 11 - Components of a Typical Complex Transformer Station v

8 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HISTORY The Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities (also referred to as "Class EA Document") describes the process that a proponent must follow for a defined class of projects/undertakings in order to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). Once the Class EA Document is approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC, formerly the Ministry of the Environment), a proponent proposing a project that falls within the defined class of projects indicated in the Class EA Document may proceed to implement the project, if the proponent has fulfilled the requirements of the Class EA Document. Amendment to the Class EA Document was initiated in 2002 and the Terms of Reference (ToR) were approved by the Minister on February 17, The ToR for amending the Class EA Document set out how Hydro One Networks Inc., as the lead proponent (applicant), proposed to meet the EA Act requirements for the review of and revisions to the Class EA Document. The Class EA Document has been in use for more than three decades. It was originally developed by Ontario Hydro, and first approved under the EA Act by Order-in-Council No.3436/80 on December 27, Since then, the Class EA Document has been re-evaluated and revised seven times for continued use. The seven revisions prepared by Ontario Hydro are as follows: Revision 0 March 1978 Revision 1 April 1979 Revision 2 January 1984 Revision 3 March 1986 Revision 4 December 1989 Revision 5 July 1991 Revision 6 April 1992 ToR for amending the Class EA Document (Revision 6 April 1992), February 17, 2004 was approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). The amendment process was deferred to align with the release of the MOECC s Code of Practice: Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessment in Ontario (Code of Practice), October 2009 and subsequently January Prior to 2001, a number of exemption orders were granted under the EA Act for transmission and related undertakings that were considered unlikely to have significant adverse effects on the environment. In 2001, the Electricity Projects Regulation (O. Reg. 116/01) was made under the EA Act to clarify EA requirements for electricity generation and transmission projects in the electricity sector. In 2003, a number of exemption orders were no longer required because of the regulation and were, therefore, revoked by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Only Exemption Order OHK-11, known as the Parkway Belt exemption, currently remains active. This exemption order was granted after the multi-year hearing process carried out by the Solandt Commission. Exemption Order OHK-11 was granted to permit the development of a variety of transmission line and station projects within the Parkway Belt (established in the early 1970s as a multi-use utility corridor that was to meet the expected need of the Greater Toronto Area). A list of specific projects is included in this Exemption Order (see Appendix G). 1

9 Ontario Reg ulation 116/01 Electricity Projects and Ontario Regulation 231/08 Transit Projects and Metrolinx Undertakings O. Reg.116/01 is one of the regulations under the EA Act that outlines EA requirements for electricity projects. O. Reg.116/01 came into effect on April 23, 2001 and applies to public and private sector electricity projects. The Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects (2011) classifies the transmission projects described in O. Reg. 116/01, based on voltage and length of transmission lines, into three distinct categories, each with different requirements as follows: a. Category A projects are those which are expected to have minimal environmental effects. These projects do not require approval under the EA Act, and are not designated as being subject to the EA Act in O. Reg. 116/01. Although projects in this category are not subject to EA requirements under O. Reg. 116/01, they are required to comply with any other applicable existing legislative requirements such as the Species at Risk Act, Ontario Heritage Act (for example, a project in this category may cause a significant ground disturbance in areas of archaeological potential), etc.. In addition, if Crown resources are necessary to carry out a project, there are requirements under the EA Act related to the disposition of Crown resources that must also be fulfilled (e.g., an environmental review by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry prior to the occupation or sale of Crown land). If there are significant environmental effects associated with a project in Category A, the MOECC (with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor) could designate it as being subject to an Individual EA under the EA Act. b. Category B projects are those which have potential environmental effects that can likely be mitigated. These projects (listed in Section 4 of O. Reg. 116/01) are subject to the EA Act, but proponents of these projects are not required to prepare an Individual EA on the condition that they complete the Environmental Screening Process (set out in Part B of the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects, 2011). There are provisions in the Environmental Screening Process to elevate projects from Category B to Category C. This Class EA Process is equivalent to what O. Reg. 116/01 refers to as the Environmental Screening Process. c. Category C projects are major projects with known significant environmental effects that require an Individual EA. This Class EA Document is relevant to Category B transmission projects that are not associated with a Category B generation project. This Class EA Document is also relevant to certain projects under the Transit Projects and Metrolinx Undertakings Regulation (O. Reg. 231/08) which sets out the EA requirements for public transit projects, and designates as subject to the EA Act certain power supply infrastructure projects for the electrification of commuter rail corridors. Proponents of these power supply infrastructure projects are subject to the Transit Project Assessment Process under O. Reg. 231/08 but have the option to instead proceed with their projects in accordance with this Class EA Document if written notice of their intention to do so is provided to the appropriate MOECC officials under subsection 2(6) of O. Reg. 231/08. (0. Reg. 231/08 also contains transition rules). 2

10 For more information, proponents should refer to O. Reg. 116/01, O. Reg. 231/08, and Chart 1 - Electricity Project Classification and Section A.5.2 of the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects (2011). 3

11 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities (also referred to as "Class EA Document") is to provide information that will enable the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (Minister) to approve, following a single review, certain types of frequently occurring transmission projects specified in the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects (2011) and in O. Reg. 231/08. The project will be relatively small in scale, have predictable environmental effects that can be likely mitigated, and can be planned and constructed in accordance with a common process. The current version of this document has been developed following requirements of the approved Terms of Reference (ToR), 2004 and is in alignment with O. Reg. 116/01, O. Reg. 231/08, other applicable legislation that came into force after 2004 (e.g., Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012), the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change s (MOECC) Code of Practice: Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessment in Ontario, 2014 (Code of Practice), and other Class EA documents. The previous versions of this Class EA Document applied specifically to Ontario Hydro and its much broader mandate. The current version has been revised to be consistent with the mandate and accountabilities of Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One), local distribution companies (LDCs), licenced transmitters, industrial customers, etc., who may design, construct and operate transmission facilities. This Class EA Document makes use of Ontario Hydro s and Hydro One s experience completing numerous Class EAs. It is also prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 116/01, O. Reg. 231/08, and the MOECC Code of Practice, and takes into consideration other Class EA documents from other sectors, as well as valuable input from a variety of government agencies and other organizations. Although Hydro One is the applicant for approval of this Class EA Document, the Class EA Document is available for use by other public and private transmission project proponents. All proponents are responsible for ensuring that they fulfill all EA Act requirements for their projects. 1.1 Class Definition As previously noted, this Class EA Document applies to Category B transmission projects that are not associated with Category B generation facilities (see Class EA History of this Document and/or Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects [2011]). This Class EA Document also applies to certain power supply infrastructure projects for the electrification of commuter rail corridors that are designated as subject to the EA Act in O. Reg. 231/08, if the proponent provides written notice to the appropriate MOECC officials under subsection 2(6) of O. Reg. 231/08 that it will instead proceed with the project in accordance with this Class EA Document. The projects that are subject to this Class EA Document are defined as follows: a. The planning, design and construction of minor transmission lines and/or transmission stations (including telecommunication stations), and the subsequent operation, maintenance and retirement of these facilities. Minor transmission lines include all transmission line projects involving greater than 2 km of line, which: i. Are capable of operating at a nominal voltage equal to 115 kilovolts (kv). 4

12 ii. Are capable of operating at a nominal voltage level higher than 115 kv and less than 500 kv, and which involve less than 50 km of line. (Note: Line projects with a nominal voltage of 500 kv are excluded; the project is subject to an Individual EA) b. The planning, design and construction required to modify or upgrade a transmission line, and the subsequent operation, maintenance and retirement of the revised line where: i. The work requires replacement of poles or towers and/or changes in the right-of-way (RoW) for existing transmission lines capable of operating at a nominal voltage of equal to or greater than 115 kv and equal to or less than 500 kv. ii. The modified or upgraded existing lines would operate at a nominal voltage of equal to or greater than 115 kv, and equal to or less than 500 kv (nominal voltage). c. The planning, design and construction required to modify or expand a transmission station, and the subsequent operation, maintenance and retirement of the modified station where: i. Acquisition of additional property is required; and, ii. The modified stations are capable of operating at a nominal voltage level of equal to or greater than 115 kv and equal to or less than 500 kv (where a station has more than one voltage level, the highest level is used in defining the station's nominal operating voltage). Note: Secondary land uses on Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI) owned corridors are not subject to the Class EA Document. 1.2 Rationale for the Class Environmental Assessment The Class Environmental Assessment Process (Class EA Process) has been in use over the past three decades, and has shown that the projects within the defined class occur frequently, are small in scale, have a predictable range of effects, and may be assessed using a common planning process. The Class EA Process has shown to be an effective way of ensuring that the projects that fall within the Class EA are planned and carried out in a manner that is efficient and environmentally acceptable, without subjecting such minor projects which have a predictable range of environmental effects, to extensive individual reviews. The Class EA Process has proven to be both efficient and economical with respect to resources when compared with Individual EAs. It was also concluded that, in addition to being an effective way of meeting the requirements of good planning, it provided the best way of meeting the intent of the EA Act. This conclusion was confirmed by government ministries during the previous reviews of the Class EA. Members of the public have not specifically commented on the Class EA Process; however, the large number of projects that have successfully been carried out using the Class EA Process to date suggests that the process has been satisfactory. Should an objection be raised on a future project (either by a government reviewer or a member of the public), this Class EA Process would ensure that the rights of the objector are protected. The process requires that any objection, filed during the review period associated with the Final Notification, be either resolved or forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC, formerly the Ministry of the Environment) for a decision on the suitability of the process in dealing with that project. 5

13 1.3 Similarities and Differences Among Project Types The following outlines the similarities and differences among the projects subject to the Class EA Document. Similarities: Differences: a. All projects subject to this Class EA Document have predictable environmental effects that can likely be mitigated. b. Environmental effects tend to be construction-related. Long-term operating environmental effects are limited because there are no significant emissions to air or water, or waste production. c. High voltage facilities have similar safety and security risks. d. Many facilities share a common purpose: to provide reliable power to communities and commercial enterprises and/or connect generation sources with customers through the transmission network. a. Facilities are located throughout the province in a variety of geographic conditions, including urban and rural settings. b. In general, modifications and upgrades of linear facilities tend to have small, incremental environmental effects; new facilities have larger effects. c. Effects of transmission lines vary according to length and location. d. Visual and property effects (e.g., size of towers and stations, and widths of RoWs) increase with operating voltages. 1.4 Applicant and Proponent Applicants apply for approval of a Class EA, and proponents plan and develop projects in accordance with an approved Class EA. Hydro One is the applicant seeking approval under the EA Act for this Class EA Document. In its role as the applicant, Hydro One has assumed responsibility for amending the Class EA Document. Hydro One, as a proponent, is the largest licensed electricity transmitter in Ontario (accounting for approximately 97% of the province s transmission capacity) and is responsible for the majority of projects within the class of undertakings. Other proponents may include, but are not limited to, LDCs, other licenced transmitters and industrial customers who are licensed to operate in Ontario. 6

14 2.0 PURPOSE OF PROJECTS COVERED BY THE CLASS DEFINITION 2.1 Transmission Lines Any project within the class consisting of - entirely or in part - a new or upgraded/modified transmission line would have one or more of the following purposes: a. To transmit electrical energy to existing or proposed transmission or distribution stations. b. To connect parts of Hydro One s transmission network or to interconnect with neighbouring utilities to improve the transmission network s capability and/or reliability. c. To connect large electrical energy users (e.g., large industrial customers) to the transmission network. d. To improve the transmission network needed to connect new generation facilities. 2.2 Transmission Stations Any project within the class consisting - entirely or in part - of a new or extended/modified transmission station would have one or more of the following purposes: a. To transform electrical energy from a transmission voltage (equal to or greater than 115 kv) to a sub-transmission or distribution voltage (less than 115 kv), for distribution to low-voltage customers. A station having this purpose can be referred to as a transformer station (TS). b. To transform electrical energy from one transmission voltage to a lower transmission voltage, or vice versa, to interconnect parts of Ontario s electricity transmission system to improve the system's capability and/or reliability. A station having this purpose can be referred to as a TS. c. To connect together, or bus, sections of the electricity transmission system through automatic switching devices, to improve the system's capability and/or reliability. A station having this purpose can be referred to as a switching station (SS). d. To regulate the voltage of a transmission line (or lines) within the electricity transmission system. A station having only this purpose can be referred to as a regulating station (RS). e. To provide reactive power compensation to improve the capability and/or reliability of Ontario s electricity transmission system. Compensation will take the form of one of the following: i. Parallel compensation (e.g., mechanically-switched compensation, static var compensation, static synchronous compensation); ii. Series compensation (e.g., fixed compensation, thyristor-controlled series compensation, synchronous series compensation). f. To interconnect with asynchronous power networks via the transformation of energy from alternate current (AC) to direct current (DC) and vice-versa. A station with only this purpose can be referred to as a high voltage direct current (HVDC) station. g. To provide telecommunication facilities with the purpose of the protection, control, and monitoring of the electricity transmission system and the facilities connected to it, as well as for maintenance communications. 7

15 2.3 New Technology This Class EA Document will apply to any new technologies that will improve the capacity, efficiency, and/or reliability of transmission facilities consistent with the purposes described in Sections 2.1 and

16 Figure 1 A Typical Transmission Line Application (conventional) Figure 2 A Typical Transmission Line Application (narrow based) 9

17 Figure 3 A Typical 230 kv Transformer Station Figure 4 A Typical 115 kv Transformer Station 10

18 Figure 5 A Typical Telecommunication Tower 11

19 3.0 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS The MOECC Code of Practice defines a Class EA project as an undertaking that does not require any further approval under the EA Act, provided that the planning process set out in the approved Class EA Document is followed and successfully completed. This section describes two levels of assessment, Class EA Process and Class EA Screening Process, based on the project types, complexity and extent of environmental effects. The Class EA Process is illustrated in Figure 6, and is described in detail in this section. Each step in Figure 6 corresponds to a subsection in Section 0. The Class EA Process is consistent with the process described in Section of the MOECC Code of Practice. The Class EA Screening Process has been developed to screen out proposed projects which would have environmental effects so insignificant as to be of no concern, and is described in detail in Section and also in Figure 6. This Class EA Screening Process is not the same as the O. Reg. 116/01 Category B Screening Process. Both the Class EA Process and Class EA Screening Process involve consultation components that inform decision-making (see Section 0 for more detail). 3.1 Establish Need The need for new or improved/upgraded transmission facilities may be derived from the following: a. Forecasted increases in electricity demand. b. Limitations in capability of existing facilities of capacity and reliability. c. Facilities nearing end-of-life. d. Improvement of existing transmission network facilities to connect new generation facilities or address the impacts of generation retirements. e. Changes required by third party projects (e.g., highway expansions). f. Implementation of new technologies enabling efficiency or other improvements in electricity supply (e.g., series compensations facilities). g. Joint studies with other utilities which define future transmission improvements. The need may be established by proponents, the provincial electricity planner (Independent Electricity System Operator [IESO]), or proponents joint studies (i.e., Hydro One and LDCs). The IESO is tasked with ensuring a reliable and sustainable supply of electricity for Ontario. The IESO identifies areas of the Province where new or upgraded transmission facilities are required (e.g., to meet increasing demands for electricity and to connect new generation facilities). In these situations, the IESO will issue recommendations to proponents to carry out improvements to the transmission network. At a local level, proponents and/or LDCs may carry out local area supply studies to assess the performance of existing facilities and the need for improvements to address the growth in local demand or improve the 12

20 reliability of area supply. Hydro One s system sustainment programs can also identify facilities nearing end-oflife that require replacement, in part or in whole (e.g., the Hydro One Wood Pole Replacement Program). In these situations, the Class EA Process will rely on supporting technical studies from available sources. The consequences of taking no action will be described (i.e., do nothing alternative). Specific determinants of the need for new transmission facilities are described below: a. Proponent end-of-life and/or equipment testing studies. Operators of existing transmission facilities and equipment perform regular tests to determine whether these assets will need to be replaced to maintain their reliability. If these end-of-life tests determine that the equipment needs to be replaced, then the replacement of the equipment will be subject to the Class EA Process if the work required is included in the Class Definition (see Section 1.1). b. Proponent-identified capacity constraints. Operators of existing transmission equipment may identify an area where, to ensure the reliability of the supply of electricity to the area and/or to increase the capacity of the local system to enable future load growth, new transmission equipment must be installed or the existing equipment must be upgraded. The construction and/or installation of new or upgraded equipment will be subject to the Class EA Process if the work required is included in the Class Definition (see Section 1.1). c. IESO-identified enabling of generation resources. The IESO may identify an area where new transmission facilities or the reinforcement and/or upgrading of existing transmission equipment is required to enable the connection and/or transmission of future generation resources. Examples include areas with a high potential for wind power or hydroelectric generation where future generation facilities are planned to utilize this potential. The IESO may then provide proponents with one or a number of suitable transmission alternatives which will fulfill the need to provide grid connection and capacity to these resources. Such projects will be subject to the Class EA Process if the work required is included in the Class Definition (see Section 1.1). d. IESO-identified capacity constraints. The IESO s load growth forecasting may identify an area where electricity demand growth is expected to exceed the available transmission capacity in the near future. In such cases, the IESO will examine supply alternatives and may recommend the installation of new transmission facilities or the refurbishment and/or upgrading of existing transmission equipment. The IESO may provide proponents with one or a number of suitable transmission alternatives that will provide the required electrical transmission capacity. Such projects will be subject to the Class EA Process if the work required is included in the Class Definition (see Section 1.1). e. Customer-identified capacity constraints. LDCs may identify the need for new or upgraded transmission capacity in their service territory as they perform regular demand monitoring and load forecasting. The need for these new or upgraded transmission projects may arise through constant regular load growth, or through a single independent event (e.g., the construction of a new large subdivision). The LDC will inform proponents and will often provide a study area for the project and/or a set of transmission alternatives. Such projects will be subject to the Class EA Process if the work required is included in the Class Definition (see Section 1.1). f. Large industrial customer connections. Industrial customers may either construct or upgrade facilities which have a significant operational electricity demand, in some cases great enough to justify direct connection to Ontario s transmission network. Such direct connections will often 13

21 require the construction of new transmission facilities and/or the upgrading of existing transmission equipment. In these cases the proponent must identify the transmission alternative which will meet the need of the industrial customer while maintaining the integrity and reliability of the electricity supply to other customers in the area. Such projects will be subject to the Class EA Process if the work required is included in the Class Definition (see Section 1.1). g. Provincial government priority initiatives. Projects may result from provincial government priority initiatives. In these cases there may be limited alternatives as the actual project is often specifically defined by the initiative. h. Transmission network improvement/upgrade needed to facilitate new generation facilities, not otherwise described above. 14

22 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 11 Phase I and II 1 Phase III 1 Phase IV 1 Phase V 1 11Phases of Generic Project Planning Process as described in the MOECC s Code of Practice, s

23 Figure 6 - Class Environmental Assessment Process 16

24 3.2 Alternatives to the Undertaking Alternatives to the undertaking must be reasonable from a technical, economic and environmental perspective and must fall within the mandate of the proponent. It is understood that companies whose operating licences (i.e., as granted by the Ontario Energy Board) are limited to assessment of transmission alternatives cannot, for example, assess generation as an alternative to transmission facilities. Recognition of Previous Planning Work There are times when projects result from a provincial government priority initiative (see Section 3.1) or the recommendation of independent agencies such as the IESO. If this is the case, the project documentation will outline the rationale for selection of alternative(s), if any alternative can be considered, and the extent to which any previous planning supports the provincial government priority initiatives or recommendation of independent agencies. The transmitter will accept the recommendations of an independent agency as a starting point for the Class EA Process and will not revisit alternatives considered and rejected by the planning process (e.g., generation alternatives and other transmission alternatives). Class EA projects may also be identified based on the planning process of generation proponents. Generation proponents will be responsible for approval of planned generation and associated transmission facilities (i.e., to the point of connection to the transmission network). Hydro One, or other proponents, may be required to expand or modify network facilities to accommodate the new and/or expanded generation facilities, including protection and control facilities. These facilities can include transmission line upgrades and switching station facilities; however, dedicated transmission facilities, designed with the single purpose of connecting a planned generation facility, would be excluded. Class EA alternatives would then include modifications or upgrades to network transmission facilities needed to connect the proposed generation/transmission facilities. Generation and associated transmission facilities will be approved through the Renewable Energy Approval process or subject to applicable EA processes such as the Ontario Waterpower Association Class EA Do Nothing Alternative Consideration of the do nothing alternative will be addressed early in the Class EA Process. The rationale for discarding this alternative will be directly related to the need for the project. Factors involved will typically be limited to technical and economic, but will include environmental implications where appropriate. The proponent will be responsible for establishing the need and the rationale for discarding the do nothing alternative (as per Section 3.1). The do nothing alternative will be included in the Environmental Study Report (ESR), which is prepared for the Class EA project, and will be discussed during consultation activities Transmission Alternatives Under the Class EA Process, once the need is established, technically viable alternatives to the undertaking, capable of addressing that need will be identified. Each alternative may have different technical, economic and environmental advantages and disadvantages. The description and the rationale for selection or rejection of all alternatives to the undertaking will be documented in the ESR. 17

25 3.3 Environmental Analysis Study Area Definition A study area will be delineated to encompass the potential area of project effects including potential locations of proposed alternatives. The boundaries of the study area will be established by considering the proposed alternatives in relation to the occurrence of known potential environmental and technical constraints, and constrains associated with all relevant legislation and land use policies. The environmental constraints may take the form of ecologically sensitive areas (e.g., rivers, lakes, wetlands), and significant human-made constraints (e.g., building, structures, cultural heritage resources, etc.). Technical constraints may involve issues associated with construction and maintenance (e.g., flood plains, soil conditions) or interference with other facilities (e.g., microwave communication, radio transmission). Other boundary location opportunities may include such features as favourable property fabrics, existing land ownership patterns, and appropriate zoning. The study area will be documented in the Notice. The ESR will present a rationale for the selection Initial Notification As shown in Appendix D, in addition to the MOECC (i.e., Environmental Approvals Branch [EAB] and relevant Regional Offices), municipal, provincial and federal government officials, government agencies, First Nations and Métis communities, potentially affected and interested persons, and interest groups (see Appendix A) will be notified of the need for the project, the transmission alternatives being considered, the project study area and will be asked to provide comments. Each ministry, department or agency will be asked to provide comments with respect to potential concerns relating to their respective policies, mandates and/or jurisdictions. The proponent will also: a. Publicly announce the commencement of the Class EA Process. b. Notify the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and local planning boards, and all potentially affected and/or interested lower, upper or single-tier municipalities or separated cities and identify Official Plan provisions relevant to the project (such municipalities are to be considered as part of the "public"). For potentially affected areas without municipal organization, notify local planning boards, if they exist. c. Notify any commissions or planning agencies, where the study area includes any lands under their jurisdiction (e.g., Niagara Escarpment Commission) and comply with all applicable regulations or conservation plans. d. Notify any conservation authority which has jurisdiction over watersheds that may be affected by the project. e. Notify the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) or relevant federal department if federal lands, mandates or interests may be potentially impacted. f. Notify any First Nations and Métis communities, or groups that may have lands or interests which may be potentially affected by the project. g. Notify any property owners that may be potentially affected by the project, and/or potentially interested. 18

26 The Initial Notification shall contain the following: a. Name and brief description of the proposed Class EA project. b. Need for the proposed project. c. Geographical location of the study area with a map. d. Name of the proponent of the project. e. Name of the approved Class EA Document under which the project is being planned, including a link to where the Class EA Document may be obtained. f. An invitation to provide input. g. Contact information (i.e., name, address, telephone, fax and address) and website address where project information is available. h. Freedom of information (FOI) statement advising how written submissions will be handled for the purposes of freedom of information requests and for compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. (see Subsection 4.3) For some projects eligible for the Class EA Screening Process (see Section 3.3.3), the consultation process may be carried out consistent with project specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis. This is more appropriate to the scope of minor projects that are less environmentally significant. Any such consultation will respect the intent of the notification process and the proponent s commitment to public consultation Class Environmental Assessment Screening Process At this point, the physical parameters of a proposed undertaking will be defined sufficiently to determine the scope and the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on experience with projects captured by this Class EA, some projects do not have significant environmental effects, and do not require following the full Class EA Process, and rather, can follow the Class EA Screening Process (see Figure 6). The Class EA Screening Process has been developed to screen out proposed projects which would have environmental effects so insignificant as to be of no concern. Projects are to be compared to the screening criteria on a case-by-case basis to determine if the projects have the suitable technical parameters and environmental situations to allow them to be screened out of the Class EA Process. The following list of project types and project parameters provides some examples of undertakings that typically have insignificant environmental effects (i.e., would generally be subject to the Class EA Screening Process): a. The replacement, relocation and/or addition of wood pole structures along existing RoWs. b. The replacement, relocation and/or addition of steel transmission structures along existing RoWs. c. The construction of overhead transmission lines between 2 and 4 km in length. d. Underground transmission lines in urban areas. 19

27 e. The upgrade/modification of existing transmission station involving site acquisition of no more than four hectares (ha). f. The construction of a 115 kv transmission station. g. Certain connection facilities (e.g., for customers; generation station) including line taps and switching stations. h. Construction of telecommunication stations (for the purpose of security, protection, control and monitoring of the electricity transmission system). However, projects such as these cannot be grouped together arbitrarily and assessed under the Class EA Screening Process, because in some cases there could be environmental situations present which would warrant a detailed study. If these situations are significant and cannot be avoided (e.g., the presence of Species at Risk), the project will proceed under the Class EA Process. The environmental criteria listed below will aid the proponent in making that determination. If the proponent decides to proceed with the Class EA Screening Process the proponent will follow the Class EA Screening Process in consultation with directly affected municipal, provincial and federal government officials, government agencies, First Nations and Métis communities, potentially affected and interested persons, and interest groups to identify potential environmental concerns. The level of consultation will vary according to the scope and nature of the project. Information regarding the scope of the project and nature of the undertaking, as well as the project study area will be provided as part of the consultation process. Upon request, if necessary, the proponent will provide a description of the screening results, including any information that led to the determination of potential environmental effects and/or documentation related to how the Class EA Screening Process was assigned. For projects to be qualified to follow the Class EA Screening Process, the screening criteria listed below, which consists of a set of questions, must be answered "no" in their entirety. If any of the questions are answered "yes" or "possibly", then the project should follow the Class EA Process described in this document. The screening criteria listed below will be applied in all situations; additional factors may be considered if other potential concerns are identified. Screening Criteria Determine whether the proposed undertaking will: a. Conflict with the environmental goals, objectives, plans, standards, policy statements or guidelines adopted by the Province of Ontario or the municipalities or communities where the project is to be located; b. Have significant effects on persons or property, including lands zoned to permit residential or other sensitive land uses; c. Necessitate the irreversible commitment of any significant amount of non-renewable resources, including Prime Agricultural Lands, which includes Specialty Crop Areas (as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act) and/or Canada Land Inventory Classes 1, 2 and 3 lands; d. Pre-empt the use, or potential use, of a significant natural resource for any other purpose; 20

28 e. Result in a significant detrimental effect on air or water quality, or on ambient noise levels for adjacent areas; f. Cause significant interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish, wildlife species, species at risk, or their respective habitats; g. Establish a precedent or involve a new technology, either of which is likely to have significant environmental effects now or in the future; h. Be a pre-condition to the implementation of another larger and more environmentally significant project; i. Likely generate significant secondary effects, directly caused by the proponent s activities, which will adversely affect the environment; j. Block pleasing views or significantly affect the aesthetic image of the surrounding area; k. Significantly change the social structure or demographic characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhood or community; l. Overtax existing community services or facilities (e.g., transportation, water supply, sanitary and storm sewers, solid waste disposal system, schools, parks and/or care facilities); m. Result in undesired or inappropriate access to previously inaccessible areas; n. Create the removal of a significant amount of timber resources; o. Result in significant effects to natural heritage resources p. Result in significant effects to cultural heritage resources (which may include built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and/or archaeological resources). Significant effects to cultural heritage resources are to be determined based on technical cultural heritage studies prepared by qualified persons. If an interested or affected party, during the Class EA Screening Process identifies potential direct or indirect effects that cannot be addressed, the proponent will subject the project to the Class EA Process described in this document. Should the concern be later resolved, the proponent may revert back to the Class EA Screening Process. Under this Class EA, the Ministry of Energy is the primary Crown contact for the duty to consult, while the MOECC retains overall responsibility for the Class EA Process (as per Section 4.1.1). If a First Nations or Métis community identifies adverse effects on Aboriginal or treaty rights during the Class EA Screening Process, the proponent will consult with the Ministry of Energy on the most appropriate means of issue resolution. The proponent will advise the MOECC, in writing to the Director of the EAB and the Regional EA Coordinator at the applicable MOECC Regional Office, of all projects that have been successfully screened Environmental Inventory This section follows from the initial notification stage and is applicable in the Class EA Process (see Figure 21

29 6). Environmental data is collected, summarized and mapped according to the following factors: a. Agricultural resources b. Forestry resources c. Cultural Heritage resources (i.e., built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources) d. Human settlements e. Mineral resources f. Natural environment resources (e.g., air, land, water, wildlife, etc.) g. Recreational resources h. Visual and aesthetic resources (i.e., appearance of the landscape) Not all of the above factors may be applicable to certain undertakings (i.e., some factors may not occur within or adjacent to the project study area). Typical data types and sources within each of these factors are listed in Appendix C. Based on past experience and studies, it has been determined that these environmental factors and data types address the key environmental issues associated with the planning of minor transmission facilities Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Methods Identification and evaluation of alternative methods, such as routes and/or sites, will allow proponents flexibility to arrange for project-specific circumstances and involvement of only technically reasonable/feasible alternatives. If a number of technically reasonable alternatives are identified, they will be assessed based on natural environment, socio-economic environment, technical and cost factors, and following the recommendations of the Provincial Policy Statement (e.g., the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized). The potential environmental effects of each alternative will consider all aspects of the environment (see Appendix A for the definition of Environment ). An environmental, technical and cost comparison will then be carried out based on the potential quantitative and qualitative effects associated with each of the alternatives identified. Net effects will be addressed in the environmental evaluation by considering residual effects after mitigation is taken into account. Examples of typical mitigation measures are described in Appendix E Selection of Preferred Alternatives The alternatives will be compared by assessing the advantages and disadvantages in terms of the natural and socio-economic environment, technical and cost factors, including the availability of suitable property or property rights if the project had such requirements. The quantitative and qualitative analysis serves to highlight the range of relative differences among the potential effects for each alternative. The qualitative analysis describes the key issues or environmental concerns and outlines other information such as mitigation that could minimize potential environmental effects. 22

30 Subsequently, the preferred alternative selected should be the one with the most advantages and least disadvantages, of all factors considered. The evaluation of alternatives should provide adequate or sufficient information to enable the reader to understand the rationale supporting the selection of the preferred alternative. The selection of the preferred alternative will be done in conjunction with the consultation process that is explained in detail in Section Project Acceptability Draft Environmental Study Report A draft ESR will be prepared for each project subject to the Class EA Process. The information will consist of the following: a. Name and description of the proposed project. b. A description of the need (justification) for the proposed project. c. A description of the alternatives for the project, including maps. d. A description of a study area for the project and the existing environment. e. A description of the potential environmental effects (positive and negative). f. A description of the preferred alternative. g. A description of the consultation that was undertaken. h. A description of other applicable permits and approvals required for the project. i. A description of mitigation measures and predicted net effects. j. A description of any required environmental monitoring. As a minimum, the draft ESR shall be made available at a location that is a public facility (e.g., library), and on the proponent s website. Consultation throughout the Class EA Process will be documented to accurately represent planning and decision-making. This will include the schedule of events, methods used to consult, the list of consulted persons, the identification and resolution of concerns, commitments made by the proponent, and any outstanding concerns. A copy of all notification material will accompany the draft ESR Final Notification Upon completion of the draft ESR, a Final Notification (i.e., Notice of Completion) will be distributed to inform municipal, provincial and federal government officials, government agencies, First Nations and Métis communities, potentially affected and interested persons, and interest groups that the report is complete and the review period is commencing. This notice can be made available via direct mail, , newsletter, newspaper advertisement, project website, etc. The notice will indicate where copies of the draft ESR can be viewed or obtained. A minimum of 30 days will be provided to review, comment and raise further concerns and issues with the proponent regarding the 23

31 proposed project. Issues and concerns raised during the review period will be recognized, considered, addressed and documented. The notification shall include the following: a. Name and description of the proposed project. b. Name of the proponent for the project. c. A description of the need (justification) for the proposed project. d. Geographical location of the study area, with a map showing the project location and boundaries and extent of the study area. e. Description of this Class EA Document under which the project has been planned and a link to the Document. f. Name, telephone, fax number, and address of contact people within the proponent s organization who can provide further details on the project. g. Advice that comments on the proposed project should be received within the specified time frame by a specified person in order to receive consideration. h. Advice that the draft ESR is available for review at specific locations. i. The start and end dates of the review period. j. The rights given to the public under this Class EA Document, including the Part II Order requests. k. A brief description of the opportunity for a Part II Order request. l. The mailing and address of the MOECC where any Part II Order requests may be sent. m. A statement that the proponent can legally proceed with the project under the EA Act if no Part II Order requests are submitted during the review period. n. The date of publication of the notice. o. FOI statement advising how written submissions will be handled for the purpose of freedom of information requests and for compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. (see Subsection 4.3) The proper and complete Part II Order requests received up to the end of the review period by the MOECC will be recognized and considered (see Section 3.4.4) Assess Acceptability If there has been no expressed opposition, the proposed project will be considered acceptable as per the Class EA Document. Approval of the proposed project under the EA Act is granted in accordance with the approved Class EA Document. The final ESR and Statement of Completion form will be filed with the MOECC and a copy sent to the Regional EA Coordinator at the appropriate Regional Office (see Section 3.5). 24

32 If there is expressed opposition or concerns about the proposed project, the proponent will re-evaluate the rationale and will attempt to resolve concerns. If the expressed issues and concerns are subsequently resolved, then the proposed project will be considered acceptable. If all expressed opposition cannot be satisfied, the proponent will advise the MOECC (Regional Office and EAB) the following: Issues raised during the ESR review period Explanation of action taken Explanation of why concerns cannot be resolved Recommended next steps Review and Decision by the Minister / Part II Order Request An interested person has the responsibility to take advantage of consultation opportunities provided by the proponent for public involvement during the Class EA Process, and should raise his/her concerns to the proponent as soon as possible in the process. The sooner the concerns are brought to the attention of the proponent, the greater flexibility the proponent has to accommodate changes in the project. If a concern cannot be resolved by the proponent, the concerned party (requester) may request the proponent to elevate the project to a higher level of assessment (i.e., Individual EA). If the proponent decides not to elevate the status of the project, and the requester wishes to pursue the matter, he/she may request that the Minister or delegate grant a Part II Order and elevate the status of the project. The Part II Order must be made in writing to the Minister or delegate with a copy to the proponent, and must include the following: a. A clear indication that a request for a Part II Order is being made b. The project name and proponent. c. Potential environmental effects of the proposed project and their significance. d. The adequacy of the planning process and compliance with the approved Class EA Process. e. The adequacy of the consultation program and the opportunity for consultation. f. The involvement of the requester in the planning of the proposed project. g. The specific nature of the unresolved concerns. h. The benefits of requiring the proponent to undertake an Individual EA. i. Information about any efforts to discuss or resolve these concerns with the proponent. j. Any other matters considered relevant by the requester. The Part II Order request must be received by the Ministry within the review period following issuance of the Final Notification. 25

33 The proponent will continue discussions with the requester to attempt to resolve the concern(s) raised in the Part II Order request. The proponent and the requester may also consider some form of dispute resolution process. If there is any progress in addressing the concern, the proponent and the requester may agree to request the Director of the EAB, in writing, to defer the review of the Part II Order request for up to 60 days (i.e., after the 30-day review period for the Notice of Completion) to allow time for further discussion to take place between the proponent and the requester prior to the MOECC s decision on the request. The proponent and the requester will provide the MOECC with a written account of the discussion and its outcomes, and whether the Part II Order request stands or is withdrawn. The MOECC will acknowledge receipt, in writing, of the account and outcome. It is the responsibility of the proponent and the interested person(s) to resolve concerns raised in the Part II Order request. The Part II Order request will only be considered valid by the Minister or delegate after the proponent has issued the Final Notification. Upon receipt of a Part II Order request, the Project Evaluator may request that the proponent provide a copy of any relevant project documentation to the Ministry within a specified time frame. The Minister or delegate will consider the information submitted by the proponent, the requester(s) and any person the Minister or delegate chooses to consult before making a decision. The review of any Part II Order requests will be commenced upon receipt of all information (from proponent/requestor(s)/other agencies) after the review period following the issuance of the Final Notification. The Minister or delegate will consider the evaluation criteria for Part II Order requests as set forth in section 16(4) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The ministry review of a Part II Order request will normally be completed within 45 days of receipt of all project documentation provided by the proponent and after any required consultation by the ministry. After the ministry review, the Minister will make a decision, which will be one of the following: a. Make a Part II Order The Minister or delegate will notify the proponent, the requester(s) and other interested persons and provide them with reasons for that decision. The proponent shall then prepare an Individual EA for formal submission, review and decision if it wishes to pursue the project. b. Deny the Part II Order request with or without conditions The Minister or delegate will notify the proponent, the requester(s) and other interested persons and provide them with reasons for that decision. The proponent shall then continue to plan and implement the project in accordance with the commitments set out in the ESR. The proponent will also comply with any conditions specified by the Minister or delegate in deciding not to make a Part II Order. Also, the proponent will inform the Director of the EAB in writing, once the condition(s) have been fulfilled and provide a copy to the Regional EA Coordinator at the appropriate Regional Office. c. Refer the Part II Order request to mediation before making a decision. d. Advise the proponent to redo its project planning where there is evidence that the project has not been prepared in accordance with the Class EA Document. If, following the submission of a Part II Order request, the proponent has satisfied the concerns of the requester, the requester is responsible for withdrawing the Part II Order request by sending a written notice of withdrawal to the Minister or delegate. 26

34 If none of the above has occurred by the required decision deadline, the proponent is entitled to proceed with the project; however, before proceeding, proponents must confirm with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change that no decision has been made on the Part II Order request. Should the proponent proceed with the project without a Part II Order decision having been made, it should recognize that it is doing so at its own risk, as a Part II Order could still be made or denied with conditions. 3.5 Statement of Completion Once the review period of the draft ESR is complete, the proponent will incorporate all comments raised during the review period into the report and finalize the ESR. Once the ESR is finalized, a copy will be placed on the proponent s project website, and sent to the EAB and the Regional EA Coordinator at the appropriate Regional Office for filing. The proponent will complete and submit the Statement of Completion form to the MOECC along with the finalized ESR - at which point the project is considered acceptable, and can proceed as outlined in the final ESR. 3.6 Subsequent Communication with Interested Parties The acceptance of a proposed project under this process does not end communications between the proponent and the interested and affected parties. Provisions for subsequent communication with interested parties and individuals whose property is affected by an undertaking are detailed in Appendix B. 3.7 Effects Monitoring The purpose of effects monitoring is to confirm the extent of the project s environmental effects, by comparing the actual with the predicted effects, to verify the effectiveness of implemented mitigation measures, and to determine whether additional measures are warranted. Potential monitoring requirement should be considered throughout the Class EA Process, and the level and duration required will vary depending on the project. Monitoring may be relevant at all stages of a project (e.g. site preparation, construction, commissioning, operation etc.) and may also be a condition of subsequent permits and approvals. The ESR will describe the effects monitoring strategies required for the project. All proponents are expected to follow their own monitoring programs which would be applied to their own projects. Monitoring programs may consider the following: The environmental component(s) and/or mitigation measure(s) being monitored; The rationale for the monitoring; The monitoring methods being used (e.g. techniques, equipment), and the timing, duration, and frequency; and Documentation of data collected, results and actions taken. 3.8 Addendum to the Environmental Study Report As the Class EA Process is planned and carried out using preliminary/conceptual engineering design, it may be revealed later during detailed engineering design that it is not feasible to implement the undertaking in the way originally planned and documented in the ESR. This may come about as a result of 27

35 a change in conditions, the development of new technology or mitigation measures or the appearance of previously unidentified concerns. Where a change to the commitments outlined in the ESR is determined, affected parties will be consulted. If the changes are not considered significant, the MOECC (Regional Office and EAB) will be notified and changes will be described on website. If, through such consultation, significant environmental implications are identified, an addendum will be prepared. This addendum will document the circumstances necessitating the change, the potential environmental effects caused by the change and what can be done to mitigate any negative effects. The addendum will be filed with the ESR, and a copy will be sent to the Regional EA Coordinator at the applicable MOECC Regional Office and will be posted on the proponent s website. A Notice of Filing of Addendum will be provided to all interested and affected parties. A Notice of Filing of Addendum should also be placed in a local newspaper. This notice should provide for a public comment period of 30 days. A copy of the addendum will be available to interested and affected parties on the proponent's website, and a hard copy will be available upon request. Thirty days will be allowed for interested and affected parties to review the addendum and register any objections or concerns. It may be requested that the undertaking, as documented in the addendum, be subject to a Part II Order, in accordance with the procedures set out in Section of this Class EA. During the review period no work will be undertaken which might adversely affect that part of the project under review. If there are no objections/concerns, or Part II Order requests during the review period. When the proposed change is in response to an emergency situation during construction, or where a delay in the implementation of the change would result in detrimental environmental effects, the change would be implemented without delay and affected parties would be contacted. An addendum would subsequently be prepared for significant changes and filed. 28

36 4.0 CONSULTATION The purpose of consultation is to provide those who may be interested in, or potentially affected by, the proposed project with timely and adequate information and opportunities to participate in the planning process. Consultation also allows the proponent to gain information and knowledge related to social, cultural, economic and environmental considerations of direct relevance to the project as well as the means to inform and explain the approach to and value of the proposed project. Consultation is a two-way communication process to involve municipal, provincial and federal government officials, government agencies, First Nations and Métis communities, potentially affected and interested persons, and interest groups in the planning, implementation and monitoring of a proposed undertaking. Consultation is intended to: a. Provide relevant and timely information to the public and all identified stakeholders early in the planning process and opportunities for meaningful input. b. Identify stakeholders that may potentially be affected by the undertaking or who might have an interest in it. Stakeholders are defined as: municipal, provincial and federal government officials; government agencies; First Nations and Métis communities; potentially affected and interested persons, affected businesses and interest groups. c. Identify concerns that may arise from the undertaking and determine how they could be avoided, resolved, or mitigated. d. Identify and collect relevant information which may contribute to the planning and decisionmaking process and the development of the undertaking. e. Identify relevant guidelines, policies and standards that pertain to the undertaking. f. Facilitate the development of a list of all required approvals, licences or permits for the undertaking. g. Ensure that relevant information is shared regarding the proposed undertaking. h. Encourage the submission of requests for further information and analysis early in the Class EA Process. i. Provide appropriate information to enable the MOECC to make a fair and balanced decision. j. Expedite decision-making through development of project plans that are likely to garner a high degree of public and community acceptance. The Consultation section of the ESR will outline: a. Consultation principles. b. Information related to involvement of First Nations and Métis communities, municipal, provincial and federal government officials, government agencies, potentially affected and interested persons, affected businesses, and interest groups in the consultation process. c. Consultation methods. 29

37 d. Notification techniques. 4.1 Consultation Principles The structure and extent of the communication and consultation program will vary depending on the specific nature of the project, the size of the study area and its geographical location. The proponent will tailor the consultation plan to the local context and follow a clear process for identifying potentially affected and interested persons, municipal, provincial and federal government officials, government agencies, First Nations and Métis communities, affected businesses and interest groups. Key principles should guide the proponent s approach to communication and consultation, such as: a. Early, ongoing and timely communications and consultation. b. Clear project information and documentation. c. An open, transparent, and flexible consultation process. d. Respectful dialogue with all stakeholders. e. The provision of ongoing opportunities for all interested parties to provide meaningful input on the proposed undertaking. f. Full and fair considerations by the proponents of all input received during the consultation process and incorporation of such input into decision-making and project documentation Consultation with First Nations and Métis Communities Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples. The Crown s duty to consult and accommodate arises when the Crown contemplates an action or makes a decision that may have an adverse effect on potential or proven Aboriginal or treaty rights. The public consultation requirements of the Class EA Process apply to First Nations and Métis communities. Consultation may also be necessary to comply with the Crown s constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples. Projects within the Class EA Document are, by definition, minor in nature so the potential for adverse environmental effects is generally low. For example, projects such as pole replacements and upgrades within existing RoWs have minimal potential for adverse environmental effects on rights. As such, a transmission project under this Class EA Document with minimal environmental effects may only require public consultation, which could include First Nations and Métis communities whose rights will likely not be affected but who may otherwise be interested in the project. However, the duty to consult may arise for some minor transmission projects with potentially greater impact, such as new transmission facilities or expanded RoWs. When the duty to consult arises, the proponent will carry out interest-based public consultation with First Nations and Métis communities as described above and in Sections 0 and 4.1. In addition, the Crown may use this Class EA as a vehicle to fulfill the duty to consult and accommodate potentially affected communities. The Ministry of Energy is the primary Crown contact for the duty to consult, while the MOECC retains overall responsibility for the Class EA Process. 30

38 If the Class EA proponent is uncertain as to whether or not the Crown s duty to consult could arise, or if it appears that there may be a duty to consult, the proponent will write to the Ministry of Energy early in the project planning process and provide a description of the project s characteristics and location. The Ministry of Energy, on behalf of the Crown, will determine whether there may be a duty to consult. If so, the Ministry of Energy will identify the communities to consult and delegate to the proponent the procedural aspects of consultation, and may provide additional direction on consultation requirements. For such projects, consultation will include notice, the provision of information about the proposed project, and opportunities to hear the community s concerns. Where warranted, it may also include discussion of measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential effects on Aboriginal or treaty rights. Proponents will keep a detailed record of all consultation related activities, including efforts to address concerns or mitigate potentially detrimental effects, as well as any agreements. The ESR will document efforts to notify and consult with First Nations and Métis communities. The consultation record will be made available to the Crown, upon request, at any time during the Class EA Process. Where a duty to consult obligation is identified, the proponent shall fulfill the responsibilities delegated to it by the Crown to the satisfaction of the Crown prior to concluding the Class EA Process. If at any time in the Class EA Process a First Nations or Métis community asserts that the project could negatively affect its Aboriginal or treaty rights, or that there has not been adequate consultation, the proponent will immediately report the assertion to the Ministry of Energy. The Ministry of Energy, working with the MOECC, will then assess and advise the proponent on how best to proceed Consultation with Government Officials and Agencies From the outset of the planning process, the proponent will seek to inform and receive input from provincial and federal government officials and government agencies with jurisdiction or interest related to the proposed project. Appendix B of the MOECC Code of Practice lists Government Agencies and their areas of interest. Relevant contacts from the EA Government Review Team will be notified and consulted throughout the Class EA Process. The provincial and federal government may become involved in the Class EA Process by providing feedback with respect to policies relevant to the proposed projects and study area. This may occur during meetings, by way of direct correspondence, phone calls and/or by reviewing and commenting on the draft ESR. If appropriate, local Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) may be contacted in advance of all public notifications or consultation events so that they are able to respond to any inquiries or questions from their constituents. In addition, local Members of Parliament (MPs) should be notified if the project may have an effect on areas of federal interest or jurisdiction (e.g., interconnection facilities between provinces, navigable waterways, First Nations reserves, fisheries, etc.) Consultation with Municipalities Elected officials and senior municipal staff, including planners, will be informed about the proposed project early in the Class EA Process. The proponent will attempt to ensure that municipal officials are aware of the project and receive advance copies of any materials, which are to be distributed to the public, so that the municipality may deal effectively with inquiries about the proposed project. Municipal officials will have opportunities to actively participate in the Class EA Process and provide input with respect to municipal interests. This may occur during meetings, by way of direct correspondence, phone calls, and/or by reviewing and commenting on the draft ESR. 31

39 4.1.4 Consultation with the Public Consultation opportunities will be provided to public groups and individuals throughout the Class EA Process beginning with initial notification. This can include: a. Directly affected and adjacent property owners (i.e., residential, commercial, or industrial). b. Property owners within the study area. c. Interest groups (e.g., naturalist organizations, agricultural organizations, ratepayers associations, places of worship, legions, community centres, etc.). d. Local businesses and business organizations (e.g., Chambers of Commerce, business improvement areas, etc.). e. Schools, School boards and School Trustees within the study area. f. Other utilities and infrastructure owners (e.g., LDCs, railways, airports, municipal assets, gas companies, owners of power generation facilities, renewable or other, etc.). 4.2 Consultation Methods Potentially affected and interested persons, First Nations and Métis communities, municipal, provincial and federal government contacts, government agencies, affected businesses, and interest groups may become involved in the Class EA Process by providing feedback. Consultation methods may include: completing comment forms at consultation events such as Public Information Centres (PICs) or workshops, corresponding or conversing with the proponent s designated contact person(s), and/or reviewing and commenting on the draft ESR and materials posted on the proponent s project website. Newsletters may also be used to ensure that the public is kept informed and has the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. The consultation methods utilized by the proponent will be selected to ensure a comprehensive, transparent and sufficient consultation process and will vary according to individual project circumstances and complexity. PICs are a frequently used consultation technique that allows members of the proponent s project team to discuss the proposed project one-on-one with members of the community in an informal manner and to receive their feedback. PICs are generally held in a community hall or other venue within or close to the project study area. Visitors to the PICs can review display panels, maps and other information to help them learn more about the proposed undertaking and can discuss their questions or concerns with subject matter specialists. Comments received verbally and in writing, on comment forms provided at the venue, will be documented and summarized in the draft ESR. The proponent will offer to meet with key stakeholders, and will be available to meet with any interested individuals or groups, upon request. Workshops can be a useful consultation method to explore a particular subject, issue or concern and to develop mutually-acceptable plans to resolve the issue. Where deemed beneficial, the proponent may engage an independent third party to facilitate the workshop and document the outcome. Where there is an on-going need to meet with a group of stakeholders on a particular subject, the 32

40 proponent may decide to establish an external working committee comprised of representatives of organizations and groups with interests in the specific issue. 4.3 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Notice Requirements As stated in the MOECC Code of Practice (subsection 6.1.6, page 56), to comply with Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements, all project notices must contain the following statement: All personal information included in a submission such as name, address, telephone number and property location is collected, maintained and disclosed by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in s. 37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Personal information you submit will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless you request that your personal information remain confidential. For more information, please contact the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator at Notification Techniques The notification of interested persons may take place in a number of ways including: newspaper advertisements, press releases, flyer delivery, direct mail, , and via social media, if and when possible Newspaper Advertisements Newspaper advertisements are one means of providing broad formal notice. The advertisements will provide essential information about the project need, study area, planning and approvals process, timelines and contact information for the proponent. They may also be used to invite the public to scheduled consultation events such as PICs. Newspapers, whether local or regional, should be selected for their ability to reach stakeholders and interested parties in the study area. The proponent should arrange publication dates for advertisements to provide sufficient advance notice of any upcoming consultation activities. In areas where there are no local newspapers or very small/declining subscriber bases, alternative methods of notification will need to be determined. Even where local newspapers exist, the proponent should employ additional notification techniques, as not all residents necessarily read their local newspaper(s) Direct Mail or Direct mail or is an effective and efficient way to provide formal notice of a project (e.g., Initial and Final Notification) and to communicate other important information about project decisions or scheduled public consultation events. Direct mail communications, whether copies of newspaper ads, letters, newsletters, or postcard invitations to consultation events, will generally be sent to the owner/occupant at a specific address. Direct mail is an effective way to ensure that directly affected and potentially affected property owners are made aware of the proposed project and how they may provide their input Unaddressed Mail or Flyers When the study area for a project is large, unaddressed mail or flyers can be a useful and cost-effective way of reaching people within the broader study area. Those who are interested in participating in the consultation process should be asked to identify their interest to the proponent and to place their name and address (mail 33

41 or ) on the proponent s project contact list to receive all future project communications by direct mail/ . Unaddressed mail can be arranged through Canada Post or private delivery services Project Website All project communications should be posted to the proponent s website. This will ensure that interested parties have access to the full range of information available about the proposed project (e.g., notices, maps and documents, project status, dates for upcoming consultation events, etc.). The name and contact information for a designated contact person(s) will be posted on the website so that interested parties may contact the proponent at any time with questions or comments Other Notification Techniques The proponent may also request that municipalities in the study area post project notices on their websites, and that local community groups and organizations communicate project information through s or newsletters to their members. In areas where it is difficult to reach potentially affected or interested parties, posters or notices can be posted on bulletin boards in heavily-frequented areas, such as marinas, grocery stores, or gas stations Social Media As social media evolves, engagement through different social networking means will be assessed and possibly used as an effective way of communicating project information. 34

42 5.0 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION 5.1 Amending this Class Environmental Assessment Document Hydro One and any other party may apply for amendments to this Class EA, at any time, for the purpose of: a. Clarifying any portion of the document or process. b. Improving the efficiency or the effectiveness of the process described in the document. c. Extending the Class EA to projects that may not have been previously included in the class definition. d. Revising requirements based on changed and updated policy, regulation and legislation. Amendments can be brought forward by Hydro One or other government ministries and agencies, members of the public, First Nations and Métis communities and other interested persons. Written requests for amendments to the Class EA should be submitted to the Director of the EAB at the MOECC for minor amendments (Section 5.1.1), or to the Minister for major amendments (Section 5.1.2). If approved by the MOECC, amendments would be appended to this Class EA or included in the body of the document. The Minister may require that consideration of an amendment be postponed until the next review period, as described in Section 5.6. The two types of amendments, minor and major, are described in the following sections Minor Amendment Minor amendments do not significantly change the Class EA Document and would include administrative corrections and clarifications, minor updates (e.g., reference to a guideline) and changes needed for consistency with changes to regulations that do not affect the purpose of the Class EA Document. Also, Hydro One will consider aligning the Class EA project categorization with any further changes to the O. Reg. 116/01, as applied to the transmission development or subject to the Class EA Document. Such changes would generally be considered a minor amendment to this Class EA Document. Requests for minor amendments can be proposed by Hydro One, other transmission proponents, government ministries and agencies, members of the public, First Nations and Métis communities, organizations and/or other interested persons. The Director of the EAB is the approval authority for minor amendments. Prior to a non-hydro One party submitting a proposed amendment to the MOECC, the requester should consult with the Manager of the Environmental Engineering and Project Support (EEPS) department at Hydro One regarding the proposed amendment. Proposed amendments must identify the concern or issue with Hydro One s Class EA, the reason for the proposal and the proposed amendment to the Document. Hydro One will bring forward the request for minor amendment(s) to the Class EA to the Director of the EAB at the MOECC and will provide the Director with the description and rationale for each amendment. The Director of the EAB will reach the opinion as to whether the proposed amendment(s) is considered to be valid and minor. The Director shall provide notice of the decision to Hydro One. The Director must also 35

43 state reasons for the decision. Given the limited scope and administrative nature of minor amendments to this Class EA, they will be approved through an abbreviated process that will not require public notice Major Amendment Major amendments would include significant changes to this Class EA Document or changes that have significant effect on how the Class EA is carried out. Major amendments may include changes to the range and type of projects within the Class EA, changes to the Class EA Screening Process eligibility criteria, or changes to the project review processes in the Class EA. Requests for major amendments can be proposed by Hydro One, other transmission proponents, government ministries and agencies, members of the public, First Nations and Métis communities, organizations and other interested persons. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is the approval authority for major amendments. Prior to a non-hydro One party submitting a proposed amendment(s) to the MOECC, the requester should consult with the Manager of the EEPS department at Hydro One regarding the proposed amendment(s). Proposed amendments must identify the concern or issue with Hydro One s Class EA Document, the reason for the proposal and the proposed amendment to the document. Hydro One will bring forward the request for major amendment(s) to the Director of the EAB at the MOECC and provide the Director with the description and rationale for each amendment. The Director of the EAB will reach the opinion as to whether the proposed amendment(s) is considered to be valid and major. If the Director of the EAB agrees that the proposed amendment is valid and is appropriate for a major amendment(s), a consultation period of 45 days shall be carried out by Hydro One. Hydro One will develop the consultation plan that will be submitted to the Director of the EAB for review and approval. Government ministries and agencies, municipal planners, members of the public, First Nations and Métis communities and other interested persons will be invited to submit comments on the proposed amendment(s) to the Director of the EAB with a copy to Hydro One. Based on the comments received and further consultation with Hydro One s response to the comments, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change or delegate will do one of the following: a. Approve the amendment(s). b. Approve the amendment(s) with conditions. c. Deny the amendment(s). 5.2 Potential Delay in Project Implementation The completion of the Class EA Process and the filing of a project s ESR with the MOECC are usually carried out by the proponent during their planning for the project, or during the conceptual stage. The execution of the project, however, does not always follow immediately and may be delayed by a few months or a few years in certain instances. During such circumstances, changes may occur to the project site and immediate areas (e.g., environmental conditions change and the mitigation measures are no longer valid, new government policies or standards are in place or new engineering technology needs to be used) from those described in the project s ESR. Consequently, if construction is not initiated within five years or more of the filing of the Statement of Completion, the ESR will be reviewed to determine if any changes are required. The review of the ESR will be documented and if changes to the project or commitments are required, an addendum to the project s ESR will be prepared as detailed in Section

44 If no changes to the project s ESR are required, the proponent can proceed with project execution. 5.3 Phase-in Period Phase-in from 1992 Class EA If Initial Notification for a project was issued under the 1992 Class EA, the project would continue to be subject to the 1992 Class EA for the life of that project. An Addendum to an Environmental Study Report for such a project would also be subject to the 1992 Class EA. Phase-in to Future Amendments to this Class EA In some situations, during a review or amendment of this Class EA Document, some projects may be in the process of being planned using the existing Class EA Process or already had the Initial Notification issued. For the purpose of consistency and process flow, such projects will be broken into two categories: those for which Initial Notification has not yet been issued and those for which Initial Notification has been issued. If the Initial Notification for the project has not been issued before the amendments to this Class EA Document are approved by the Minister, or Director of the EAB at the MOECC, the project is not considered to be in progress and must follow the Class EA Process outlined in the amended document. If the Initial Notification for a project has been issued before the amendments to this Class EA Document are approved by the Minister, or Director of the EAB at the MOECC, the project is considered to be in progress. The project should continue using the previous Class EA Process that was in place at the time of the issuance of the Initial Notification. An Addendum to an Environmental Study Report for such a project would also be subject to the version of the Class EA that was in place at the time of the issuance of the Initial Notification for that project. The project has the option to proceed under the newly revised provisions of this Class EA Document through discussions with the Director of the EAB and the appropriate Regional Offices at the MOECC and by providing rationale. 5.4 Emergency Situations There may be emergency situations that take facilities out of service. They include ice and wind storms, tornadoes and flood conditions. The impacts of power disruption can be severe and there may also be associated safety hazards. In the vast majority of these situations, the Class EA will not apply. In fact, other legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, plus associated emergency response commitments will take precedence. First priority will be to return facilities to service. If there are any associated effects of power restoration or follow-up remediation and monitoring, this will be carried out in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and other affected regulatory agencies. 5.5 Monitoring The applicant is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of the Class EA Process by ensuring that the document remains relevant and current. Annual monitoring of the Class EA will aim for continuous improvement, as well as ensure that its proponents meet legislative and regulatory requirements. Hydro One, as the applicant of this Class EA, is responsible for producing an annual monitoring report for projects that are subject to the Class EA Document, with the assistance of project proponents who use this Class EA. The report will encompass the following: 37

45 a. Assessment of effectiveness of the Class EA Process in providing an efficient planning process and in protecting the environment. b. Identification of any changes to the Class EA Document that would lead to the improvement of the Class EA Process or its administration. c. Identification of any common problems experienced with the Class EA projects that may require changes to the Class EA Document. d. Confirmation of how Hydro One has complied with any conditions in the Notice of Approval of the Class EA Document and the EA Act. e. A summary of Class EA projects planned and completed for which Part II Order requests were made (indicate if they were granted, denied, or denied with conditions). f. Action(s) that the applicant has or will be proposing to deal with problems, deficiencies, and non-compliance with the Class EA Process. g. A copy of the Notice of Approval and any approved amendments to the Class EA Document. h. A summary table listing all projects that have been carried out by proponents using the Class EA Process during the previous annual period, categorized by project type. The summary table would include the following: i. Name and brief description of the undertaking. ii. iii. iv. Name of contact person. Location of the undertaking. Date started. v. EA Project status. i. Information on how interested persons may obtain copies of the report. All Class EA proponents will be required to provide an annual summary report describing Class EA processes conducted in a calendar year. The reports will be submitted to Hydro One for consolidation into a single annual report. The consolidated report will contain all submissions received by February 25 th of each year. The onus is on each transmission proponents to conform to the deadline and Hydro One will not assume responsibility for missing reports. The required format for each report is included in Appendix H. Hydro One will submit the annual monitoring report to the MOECC (EAB and local regional office) every February. 5.6 Five-Year Review The Class EA Document is to be reviewed by Hydro One every five calendar years. A five year review report is to be prepared and submitted in February following every five years beginning from the date of the approval of this Class EA Document. This process will ensure that the Class EA Document remains compliant with applicable legislation, regulations and policies, and the EA Act. 38

46 Hydro One (the applicant) will provide results of the review to the Director of the EAB at the MOECC. The results will include a summary of issues and amendments that were identified during the five year period, and how those issues and amendments have been, or will be, addressed. Any changes or updates can be made using the amending procedures described in Section 5.1 of this document. 5.7 Coordination with Other Approval Processes Some projects may be subject to multiple environmental assessment processes as well as other permits and approvals under federal and provincial legislation. In these situations, a coordinated process is planned. Coordination will help to avoid confusion and to ensure effective and efficient consultation. Examples of other legislation are included in Appendix I, and can include the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. As a rule, the Class EA Process will be the first step in the approval process followed by other permits and approvals. For each project, the Class EA Process will identify other approvals and indicate relative timing of those approvals Provincial and Federal EA Coordination A federal EA process may be triggered under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Federal agencies will be involved early in the process to determine how the federal-provincial EA process will be coordinated. Federal-provincial EA requirements will be coordinated in accordance with the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (also see Section 0 on Consultation) and its guidance provided in the Federal/Provincial Environmental Assessment Coordination in Ontario Coordination with other Class Environmental Assessments There may be circumstances where the activity being planned for the project is subject to multiple environmental assessment processes. In these circumstances, efforts will be made to coordinate the respective processes to minimize duplication. A coordinated approach will be used when multiple environmental assessment processes apply. The process will be jointly developed with the MOECC and other Class EA proponents on a case-by-case basis. 39

47 6.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECTS This chapter describes the physical components and activities associated with the projects covered by this assessment. All proponents should consider establishing environmental guidelines and practices based on the relevant criteria set out in the Class EA, which could then be followed and consistently applied to projects in order to satisfy the requirements of the Class EA. Appendix E provides typical mitigation measures to assist proponents when developing their environmental guidelines and practices. 6.1 Transmission Lines Electrical energy is usually transmitted via overhead lines (except in densely populated areas where underground transmission lines may be used), or submarine cables across large water bodies. The decision as to which will be used for a specific undertaking is dependent on the overall environmental implications and/or cost of each alternative Overhead Transmission Lines An overhead transmission line has six basic components, each of which may vary with respect to design and material depending on the specific requirements for the line and its intended location. The components, along with their function and material options, are as follows: a. Conductors: provide continuous electrical pathways (circuits) between points of supply and loads. Conductors are manufactured using stranded aluminum steel-reinforced, stranded aluminum, or stranded copper. b. Shieldwires or Optical Ground Wires (OPGW): Also termed skywires, shield conductors from lightning and carry fault current. Galvanized steel, copperweld, alumoweld. OPGW is a composite cable which acts as a shieldwire but also incorporates fibre optic telecommunication capability. c. Structures: support conductors at a safe elevation above ground. Steel lattice, steel pole, wood pole, or composite pole. d. Foundations: support structures. They consist of steel grillage, reinforced concrete pad and pier, spread, caisson, rock anchored, steel or wood piles with suitable cap. e. Insulators: isolate conductors electrically from their supporting structure. They consist of porcelain, polymer or glass. f. Counterpoise: reduce the susceptibility of the line to outages caused by lightning or fault current. They consist of galvanized steel, or copper. 40

48 Figure 7 - Component Parts of a Typical Transmission Line Transmission lines in Ontario usually consist of aluminum conductors, steel-reinforced, steel lattice structures, reinforced concrete foundations, porcelain insulators and shieldwire or OPGW. Figure 7 shows a span of a typical line and identifies its component parts. 41

49 Figure 8 - Typical Right-of-Way Width for a 115kV Two-Circuit Transmission Line Figure 9 - Typical Right-of-Way Width for a 230kV Two-Circuit Transmission Line 42

50 Right-of-Way Requirement Examples of double circuit 115kV and 230kV transmission lines and their associated RoW widths are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively. The actual widths required for specific RoWs are dependent upon the electrical field at the RoW edge and other factors such as span length, conductor size and sag, the need for helicopter patrol or the need for fall-free spacing. Right-of-Way Acquisition RoWs for transmission facilities are acquired in accordance with the policy established for property acquisition. Under this policy, owners are given the full protection of the Expropriations Act. Easement rights are generally acquired for transmission line RoWs except where the fee (full ownership) is required by the proponent or where a severance is acceptable to the municipality. Acquisition of property rights will take into account the Provincial Policies in place, as well as First Nations Band lands and Traditional Territories. Construction Activities The construction of overhead transmission lines include: the selective cutting of vegetation along the RoWs, the establishment of construction access roads, the installation of tower foundations, the assembly and erection of towers, the stringing of conductors, the installation of counterpoise (if required), and the clean-up and restoration of the RoW. All proponents should consider establishing their own detailed set of environmental guidelines and practices based on the relevant criteria set out in the Class EA, which could then be followed and consistently applied to projects in order to satisfy the requirements of the Class EA. As part of the guidelines, specific instructions may be issued where environmentally sensitive situations are identified through the planning or construction phases as set out herein. In such cases, the specific instructions will govern: Access Roads: To construct a transmission line, it is necessary to have access to the RoW for the construction equipment and line materials. Wherever possible, existing roads and lanes are used and resulting damage is repaired when construction activities are completed. Where access roads have to be constructed, their location is determined in conjunction with the property owners and applicable authorities (e.g., conservation authorities, Niagara Escarpment Commission, etc.). The environmental effects caused by access roads will be considered as part of the study. Tower Foundations: The type of foundation installed at any given site is dependent on both the type of soil and the type of tower to be built. Soil tests are carried out to determine soil strength for foundation designs. The majority of foundations in earth will be augered reinforced concrete. In weak soils, pad and pier, spread or piles may be required. Those in rock will have steel rods drilled and grouted into the rock and a small pad of concrete placed on top. Foundations for towers which will be used at angle or terminating positions are larger than those required for suspension towers. Equipment such as augers, backhoes, concrete trucks and compressors may be used in foundation construction. Excavated material is either removed from the site or spread in a suitable location. Soil sampling is undertaken to ensure proper deposition of excavated materials. Tower Assembly and Erection: Tower steel is delivered via access roads to the sites where it is assembled to form tower sections which are usually lifted into position by a crane. Conductor Stringing: The stringing of conductors can be done in two ways: slack stringing in which the 43

51 conductor is pulled along the ground and placed in travellers at each tower before being tensioned, or tension stringing in which the conductors are pulled under tension through travellers and conductors are kept off the ground at all times. The first step in tension stringing is to install the insulator strings and travellers on the tower arms. That is followed by installing a light rope along the section of line to be strung. Stringing sections can be as long as 10 km. A helicopter is normally used to fly the rope along the RoW for deposit in the travellers. This rope is then used to pull in larger ropes and steel cables until one of sufficient strength has been strung to pull through the conductors. After all the conductors are pulled into place by this method, they are tightened to a specified tension. This tension ensures that the line maintains the correct ground clearance under the operating conditions for which the line is designed. The conductors are clamped at each tower and damping devices are installed on them to limit vibration. Shieldwires are attached at the tower peak positions above the conductors and are strung in a similar manner. Specialized equipment is required for tension stringing. The equipment is moved along existing roads wherever possible, thus avoiding the need to move heavy equipment along the full length of the RoW. Counterpoise: To ensure that a transmission line will operate efficiently when in service, it is necessary that the electrical ground resistance at each tower be low. To accomplish this, a ground electrode is installed at each tower. If, because of soil conditions, the ground resistance is too high, additional grounding must be installed. The normal procedure is to bury two continuous wires along the RoW, one on each side of the towers. These wires are normally buried to a depth of 460 mm in cultivated ground and 200 mm in bush areas and in rocky ground, if possible. The wires are installed by a tracked vehicle which carries the ground wire on reels and buries it by means of a plough attachment as it proceeds along the RoW. The wires are then connected to each tower. Clean-up: The final stage of construction is the clean-up of the RoW to be sure that all construction materials have been removed. This is an ongoing procedure during the construction of the line, but a final clean-up is also carried out. In addition, any necessary restoration to the RoW (i.e., work sites, fences, roads, etc.) is completed and the cleared woodlots are seeded. All erosion sites are stabilized and screen plantings are established as required on the RoW. Transmission Line Maintenance Maintenance of transmission lines is required to ensure acceptable performance of the line components over time and to repair damage due to accidents or unusual climatic conditions. This involves periodic patrols and/or inspections. Specific maintenance programs have been developed and are carried out on a regular basis. Routine Maintenance: Planned repairs of a localized nature, which usually take over one-half to one day to complete, are carried out to avert potential problems. These repairs may require trucks to be moved to the repair site. The frequency of such repairs is approximately once each year for every 160 km of line. There are also major maintenance items such as conductor, shieldwire, pole, insulator replacement, etc. These items are usually of such a nature as to permit long-range planning, and they can usually be scheduled to minimize inconvenience to property owners. Emergency maintenance: Emergency repairs must be carried out as quickly as possible. It may take one-half to one day to replace a string of broken insulators or several days to replace structures damaged by ice storms or 44

52 tornadoes. Heavy equipment and materials are usually required to replace structures during emergency situations and mitigating measures will be taken as soon as possible to repair any damage. Right-of-Way Management RoW management practices reflect provincial legislative requirements and are designed to ensure the longterm safety and reliability of the line and protection of the environment. Management practices are carried out in accordance with general and site-specific management specifications which identify the best treatment methods. Management Activities Line Clearing: Involves the pruning or removal of woody vegetation near the conductors so that a specified minimum clearance is maintained. Patrols: Inspections done at regular intervals to identify and correct situations that cannot be left until the next regular maintenance operation. Grounds Maintenance: Includes activities such as grass cutting, weed spraying and snow sloughing done in order to keep properties in a visually acceptable and safe condition. Vegetation Control: Involves the control of woody vegetation to ensure that circuits are not interrupted and public safety is maintained. Methods currently used are herbicides, hand cutting, and machine mowing. Selective removal of incompatible woody vegetation is practiced to promote the development of low growing stable plant communities. Stabilizing or Restoring the Environment: Erosion sites are identified and controlled by vegetative or mechanical methods. Proponents will implement and administer their own policies regarding all management activities Underground Transmission Lines Underground transmission lines fall into one of three types: self-contained, low-pressure liquid-filled cable; high-pressure, liquid-filled pipe-type cable; and polymeric cable. Self-contained, Low-pressure Liquid-filled Cable: Each underground circuit consists of three separate cables, each consisting of a concentric stranded copper or aluminum conductor with a hollow core, insulated with paper tapes and sheathed with either lead or aluminum. The cable insulation is thoroughly dried under vacuum to remove moisture and sheathed. The cable is then filled through its hollow core with a degassed liquid under vacuum which fills any voids that might exist in the insulation. Reservoirs that exert a slight positive pressure on the cable liquid are connected to the cable. The cable sheath is protected against corrosion by a suitable covering. When the cable is heated by current flowing through it, the liquid expands and flows through the hollow core to the reservoirs at the cable terminals. When the cable cools and the liquid contracts, it is forced back into the cable by pressure on the reservoirs. Thus a positive pressure of moderate magnitude is kept on the liquid at all times preventing the formation of voids in the insulation, which could ionize under electrical stress, and result in breakdown of the cable insulation. Self-contained, low-pressure, liquid-filled cables can be: a) directly buried and protected against mechanical damage by placing a concrete slab over them or, b) encased in either a duct or pipe. It is necessary to surround the cables with a material that will permit uniform heat dissipation along the length of the cable to reduce the probability of hot spots developing and permit optimum utilization of the current-carrying 45

53 capacity of the cable. Hydro One usually surrounds directly buried high voltage cables with an envelope of finely crushed stone. Cable splices are usually contained in permanent reinforced concrete manholes (underground vaults) that are positioned along the route in suitable locations. High-pressure, Liquid-filled Pipe-type Cable: This type of cable relies on high pressure acting on the cable insulation to suppress the formation of voids that could ionize and result in electrical failure of the insulation. The cable consists of a stranded copper or aluminum conductor insulated with liquid-impregnated paper tapes, and protected against installation damage by a skid wire helically wound over the cable. Three of such cables are pulled together into a steel pipe, to form one three-phase circuit, which is then filled with degassed liquid and maintained at a constant pressure of approximately 1.4 megapascals (MPa). Since the three cables are close together in the pipe, mutual heating effects are more pronounced than with self-contained cables, and consequently a larger conductor for the same current-carrying capacity is required. (Note: Low and high pressure liquid-filled cable are currently only used where cable repair or relocation is required. All new circuits are polymeric cables.) Polymeric Cable: These cables use solid polymeric insulation (e.g., cross-linked polyethylene). Their installation is very similar to direct-buried, self-contained, low pressure, liquid-filled cables. Each cable is directly buried or placed within a pipe that can either be directly buried or encased in concrete. Backfilling above the concrete is done with a material that will permit uniform heat dissipation along the length of the cable to reduce the probability of hot spots developing and permit optimum utilization of the current-carrying capacity of the cable. The back-fill material is generally stone screening or native soil of good quality. Sometimes uniform or graded sand is also used as back-fill material. Right-of-Way Requirements For cable circuits designed to operate at voltages of equal to or greater than 115 kv, the RoW requirement depends on the proposed location as follows: a. Community Streets: Where a circuit is to be installed in a settlement area and will essentially be located within road allowances, sufficient working space for its installation is provided by the road allowance itself. Only physical space is required to install a circuit between or adjacent to other underground utilities, plus sufficient clearance to enable repair work to be carried out on either the cable circuit itself or the utilities adjacent to it. A clear space of 2 m will usually suffice to enable a single underground cable circuit to be installed regardless of the type of cable being used. Where more than one circuit is required, more space (> 2 m) is required depending on the number of circuits. RoW widths are subject to engineering design and will be verified before acquiring land. b. Private RoW: The RoW required to accommodate a single-circuit, high-voltage cable circuit on a private RoW is dependent on the necessary working space for its installation and maintenance. In general, for single circuits utilizing one conductor per phase, a RoW width of 6 m will suffice. For multiple circuits, or for single circuits utilizing more than one conductor per phase, additional RoW width is required to provide for thermal independence of the circuits and varies according to the design of the circuits and the manner in which it is intended they be operated. Such RoW widths would be determined individually for specific cases. As an example: a two circuit 230 kv, high-pressure, pipe type installation equivalent in current carrying capability to a two circuit, 230 kv, overhead line with a single 1843 circular mils (kcmil) copper conductor per phase would require a RoW width of approximately 15 m. A two-circuit, 500 kv, low-pressure, liquid-filled cable installation to be equivalent to a two circuit 500 kv, overhead line with a fourconductor bundle of 585 kcmil conductors per phase would require three 4000 kcmil conductors per phase and a RoW width of 30 m. RoW widths are subject to engineering design and will be 46

54 Construction Methods verified before acquiring land. Self-contained, Low-pressure, Liquid-filled Cables Directly Buried: The general method of installing a directly buried, liquid-filled cable circuit involves opening a trench approximately 2-3 m wide by 1-2 m deep along the proposed route between predetermined jointing positions that are usually spaced approximately 300 m apart. Depending on the location of the trench and the soil characteristics, it may be necessary to either partly or completely shore the sidewalk of the trench to prevent collapse. As described above, a specific material is required to dissipate heat; therefore, excavated material is not reused. It is tested and disposed in a suitable landfill. For cable installation a cushion of crushed stone screening is then installed at the bottom of the trench and compacted by tamping. Cable rollers are then positioned along the bottom of the cable trench and the three cables are installed one at a time. To install a cable, a winch truck is set up at one end of the trench and a reel containing the cable at the other. The steel winch cable is drawn along the trench over the cable rollers and fastened to a pulling eye at the end of the cable to be pulled into the trench. After the cable has been pulled into the trench, it is removed from the rollers and positioned into the trench, and the pulling operation is then repeated for the second and third cables. When all cables have been installed and tested for soundness, they are then covered with crushed stone screenings which are compacted by tamping, and a precast or poured concrete cover is installed overall. An electronic cable marker is installed just above the cover for future location testing. During installation of the cables in the first section of trench, a second section is being opened and the jointing position prepared for cable splicing. Therefore when installing directly buried cables, there is usually a trench length of approximately 900 m over which activity of some kind is taking place at any given time for a period of up to six weeks. Self-contained, Low-pressure, Liquid-filled Cables Installed in Ducts: This type of cable system uses the same cable as those used for directly buried installations. Construction methods differ in that concrete enclosed ducts are constructed in the cable trench, and permanent concrete manholes are constructed at the jointing positions. When constructing the duct bank, it is not necessary to have such long sections of trench open at any given time. The equipment used for construction of the duct bank and installation of the cables is essentially the same as that used for directly buried cable, but there is not a requirement for a full length of trench between jointing positions to be open. Polymeric cables that are directly buried or in a duct bank respectively follow similar construction methods described above. High-pressure, Liquid-filled, Pipe-type Cable: This type of cable system involves installation of a steel pipe approximately 1 m below grade into which three insulated conductors are drawn. The length of conductor drawn into a section of pipe may be several hundred metres and is dependent on the conductor type and size, number and severity of the vertical and horizontal bends. Construction procedures involve determining the proposed grade of the pipe between proposed manhole locations by digging test holes at strategic positions, construction of reinforced concrete manholes at jointing locations, installation of the pipe, installation of the cable, construction of a pressurization plant at one end of the cable circuit, jointing the cable and filling the pipe with degassed liquid. The construction of a manhole necessitates excavation and shoring of a hole of sufficient size to accommodate the manhole. The length, width and depth of a manhole for a single circuit of pipe-type cable varies with site circumstances but typically approximates 6 m by 3 m by 3 m. After excavation, the manhole is installed either cast-in-situ or pre-cast manhole placed over a sub-base. 47

55 Pipe installation requires a trench approximately 1-3 m wide by approximately 1-2 m deep. A bed of crushed stone screening is then placed in the trench and compacted. Coated steel pipe, in lengths up to 12 m, is then positioned in the trench on suitable supports (spacers), and the pipe lengths are welded together to form a continuous pipe. After welding, the supports are removed and the pipe centered on the bed of crushed stone screenings. The pipe is then covered in layers of approximately 150 mm crushed stone screening the required depth. Excavated materials are tested and disposed of in a suitable landfill. Reinstatement of the trench at ground level to the condition which existed prior to excavation is then carried out. After the pipe is installed and manholes constructed, cable installation takes place. Three cables yoked together are pulled into each pipe section between manholes by a truck-mounted winch. The cable splices are then made in the manholes. A prefabricated enclosed pressurization plant located at one end of the cable installation, either within a TS or on property acquired for it, is used to fill the pipe with liquid and to maintain a constant liquid pressure of approximately 1.4 MPa. Construction equipment associated with pipe-type cable installations consists of trucks, backhoes, concrete trucks, pipe benders, generators, winches and other construction equipment normally associated with the construction industry. Operating and Maintenance Procedures Self-contained, Liquid-filled, Directly Buried Cable: Once this type of cable is installed very little of it is visible or readily accessible. Operating and maintenance procedures are generally associated with checking the liquid reservoir pressure gauges and liquid piping at the cable terminations and inspecting cable joints in those cases where they are contained in permanent manholes. It is also customary to periodically patrol the cable route so that any new excavation work that might endanger the cable circuit can be watched closely and contractors made aware of the cable's precise location. In the event of a cable failure, the location of the fault is determined electrically, if necessary, and the cable is excavated and repaired. This is usually a very time consuming operation and may take several weeks to complete. Self-contained, Liquid-filled Cable-duct and Manhole Installation: As with directly buried cables, routine operating and maintenance procedures involve the checking of components at the cable terminations and in the manholes. In the event of a cable fault, it may be possible to withdraw the faulted cable section, provided the duct has not been severely damaged by the fault. If the cable cannot be pulled out, it would be necessary to locate, excavate and repair the cable duct, and repair or replace the cable. Operating and maintenance procedures for polymeric cable are very similar to those for self-contained liquidfilled cable duct and manhole installations with exception for liquid level and pressures High-pressure, Pipe-type Cable: The heart of a high-pressure, pipe-type cable system is the pumping plant that supplies and maintains the pressure necessary to prevent the formation of voids in the cable insulation where ionization of gases would result in insulation failure. The pumping plant is equipped with dual pumps, and in the event of a pump failure, the duty of the failed pump is automatically assumed by the second pump. There is also an automatic alarm system that alerts the controlling station whenever there are problems associated with the pumping plant. Maintenance procedures require the periodic checking of all automatic systems to ensure they are functioning properly, a route check to spot any potential hazards to the cable system, and an inspection of the jointing manholes. 48

56 The electrical insulating fluid will be high viscosity polybutane for high-pressure, pipe-type cable, and dodecylbenzene or low viscosity-synthetic fluid for self-contained, liquid-filled cable, and be non-toxic, with a high flash point. It is also biodegradable over the long-term. 6.2 Transformer Stations General A TS of the type covered by the class definition usually has four basic components, namely: a. One or more high-voltage areas (equal to or greater than 115 kv). b. One or more transformer areas. c. One or more low-voltage areas (less than 50 kv). d. A control, meter and relay area. Figure 10 and Figure 11 illustrate schematically the interrelationship of the first three basic components. The fourth component, the control, meter and relay area, serves as an overall monitor and control for equipment in the three other types of areas in the TS Basic Operation The basic operation of the typical TS shown in Figure 10 is as follows: Figure 10 - Components of a Typical Simple Transformer Station Electrical energy enters the station from the power supply system through incoming transmission lines that terminate in the high-voltage area. Within this area are electrical conductors and electrical switches that connect the incoming lines to the transformers in the transformer area. In this simplest form of station, there could also be other conductors and switches that connect the lines together. The electrical energy is directed to the transformer area where its voltage level is changed by transformers from 115 kv, 230 kv or 500 kv to a lower voltage. The electrical energy at the lower voltage is then directed through electrical conductors from the transformer area to the lower or low voltage area (i.e., less than 50 kv). In the low-voltage area, the energy is directed through conductors and switching devices to 49

57 subtransmission or distribution lines. The flow of energy through the station is controlled and monitored by equipment located in the control, meter and relay area. Certain control functions are initiated by operation action and others are initiated by automatic features designed to protect the station and/or line equipment in abnormal circumstances. The operation of the complex station, shown in Figure 11, is essentially the same as the simple station, except that there are more conductors and switches to permit a flow of energy between the various lines connected to each high-voltage area and also between the high-voltage areas. Figure 11 - Components of a Typical Complex Transformer Station Alternative Designs TSs may be of either an outdoor design, where all or most of the major equipment is located in the open within a fenced-in area, or an indoor design, where the equipment is contained within one or more buildings. With the outdoor design, the equipment in the high-voltage transformer and low-voltage areas is usually supported on concrete foundations and/or structural steel. The control, meter and relay area is contained within a single-storey building. In some cases, one or more of the high-voltage or low-voltage areas may be contained in a separate building within the fenced area. There are two basic types of outdoor stations generally in use, one which uses lower structures but requires more land and one in which the structures are higher but less land is required. All components of an indoor design are contained within one or more multi-storey buildings that are designed to be as compatible with the surrounding environment as possible. The area outside a station is landscaped, as appropriate, to make it more aesthetically compatible with its surroundings. Lines connected to the station may be either overhead or underground. 50

58 6.2.4 Site Requirements The site area needed for a simple regional supply TS (Figure 10) typically varies from 0.2 ha for an indoor urban station to 5 ha for an outdoor station. The area needed for the more complex combined regional supply and system interconnecting TS is approximately about 25 ha. The actual site size will vary depending on the availability of land, the type of station facilities installed, the number and orientation of the transmission lines, the character and use of adjacent properties, and the area of land required around the station for landscaping. The site size may also be affected by local by-laws governing the area. Sufficient land is acquired to accommodate the maximum facilities foreseen for the particular station. The station is usually constructed in stages toward that maximum as the need develops. A level, well-drained area with good soil bearing qualities is desirable for the station site. The station must be located such that heavy transformers can be transported to the site. It is desirable to locate complex stations with large transformers needed to interconnect high voltage switchyards, adjacent to a road and/or build a spur line into the station Station Equipment High-Voltage Area The high-voltage area may contain circuit breakers (high interrupting capability switches), load interrupting switches, disconnect switches and interconnecting bus work, as well as auxiliary equipment such as current and voltage transformers, lightning arresters and spark gaps. The circuit breakers are used to control the flow of energy by opening to interrupt or by closing to initiate the flow of electrical load current through particular conductors. Circuit breakers also have the capability to interrupt large currents that may be experienced under abnormal conditions. The three common types of circuit breakers are: a. A bulk-oil design with the electric current carrying and switching parts immersed in oil inside a grounded steel tank. b. An air-blast design where the electrical parts are located in an air-filled pressure tank located on top of steel-supported porcelain insulators. c. A gas circuit breaker where the current carrying and switching parts are located within a metal cylinder containing insulating gas such as sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). The load interrupting switches are also used to interrupt and initiate load currents. However, they have only limited capability to interrupt abnormally high currents. The disconnect switches, which have virtually no current interrupting capability, are used to isolate a piece of equipment from the system for maintenance purposes. The load interrupting and disconnect switches may be of two types: an air-insulated unit with the electrical conductor and current-carrying parts mounted on steel-supported porcelain insulators to isolate it from the 51

59 ground, or a gas-insulated (e.g., SF6) unit in which the conductor and the current-carrying parts are located within a grounded aluminum or steel cylinder containing the insulating gas. The interconnecting bus work connects together the major components in an area and connects one area to another area. The bus work may be of either rigid or flexible conductors, mounted or suspended from steelsupported porcelain insulators or rigid conductors supported within a sealed metal cylinder filled with gas (e.g., SF6). The auxiliary equipment (current and voltage transformers, surge arresters and spark gaps) are connected to the equipment or bus work and are used for the protection, control and monitoring of the station. Outdoor stations contain a limited number of lightning protection towers to protect the station from lightning strikes. Transformer Area The transformer area contains one or more transformers that are used to change the voltage of the electrical power from one voltage level to another. Each transformer consists basically of a steel tank containing electrical windings immersed in an oil bath. The conductors enter the tank through porcelain bushings on top of the tank. The oil, which acts as an electrical insulator and as a coolant, circulates through the transformer and cooling radiators are mounted adjacent to the transformer. Oil pumps may be used to circulate the oil, and fans are used to force air through the radiators to increase the amount of cooling. Pits are constructed under all power transformers to contain possible oil release. The pits are filled with gravel to restrict the oxygen to spilled oil to inhibit combustion in the event that the oil should be ignited. All energized transformers produce a low-frequency sound. To ensure that the lowest ambient sound level at nearby residences will not be noticeably increased by the normal operation of the transformer, precautions are taken through the design of the transformers, their location within the station and the use of acoustical barriers where required. The regional supply station usually starts with two power transformers in the first stage. As requirements develop, the station expands to a maximum of four or six units in the ultimate development. Each pair of transformers is usually connected to its own low-voltage area. Low-Voltage Area The low-voltage area contains disconnect switches and circuit breakers interconnected by rigid conductors supported on porcelain insulators and auxiliary equipment such as voltage and current transformers. The equipment may be located outdoors and supported on structural steel and/or concrete foundations or contained within an enclosure. The devices are used to perform the same general function as described for the high-voltage area. Control, Meter and Relay Area The control, meter and relay area contains all the control, meter and relay equipment required to operate and control the complete station. This equipment is connected by electrical cables to the specified devices, (e.g., circuit breakers, disconnect switches and current transformers) located through the stations. Washroom facilities are sometimes located in this area. The sewage disposal system is designed to local and provincial regulations and usually consists either of an on-site disposal system or a direct connection to a municipal system. Water supply is either from an on-site well or from a municipal source. 52

60 If the station is of the outdoor design, the control, meter and relay equipment is contained within one or more single-storey buildings. For indoor stations, this equipment is contained in a room within one of the station buildings Construction The first step in the construction of a station is to grade the site to provide a level area for installation of structures and buildings. Top soil is removed and stockpiled at the site for landscaping purposes. Surplus soil is disposed of in an approved landfill area. After the grade is established, drainage and septic systems are installed and a fence is erected around the construction area. In the case of outdoor stations, this may be a chain link fence which will form part of the permanent fencing. In the case of indoor stations, temporary fencing is erected to municipal requirements. After fences are in place, excavation and placing of concrete for foundations follows. After completion of the foundations, the steel supporting structures and buildings are erected. Erection of the electrical equipment then begins. Most electrical power equipment is brought to the site by conventional road transport. The large power transformers are moved to the site using heavy load transportation equipment under the supervision of Hydro One and local road authorities. In some instances, transformers can be moved directly to the site using rail facilities where these are available or have been provided. Landscaping is carried out during and after construction as site constraints and seasons permit Operation/Maintenance In most cases, TSs of the types covered by the Class EA Document are unattended and are operated remotely from a district/provincial control centre. Maintenance personnel make periodic inspections and can be dispatched to the station in the case of an emergency. In stations where attendance is required, working facilities are provided within the control, meter and relay area. 6.3 Telecommunication Stations Hydro One maintains an extensive telecommunication network consisting of radio and fibre optic links, used for security, protection, control and monitoring of the electricity transmission system. This network allows continuous surveillance over major transmission facilities, and in the event of a malfunction on the system, it enables protective relay operation to automatically isolate the faulted system component. It also gives Hydro One operators continuous information on the status of major lines and stations under their control and provides communications for maintenance activities. Telecommunication towers are normally constructed of structural steel members and may be either selfsupporting or guyed. Guyed towers may be used where land procurement or power station restrictions are not a problem. The height of the tower depends on the elevation of the site and the terrain that the radio signal must cross Usually, the only installation required in addition to the tower is a small and specially designed building for the associated equipment. Site improvement, including landscaping, is undertaken as necessary at each site. Setback and severance is in accordance with Ontario and municipal regulations. An access road to the radio site is also necessary if the tower is not located on a station site, but generally a parcel of land measuring 30 m by 30 m is sufficient. For the most part, Hydro One telecommunications towers are located on or adjacent to TS sites. The distance between two adjacent radio stations may vary from a few kilometres to over 50 km depending on the operating frequency, tower height and the intervening topography. In order to reduce propagation loss 53

61 between two stations, a line-of-sight radio path is required. In cases where the topography between two stations is too rugged and the line-of-sight is obstructed, or the distance between the stations is too great, a repeater station is installed between them to relay communications. This requires additional land for a tower and building. 6.4 Consideration of Climate Effects All proponents must consider the potential environmental effects of climate change (storms, flooding, drought or other severe weather events) in the design, siting, construction and operation of minor transmission facilities. Proponents are encouraged to consider provincial, national and international industry best practices in the design of minor transmission facilities as they relate to climate change and the increasing frequency of severe weather abnormalities. 6.5 Consideration of Cumulative Effects All proponents will consider cumulative effects when planning projects. The assessment will include the proposed undertaking and any other proposed undertakings in the immediate project area where documentation is available (e.g., other environmental assessments). 6.6 Decommissioning When transmission facilities become obsolete or unserviceable, the equipment is retired from service. The facilities may be removed and the site made suitable for some other purposes. The foundations are cut back 0.5 m below the groundline when transmission structures are removed. If a station site is suspected to be environmentally contaminated, the decommissioning of facilities will follow the guidance provided by O. Reg. 153/04 (Record of Site Condition) of the Environmental Protection Act. 6.7 Electric and Magnetic Fields Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are invisible lines of force produced by the flow of electricity in a wire or electrical device. The strength of these fields rapidly weakens from their source. Electrical field strengths at the edge of Hydro One's high voltage transmission line RoW usually do not exceed 1 kilovolt per metre (kv/m). The lines are designed so that the field strength never exceeds 3 kv/m. The magnetic field strength at the edge of the high voltage transmission line RoW is generally less than 5 microtesla (µt). Hydro One's booklet entitled Electric and Magnetic Fields, explains these fields and gives typical EMF values for transmission facilities, as well as typical values around the home and workplace. This booklet is available to the public. Upon request, the following is available to anyone wanting more information on EMF in general or are interested in EMF levels at specific locations: a. Information on the EMF issue prepared by independent government authorities (e.g., Health Canada). b. EMF calculations and field measurement at specific locations. To ensure information made available to the public is as up to date as possible, Hydro One will remain abreast of developments on the subject worldwide. More information on EMF is provided in Appendix F. 54

62 7.0 REFERENCES Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (S.C. 2012, c.19, s. 52). Retrieved from the Government of Canada, Justice Laws website: /index.html Constitution Act 1867, S. 35 Part II Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. Retrieved from the Government of Canada, Justice Laws website: 16.html#h-52 Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O 1990, Chapter E. 18. (last amendment: 2010, c. 16, sched 7, s.1). Retrieved from the Service Ontario e-laws website: Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18 Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, Ontario Regulation 116/01 Electricity Projects. (2011). Retrieved from the Service Ontario e-laws website: Hydro One Networks Inc. (2012). Electric and Magnetic Fields. (Internal document). Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (2007). A Guide for Proponents and the Public: Federal/Provincial Environmental Assessment Coordination in Ontario, Facilitating Implementation of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation. Retrieved from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change website: Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (2014). Code of Practice: Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments in Ontario. Retrieved from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change website: Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (2011). Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects. Retrieved from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change website: 55

63 APPENDICES Appendix A - Glossary of Terms, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Measurement Units Appendix B - Subsequent Communication with Interested Parties Appendix C - Environmental Inventory Appendix D - Initial Notification Requirements Appendix E - Examples of Typical Mitigation Measures Appendix F - Electric and Magnetic Fields Appendix G Exemption Order OHK 11 Appendix H Proponent Annual Monitoring Report Appendix I Other Legislation Appendix J Record of Consultation 56

64 Appendix A - Glossary of Terms, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Measurement Units GLOSSARY: Aboriginal Peoples The Constitution Act, 1982 specifies that Aboriginal peoples include Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. Access Road A road built to a site or facility for the purpose of construction, operation and/or maintenance. Alternative Methods Alternative methods of carrying out the proposed undertaking are different ways of doing the same activity. Alternative methods could include consideration of one or more of the following: alternative technologies; alternative methods of applying specific technologies; alternative sites for a proposed undertaking; alternative design methods; and, alternative methods of operating any facilities associated with a proposed undertaking. Alternatives Both alternative methods and alternatives to a proposed undertaking. Alternatives To Alternatives to the proposed undertaking are functionally different ways of approaching and dealing with a problem or opportunity. Applicant The person seeking approval of a class environmental assessment. Application An application for approval to proceed with an undertaking under subsection 5(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act. Approval As the class environmental assessment process is a self-assessment process, Section 5 of the Environmental Assessment Act (approval for an undertaking) does not apply to projects as long as they proceed in accordance with the approved class environmental assessment. Archaeological Resources Include artifacts, archaeological sites, and marine archaeological sites. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act; refer to Ontario Regulation 170/04 under the Act for definitions of the term artifacts, archaeological site, marine archaeological site and archaeological fieldwork. Areas of Archaeological Potential Means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Methods to identify archaeological potential are established by the Province. The Ontario Heritage Act requires archaeological potential to be confirmed through archaeological fieldwork. Branch Environmental Approvals Branch, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Built Heritage Resources One or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, earthworks, monuments, installations, or remains that have cultural heritage value or interest. 57

65 Circular mil (kcmil) The standard unit of a wire s cross sectional area, equal to the area of a circle with a diameter of one mil (one thousandth of an inch). The k denotes kilo, meaning Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) A document that sets out a standardized planning process for those classes or groups of activities for which the applicant is responsible. It is also known as a "parent" document in some class environmental assessments. A class environmental assessment is approved under the Environmental Assessment Act and applies to projects that are carried out routinely and have predictable environmental effects that can be readily managed. Projects defined within a class environmental assessment require no further environmental approval under section 5 of the Environmental Assessment Act, conditional upon being planned according to the procedures set out in the document and not being subject to a Part II Order. All class environmental assessments have a mechanism where the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change may order that an "individual" environmental assessment be carried out for a particular project, if warranted (i.e., Part II Order). Class Environmental Assessment Process (Class EA Process) The Class Environmental Assessment Process is the process described in the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities. The Class EA Process applies to projects that are carried out routinely and have predictable environmental effects that can be readily managed. Projects assessed under the Class EA Process require preparation of an Environmental Study Report. Class Environmental Assessment Screening Process (Class EA Screening Process) Class Environmental Assessment Screening Process is described in the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities. This process provides a means of screening out class environmental assessment projects with insignificant environmental effects. Class Environmental Assessment Project An undertaking that does not require any further approval under the Environmental Assessment Act if the planning process set out in the class environmental assessment document is followed and successfully completed. Any interested person may request the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change or delegate to order that a class environmental assessment project be elevated to an "individual" environmental assessment by making a Part II Order. Code of Practice The Code of Practice: Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments in Ontario was published by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change in January 2014 under the Legislative Authority: Environmental Assessment Act, RSO 1990, chapter E.18. The Code of Practice is intended to provide direction on procedural requirements to applicants preparing and revising class environmental assessment and proponents of class environmental assessment projects. The Code of Practice also provides stakeholders with a reference document that can be consulted for an understanding of expectations associated with the application of the class environmental assessment process to a given project. Consultation A two-way communication process to involve interested persons in the planning, implementation and monitoring of a proposed undertaking, or in the context of class environmental assessments, in the determination of the planning process itself. Consultation is intended to: Identify concerns; Identify relevant information; Identify relevant guidelines, policies and standards; Facilitate the development of a list of all required approvals, licences or permits; 58

66 Provide guidance to the proponent about the preparation of the terms of reference and class environmental assessment; Ensure that relevant information is shared about the proposed undertaking; Encourage the submission of requests for further information and analysis early in the class environmental assessment process; and, Enable the ministry to make a fair and balanced decision. Cultural Heritage Landscape A defined geographical area that human activity has modified and that has cultural heritage value. Such an area involves one or more groupings of individual heritage features, such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites, and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form distinct from that of its constituent elements or parts. Heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, main streets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trails, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value are some examples. Cultural Heritage Resources Include built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological sites that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our undertaking of the history of a place, an event, or a people. Criteria for determining significance have been established by the Province. While some significant cultural heritage resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. Director Director of the Environmental Approvals Branch, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Do Nothing Alternative An alternative that is typically included in the evaluation of alternatives that identifies the implications of doing nothing to address the problem or opportunity that has been identified. Electricity Projects Regulation (O. Reg. 116/01) Prescribed as Ontario Regulation 116/01 - Electricity projects (2001), as amended, under the Environmental Assessment Act. Defines the environmental assessment requirements for electricity projects. Environment Under the Environmental Assessment Act; defines environment to mean: a) Air, land or water; b) Land and animal life, including human life; c) The social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community; d) Any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans; e) Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from the human activities; or, f) Any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them. Environmental Assessment (EA) Environmental assessment is a study, which assesses the potential environmental effects (positive or negative) of an individual project. Key components of an environmental assessment include consultation with government agencies and the public; consideration and evaluation of alternatives; and, the management of potential environmental effects. Conducting an environmental assessment promotes good environmental planning before decisions are made about proceeding with a proposal. 59

67 Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) The Environmental Assessment Act (and amendments and regulations thereto) is a provincial statute that set out a planning and decision-making process to evaluate the potential environmental effects of a proposed undertaking. Proponents wishing to proceed with an undertaking must document their planning and decisionmaking process and submit the results from their environmental assessment to the Minister for approval. Environmental Effects Environmental effects are the effects that a project has, or could potentially have, directly or indirectly on the environment at any stage in the project life cycle. Environmental effects may include, but are not limited to, the harmful alteration, disruption, destruction, or loss of natural features, flora or fauna and their habitat, ecological functions, natural resources, air or water quality, and cultural or heritage resources. Environmental effects may also include the displacement, impairment, conflict or interference with existing land uses, businesses or economic enterprises, recreational uses or activities, cultural pursuits, social conditions or the local economy. Environmental Screening Process Environmental Screening Process is a process described in the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects. It applies to Category B projects that are not subject to the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities (e.g., transmission projects needed to connect new generation facilities). It should not be confused with the screening process described in this Class Environmental Assessment Document (see Class Environmental Assessment Screening Process). Environmental Study Report (ESR) A component of Hydro One Networks Inc.'s class environmental assessment process, whereby a report is prepared and completed for a class environmental assessment project. The report describes how the class environmental assessment project was planned to meet the requirements of the approval class environmental assessment. Government Review Team Staff from government ministries and agencies (federal; provincial, including local Conservation Authorities; and municipal, including local Boards of Health) who contribute to the review of environmental assessment documentation (terms of reference, environmental assessment and class environmental assessment) by providing comments from their mandated areas of responsibility. In the class environmental assessment context, there is no formal Government Review Team. Individual Environmental Assessment (Individual EA) An environmental assessment that is subject to the requirements set out in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (see environmental assessment). Interest Groups Interest groups are organizations with an interest in a particular undertaking within a project study area. Interest groups often include groups or clubs, naturalist organizations, agricultural organizations, sports or recreational groups, organizations from the local community, municipal heritage committees, ratepayers associations, cottage associations, and businesses. Interested Persons/Parties Interested persons are individuals with an interest in a particular undertaking and live within a project study area. Persons with an interest in a particular undertaking often include neighbours. Interested persons are not required to demonstrate that they will personally be affected by a particular undertaking. Interested persons are often called stakeholders 60

68 Note: the onus is on interested persons/parties to identify their interest in a project as early as possible. In the initial notification state it is unreasonable to expect the proponent to identify all potentially interested persons/parties. Kilovolt (kv) One thousand volts. Used to describe "high voltage" electrical conductors, as in 115 kv. Licensed Transmitters Licensed transmitters are companies that must be licensed by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) if they are interested in owning, building, operating and maintaining the transmission network (i.e., 115 kilovolts [kv], 230 kv and 500 kv lines and stations) (see Section 1.1). Maintenance The regular, routine actions, taken to retard the natural deterioration of a resource (or fixture and/or equipment). These actions are intended to keep the resource from premature loss due to failure, decline, wear or change attributable to normal use or the effect of the natural environment. Minister Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Mitigation Avoiding, eliminating, offsetting, or reducing to an acceptable level the potential effects of a project. It can also include rehabilitation, restoration, or enhancement where feasible. The means by which, projects can be modified to minimize or eliminate potential negative effects. Modify A significant modification means any expansion of or change in the facility that would increase the name plate capacity of the facility by 25 per cent or more. A minor modification is any expansion of or change in the facility that would increase the name plate capacity of the facility by less than 25 per cent. Monitoring The activities carried out by the applicant/proponent after approval of an undertaking to determine the environmental effects of the undertaking ("effects monitoring") (Section 3.7). Monitoring can also refer to those activities carried out by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to ensure that the applicant/proponent complies with the conditions of approval of the class environmental assessment ("compliance monitoring"). Effectiveness monitoring is a third type of monitoring in which the applicant/proponent evaluates how effectively its class environmental assessment is working in the planning and implementation of its class environmental assessment projects (Section 5.5). Net Effects Negative environmental effects of a project and related activities that will remain after mitigation and impact management measures have been applied. Operation Includes operations, maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, as well as upgrading and replacement, provided that the function or capacity of the facility remains similar. Part II Order A Part II Order is an order issued by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change that makes a class environmental assessment project an undertaking that is subject to Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act. 61

69 Potentially Affected Person An individual or organization that may be directly affected by a particular undertaking. Proponent A person, agency, group, or organization that carries out or proposes to carry out an undertaking or is the owner or person having charge, management or control of an undertaking. The proponent is the person, agency, group, or organization that proposed to carry out a class environmental assessment project, rather than the development of the class environmental assessment itself. Proponents that may use the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities to carry out class environmental assessment projects involve Hydro One Networks Inc., local distribution companies, licensed transmitters, industrial customers, etc., who may design, construct and operate transmission facilities (this involves station and line projects with transmission voltages, i.e., 115 kilovolts [kv], 230 kv, and 500 kv). Qualified Persons (in respect of cultural heritage resources) Means individuals professional engineers, architects, archaeologists, etc. having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Regulating Station An electrical station containing at least one electrical power transformer arranged to only regulate voltage. Power voltage transfer occurs only at transformer, transmission or distribution stations. There is no power generation produced at the station. Reliability The degree of continuity of electricity supply. Secondary Land Uses While the primary purpose of hydro corridors is for transmitting electricity, secondary uses of the hydro corridor lands may be allowed subject to Hydro One Networks Inc. s safety and technical requirements. Examples of secondary uses on corridor lands include: transportation (e.g., roads, transit etc.); infrastructure (e.g., water, sewage mains, pipelines, utilities cables etc.); recreational (e.g., playing fields, parks, walking trails, etc.); agricultural (e.g., pasture, cultivation, etc.); vehicular storage uses (e.g., parking lots); and horticulture (e.g., gardens and extensions of adjacent residential lots). Secondary uses on Crown owned corridor lands, which are administered and controlled by the Ministry of Infrastructure or the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, are subject to the Ministry of Infrastructure Public Work Class Environmental Assessment or one of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry s class environmental assessments. Public bodies or private land owners can apply to use Crown owned hydro corridor lands for a secondary use through the Provincial Secondary Land Use Program (PSLUP), jointly administered by Infrastructure Ontario and Hydro One Networks Inc. on behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructure. Solandt Commission Omond Solandt was appointed in 1972 to head a commission of public inquiry into the transmission of power from Nanticoke to Pickering. The following year the inquiry was extended to include an examination of the proposed route between Lennox and Oshawa. Dr. Solandt held public hearings in the affected municipalities between May, 1974 and January, Stakeholders For class environmental assessment purposes stakeholders are defined as municipal, provincial and federal government officials; government agencies; First Nations and Métis communities; potentially affected and interested persons; and interest groups who are involved in the planning and review of a class environmental assessment or class environmental assessment project. 62

70 Switching Station An electrical station which interconnects transmission lines through automatic switching devices (e.g., circuit breakers). Its purpose is to permit subdivision of the transmission system to limit the amount of it that is lost as the result of a fault, or to allow portions of the system to be removed from service for operating or maintenance purposes. There are no electrical power transformers or regulators located in the switching station. There is no power generation produced at the station. Technical Cultural Heritage Studies May include archeological assessments (Stage 1-4); historic research, site analyses and evaluations of cultural heritage value or interest; heritage impact assessments; heritage conservation plans; or, studies of mitigation options appropriate to each. Telecommunication Station It is a communication tower not located on transformer stations, and is used for security, protection, control and monitoring of the electricity transmission system. These are usually located on strategically located land that allows the communication signals from tower antennas to distant antennas on towers to not be obstructed by intervening curved terrain, buildings or vegetation. These usually consist of a communication tower, a communication building (housing the wireless and support equipment), enclosed by a security fence with an access gate. Telecommunication Tower A telecommunication tower used for security, protection, control, and monitoring of the electricity transmission system. It is a tower built to support communications antennas and other equipment high enough above ground level so that the communication signals from antennas to distant antennas on towers are not obstructed by intervening curved terrain, buildings or vegetation. Terms of Reference (ToR) A document prepared by the proponent and submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change for approval. The terms of reference sets out the framework for the planning and decision-making process to be followed by the proponent during the preparation of an individual environmental assessment. In other words, it is the proponent s work plan for what is going to be studied and includes a consulting plan. If approved, the individual environmental assessment must be prepared according to the terms of reference. Transformer Station A group of electrical components or elements including transformers arranged to transfer power from one voltage level to another. A transformer station may also function as a switching station at the various voltage levels and provide for an interchange or redistribution of power among the circuits at each voltage level. Transmission Station This station may refer to a transformer station, switching station, compensation station, regulating station, terminal or tap station, high voltage direct current (HVDC) station or another type of substation used in the transmission and/or transformation of electrical power. In Ontario, transmission stations include those whose nominal operating voltage is equal to or greater than 115 kv or equal to or less than 500 kv. Where a station has more than one voltage level, the highest level is used in defining the station's nominal operating voltage. Undertaking/Project An enterprise, activity or a proposal, plan, or program that a proponent initiates or proposes to initiate. 63

71 ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND MEASUREMENT UNITS AC CEAA Class EA Class EA Document DC DS EA EA Act EAB EEPS EMF ESR HVDC Hydro One IESO Individual EA kcmil kv LDC MNRF MOE MOECC MPa MPs Alternate Current Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Class Environmental Assessment Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities Direct Current Distribution Station Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Act Environmental Approvals Branch, Ministry of Environment Environmental Engineering and Project Support department at Hydro One Networks Inc. Electric and Magnetic Fields Environmental Study Report High Voltage Direct Current Hydro One Networks Inc. Independent Electricity System Operator Individual Environmental Assessment Circular mil Kilovolt Local Distribution Company Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Ministry of the Environment (former Ministry name) Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (Ministry name as of June, 2014) megapascal Members of Parliament 64

72 MPPs Members of Provincial Parliament O. Reg. 116/01 Electricity Projects Regulation under the Environmental Assessment Act OPA OPG OPGW PIC RoW RS SF6 SS ToR TS Ontario Power Authority Ontario Power Generation Optical Ground Wires Public Information Centre Right-of-Way Regulating Station Sulphur Hexafluoride Switching Station Terms of Reference Transformer Station 65

73 Appendix B - Subsequent Communication with Interested Parties Prior to construction, a letter will be sent to each directly affected property owner, providing information about the planned construction schedule and the name and telephone number of the designated construction representative. This representative will be available for further discussion during the construction period. The letter may also include other project contacts, such as the land use agent and the community relations officer. Where appropriate (i.e., as set out in the environmental study report) a public information centre (PIC) may be held to provide interested persons with information about upcoming construction activities. This includes tower locations, construction and restoration operation activities. Each directly affected property owner will be contacted by a Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) representative. Permission will be requested to conduct any activities on private property including surveying, soil testing, property appraisals and woodlot evaluation as required. Where compensation applies, a property appraisal will be carried out and meetings arranged to discuss. Where new land rights are required for a project, the proponent should make best efforts to reach a settlement for compensation with the affected property owners. In situations where settlements for required property rights cannot be reached, the proponent would follow the requirements of the Expropriation Act to acquire property rights through that process. This includes applying to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) under Section 99 of the OEB Act, 1998 (the Act) for authority to expropriate land for a project that has been granted Leave to Construct approval under Section 92 of the Act or has been granted exemption (Section 95). Where property is to be expropriated, a Notice of Application for Approval to Expropriate is delivered to each owner and the expropriation procedures explained. Once an expropriation has been approved, and if the owner has not yet settled, an offer of compensation under Section 25 of the Expropriation Act will be made. If agreement on compensation cannot be reached, after further negotiation the matter may be referred to the Board of Negotiations and the Ontario Municipal Board. During construction, property owners and elected and appointed officials will be kept up-to-date on construction activities by project newsletters. 66

74 Appendix C - Environmental Inventory The following is a list of the environmental factors or categories considered by Hydro One Networks Inc. when carrying out an environmental inventory for a route or site planning study. Accompanying each of the factors are examples of typical environmental data types and their sources. AGRICULTURE Description This factor considers agricultural production and associated practices through analysis of the capability of the land for agricultural production along with the present use and productivity of that land. Typical Data Types: Crops grown on perennial root stock (e.g., grapes, apples, tender fruit, asparagus, ginseng) Specialty Crop Areas as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 under the Planning Act Prime Agricultural Lands as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 under the Planning Act Soil type and relative sensitivity to damage from construction and installation of electricity facilities (e.g., susceptibility to compaction) Areas designated in municipal Official Plans as Prime Agricultural Areas (or their equivalent if not yet designated) as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 under the Planning Act Potential for farm property fragmentation/severance by proposed right-of-way or transformer station Agricultural infrastructure (e.g., livestock facilities, drainage systems, irrigation systems, fencing, on-farm agricultural product storage and/or processing facilities) Agriculture-related infrastructure (e.g., grain drying facilities, cold/dry storage facilities for agricultural crops, wineries, roadside markets/stands, agricultural research facilities, agricultural biogas systems) Organic agriculture operations crops and livestock (e.g., pesticide use within right-of-way) Agricultural field access from public roads and farm lanes Field size requirements for farm operational efficiency and flexibility (e.g., ability to plant and harvest crops with large equipment) Typical Data Sources: Canada Land Inventory Land Capability for Agriculture County soil maps utma= & utmb= & utmc=1& utmx =- & utmz= utmcsr=(direct) utmccn=(direct) utmcmd=(none)& utmv= 1. 1=tag_visitor_type=internal=1& utmk= Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada Municipal official plan land use schedules 67

75 Aerial photography and satellite imagery Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) property mapping and assessment codes Roadside and field inspections Discussions with agricultural producer organizations (e.g., local Federations of Agriculture) to access data they may have and identify any site-specific concerns FOREST RESOURCES Description This factor considers the resource use aspects of forest cover, both from the point of view of the use of existing forests and the capability to produce renewable forest resources. Typical Data Types: Forest land productivity inventory Silvicultural treatment areas Forested land with the Ontario Land Inventory timber use capability of Classes 4 or 5 Sustainable woodlots Typical Data Sources: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Forest Resource Inventory Aerial photography Topographic maps Landsat imagery Ontario Land Inventory and Primeland/Site Information System (OLIPIS) Forest management plans Forest resource inventory maps CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES Description This factor considers built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscape and archaeological resources. Typical Data Types: Properties of cultural heritage value, as defined by Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act Properties designated, or subject to a notice of intention to designate, under Part IV or B of the Ontario Heritage Act Properties subject to an agreement, easement or covenant under the Ontario Heritage Act Properties designated as a historic site under Regulation 880 of the Ontario Heritage Act Provincial heritage properties Properties listed on a register or inventory of heritage properties maintained by the municipality Properties subject to a municipal, provincial or federal plaque National historic sites Known or reported burial sites Properties that contains structures over forty years old 68

76 Properties situated on a parcel of land that contains or is part of a cultural heritage landscape (e.g., Aboriginal trail, park, relationship to a Canadian Heritage River, designed garden, historic road or rail corridor, unique landforms, etc.) Properties that are considered a landmark in the local community or contain any structures or sites that are important to defining the character of the area (e.g., prominent buildings or landscape features, complexes of buildings, monuments, etc.) Properties that have special association with a community, person or historical event (e.g., Aboriginal sacred site, traditional use areas, battlefield, birthplace of an individual of importance to the community, etc.) Properties designated as an archaeological site under Regulation 875 of the Ontario Heritage Act Known or reported archaeological sites Areas of archaeological potential Properties in the Canadian Register of Historic Places Properties in the Canadian Inventory of Historic Building Protected heritage properties as defined by the Provincial Policy Statement Municipal Register of Listed and Designated Properties Typical Data Sources: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Parks Canada Upper and lower tier municipalities, and single tier municipalities, including its municipal heritage committee (where one exists) Ontario Heritage Trust Archaeological assessment reports Archaeological management plans Cultural heritage evaluation reports Heritage Impact Assessment reports Ontario Heritage Act Part IV designation studies and by-laws Ontario Heritage Act Part V Heritage Conservation designation studies, by-laws and plans Municipal Cultural Plan Historical county atlases of Ontario Survey plans of Ontario townships Local historical societies Local published and unpublished histories and academic studies Air photo interpretation Field inspection First Nations and Métis land use records, treaties and land claims HUMAN SETTLEMENT Description This factor considers the existing and planned land use. Typical Data Types: Existing land use Settlement areas urban and rural; rural residential development 69

77 Commercial development Military areas Industrial development Airports and airport path restrictions Infrastructure Proposed land use First Nations and Métis lands Municipal planning policies Traditional Use Studies Typical Data Sources: Ministries of: o Aboriginal Affairs o Environment o Government Services o Municipal Affairs and Housing o Natural Resources and Forestry o Transportation Conservation Authorities Transport Canada Topographical maps Aerial photography Archaeological studies Upper and lower tier municipal departments and planning boards Municipal official plans and zoning by-laws Statistics Canada Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data sources Land Information Ontario (LIO) Minister's Zoning Orders MINERAL RESOURCES Description This factor considers the mineral extraction industry through analysis of existing and planned extractive operations and potential reserves. Typical Data Types: Active mines & associated facilities Proposed mines & development Oil and gas deposits and facilities Mine tailing areas Mining hazards Typical Data Sources: Ministries of: o Natural Resources and Forestry 70

78 o Northern Development and Mines o Transportation Ontario mineral maps Aggregate resources inventory reports Mineral potential survey Municipal official plans NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES Description This factor considers areas of environmental sensitivity: floral and faunal components of the terrestrial concentration area, designated environmentally sensitive areas, Source Water Protection Areas, spawning areas, and wetlands. Typical Data Types: Prime winter deer yards and moose and caribou habitat Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest Environmentally Sensitive Areas Sensitive terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems Wildlife management areas Fisheries management plans Species at Risk (SAR) and habitat Wetlands Waterfowl staging and nesting areas and heronries Greenbelt lands Niagara Escarpment Commission lands Oak Ridges Moraine lands Lake Simcoe watershed Surface water bodies and ground water Source Water Protection Areas/Vulnerable Areas, including: Well Head Protection Areas, Intake Protection Zones, Aquifers vulnerability and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas. Designated areas of provisional protection and designated protected areas in approved community based land use plans, under the Far North Act, Approved community based land use plans, under the Far North Act, Protected areas (e.g., provincial parks, conservation reserves) Natural heritage features (e.g., significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat) Biodiversity Typical Data Sources: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities (e.g., Source Water Protection Areas) Atlas of Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario Ontario's Reptile and Amphibian Atlas Aerial photography Topographic maps 71

79 Field surveys GIS data sources (e.g., Land Information Ontario [LIO], Southern Ontario Land Resources Information System [SOLRIS]) Niagara Escarpment Commission Fisheries and Oceans Canada Federation of Ontario Naturalists Local naturalist organizations Local trappers Provincial Policy Statement 1 Local official plans Source Protection Plans 2 and available maps of Source Water Protection Areas Regional and municipal planners Approved community based land use plans, under the Far North Act, Natural heritage reference manuals, guidelines and databases (e.g., Natural Heritage Information Centre) RECREATION RESOURCES Description This factor considers existing forms of recreation (e.g., parks, cottages, major waterways, etc.) along with extensive recreational activities (e.g., canoeing, hiking). Future recreational potential is also considered. Typical Data Types: National, provincial and municipal parks, conservation reserves and conservation authority recreation areas Sensitive recreational waterways Sensitive linear areas (e.g., canoe routes, hiking trails, scenic roads and snowmobile trails) Areas of cottage and resort developments Areas identified as recreational in the Canada Land Inventory Community based land use plans, approved under the Far North Act, Typical Data Sources: Ministries of: o Natural Resources and Forestry o Tourism, Culture and Sport o Transportation Conservation Authorities Parks Canada Outdoor Recreation Capability - Canada Land Inventory Topographic maps Aerial photography Municipal official plans 1 For two non Conservation Authority Source Protection Areas: Severn Sound and Northern Bruce Peninsula (i.e., Clean Water Act does not apply to these municipalities), the vulnerable areas are defined in the Provincial Policy Statement Source Protection Plans developed by Source Protection Committees (Local Municipalities and Conservation Authorities) in 19 Regions of Ontario 72

80 Ontario Trails Map, Ontario Trails Council VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES Description This factor considers the physical appearances of different landscapes and their susceptibility to change due to the imposition of transmission facilities. Typical Data Types: Escarpments and mountains Crests Vistas Landscapes visually dominated by water Flat to gently rolling landscapes with little tree cover Remnant natural landscapes and natural river valleys Typical Data Sources: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (e.g., SOLRIS) Topographical maps Aerial photography Field interpretation Landsat imagery 73

81 Appendix D - Initial Notification Requirements The following are the notification requirements that have been specified in the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change s (MOECC) Government Review Team List. While developing a consultation contact list, the proponent must refer to Appendix B in the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change s Code of Practice: Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments in Ontario, 2014 to obtain a current list of Government Agencies and their areas of interest. The proponent will make sure to use the most updated version of this list, and will notify the agencies that may have interest in the specific project. TABLE D-1 Initial Notification Requirements for Provincial Ministries Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities Projects AGENCY/MINISTRY FEDERAL AGENCIES Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Health Canada APPLICABLE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECTS Undertakings that are listed in the Regulations Designating Physical Activities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, All projects. All projects affecting an area of federal interest or responsibility, and fall under the Environmental Assessment Act. Projects which may have a harmful alteration or destruction of fish or fish habitat. Projects that are determined to require specific expert advice on matters not covered by provincial agencies, including electric and magnetic fields and radiation effects. They also have expertise on health risk assessment/management; federal air, water and soil quality guidelines/standards used in human health risk assessment; multi-media toxicology; air quality health effects; drinking and recreational water quality; and noise impacts. Projects that: Transport Canada Each federal authority with responsibility for federal lands Involve tall structures; Are located in the vicinity of a federal airport and may attract bird; May cause electrical interference to navigational aids; May affect a navigable waterway Undertakings that are on or abutting federal lands and require federal approvals or financing. PROVINCIAL AGENCIES & MINISTRIES Conservation Ontario GO Transit/Metrolinx Province-wide Environmental Assessment matters. Projects with the potential to affect Go Transit/Metrolinx service or property, or projects in close proximity to GO Transit/Metrolinx facilities. 74

82 Infrastructure Ontario (IO) AGENCY/MINISTRY APPLICABLE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECTS Projects that will take place on the existing right-of-way owned by IO, projects that will be built on the IO land and projects where lands associated with the undertaking are adjacent or proximate to lands that are managed by the IO, or if IO-managed lands are within the project s study area. Projects meeting any of following criteria: Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) and Ministry of Rural Affairs (MRA) Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) Ministry of Economic Development Trade and Employment Ministry of Education: consult local school board Ministry of Energy Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC): Environmental Approvals Branch and Regional Environmental Assessment Coordinator at the applicable Regional Office(s) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry: relevant local or regional offices Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) Potentially affecting First Nations and/or Métis Communities where land claims or litigation are involved. Potentially affecting Crown land and resources usage. Adjacent to Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit in the Lower Grand River watershed. The area includes Haldimand and Brant. Projects proposed to be located in Specialty Crop Areas as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) under the Planning Act, or on Prime Agricultural Lands (Canada Land Inventory Classes 1-3 lands) also as defined in the PPS, or projects expected to affect agricultural operations throughout Rural Areas as defined in the PPS; except where the above lands have been designated as Urban in a municipal Official Plan. Projects having direct physical impact on a MCSCS detachment, correctional centre, jail or a detention centre, including all projects within 1 km of such buildings. Projects which involve investments in the large-scale manufacturing facilities and co-generation projects, including large-scale expansions of existing manufacturing or cogeneration facilities. Projects that will impact a school/institution, building property, or staff and students. Projects with energy implications or energy-related. All undertakings that fall under the Environmental Assessment Act. All projects. All projects affecting an area of the MNDM interest or responsibility. Projects that have one or more of the following: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities: contact local institution Involve a municipal proponent; Relate to municipal services; Have federal involvement; Located in unincorporated areas Projects with the potential to affect a college/university, building property, or staff and students. 75

83 AGENCY/MINISTRY Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport: Culture Division Ministry of Transportation Niagara Escarpment Commission Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) All projects. APPLICABLE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECTS Projects that involve the preparation of stormwater management plans, or alterations to existing Watershed/Subwatershed Plans, which are in close proximity to a highway. Projects located within 400 m of a provincial highway plus those that are located outside built-up areas that involve any of the following: Potential for creation of more than a minimal change in traffic volumes/patterns. Requirement for direct access to a provincial transportation facility. Requirement for access roads to areas where there were previously no roads. Projects with potential effects on the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area. Projects having a direct physical impact on an OPP correctional centre, jail or detention centre. In municipalities with own police service: projects having a direct physical impact on OPP detachments or impacting provincial highways. In municipalities without own police service: abovementioned projects, plus projects with potential to change demographics, traffic flow, or the need for police presence. OTHER Hydro One Networks Inc. Local Conservation Authorities Municipalities Office of the Fire Marshall Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Projects that could potentially directly have an impact on Hydro One facilities or plants (included transmission/distribution lines or transformer/distribution stations). Projects within area covered by the particular Conservation Authority. All projects located within their respective applicable geographies. Where fire department access might be affected, contact the local fire department and Fire Chief in the affected municipality (or municipalities). Projects within 2 km of an OPG generating site or that could potentially directly affect any OPG generating site. Undertakings with the potential to affect: Source Protection Authority under the Clean Water Act A vulnerable area identified in the most recent local assessment report (or source protection plan) prepared for the local source protection area under the Clean Water Act, 2006, where the project involves one or more activities identified as a drinking water threat (the list of prescribed drinking water threats can be found in section

84 AGENCY/MINISTRY APPLICABLE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECTS of O. Reg. 287/07 or the Director may also approve a local drinking water threat activity in addition to those prescribed by regulation); Municipal drinking water sources or other drinking water sources (for example, a drinking water source that serves a First Nation reserve that is prescribed by regulation) as identified in the most recent local assessment report prepared for the local source protection area where the undertaking involves activities identified as prescribed drinking water threats. 77

85 Appendix E - Examples of Typical Mitigation Measures TABLE E-1 Examples of Typical Mitigation Measures Environmental Concerns AGRICULTURE Loss of standing crop Soil compaction Mitigation Measures Minimize width of access and size of construction work areas. Tower placement along fenceline where possible to minimize tower footprint. Activities are scheduled to avoid growing season, if possible. Compensate for crop loss. Activities are scheduled to times of the year when soils are least susceptible to compaction, if possible. Activities may be stopped when ground conditions are conducive to compaction. Equipment with low bearing capacity is used if warranted. Access roads are located along existing routes, where possible. Temporary access roads and work pads may be built using geotextile and crushed rock, which may be easily removed when construction is complete. Project Phase Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Topsoil-subsoil mixing Segregation of topsoil and subsoil. Disturbance to farm operations Maintain contact with landowner/tenant regarding scheduling of work, access, tiles, noise, remediation, etc. Tile beds are avoided, where possible. Planning and Design Planning and Design Damage to field tiles Contamination of organic or Identity Preserved (IP) crops Tile crossings are minimized. Where possible, activities are scheduled to times of the year when the ground will support the equipment. Use of soft track equipment. Protection of tile crossings by the placement of heavy steel plate. Tile is repaired; compensate for damages. Field crews are informed if working in organic or IP croplands and mitigation strategies are discussed. Vehicles are cleaned before entering organic IP farms. Planning and Design 78

86 Environmental Concerns Livestock loss or injury SOCIETAL IMPACTS Noise and vibration Mud and dust Change in appearance - lines Change in appearance - stations Inconvenience Disturbance or destruction of archeological resources Displacement of built heritage resources and/or cultural heritage landscapes by removal and/or demolition and/or disruption Mitigation Measures Owner/tenant is consulted about possible mitigation measures. Field crews are informed about livestock in the vicinity work areas to ensure they are aware of need to secure gates, noise sensitivity controls, clean up of construction material. Use of noisy equipment is avoided, if possible. Compensation is made for lost or injured livestock. Applicable municipal noise by-laws are followed. Noise and vibration is taken into account when deciding on equipment and work methods. Noise studies for new transformer stations are conducted to implement appropriate mitigation measures. Wetting down dry soils. Roads are cleaned to remove mud if it is a concern. Trees may be retained and/or planted to serve as a screen. Topsoil and seed may be used to disguise access routes in urban areas. Hoarding may be installed around construction sites to suit locale. Landscaping is done at new stations. Select timing of construction. Access to construction site is designed to suit traffic conditions. Undertake archaeological assessment(s) to identify and evaluate resources. Avoidance through alternative route and site selection. If the site cannot be avoided, excavation would occur as per Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists", Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (2011). Identify, evaluate, and manage significant built and landscape heritage resources, on a project specific basis, as per O. Reg. 9/06, O. Reg. 10/06, and Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (2010). Avoidance, where possible, through alternative route selection. Prevent significant built heritage resources from undergoing demolition by neglect, with the consideration of property maintenance measures. Project Phase Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Operation and Maintenance 79

87 Environmental Concerns Disturbance to traditional land used by First Nations and Métis communities Disturbance to tourism and recreation resources Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Mitigation Measures Geographically defined areas which support current or past human use as a gathering area, spiritual site, place of worship or cemetery are identified and avoided to the extent possible. First Nations and Métis are invited to participated in various stages of the project such as archaeology, project planning, construction, etc. Disturbance is to be avoided, where possible. Through site specific design and landscape, attempts are made to make facility less obtrusive or intrusive. A landscape plan is developed and implemented if warranted. Safety precautions are utilized to protect the public such as anti-climbing devices. Work is scheduled, when possible, to avoid peak use periods. Facilities are designed, sited and operated in accordance with all regulatory requirements. No/low cost measures are used to minimize EMF when designing and siting new facilities. Project Phase Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AIR QUALITY Exhaust emissions from vehicles Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6) Emissions Emissions from diesel generators GEOLOGY Drilling and blasting Equipment is maintained to minimize exhaust. Fleet Services Environmental Program which includes antiidling and GPS installation in vehicles. Used SF6 is purified and returned to inventory for re-use. SF6 is tracked. Replacement of old carts is underway. A program is underway for the repair or replacement of chronic leaking equipment. Employees are trained on the proper handling of the equipment and gas. Work is done with industry to minimize emissions. Conditions on the Environmental Compliance Approvals are followed, along with Operations Manuals and Emergency Response Plans. Noise and vibration are limited by proper maintenance and operation of drill rigs and noise baffling equipment as warranted. Drilling mud and rock cuttings are contained for appropriate disposal. Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance Planning and Design 80

88 Environmental Concerns PHYSIOGRAPHY Changes in natural physiography SURFACE WATER Sedimentation of surface water Impedance of natural flow of streams and other surface waters Ponding or channelization of surface waters caused by rutting Contamination of surface water through spills or leaks Increase in water temperature due to vegetation removal at stream crossings Stream bank erosion Mitigation Measures Wherever warranted, site is returned to the natural grade. Erosion control measures implemented if required. Where possible, buffers are retained around water. Equipment operation on slopes adjacent to streams is minimized. Use of sediment control devices and cover crops Develop site-specific erosion and sediment control plan as required (e.g., storm water drainage). Activities may be scheduled during drier or winter seasons. Installation of proper stream crossing devices as the situation warrants. Equalization culverts may be used in access roads in wetlands. Corduroy roads are used in wetlands, where practicable. Time activities to stable ground conditions. Installation of proper stream crossing devices as the situation warrants. Use of gravel roads. Emergency Preparedness Plans are developed for each project and staff are trained to respond to spills. Spill kits are on all work sites. Spills are cleaned up as soon as possible and the site remediated after a spill. Site selection for stations or construction staging away from surface water, where possible. Retain shrubby stream bank vegetation and selectively cut/prune trees. Planting of compatible shrubs may be done if removals are significant. Mechanical erosion control. Retain shrubby stream bank vegetation and selectively cut or prune trees. Project Phase Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design 81

89 Environmental Concerns Reduction in water storage capacity due to removal of vegetation or diversion caused by rutting Intake Protection Mitigation Measures Selective removal of vegetation. Revegetation with compatible shrubs. Surface water intake protection zones will be identified and protection implemented as required. Project Phase Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design GROUNDWATER AND WATER SOURCE PROTECTION Disposal of waste water from dewatering activities Various guidelines and legislation may apply to meet regulatory standards, including Provincial Water Quality Objectives, Ontario Drinking Water Standards or Guidelines and if appropriate, Regulation 153 and Regulation 347. Discharge of wastewater from dewatering activities will be in compliance with required permits and approvals from the MOECC. Refueling activities are monitored. Planning and Design Contamination of groundwater through spills or leaks at station sites Lowering of aquifer Temporary or permanent drinking water threat SOILS Wind/water erosion Fuels, chemicals and lubricants are stored on level ground in properly contained storage areas. Spill Containment and Oil-Water Separator Monitoring equipment and alarms are installed on equipment so that early detection of spills can be made. A MOECC Permit to Take Water (PTTW) is obtained if more than 50,000 L/day is withdrawn as a result of dewatering activities, to ensure the conservation, protection, management and sustainable use of Ontario s water. A PTTW addresses impacts to receptors by including hydrogeological modelling, monitoring and contingency plans. Comply with all relevant legislation and policies such as: Clean Water Act, Provincial Policy Statement, Official Plans, and Source Water Protection Plans. Provincially/locally designated Vulnerable Areas (namely Well Head Protection Areas [WHPAs]; Intake Protection Zones [IPZs]; and Highly Vulnerable Aquifers [HVAs]) are avoided where possible. Consult applicable Conservation Authorities and/or applicable municipalities in order to undertake the proper action for managing the threat. Areas with high erosion potential are avoided, where possible. Timing activities to the most stable ground conditions. Mechanical or vegetation erosion control methods will be used for slope stabilization. Planning and Design, and Operation Planning, Design and Construction Planning, Design and Construction Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design 82

90 Environmental Concerns Soil Contamination Mitigation Measures Soil is collected and tested to the Regulation 153/04 soil criteria. Clean soil may be re-used on site. Contaminated soil will be disposed in accordance with applicable legislation. Construction Project Phase VEGETATION Loss of forested land Revegetation of rightof-way Clean-up and disposal of cleared vegetation Forested land is taken into account when planning the line, station or off-corridor access. Trees are retained, salvaged or felled as appropriate. Compensation is provided to property owners including replanting elsewhere on the same property. Reforestation and biodiversity program to ensure no net loss of habitat. Selective vegetation control methods are used. Special treatment areas are designated and tracked for future maintenance. Disposal of all non-salvable limbs by chipping or removal to designated areas. Stumps are cut flush with the ground. Planning and Design Planning and Design SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES Significant natural features, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, sensitive areas, and protected areas are avoided where possible. Where appropriate, a site specific compensation and/or biodiversity plan is to be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and/or the applicable Conservation Authority (i.e., to address the loss of natural features). Towers and access roads are located to avoid the most sensitive locations. Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Loss of natural features (e.g., wetlands, prairies) Construction activities are restricted to designated work areas and protective barriers such as fencing are erected as required. The area is restored to pre-construction drainage patterns. A 120 m buffer is put around the feature and liquid storage and refuelling are not permitted within the buffer. Temporary geotextile and crushed rock or corduroy roads are constructed to minimize impact and allow for easy removal after completion of construction. If practical, vegetation is cut during firm soil conditions. Wetland vegetation is allowed to re-establish naturally or is seeded with native grasses. 83

91 Environmental Concerns Mitigation Measures Project Phase FISH AND WILDLIFE Tree clearing is avoided in wooded areas during nesting season, or a breeding bird survey is conducted and nests are protected. Promotion of wildlife habitat through vegetation control and brush piles. Natural vegetation is retained, where possible, and native species are used where seeding or planting is done. Loss of habitat, breeding grounds and/or food source for wildlife, as well as fragmentation, due to vegetation removal Disturbance to fish habitat including spawning beds Snags are retained for wildlife management, where feasible. Implementation of Biodiversity Initiative. Removal of incompatible vegetation may be staged to provide protective cover until compatible species become established in sensitive areas. Environmental mapping to identify sensitive sites. Avoidance of areas containing Species at Risk. Consideration of landscape level impacts, including habitat fragmentation. Appropriate selection of crossing type and acquire all necessary permits and approvals prior to crossing construction and adherence to terms and conditions. Construction of access roads during low water flow conditions or as recommended by government. Retention of stream bank vegetation as long as possible prior to crossing construction and retaining shrubby bank vegetation and selective cutting of trees near watercourses. Material is stored or stockpiled away from water. Development of a site specific erosion and sediment control plan. Installation of sediment traps when necessary. Restoration of disturbed areas to a pre-disturbed state or better. Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design Planning and Design BIODIVERSITY Loss of habitat including fragmentation of habitat SPECIES AT RISK (SAR) Implementation of Biodiversity Initiative developed in association with other stewardship organizations. Avoidance of SAR and their habitat. Planning and Design Planning and Design Loss of SAR or Habitat If avoidance of SAR is not possible, collaborate with the MNRF to mitigate the impact of transmission facilities. If required, an overall benefit permit will be obtained. Planning and Design 84

92 Environmental Concerns Mitigation Measures Project Phase REMOTE ACCESS Opening normally remote areas to recreational activities Work with stakeholders to develop a plan to prevent access to normally remote areas. Memorandum of Understanding may be required with the MNRF. Use of helicopters to limit amount of ground vehicle access. Planning and Design GENERAL WASTE MANAGEMENT (including Liquid Waste, Hazardous Waste, Non-Hazardous Waste) Minimize waste produced, and segregate and recycle where possible. Appropriate disposal of waste Test, handle, store, transport and dispose of waste in accordance with Federal, Provincial and Municipal legislation as applicable. Manage wastes in accordance with Ontario Environmental Protection Act, Reg

93 Appendix F - Electric and Magnetic Fields Since the 1960's, scientific studies have been conducted related to possible health effects from low frequency (such as hertz [Hz]) electric and magnetic fields (EMFs). There have been three main areas of research on these fields: Laboratory studies which have exposed cells, plants and animals to EMFs to determine the effects and relevance, if any, to humans; Epidemiologic studies to examine the statistical relationship between the occurrence of disease and human exposure to these fields; and Exposure assessment to determine the amount of exposure that humans may encounter in home and work environments. The Health Canada website ( provides important information on this topic. In summary, Health Canada states: There is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by exposures at levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors and At present, there are no Canadian government guidelines for exposures to EMFs at extremely low frequencies. Health Canada does not consider guidelines necessary because the scientific evidence is not strong enough to conclude that typical exposures cause health problems. Health Canada and the Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee (FPTRPC) have both examined potential health impacts associated with EMFs and have produced several documents on the subject. Quotes from recent documents indicate: the FPTRPC concludes that adverse health effects from exposure to power-frequency EMFs, at levels normally encountered in homes, schools and offices, have not been established, (2005). It is the opinion of the FPTRPC that there is insufficient scientific evidence showing exposure to EMFs from power lines can cause adverse health effects such as cancer. Therefore, a warning to the public to avoid living near or spending time in proximity to power lines is not required. (2008) Several respected international organizations have reviewed the many studies that have been conducted on EMFs. It is acknowledged that some research findings are both controversial and contradictory. However, a mechanism or explanation of possible health effects has not been established. Although a web search can identify individual studies, independent national and international bodies have conducted reviews of the entire body of research, which are consistent with Health Canada s and the FPTRPC s positions. Hydro One Networks Inc. relies on the recommendations of national and international bodies and not the work or claims of individuals. 86

94 87

95 88

96 89

97 Appendix G Exemption Order OHK 11 90

98 Appendix H Proponent Annual Monitoring Report General Information and Instructions General: The Proponent Annual Monitoring Report is a necessary part of evaluating the effectiveness of the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for Minor Transmission Facilities, and will be used by Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) to deliver on commitments made in Section 5.5 of this Class EA. Compliance monitoring is a necessary part of retaining approval under the Environmental Assessment Act for this class of undertakings. All Class EA proponents are required to provide an annual summary report describing Class EA processes conducted in a calendar year. Proponents are responsible for ensuring that reports are submitted to Hydro One, and be received by February 25 th of each year. Hydro One does not assume responsibility for missing reports. Instructions: 1. This form must be accurately completed. 2. Please ensure that any additional attachments are included, and referenced to properly in this form. 3. Please send a hardcopy and electronic copy of the completed form to: Manager, Environmental Engineering & Project Support Hydro One Networks Inc. 483 Bay Street, 6 th Floor, South Tower, Toronto, ON M5G 2P5 ClassEA.AnnualMonitoringReport@HydroOne.com 4. Please ensure that the information provided on the first page of this form (pg. 1) contains information that is accurate, and that only one contact person is provided. 5. Please complete Part A of this form for each Class EA project conducted by the proponent. Please ensure that all Class EA projects conducted in a calendar year are included in this form. 6. Hydro One will only accept one form per proponent per calendar year. Proponent Information Proponent Name (legal name of organization): Civic Address Street Information (includes street number, name, type and direction, and suite number if applicable) Proponent Type: Corporation Federal Government Partnership Municipal Government Provincial Government Sole Proprietor Other (describe): Delivery Designator: if signing authority mailing address is a Rural Route, Suburban Service, Moible Route or General Deliver (i.e. RR#3) Municipality/Unorganized Township County/ Province/State Country Postal Code Contact Person Name Address Same as Proponent Address? Yes No (if no, please provide address information below) Delivery Designator: if signing authority mailing address is a Rural Route, Suburban Service, Moible Route or General Deliver (i.e. RR#3) Municipality/Unorganized Township County/ Province/State Country Postal Code Telephone Number (including area code & extension) Fax Number (including area code) Address

99 Part A: Project Overview Project Name Project Location Site Address Street Information (used for a rural location specified for a subdivided township, an unsubdivided township or unsurveyed territory) NOTE: Do not complete B if you completed A Unit Identifier (identifies type of unit, such as suite & number) Survey Address (used for a rural location specified for a subdivided township, an unsubdivided township or unsurveyed territory) Lot and Conc.: used to indicate location within a subdivided township and consists of a lot number and a concession number. Non Address Information (includes any additional information to clarify clients physical location) Lot Conc. Part and Reference: used to indicate location within an unsubdivided township or unsurveyed territory, and consists of a part and a reference plan number indicating the location within that plan. Attach copy of the plan. Part Reference Plan Geo Reference Map Datum Zone Accuracy Estimate Geo Referencing Method UTM Easting UTM Northing Municipality/Unorganized Township County/ Postal Code Project Description Brief Project Description Project start date Were any Elevation Requests Received? Yes No If Yes, how were they resolved? EA Project Status 92

100 Part B: Class EA Process and Class EA Document Please provide the following information. Key Concern(s) or Issue(s) Encountered During the Class EA Process 93

101 Appendix I Other Legislation The information provided in the following table is for reference purposes and is not to be considered to be comprehensive; rather, it is the proponent s responsibility to ensure that all legislative requirements for the proposed undertaking are met, and that the Acts and regulations to which the proposed undertaking must comply are provided in the Environmental Study Report. FEDERAL LEGISLATION Aeronautics Act Canada National Parks Act Canada Transportation Act Canada Water Act Canada Wildlife Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Explosives Act Fisheries Act Indian Act International Boundary Waters Treaty Act Migratory Birds Convention Act National Energy Board Act Navigable Waters Protection Act Railway Safety Act Species at Risk Act PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION Aggregate Resources Act Building Code Act Cemeteries Act Clean Water Act Conservation Authorities Act Consolidated Hearings Act Crown Forest Sustainability Act Dangerous Goods Transportation Act Drainage Act Electricity Act Endangered Species Act Environmental Assessment Act Environmental Bill of Rights Environmental Protection Act 94

102 Expropriations Act Far North Act Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Forest Fires Prevention Act Greenbelt Act Green Energy Act Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act Ontario Energy Board Act Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Planning and Development Act Ontario Water Resources Act Pesticides Act Places to Grow Act Planning Act Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act Public Lands Act Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act Technical Standards and Safety Act Weed Control Act 95

103 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Appendix J Record of Consultation Record of Consultation Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment 1.0 Contact Lists 2.0 Notice of the 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment 3.0 Consultation Log 96

104 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment 1.0 Contact Lists 97

105 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Government Review Team (GRT) Contact List First Last Name Job Title Organization Department Mailing Address City Prov. Postal Fax Phone Provincial Agencies Antonia Testa Project Officer Ministry of the Environment and Environmental Assessment Services Climate Change Section, Environmental Approvals 2 St Clair Ave W Toronto ON M4V 1L antonia.testa@ontario.ca Brett Smith Senior Advisor Ministry of Energy First Nation and Metis Policy and Partnerships 880 Bay Street, Office 3rd Floor Toronto ON M7A 2C Brett.Smith@ontario.ca Karla Barboza Heritage Adviser Ministry of Tourism and Culture and Cultural Services Unit, 401 Bay Street, Sport Program and Services Branch Suite 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A Karla.Barboza@ontario.ca Paula Kulpa Team Lead Heritage Land Use Planning; Cultural Ministry of Tourism and Culture and 401 Bay Street, Services Unit; Program and Services Sport Suite 1700 Branch Toronto ON M7A 0A paula.kulpa@ontario.ca Sally Renwick A/Team Lead Ministry of Natural Resources Dawn Irish Manager Theresa Olender Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) Environmental Planning Economics, Research and Environmental Planning Section, Strategic Policy and Economics Environmental Policy Office; Transportation Planning Branch Environmental Policy Office; Transportation Planning Branch Ashley Johnson Advisor Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) Strategic Policy and Planning Division David Cooper Manager Victor Doyle Manager Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Steven Mitchell O.A.A., Architect Ministry of Education Jennifer Lillie Paetz Environmental Assessment Coordinator Grace Lo Policy Advisors Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Environmental & Land Use Policy; Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch 300 Water Street, 5 th Floor, North Tower 301 St. Paul Street, 2 nd Floor St. Paul Street, 2 nd Floor Bloor Street East, 9 th Floor 1 Stone Road W, 3 rd Floor Planning Innovation Section; Provincial 777 Bay Street, Planning Policy Branch 14 th Floor Pupil Accommodation Unit; Business Services 900 Bay Street; Branch 21 st Floor, Mowat Block Corporate Policy Secretariate 933 Ramsey Lake RD, 6 th Floor 99 Wellesley St.W, Rm.5630, Whitney Block 120 Bayview Parkway, Box 11 Peterborough ON K9J 3C sally.renwick@ontario.ca St. Catharines ON L2R 7R Dawn.Irish@ontario.ca St. Catharines ON L2R 7R Theresa.Olender@ontario.ca Toronto ON M7A 2E Ashley.Johnson@ontario.ca Guelph ON N1G 4Y david.cooper@ontario.ca Toronto ON M5G 2E Victor.doyle@ontario.ca Toronto ON M7A 1L Steven.mitchell@ontario.ca Sudbury ON P3E 6B ; Toll Free: Ext.5918 Jennifer.Lillie-Paetz@ontario.ca Toronto ON M7A 1W Grace.Lo@ontario.ca Samantha Dupre Policy and Planning Officer Conservation Ontario Newmarket ON L3Y 4W Ext. 228 SDupre@conservationontario.ca Susan A. Rapin Director Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Environmental Services 700 University Avenue Toronto ON M5G 1X susan.rapin@opg.com Environmental Program and Assessment; Elise Croll Director GO Transit / Metrolinx GO, a Division of Metrolinx 20 Bay Street, Suite 600 Toronto ON M5J 2W Ext elise.croll@gotransit.com Lisa Myslicki Environmental Advisor Infrastructure Ontario Reality Services, Environmental Services 900 Bay Street M1-34i Toronto ON Lisa.Myslicki@infrastructureontario.ca M7A 1N3 Imshun Je Environmental Advisor Infrastructure Ontario Reality Services, Environmental Services 900 Bay Street M1-34i Toronto ON M7A 1N Imshun.Je@infrastructureontario.ca Federal Agencies Anjala Puvananathan Director, Ontario Region Sara Edd Senior Habitat Biologist Rob Dobos Manager Environment Canada Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ontario Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Fish Habitat Management, Ontario-Great Office Lakes Area Aboriginal Affairs and Environmental Assessment Coordination, Northern Development Environmental Unit, Land and Economic Canada Development Environmental Assessment Section; Environmental Protection Operations Division; Division-Ontario Region 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M anjala.puvananathan@ceaa-acee.gc.ca 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington ON L7R 4A Sara.Eddy@dfo-mpo.gc.ca 25 St. Clair Avenue East, 8 th Floor 867 Lakeshore RD. P.O. Box 505 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 EAcoordination_ON@aadncaandc.gc.ca Burlington ON L7R 4A rob.dobos@ec.gc.ca 98

106 Region Municipality Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Planner First Name Class EA Municipality Contact List Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Algoma Town of Blind River Blind River katie.scott@blindriver.ca Algoma Town of Bruce Mines Lennie Smith lgsfox@hotmail.com Zoning Administrator/Chief Building Official Bruce Mines brucemines@bellnet.ca Algoma Township of Dubreuilville Dubreuilville township@dubreuilville.ca Algoma City of Elliot Lake Elliot Lake info@city.elliotlake.on.ca Algoma Township of Hilton Hilton Beach admin@hiltontownship.ca Algoma Township of Hornepayne Hornepayne smith.hpayne@bellnet.ca Algoma Municipality of Huron Shores Iron Bridge @huronshores.ca Algoma Township of Jocelyn Hilton Beach jocelynt@soonet.ca Algoma Township of Johnson Desbarats johnsontwp@bellnet.ca Algoma Township of Laird Echo Bay lairdtwp@soonet.ca Algoma Township of Macdonald, Meredith & Aberdeen Add'l Jerry Dolcetti twpmacd@onlink.net Municipal Planner Echo Bay twpmacd@onlink.net Algoma Township of Plummer Additional Bruce Mines plumtwsp@onlink.net Algoma Township of Prince Prince Township pgreco@twp.prince.on.ca Algoma City of Sault Ste. Marie Don McConnell d.mcconnell@cityssm.on.ca Planning Director Sault Ste. Marie cityclerk@cityssm.on.ca Algoma Town of Spanish Spanish info@town.spanish.on.ca Algoma Township of St. Joseph Richards Landing stjoeadmin@bellnet.ca Algoma Township of Tarbutt & Tarbutt Additional Desbarats tarbutttownship@bellnet.ca Algoma Township of The North Shore Algoma Mills bgreen@ontera.net Algoma Town of Thessalon Thessalon townthess@bellnet.ca Algoma Municipality of Wawa Wawa ccyr@wawa.cc Algoma Township of White River Randy Lethbridge winnie@vianet.ca Planner White River winnie@vianet.ca Brant County County of Brant Mark Pomponi mark.pomponi@brant.ca General Manager of Development Services Burford brant@brant.ca Brant County City of Brantford Gregory Dworak gdworak@brantford.ca General Manager Community Development Services Brantford lwolfe@brantford.ca Bruce County Municipality of Arran-Elderslie Chesley areld@bmts.com Bruce County Municipality of Brockton Walkerton info@brockton.ca Bruce County County of Bruce Chris LaForest claforest@brucecounty.on.ca Director of Planning Walkerton bcobean@brucecounty.on.ca Bruce County Township of Huron-Kinloss Ripley info@huronkinloss.com Bruce County Municipality of Kincardine Michele Barr cbo@kincardine.net Director of Building & Planning/Chief Building Official Kincardine clerk@kincardine.net Bruce County Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula Lions Head marylynn.nbp@amtelecom.net Bruce County Town of Saugeen Shores Port Elgin harrisonr@saugeenshores.ca Bruce County Municipality of South Bruce Teeswater clerk@town.southbruce.on.ca Bruce County Town of South Bruce Peninsula Sabine Hammel bcplhammel@brucecounty.on.ca Planner Wiarton sbpen@bmts.com Chatham-Kent Municipality of Chatham-Kent Ralph Pugliese ralphp@chatham-kent.ca Director, Planning Services Chatham judys@chatham-kent.ca Cochrane Township of Black River-Matheson Gary Quigley planning@blackriver-matheson.com Planner/Fire Chief Matheson reception@blackriver-matheson.com Cochrane Town of Cochrane Cochrane jp.ouellette@town.cochrane.on.ca Cochrane Township of Fauquier-Strickland Fauquier info@fauquierstrickland.ca Cochrane Town of Hearst Janice Newsome jnewsome@hearst.ca Director of Planning/Chief Building Official Hearst townofhearst@hearst.ca Cochrane Town of Iroquois Falls Iroquois Falls KLauzon@iroquoisfalls.com Cochrane Town of Kapuskasing Kapuskasing general@kapuskasing.ca Cochrane Township of Mattice-Val Cote Mattice mattice@ntl.sympatico.ca Cochrane Township of Moonbeam Moonbeam moonbeam@moonbeam.ca Cochrane Town of Moosonee Moosonee info@moosonee.ca Cochrane Township of Opasatika Opasatika twpopas@persona.ca Cochrane Town of Smooth Rock Falls Smooth Rock Falls comments@townsrf.ca 99

107 Region Municipality Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Cochrane City of Timmins Mark Jensen mjensen@timmins.ca Director of Community Services Timmins clerks@timmins.ca Cochrane Township of Val Rita-Harty Val Rita administration@valharty.ca Dufferin County Township of Amaranth Christine Gervais cgervais@amaranth-eastgary.ca Director of Planning Amaranth township@amaranth-eastgary.ca Dufferin County County of Dufferin Orangeville info@dufferincounty.ca Dufferin County Township of East Garafraxa Christine Gervais cgervais@amaranth-eastgary.ca Director of Planning East Garafraxa township@amaranth-eastgary.ca Dufferin County Township of East Luther Grand Valley Tracey Atkinson tatkinson@townofgrandvalley.ca Township Planner Grand Valley mail@townofgrandvalley.ca Dufferin County Township of Melancthon Shelburne info@melancthontownship.ca Dufferin County Town of Mono Mark Early mark@townofmono.com Director of Planning Mono mono@townofmono.com Dufferin County Township of Mulmur Ron Mills rmills@mulmurtownship.ca Planner Mulmur info@mulmurtownship.ca Dufferin County Town of Orangeville Orangeville info@orangeville.ca Dufferin County Town of Shelburne Steve Wever planner@townofshelburne.on.ca Planner Shelburne jtelfer@townofshelburne.on.ca Durham Region Town of Ajax Paul Allore Paul.allore@ajax.ca Director of Planning and Development Services Ajax Martin.derond@ajax.ca Durham Region Township of Brock Cannington tgettinby@townshipofbrock.ca Durham Region Municipality of Clarington David Crome dcrome@clarington.net Director of Planning Services Bowmanville pbarrie@clarington.net Durham Region Regional Municipality of Durham Alex Georgieff planning@durham.ca Commissioner of Planning Whitby clerks@durham.ca Durham Region City of Oshawa Tom Hodgins thodgins@oshawa.ca Commissioner, Development Services Department Oshawa skranc@oshawa.ca Durham Region City of Pickering Neil Carroll customercare@pickering.ca Director of Planning & Development Pickering clerks@pickering.ca Durham Region Township of Scugog Don Gordon dgordon@scugog.ca Director of Community Services Port Perry kcoates@scugog.ca Durham Region Township of Uxbridge Uxbridge dleroux@town.uxbridge.on.ca Durham Region Town of Whitby Robert Short shortb@whitby.ca Commissioner of Planning Whitby info@whitby.ca Elgin County Town of Aylmer Danial Dale ddale@town.aylmer.on.ca Director of Planning & Municipal Services/CBO Aylmer nirving@town.aylmer.on.ca Elgin County Municipality of Bayham Margaret Underhill munderhill@bayham.on.ca Co-ordinator of Planning/Lottery Licensing Officer Straffordville bayham@bayham.on.ca Elgin County Municipality of Central Elgin Patrick Keenan pkeenan@city.st-thomas.on.ca Director of Planning St. Thomas dleitch@centralelgin.org Elgin County Municipality of Dutton-Dunwich Dutton cao@duttondunwich.on.ca Elgin County County of Elgin St. Thomas mmcdonald@elgin-county.on.ca Elgin County Township of Malahide Aylmer malahide@malahide.ca Elgin County Township of Southwold Fingal southwold@twp.southwold.on.ca Elgin County City of St. Thomas Patrick Keenan pkeenan@city.st-thomas.on.ca Director of Planning St. Thomas info@city.st-thomas.on.ca Elgin County Municipality of West Elgin Rodney westelgin@westelgin.net Essex County Town of Amherstburg Rebecca Belanger rbelanger@amherstburg.ca Planner Amherstburg inquiry@amherstburg.ca Essex County Town of Essex Heather Jablonski hjablonski@essex.ca Planner Essex cbondy@essex.ca Essex County County of Essex Bill King bking@countyofessex.on.ca Manager of Planning Essex mbrennan@countyofessex.on.ca Essex County Town of Kingsville Jackie Lassaline jlassaline@kingsville.ca Manager of Development Services Kingsville rorton-pert@kingsville.ca Essex County Town of Lakeshore Kim Darroch kdarroch@lakeshore.ca Manager of Development Services Belle River webmaster@lakeshore.ca Essex County Town of LaSalle Larry Silani lsilani@town.lasalle.on.ca Director of Planning and Development Services LaSalle info@town.lasalle.on.ca Essex County Municipality of Leamington Danielle Truax dtruax@leamington.ca Manager of Planning Services Leamington info@leamington.ca Essex County Township of Pelee Richard Zelinka zp@zpplan.com Planning Consultant Pelee Island info@pelee.ca Essex County Town of Tecumseh Brian Hillman bhillman@tecumseh.ca Director, Planning & Building Services Tecumseh info@tecumseh.ca Essex County City of Windsor Thom Hunt planningdept@city.windsor.on.ca City Planner Windsor clerks@city.windsor.on.ca Frontenac County Township of Central Frontenac Cathy MacMunn planning@centralfrontenac.com Planning Co-ordinator/Lottery Licensing Officer Sharbot Lake township@centralfrontenac.com Frontenac County Frontenac County Glenburnie info@frontenaccounty.ca Frontenac County Township of Frontenac Islands Carol Dwyre cdwyre@kos.net Planning Co-ordinator Wolfe Island tjoshea@kos.net Frontenac County City of Kingston Grant Bain gbain@cityofkingston.ca Director of Planning Kingston contactus@cityofkingston.ca Frontenac County Township of North Frontenac Jenny Duhamel clerkplanning@northfrontenac.ca Clerk / Planning Manager Plevna info@northfrontenac.ca Frontenac County Township of South Frontenac Lindsay Mills lmills@township.southfrontenac.on.ca Planning Co-ordinator Sydenham admin@township.southfrontenac.on.ca 100

108 Region Municipality Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Grey County Township of Chatsworth Chatsworth office@chatsworth.ca Grey County Township of Georgian Bluffs Jenn Burnett jburnett@georgianbluffs.on.ca Intermediate Planner Owen Sound office@georgianbluffs.on.ca Grey County County of Grey Randy Scherzer randy.scherzer@grey.ca Director of Planning and Development Owen Sound sharon.vokes@grey.ca Grey County Municipality of Grey Highlands Markdale info@greyhighlands.ca Grey County Town of Hanover Don Tedford dtedford@hanover.ca Director of Development/CBO Hanover civic@hanover.ca Grey County Municipality of Meaford Rob Armstrong rarmstrong@meaford.ca Director of Planning and Building Meaford info@meaford.ca Grey County City of Owen Sound Nick Popovich npopovich@owensound.ca Community Planner Owen Sound cityadmin@owensound.ca Grey County Township of Southgate Denise Whaley dwhaley@southgate.ca Planner Dundalk info@southgate.ca Grey County Town of The Blue Mountains Bryan Neal bpearce@thebluemountains.ca Planner Thornbury info@thebluemountains.ca Grey County Municipality of West Grey Durham info@westgrey.com Haldimand County County of Haldimand Craig Manley cmanley@haldimandcounty.on.ca General Manager, Planning Cayuga info@haldimandcounty.on.ca Haliburton County Township of Algonquin Highlands Dawn Newhook dnewhook@algonquinhighlands.ca Clerk/Planning Administrator Algonquin Highlands info@algonquinhighlands.ca Haliburton County Municipality of Dysart et al Patricia Martin pmartin@dysartetal.ca Director of Planning & Development Haliburton info@dysartetal.ca Haliburton County County of Haliburton Jane Tousaw jtousaw@county.haliburton.on.ca Director of Planning Minden jwilson@county.haliburton.on.ca Haliburton County Municipality of Highlands East Wilberforce info@highlandseast.ca Haliburton County Township of Minden Hills Minden admin@mindenhills.ca Halton Region City of Burlington Bruce Krushelnicki bruce.krushelnicki@burlington.ca Director of Planning and Building Burlington angela.morgan@burlington.ca Halton Region Regional Municipality of Halton Oakville karyn.bennett@halton.ca Halton Region Town of Halton Hills John Linhardt johnl@haltonhill.ca Director of Planning, Development & Sustainability Halton Hills suzannej@haltonhills.ca Halton Region Town of Milton Bill Mann bill.mann@milton.ca Director of Planning and Development Milton townclerk@milton.ca Halton Region Town of Oakville Dana Anderson danderson@oakville.ca Director of Planning Services Oakville ServiceOakville@oakville.ca Hamilton City of Hamilton Tim McCabe Tim.Mccabe@hamilton.ca General Manager of Planning & Development Services Hamilton clerk@hamilton.ca Hastings County Town of Bancroft Bancroft bancroft@town.bancroft.on.ca Hastings County City of Belleville Art MacKay amackay@city.belleville.on.ca Policy Planning Belleville cpallo@city.belleville.on.ca Hastings County Township of Carlow/Mayo Boulter carlowmayo@xplornet.ca Hastings County Municipality of Centre Hastings Madoc ppilgrim@centrehastings.com Hastings County Town of Deseronto Deseronto bbrooks@deseronto.ca Hastings County Municipality of Faraday Bancroft office@faraday.ca Hastings County County of Hastings Brian McComb mccombb@hastingscounty.com Director of Planning Belleville pinej@hastingscounty.com Hastings County Municipality of Hastings Highlands Cathy Bujas cbujas@hastingshighlands.ca Reception/Planning Secretary Maynooth office@hastingshighlands.ca Hastings County Township of Limerick Gilmour clerk@township.limerick.on.ca Hastings County Township of Madoc Madoc clerk@madoc.ca Hastings County Municipality of Marmora and Lake Marmora j.durbatch@marmoraandlake.ca Hastings County City of Quinte West Charlie Murphy charliem@city.quintewest.on.ca Director of Planning & Development Services Trenton donnaleec@city.quintewest.on.ca Hastings County Township of Stirling-Rawdon Stirling info@stirling-rawdon.com Hastings County Township of Tudor and Cashel Gilmour clerk@tudorandcashel.com Hastings County Municipality of Tweed Tweed info@twp.tweed.on.ca Hastings County Township of Tyendinaga Shannonville info@tyendinagatownship.com Hastings County Township of Wollaston Coe Hill wollaston@bellnet.ca Huron County Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Monica Walker-Bolton Planner Goderich clerk@acwtownship.ca Huron County Municipality of Bluewater Zurich bluewater@town.bluewater.on.ca Huron County Municipality of Central Huron Susanna Reid info@centralhuron.com Huron County Planning Clinton info@centralhuron.com Huron County Town of Goderich Goderich townhall@goderich.ca Huron County Township of Howick Gorrie clerk@town.howick.on.ca Huron County County of Huron Scott Tousaw inquiries@huroncounty.ca Director of Planning and Development Goderich inquiries@huroncounty.ca Huron County Municipality of Huron East Seaforth bknight@huroneast.com Huron County Municipality of Morris-Turnberry Brussels nmichie@morristurnberry.ca 101

109 Region Municipality Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Huron County Township of North Huron Sally McMullen smcmullen@huroncounty.ca Planner Wingham info@northhuron.ca Huron County Municipality of South Huron Exeter info@southhuron.ca Kawartha Lakes City of Kawartha Lakes Ron Taylor rtaylor@city.kawarthalakes.on.ca Director of Development Services Lindsay info@city.kawarthalakes.on.ca Kenora City of Dryden Dryden generalinquiries@dryden.ca Kenora Township of Ear Falls Ear Falls eftownship@ear-falls.com Kenora Township of Ignace Ignace deputyclerk@tbaytel.net Kenora City of Kenora Tara Rickaby trickaby@kenora.ca Planning Administrator Kenora jmcmillin@kenora.ca Kenora Municipality of Machin Vermilion Bay clerktreasurer@visitmachin.com Kenora Township of Pickle Lake Pickle Lake picklelake@picklelake.org Kenora Municipality of Red Lake Devon McCloskey planning@redlake.ca Planner Balmertown municipality@redlake.ca Kenora Municipality of Sioux Lookout Pat Uren planning@siouxlookout.ca Planning Administrator Sioux Lookout admin@siouxlookout.ca Kenora Township of Sioux Narrows-Nestor Falls Jeff Port jport@siouxnarrows-nestorfalls.ca Director of Planning & Development Sioux Narrows info@livethelakelife.ca Lambton County Township of Brooke-Alvinston Alvinston info@brookealvinston.com Lambton County Township of Dawn-Euphemia Dresden admin@dawneuphemia.on.ca Lambton County Township of Enniskillen Petrolia dmctavish@enniskillen.ca Lambton County County of Lambton Dave Posliff dave.posliff@county-lambton.on.ca Manager, Planning & Development Services Wyoming administration@county-lambton.on.ca Lambton County Municipality of Lambton Shores Patti Richardson prichardson@lambtonshores.ca Senior Planner Forest administration@lambtonshores.ca Lambton County Town of Petrolia Rob Nesbitt robert.nesbitt@county-lambton.on.ca Planner Petrolia petrolia@town.petrolia.on.ca Lambton County Town of Plympton-Wyoming Carlie Burns cburns@plympton-wyoming.ca Planning Secretary Wyoming info@plympton-wyoming.ca Lambton County City of Sarnia Kim Bresee kim.bresee@sarnia.ca Director of Planning and Building Sarnia clerks@sarnia.ca Lambton County Township of St. Clair Jeff Baranek jbaranek@twp.stclair.on.ca Coordinator of Planning/Deputy Clerk Mooretown webmaster@twp.stclair.on.ca Lambton County Township of Warwick Frank Garardo frank.garardo@lambton-county.on.ca County Planner Watford info@warwicktownship.ca Lanark County Township of Beckwith Niall Oddie noddie@twp.beckwith.on.ca Planning Administrator Carleton Place khallahan@twp.beckwith.on.ca Lanark County Town of Carleton Place Lisa Young lyoung@carletonplace.ca Director of Planning Carleton Place info@carletonplace.ca Lanark County Township of Drummond-North Elmsley Karl Grenke kgrenke@dnetownship.ca Planner Perth admin@dnetownship.ca Lanark County County of Lanark Mary Kirkham mkirkham@lanarkcounty.ca Planning Administrator Perth info@lanarkcounty.ca Lanark County Township of Lanark Highlands Rob Wittkie rwittkie@lanarkhighlands.ca Planning Administrator & Deputy Clerk Lanark rtrimble@lanarkhighlands.ca Lanark County Town of Mississippi Mills Stephen Stirling sstirling@mississippimills.ca Planner Almonte town@mississippimills.ca Lanark County Township of Montague Smiths Falls info@township.montague.on.ca Lanark County Town of Perth Eric Cosens ecosens@perth.ca Director of Planning Perth lwalton@perth.ca Lanark County Separated Town of Smiths Falls Smiths Falls townhall@smithsfalls.ca Lanark County Tay Valley Township Noelle Reeve nreeve@tayvalleytwp.ca Planner Perth clerk@tayvalleytwp.ca Leeds & Grenville United Counties Township of Athens Athens athens@ripnet.com Leeds & Grenville United Counties Township of Augusta Prescott rbennett@augusta.ca Leeds & Grenville United Counties City of Brockville Maureen M. Pascoe Merkley mpmerkley@brockville.com Director of Planning Brockville clerk@brockville.com Leeds & Grenville United Counties Township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal Debra McKinstry dmckinstry@twpec.ca Clerk/Planning Administrator/Acting CAO/Lottery Licensing Spencerville mail@twpec.ca Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley Barbara Kalivas bkalivas@elizabethtown-kitley.on.ca Director of Planning Addison mail@elizabethtown-kitley.on.ca Township of Front of Yonge Mallorytown admin@frontofyonge.com Separated Town of Gananoque Brenda Guy bguy@ganaoque.ca Manager of Community Development Gananoque information@gananoque.ca United Counties of Leeds and Grenville James (Sandy) Hay Sandy.Hay@uclg.on.ca Counties Planner Brockville reception@uclg.on.ca Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands Philip Costa philip@townshipleeds.on.ca Director of Planning and Development Lansdowne vanessa@townshipleeds.on.ca 102

110 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Region Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Lennox and Addington County Lennox and Addington County Lennox and Addington County Lennox and Addington County Lennox and Addington County Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Municipality of North Grenville Forbes Symon fsymon@northgrenville.on.ca Director of Planning and Development Kemptville general@northgrenville.on.ca Separated Town of Prescott Prescott info@prescott.ca Township of Rideau Lakes Michael Dwyer mdwyer@twprideaulakes.on.ca Manager of Development Services Delta info@twprideaulakes.on.ca Township of Addington Highlands Flinton clerk@addingtonhighlands.ca Town of Greater Napanee Gib Garrett ggarrett@greaternapanee.com Planning Clerk Napanee info@greaternapanee.com County of Lennox & Addington Napanee lkeech@lennox-addington.on.ca Loyalist Township Murray Beckel mbeckel@loyalist.ca Director, Planning & Development Odessa info@loyalist.ca Township of Stone Mills Centreville caoclerk@stonemills.com Manitoulin Township of Assiginack Manitowaning assiginackinfo@amtelecom.net Manitoulin Township of Billings Kagawong billingsadmin@billingstwp.ca Manitoulin Township of Burpee and Mills Evansville burpeemills@xplornet.com Manitoulin Municipality of Central Manitoulin Mindemoya centralm@amtelecom.net Manitoulin Township of Cockburn Island Spanish brentstdenis@gmail.com Manitoulin Municipality of Gordon/Barrie Island Gore Bay adminoffice@gordonbarrieisland.ca Manitoulin Town of Gore Bay Gore Bay aclarke@gorebay.ca Manitoulin Town of Northeastern Manitoulin and The Islands Little Current info@townofnemi.on.ca Manitoulin Township of Tehkummah Tehkummah twptehk@amtelecom.net Middlesex County Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Strathroy info@adelaidemetcalfe.on.ca Middlesex County City of London John Fleming jfleming@london.ca Director of Planning London webmaster@london.ca Middlesex County Township of Lucan Biddulph Lucan info@lucanbiddulph.on.ca Middlesex County County of Middlesex Durk Vanderwerff dvanderwerff@middlesex.ca Manager of Planning London kbunting@middlesex.ca Middlesex County Municipality of Middlesex Centre Ilderton boyds@middlesexcentre.on.ca Middlesex County Municipality of North Middlesex Barb Rosser daigle.rosser@isp.ca Planner Parkhill clerk@northmiddlesex.on.ca Middlesex County Municipality of Southwest Middlesex Glencoe info@southwestmiddlesex.ca Middlesex County Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc Paul Hicks phicks@strathroy.caradoc.ca Planner Strathroy general@strathroy-caradoc.ca Middlesex County Municipality of Thames Centre Stewart Findlater sfindlater@thamescentre.on.ca Director of Community Services and Development Dorchester inquiries@thamescentre.on.ca Muskoka Town of Bracebridge Dana Rahkola drahkola@bracebridge.ca Assistant Director of Development Services Bracebridge lmcdonald@bracebridge.ca Muskoka Township of Georgian Bay Jill Lewis jlewis@gbtownship.ca Manager of Planning and Economic Development Port Severn info@gbtownship.ca Muskoka Town of Gravenhurst Scott Lucas slucas@gravenhurst.ca Director of Development Services Gravenhurst cthwaites@gravenhurst.ca Muskoka Town of Huntsville Chris Marshall chris.marshall@huntsville.ca Director of Planning Huntsville denise.corry@huntsville.ca Muskoka Township of Lake of Bays Stefan Szczerbak sszczerbak@lakeofbays.on.ca Planner Dwight mpercival@lakeofbays.on.ca Muskoka Municipality of Muskoka Marg French mfrench@muskoka.on.ca Commissioner, Planning & Economic Development Bracebridge info@muskoka.on.ca Muskoka Township of Muskoka Lakes David Pink dpink@muskokalakes.ca Senior Planner Port Carling cmortimer@muskokalakes.ca Niagara Region Town of Fort Erie Rick Brady rbrady@forterie.on.ca Director of Community and Development Services Fort Erie ckett@forterie.on.ca Niagara Region Town of Grimsby Grimsby hsoady-easton@town.grimsby.on.ca Niagara Region Town of Lincoln Kathleen Dale kdale@lincoln.ca Director of Planning and Development Beamsville wkolasa@lincoln.ca Niagara Region Regional Municipality of Niagara Patrick Robson patrick.robson@niagararegion.ca Commissioner, Integrated Community Planning Thorold mike.trojan@niagararegion.ca 103

111 Region Municipality Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Niagara Region City of Niagara Falls Alex Herlovitch aherlovitch@niagarafalls.ca Director of Planning and Development Niagara Falls diorfida@niagarafalls.ca Niagara Region Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Milena Avramovic mavramovic@notl.org Director of Planning & Development Virgil hdowd@notl.org Niagara Region Town of Pelham Craig Larmour clarmour@pelham.ca Director of Planning and Development Fonthill NJBozzato@pelham.ca Niagara Region City of Port Colborne Dan Aquilina danaquilina@portcolborne.ca Niagara Region City of St. Catharines James Riddell jriddell@stcatharines.ca Director of Planning and Development Services Director, Planning and Development Services Port Colborne St. Catharines clerk@portcolborne.ca dcarnegie@stcatharines.ca Niagara Region City of Thorold Adele Arbour aarbour@thorold.com Director of Planning & Building Services Thorold clerk@thorold.com Niagara Region Township of Wainfleet Grant Munday planning@wainfleet.ca Manager of Planning Wainfleet tlamb@wainfleet.ca Niagara Region City of Welland Welland clerk@welland.ca Niagara Region Township of West Lincoln Brian Treble btreble@westlincoln.ca Director of Planning and Building Smithville reception@westlincoln.ca Nipissing Township of Bonfield Douglas Laplante doug@ebonfield.org Director of Planning & Development/CBO Bonfield clerk@ebonfield.org Nipissing Municipality of Calvin Mattawa administration@calvintownship.ca Nipissing Township of Chisholm Powassan info@chisholm.ca Nipissing Municipality of East Ferris Melissa Mohr melissa.mohr@eastferris.ca Community Planner Corbeil municipality@eastferris.ca Nipissing Town of Mattawa Wayne Belter info@mattawa.ca Director of Planning Mattawa info@mattawa.ca Nipissing Municipality of Mattawan Mattawa mattawan@xplornet.ca Nipissing City of North Bay Beverley Hillier beverley.hillier@cityofnorthbay.ca City Planner North Bay info@cityofnorthbay.ca Nipissing Township of Papineau-Cameron Sandra Morin papcm@on.aibn.com East Nipissing Planning Board Mattawa papcam@on.aibn.com Nipissing Township of South Algonquin Whitney southalgonquin@xplornet.com Nipissing Municipality of Temagami Wayne Koethe planning@temagami.ca Planner Temagami visit@temagami.ca Nipissing Municipality of West Nipissing Melanie Ducharme mducharme@westnipissing.ca Municipal Clerk/Planner Sturgeon Falls jbarbeau@westnipissing.ca Norfolk County Norfolk County Christoper Baird chris.baird@norfolkcounty.ca General Manager of Planning Simcoe inquiries@norfolkcounty.ca Northumberland County Township of Alnwick/Haldimand Peter Josephs alnhald@alnwickhaldimand.ca Municipal Planner Grafton alnhald@alnwickhaldimand.ca Northumberland County Municipality of Brighton Ken Hurford khurford@brighton.ca Manager of Planning Brighton gfrost@brighton.ca Northumberland County Town of Cobourg Glenn McGlashon gmcglashon@cobourg.ca Director of Planning and Development Cobourg webmaster@cobourg.ca Northumberland County Township of Cramahe Alison Torrie Lapaire planning@cramahetownship.ca Planning and By-law Coordinator Colborne candice@cramahetownship.ca Northumberland County Township of Hamilton Sandra Stothart sstothart@hamiltontownship.ca Planning Co-ordinator Cobourg info@hamiltontownship.ca Northumberland County County of Northumberland Cobourg caned@northumberlandcounty.ca Northumberland County Municipality of Port Hope Ron Warne rwarne@porthope.ca Director of Planning and Development Services Port Hope admin@porthope.ca Northumberland County Municipality of Trent Hills Jim Peters jim.peters@trenthills.ca Director of Planning Campbellford info@trenthills.ca Ottawa City of Ottawa John Moser John.Moser@ottawa.ca General Manager, Planning & Growth Management Ottawa Rick.Oconnor@ottawa.ca Oxford County Township of Blandford-Blenheim Alana Fulford Planner Drumbo generalmail@blandfordblenheim.ca Oxford County Township of East Zorra -Tavistock Hickson ezt@ezt.ca Oxford County Town of Ingersoll Ingersoll clerks@ingersoll.ca Oxford County Township of Norwich Jason Brander jbrander@county.oxford.on.ca Development Planner Otterville karmstrong@twp.norwich.on.ca Oxford County County of Oxford Gordon Hough ghough@oxfordcounty.ca Corp. Manager of Community and Strategic Planning Woodstock btabor@oxfordcounty.ca Oxford County Township of South-West Oxford Mount Elgin cao@swox.org Oxford County Town of Tillsonburg David Samis dsamis@tillsonburg.ca Director of Development & Communications Tillsonburg dewilson@tillsonburg.ca Oxford County City of Woodstock Ron Versteegen rversteegen@oxfordcounty.ca City Planner Woodstock lgartshore@city.woodstock.on.ca Oxford County Township of Zorra Eric Gilbert egilbert@oxfordcounty.ca Planner Ingersoll zorra@zorra.on.ca Parry Sound Township of Armour Robert Miller planning@armourtownship.ca Planner Burk's Falls info@armourtownship.ca Parry Sound Municipality of Callander Barbara Boland bboland@callander.ca Planning Administrator Callander info@callander.ca Parry Sound Township of Carling Nobel info@carlingtownship.ca Parry Sound Township of Joly Sundridge office@townshipofjoly.com Parry Sound Town of Kearney Kearney info@townofkearney.com Parry Sound Township of Machar South River bpaulmachar@vianet.ca 104

112 Region Municipality Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Parry Sound Municipality of Magnetawan Magnetawan info@magnetawan.com Parry Sound Municipality of McDougall McDougall clerk@mcdougalltownship.on.ca Parry Sound Township of McKellar McKellar clerk@township.mckellar.on.ca Parry Sound Township of McMurrich/Monteith Sprucedale mcmurric@surenet.net Parry Sound Township of Nipissing Nipissing admin@nipissingtownship.com Parry Sound Town of Parry Sound Iain Laing ilaing@townofparrysound.ca Director of Community Development Parry Sound mens@townofparrysound.com Parry Sound Township of Perry Emsdale info@townshipofperry.ca Parry Sound Municipality of Powassan Kim Bester-Melanson kbester-melanson@powassan.net Deputy Clerk Powassan info@powassan.net Parry Sound Township of Ryerson Burk's Falls admin@ryersontownship.ca Parry Sound Township of Seguin Chris Madej cmadej@seguin.ca Director of Planning Seguin info@seguin.ca Parry Sound Township of Strong Sundridge clerk@strongtownship.com Parry Sound Township of The Archipelago Cale Henderson chenderson@thearchipelago.on.ca Planner Parry Sound hgage@thearchipelago.on.ca Parry Sound Municipality of Whitestone Dunchurch info@whitestone.ca Peel Region City of Brampton Marilyn Ball marilyn.ball@brampton.ca Chief, Planning & Infrastructure Brampton peter.fay@brampton.ca Peel Region Town of Caledon Mary Hall mary.hall@caledon.ca Director of Development Approval and Planning Policy Caledon info@caledon.ca Peel Region City of Mississauga Edward Sajecki ed.sajecki@mississauga.ca Commissioner of Planning and Building Mississauga crystal.greer@mississauga.ca Peel Region Regional Municipality of Peel Eric Flora eric.flora@peelregion.ca Principal Planner - Infrastructure Planning & Design Brampton kathryn.lockyer@peelregion.ca Perth County Municipality of North Perth Listowel town@northperth.ca Perth County County of Perth David Hanly dhanly@perthcounty.ca Director of Planning Stratford info@perthcounty.ca Perth County Township of Perth East Geoff VanderBaaren gvanderbaaren@perthcounty.ca Planner Milverton gschwendinger@pertheast.ca Perth County Township of Perth South David Hanly dhanly@countyofperth.on.ca Director of Planning St. Pauls township@perthsouth.ca Perth County Separated Town of St. Marys St. Marys general@town.stmarys.on.ca Perth County City of Stratford Stratford clerks@city.stratford.on.ca Perth County Municipality of West Perth Dave Hanly dhanly@countyofperth.on.ca County Planning Director Mitchell info@westperth.com Peterborough County Township of Asphodel-Norwood Norwood bbonisteel@asphodelnorwood.com Peterborough County Township of Cavan Monaghan Karen Ellis services@cavanmonaghan.net Director of Planning Millbrook services@cavanmonaghan.net Peterborough County Township of Douro-Dummer Linda Moher lindamo@dourodummer.on.ca Clerk/Planning Co-ordinator Warsaw info@dourodummer.on.ca Peterborough County Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen Havelock havbelmet@hbmtwp.ca Peterborough County Township of North Kawartha Apsley d.page@northkawartha.on.ca Peterborough County Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan Christine Wright cawright@osmtownship.ca CAO/Director of Planning & Economic Development Keene info@osmtownship.ca Peterborough County City of Peterborough Malcolm Hunt mhunt@peterborough.ca Director of Planning and Development Services Peterborough cityptbo@peterborough.ca Peterborough County County of Peterborough Bryan Weir bweir@county.peterborough.on.ca Director of Planning Peterborough info@county.peterborough.on.ca Peterborough County Township of Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield Rob Lamarre rlamarre@nexicom.net Manager of Building and Planning Bridgenorth twpsel@nexicom.net Peterborough County Township of Galway-Cavendish-Harvey Bobcaygeon loneill@trentlakes.ca Prescott & Russell United Counties Township of Alfred and Plantagenet Guylaine Poirier gpoirier@alfred-plantagenet.com Zoning Administrator Plantagenet mdaigneault@alfred-plantagenet.com Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Township of Champlain Vankleek Hill info@champlain.ca City of Clarence-Rockland Michael Michaud mmichaud@clarence-rockland.com Director of Planning Rockland mouellet@clarence-rockland.com Township of East Hawkesbury St. Eugene lrozon@easthawkesbury.ca Town of Hawkesbury Manon Belle-Isle mbelle-isle@hawkesbury.ca Planner Hawkesbury cgroulx@hawkesbury.ca United Counties of Prescott and Russell Louis Prevost lprevost@prescott-russell.on.ca Director, Planning L'Orignal spparisien@prescott-russell.on.ca 105

113 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Region Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Township of Russell Dominique Tremblay dominiquetremblay@russell.ca Director of Planning Embrun info@russell.ca The Nation Municipality Guylain Lafleche glafleche@nationmun.ca Planner Casselman mmccuaig@nationmun.ca Prince Edward County Mississauga msampson@amcto.com Prince Edward County County of Prince Edward Gerry Murphy gmurphy@pecounty.on.ca Commissioner of Planning Picton vleskie@pecounty.on.ca Rainy River Township of Alberton Fort Frances alberton@jam21.net Rainy River Town of Atikokan Atikokan info@atikokan.ca Rainy River Township of Chapple Barwick chapple@tbaytel.net Rainy River Township of Dawson Rainy River dawsontwp@tbaytel.net Rainy River Township of Emo Emo township@emo.ca Rainy River Town of Fort Frances N. Faye Flatt fflatt@fort-frances.com Planner Fort Frances town@fort-frances.com Rainy River Township of La Vallee Devlin lavalley@nwonet.net Rainy River Township of Lake of the Woods Rainy River lakeofthewoodstwp@tbaytel.net Rainy River Township of Morley Stratton morley@nwonet.net Rainy River Town of Rainy River Rainy River rainyriver@tbaytel.net Renfrew County Township of Admaston/Bromley Renfrew info@admastonbromley.com Renfrew County Town of Arnprior Robin Smith rsmith@arnprior.ca Planner Arnprior arnprior@arnprior.ca Renfrew County Township of Bonnechere Valley Eganville admin@eganville.com Renfrew County Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan Palmer Rapids blrtownship@xplornet.com Renfrew County Town of Deep River Deep River townmail@deepriver.ca Renfrew County Township of Greater Madawaska Charles Cheesman ccheesman@countyofrenfrew.on.ca Planning & Forestry Manager Calabogie admin@greatermadawaska.com Renfrew County Townships of Head, Clara and Maria Stonecliffe twpshcm@xplornet.com Renfrew County Township of Horton Charles Cheesman ccheesman@countyofrenfrew.on.ca Planner Renfrew mjmhorton@xplornet.com Renfrew County Township of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards Killaloe info@khrtownship.ca Renfrew County Town of Laurentian Hills Gerry Dupuis info@aurentianhills.ca Planning Co-ordinator/Chief Building Official R.R. #1, Deep River info@laurentianhills.ca Renfrew County Township of Laurentian Valley Lauree Armstrong laureea@laurvall.on.ca Planner/Economic Development Officer Pembroke laurentian@laurvall.on.ca Renfrew County Township of Madawaska Valley Silas Lorbetski slorbetski@madawaskavalley.ca Admin. & Planning Officer/Lottery Licensing Barry's Bay info@madawaskavalley.ca Renfrew County Township of McNab/Braeside Bruce Howarth info@mcnabbraeside.com Senior Planner Arnprior info@mcnabbraeside.com Renfrew County Municipality of North Algona Wilberforce Township Eganville naw@nalgonawil.com Renfrew County City of Pembroke Colleen Sauriol csauriol@pembroke.ca Manager of Planning Pembroke pembroke@pembroke.ca Renfrew County Town of Petawawa Karen Cronier kcronier@petawawa.ca Planning Coordinator Petawawa @petawawa.ca Renfrew County County of Renfrew Paul Moreau pmoreau@countyofrenfrew.on.ca Director of Development & Property Department Pembroke info@countyofrenfrew.on.ca Renfrew County Town of Renfrew Renfrew info@town.renfrew.on.ca Renfrew County Township of Whitewater Region Cobden info@whitewaterregion.ca Simcoe County Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Jacquie Tschekalin jtschekalin@townshipadjtos.on.ca Director of Planning Alliston lkeenan@townshipadjtos.on.ca Simcoe County City of Barrie Stephen Naylor snaylor@barrie.ca Director of Planning Services Barrie cityinfo@barrie.ca Simcoe County Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Geoff McKnight gmcknight@townofbwg.com Director of Planning and Development Services Bradford rmurphy@townofbwg.com Simcoe County Township of Clearview Michael Wynia mwynia@clearview.ca Director, Planning and Development Stayner bcampbell@clearview.ca Simcoe County Town of Collingwood Nancy Farrer nfarrer@collingwood.ca Director of Planning and Development Collingwood townhall@collingwood.ca Simcoe County Township of Essa Colleen Healey chealey@essatownship.on.ca Manager of Planning and Development Utopia info@essatownship.on.ca Simcoe County Town of Innisfil Tim Cane tcane@innisfil.ca Manger of Land Use Planning Innisfil jskorobohacz@innisfil.ca Simcoe County Town of Midland Wes Crown wcrown@midland.ca Director of Planning & Development Midland info@midland.ca Simcoe County Town of New Tecumseth Eric Chandler echandler@newtecumseth.ca Manager of Planning Alliston clerk@newtecumseth.ca Simcoe County City of Orillia Ian Sugden isugden@orillia.ca Director of Planning and Development Orillia corporate@orillia.ca Simcoe County Township of Oro-Medonte Andria Leigh aleigh@oro-medonte.ca Director of Development Services Oro info@oro-medonte.ca 106

114 Region Municipality Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Simcoe County Town of Penetanguishene Jessica Klug jklug@penetanguishene.ca Senior Planner Penetanguishene hbryce@penetanguishene.ca Simcoe County Township of Ramara Deb McCabe dmccabe@ramara.ca Planning and Zoning Administrator Brechin ramara@ramara.ca Simcoe County Township of Severn Nancy Tuckett ntuckett@townshipofsevern.com Director of Planning Orillia hsander@townshipofsevern.com Simcoe County County of Simcoe Midhurst info@simcoe.ca Simcoe County Township of Springwater Minesing info@springwater.ca Simcoe County Township of Tay Mara Burton mburton@tay.ca Director of Planning & Development Victoria Harbour taytownship@tay.ca Simcoe County Township of Tiny Shawn Persaud spersaud@tiny.ca Manager of Planning and Development Tiny dluker@tiny.ca Simcoe County Town of Wasaga Beach Ray Kelso rkelso@wasagabeach.com Manager of Planning & Development Wasaga Beach clerk@wasagabeach.com Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties City of Cornwall Stephen Alexander salexander@cornwall.ca G.M., Planning Cornwall cityhall@cornwall.ca Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Township of North Dundas Calvin Pol cpol@northdundas.com Director of Planning, Building & Enforcement Winchester info@northdundas.com Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Township of North Glengarry Gerry Murphy gerrymurphy@northglengarry.ca Planner/Chief Building Official Alexandria liselavigne@northglengarry.ca Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Township of North Stormont Berwick admin@northstormont.ca Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Township of South Dundas Donald J.W. Lewis dlewis@southdundas.com Manager of Planning and Enforcement Morrisburg mail@southdundas.com Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Township of South Glengarry Lancaster info@southglengarry.com Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Township of South Stormont Hilton Cryderman hilton@southstormont.ca Manager, Planning & Development Services Long Sault info@southstormont.ca Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Michael Otis motis@sdgcounties.ca County Planner Cornwall info@sdgcounties.ca Sudbury City of Greater Sudbury Paul Baskcomb paul.baskcomb@greatersudbury.ca Director of Planning Services Sudbury caroline.hallsworth@greatersudbury.ca Sudbury Township of Baldwin McKerrow peggy@townshipofbaldwin.ca Sudbury Township of Chapleau Allan Pellow apellow@township.chapleau.on.ca CAO/Clerk/Director of Planning Chapleau apellow@township.chapleau.on.ca Sudbury Town of Espanola Espanola town@town.espanola.on.ca Sudbury Municipality of French River Melissa Riou planner@sepb.org Director of Planning Noelville mbouffard@frenchriver.ca Sudbury Municipality of Killarney Melissa Riou planner@sepb.org Director of Planning Killarney townkill@vianet.on.ca Sudbury Municipality of Markstay-Warren Melissa Riou info@seph.org Director of Planning Markstay info@markstay-warren.ca Sudbury Township of Nairn and Hyman Nairn Centre nairncentre@personainternet.com Sudbury Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers Massey inquiries@sables-spanish.ca Sudbury Municipality of St. Charles St. Charles cta@stcharlesontario.ca Thunder Bay Township of Conmee Kakabeka Falls conmee@tbaytel.net Thunder Bay Township of Dorion Dorion office@doriontownship.ca Thunder Bay Township of Gillies Kakabeka Falls gillies@tbaytel.net Thunder Bay Municipality of Greenstone Geraldton administration@greenstone.ca Thunder Bay Township of Manitouwadge Cecile Kerster ckerster@manitouwadge.ca Municipal Manager Clerk/Planner/Lottery Licensing Manitouwadge ckerster@manitouwadge.ca Thunder Bay Town of Marathon Marathon clerk@marathon.ca Thunder Bay Municipality of Neebing Neebing neebing@neebing.org Thunder Bay Township of Nipigon Lindsay Mannila info@nipigon.net CAO/Clerk/Treasurer/Director of Planning Nipigon info@nipigon.net 107

115 Region Municipality Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City Thunder Bay Township of O'Connor Kakabeka Falls twpoconn@tbaytel.net Thunder Bay Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge Sharron Martyn sharron.martyn@oliverpaipoonge.on.ca Manager of Planning Murillo jamie.cressman@oliverpaipoonge.on.ca Thunder Bay Township of Red Rock Red Rock cao@shawbiz.ca Thunder Bay Township of Schreiber Schreiber clerk@schreiber.ca Thunder Bay Municipality of Shuniah Thunder Bay nhunley@shuniah.org Thunder Bay Township of Terrace Bay Terrace Bay info@terracebay.ca Thunder Bay City of Thunder Bay Mark Smith msmith@thunderbay.ca General Manager of Development Services Thunder Bay jhannam@thunderbay.ca Timiskaming Township of Armstrong Earlton reynaldrivard@nt.net Timiskaming Township of Brethour Belle Vallée brethour@parolink.net Timiskaming Township of Casey Keith Harriman kharriman1@cogeco.ca Planner Belle Vallee harlytwp@parolink.net Timiskaming Township of Chamberlain Englehart ctchamberlain@ontera.net Timiskaming Municipality of Charlton and Dack Englehart dthibeault@charltonanddack.com Timiskaming Town of Cobalt Cobalt cobalt@ntl.sympatico.ca Timiskaming Township of Coleman Coleman toc@ontera.net Timiskaming Town of Englehart Englehart englehrt@ntl.sympatico.ca Timiskaming Township of Evanturel Englehart evantureladmin@parolink.net Timiskaming Township of Gauthier Dobie diannesayer3@hotmail.com Timiskaming Township of Harley Keith Harriman kharriman1@cogeco.ca Planner New Liskeard harlytwp@parolink.net Timiskaming Township of Harris New Liskeard harris@ntl.sympatico.ca Timiskaming Township of Hilliard Thornloe twphill@parolink.net Timiskaming Township of Hudson Keith Harriman kharriman1@cogeco.ca Planner New Liskeard harlytwp@parolink.net Timiskaming Township of James Elk Lake elklake@ntl.sympatico.ca Timiskaming Township of Kerns New Liskeard harlytwp@parolink.net Timiskaming Town of Kirkland Lake Kirkland Lake joann.ducharme@tkl.ca Timiskaming Township of Larder Lake Larder Lake dwightmctaggart@larderlaketwp.net Timiskaming Town of Latchford Latchford jallen@latchford.ca Timiskaming Township of Matachewan Sarah Vereault svereault@jlrichards.ca Planner Matachewan township@ntl.sympatico.ca Timiskaming Township of McGarry Virginiatown admin@mcgarry.ca Timiskaming City of Temiskaming Shores Karen Beauchamp kbeauchamp@temiskamingshores.ca Director of Community Growth & Planning Haileybury municipality@temiskamingshores.ca Toronto City of Toronto Jennifer Keesmaat jkeesma@toronto.ca Executive Director/Chief Planner Toronto 311@toronto.ca Waterloo Region City of Cambridge Janet Babcock babcockj@cambridge.ca Commissioner of Planning Services Cambridge questions@cambridge.ca Waterloo Region City of Kitchener Alain Pinard alain.pinard@kitchener.ca Director of Planning Services Kitchener christine.tarling@kitchener.ca Waterloo Region Township of North Dumfries Steve Stone sstone@northdumfries.ca Director of Planning Cambridge mail@township.northdumfries.on.ca Waterloo Region Regional Municipality of Waterloo Rob Horne hrob@region.waterloo.on.ca Commissioner of Planning Services Kitchener fkris@region.waterloo.on.ca Waterloo Region City of Waterloo Cameron Rapp cameron.rapp@waterloo.ca General Manager, Development Services Waterloo Waterloo Region Township of Wellesley St. Clements gkosch@wellesley.ca Waterloo Region Township of Wilmot Harold O'Krafka harold.okrafka@wilmot.ca Director of Development Services Baden barb.mcleod@wilmot.ca Waterloo Region Township of Woolwich Dan Kennaley dkennaley@woolwich.ca Director of Engineering & Planning Services Elmira cbroughton@woolwich.ca Wellington County Township of Centre Wellington Brett Salmon bsalmon@centrewellington.ca Director, Planning Elora kokane@centrewellington.ca Wellington County Town of Erin Sally Stull sally.stull@erin.ca Planner Hillsburgh connie.cox@erin.ca Wellington County City of Guelph James Riddell james.riddell@guelph.ca General Manager of Planning & Development Services Guelph info@guelph.ca Wellington County Township of Guelph/Eramosa Rockwood general@get.on.ca Wellington County Township of Mapleton Drayton reception@town.mapleton.on.ca Wellington County Town of Minto Mark van Patter markv@county.wellington.on.ca County Planner Harriston minto@town.minto.on.ca Wellington County Township of Puslinch Aldo Salis ALDOS@county.wellington.on.ca Consulting Planner Guelph admin@puslinch.ca Wellington County County of Wellington Gary Cousins garyc@wellington.ca Director of Planning and Development Guelph donnab@wellington.ca Wellington County Township of Wellington North Kenilworth township@wellington-north.com 108

116 Region Municipality Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Planner Title City York Region Town of Aurora Marco Ramunno mramunno@aurora.ca Director of Planning & Development Services Aurora jleach@aurora.ca York Region Town of East Gwillimbury Carolyn Kellington ckellington@eastgwillimbury.ca General Manager, Development Services Sharon town@eastgwillimbury.ca York Region Town of Georgina Harold Lenters hlenters@georgina.ca Director of Planning and Building Keswick wgrant@georgina.ca York Region Township of King Stephen Kitchen skitchen@king.ca Director of Planning King City ksmyth@king.ca York Region Town of Markham Jim Baird jbaird@markham.ca Commissioner of Development Services Markham kkitteringham@markham.ca York Region Town of Newmarket Richard Nethery rnethery@newmarket.on.ca Director, Planning & Building Services Newmarket abrouwer@newmarket.ca York Region Town of Richmond Hill Ana Bassios ana.bassios@richmondhill.ca Commissioner, Planning & Regulatory Services Richmond Hill donna.mclarty@richmondhill.ca York Region City of Vaughan John MacKenzie john.mackenzie@vaughan.ca Commissioner of Planning Vaughan jeffrey.abrams@vaughan.ca York Region Andrew McNeely andrew.mcneely@townofws.ca Director of Planning & Building Services Stouffville michele.kennedy@townofws.ca York Region Regional Municipality of York Dino Basso dino.basso@york.ca Executive Director, Corporate and Strategic Planning Newmarket denis.kelly@york.ca 109

117 First Name Last Name Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Class EA First Nation and Métis Contact List Company/Community Title Address Address2 City Prov. Kevin MacDonald Animbiigoo Zaagi igan Anishinaabek Band Administrator P.O. Box 120 Beardmore ON P0T 1G kmacdonald@aza.ca Randy Councilor Anishinaabeg of Naongashiing Director of Administration P.O. Box 335 Morson ON P0W 1J Postal Code Business Phone Business Fax Aroland First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 10 Aroland ON P0T 1B Attawapiskat First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 248 Attawapiskat ON P0L 1A Rodney McKay Bearskin Lake First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 25 Bearskin Lake ON P0V 1E rodny mckay@knet.ca Lynne Gavin Big Grassy First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 414 Morson ON P0W 1J lagavin@tbaytel.net Amelia Hardy Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek Band Manager (Rocky Bay) 501 Spirit Bay Road Address Macdiarmid ON P0T 2B ahardy@rockybayfn.ca Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek Band Manager 146 Court Street South Thunder Bay ON P7B 2X Lucas Jewitt Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek BNA Coordinator 147 Court Street South Thunder Bay ON P7B 2X lucasjewitt@papasay.ca Brunswick House First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 1178 Highway 101 East Chapleau ON P0M 1K Cat Lake First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 81 Cat Lake ON P0V 1J catlakefirstnation@knet.ca Chapleau Cree First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 400 Fox Lake Reserve, 828 Fox Lake Road Chapleau ON P0M 1K bandadmin@chapleaucree.ca Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 279 Chapleau ON P0M 1K 'bandadmin@chapleau.ca' Michael McGee Constance Lake First Nation Executive Director P.O. Box 4000 Calstock ON P0L 1B Bertha Sutherland Constance Lake First Nation Coordinator P.O. Box 4000 Calstock ON P0L 1B bertha.sutherland@clfn.on.ca Smokey Bruyere Couchiching First Nation Band Manager RMB 2027, R.R. #2 Fort Frances ON P9A 3M bandmanager@couchiching.ca Deer Lake First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 39 Deer Lake ON P0V 1N Jane Peterson Eagle Lake First Nation Program Manager PO Box 1001 Migisi Sahgaigan ON P0V 3H humanresources@migisi.ca Garry Kavanaugh Eagle Lake First Nation Traditional Coordinator PO Box 1001 Migisi Sahgaigan ON P0V 3H resourceassistant@migisi.ca Eabametoong First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 298 Eabamet Lake ON P0T 1L 'Louie.sugarhead@eabametoongfn.ca' Flying Post First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 1027 Nipigon ON P0T 2J Fort Albany First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 1 Fort Albany ON P0L 1H George Fort Severn First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 149 Fort Severn ON P0V 1W Fort William First Nation Band Manager 90 Anemki Drive, Suite 200 Thunder Bay ON P7J 1L TMorriseau@fwfn.com;ijb@fwfn.com Ernest Waboose Ginoogaming First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box Poplar Crescent Long Lac ON P0T 2A ernest.waboose@ginoogamingfn.ca Lindsey Jupp Matawa Tribal Council Environmental Technologist 233 S. Court St. Thunder Bay ON P7B 2X ljupp@matawa.on.ca Grassy Narrows First Nation Band Manager General Delivery Grassy Narrows ON P0X 1B Lucille McKenzie Grassy Narrows First Nation General Delivery Grassy Narrows ON P0X 1B 'lucillemckenzie@hotmail.com' Hornepayne First Nation Band Manager 274 Front Street, P.O. Box 1553 Hornepayne ON P0M 1Z Oliver Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Band Manager P.O. Box 1 Kejeck Post Office Shoal Lake ON P0X 1E operationmanager@netv.ca Antonius Kasabonika Lake First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 124 Kasabonika Lake ON P0V 1Y Kashechewan First Nation Band Manager 13 B Riverside Drive, P.O. Box 240 Kashechewan ON P0L 1S George Reuben Kashechewan First Nation Councillor 13 B Riverside Drive, P.O. Box 240 Kashechewan ON P0L 1S george_reuben@hotmail.com Keewaywin First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 90, 202 Band Office Road Keewaywin ON P0V 3G Kiashke Zaaging Anishinaabek (Gull Bay) Band Manager General Delivery Gull Bay ON P0T 1P James M Kingfisher Lake First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 57 Kingfisher Lake ON P0V 1Z jamesm@kingfisherlake.ca Bonnie Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Band Manager P.O. Box 329 Big Trout Lake ON P0V 1G Koocheching First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 32 Sandy Lake ON P0V 1V Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation Band Manager 1100 Memorial Avenue, Suite 328 Thunder Bay ON P7B 4A brucebarber@tbaytel.net 110

118 First Name Last Name Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Company/Community Title Address Address2 City Prov. Postal Code Business Phone Business Fax Address Lac La Croix First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 640 Negauquon Lake I.R. 25D Fort Frances ON P9A 3M bbushey@shaw.ca Lac Seul First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 100 Hudson ON P0V 1X rjogemah@lsfn.ca Long Lake #58 First Nation Band Manager 209 Otter Street P. O. Box 609 Long Lac ON P0T 2A Marten Falls First Nation Band Manager General Delivery Ogoki Post ON P0T 2L Shawn Batiste Matachewan First Nation Executive Director P. O. Box 160 Matachewan ON P0K 1M sbatise@wabun.on.ca Juanita Luke Mattagami First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 99 Gogama ON P0M 1W McDowell Lake First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 321 Red Lake ON P0V 2M Carol Sanders Michipicoten First Nation Band Manager Box 1, Site 8, R.R. Wawa ON POS 1KO csanders@michipicoten.com #1 Mishkeegogamang First Nation Band Manager (New Osnaburgh) New Osnaburgh ON P0V 2H davidmasakeyash@msn.com Lori Rainville Missanabie Cree First Nation Band Manager 174B, Hwy. 17E, Bell's Point Garden River ON P6A 6Z lrainville@missanabiecree.com Mitaanjigaming First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 609 Fort Frances ON P9A 3M Mocreebec Council of the Cree Nation Band Manager P. O. Box #4 Moose Factory ON P0L 1W Donna Ashamock Mocreebec Council of the Cree Nation P. O. Box #4 Moose Factory ON P0L 1W d_ashamock@rogers.com Peter Welsey Moose Cree First Nation Executive Director P. O. Box Mookijuneibeg Street Moose Factory ON P0L 1W peter.wesley@moosecree.com Muskrat Dam First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 140 Muskrat Dam ON P0V 3B gordonwalterbeardy@knet.ca Darlene Smith Naicatchewenin First Nation Director of Administration Box 15, R. R. #1 Devlin ON P0W 1C darlene.smith@bellnet.ca Naotkamegwanning First Nation Band Manager Pawitik Post Office Pawitik ON POX 1LO Neskantaga First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 105 Lansdowne House ON Nibinamik First Nation Band Manager POT 3BO Summer Beaver ON POT 3BO Nigigoonsiminikaaning First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 68 Fort Frances ON P9A 3M North Caribou Lake First Nation Band Manager General Delivery Weagamow Lake ON POV 2YO Dan Chikane North Caribou Lake First Nation General Delivery Weagamow Lake ON POV 2YO danchikane@kent.ca North Spirit Lake First Nation Band Manager General Delivery North Spirit Lake ON POV 2GO Northwest Angle No. 33 First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 1490 Kenora ON P9N 3X Northwest Angle No. 37 First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 267 Sioux Narrows ON P0X 1N Obashkaandagaang Band Manager P. O. Box 625 Keewatin ON POX 1CO Ochiichagwe Babigo ining Nation Band Manager R.R. #1, Dalles Road Kenora ON P9N 2E Ojibway Nation of Saugeen Band Manager General Delivery Savant Lake ON POV 2SO Ojibways of Onigaming Band Manager P. O. Box Ballpark Road Nestor Falls ON P0X 1K Ojibways of Pic River Band Manager P.O. Box Pic River Road Heron Bay ON POT 1RO John Szura Pays Plat First Nation Chief Executive Officer 10 Central Place Pays Plat ON POT 3C ppceo@tbaytel.net Norm Jaehrling Pic Mobert First Nation Chief Executive Officer P.O. Box 717 Mobert ON P0M 2J jaehrlingssm@gmail.com Pikangikum First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 323 Pikangikum ON POV 1LO Poplar Hill First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 1 Poplar Hill ON P0V 3E Dean Wilson Rainy River First Nation Director of Administration P. O. Box 453 EMO ON POW 1EO d.wilson@bellnet.ca Priscilla Atkinson Red Rock Indian Band Band Manager POT 2JO Nipigon ON POT 2JO bandadmin@shaw.ca Edward Wawia Red Rock Indian Band Councillor POT 2JO Nipigon ON POT 2JO ewawia@shaw.ca Sachigo Lake First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 51 Sachigo Lake ON POV 2PO Sandy Lake First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 12 Sandy Lake ON POV 1VO Seine River First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 124 Mine Centre ON POW 1HO Shoal Lake No. 40 First Nation Band Manager Kejick Post Office Shoal Lake ON POX 1EO Slate Falls First Nation Band Manager 48 Lakeview Drive Slate Falls ON P0V 3C Kevin Archibald Taykwa Tagamou First Nation Band Manager R.R. #2, P.O. Box Cochrane ON P0L 1C Temagami First Nation Band Manager Lake Temagami Lake Temagami ON POH 1CO Joseph Katt Temagami First Nation Second Chief Lake Temagami Lake Temagami ON POH 1CO Joe.Katt@temagamifirstnation.ca Wabaseemoong First Nation Band Manager Whitedog Post Office Whitedog ON POX 1PO Wabauskang First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 339 Ear Falls ON POV 1TO gwenreid302@gmail.com 111

119 First Name Ursula Last Name Chief Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Company/Community Title Address Address2 City Prov. Wabigoon First Nation/Economic Development/Resource Assistant Band Manager Site 115, R.R. #1, Box 300 Postal Code Business Phone Business Fax Address Dryden ON P8N 2Y Ursula Chief <UBChief@wlon.ca> Ginger Sackaney Wahgoshig First Nation Band Manager R.R. #3 Matheson ON POK 1NO wfnmanager@wahgoshigfirstnation.com Wauzhushk Onigum First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 1850 Kenora ON P9N 3X Wawakapewin First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 449 c/o Shibogama First Nation Council Sioux Lookout ON P8T 1A Webequie First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 268 Webequie ON POT 3AO Whitesand First Nation Band Manager P.O. Box 68 Armstrong ON POT 1AO Wunnumin Lake First Nation Band Manager P. O. Box 105 Wunnumin Lake ON POV 2ZO Mary Bea Kenny Independent First Nations Alliance Environmental Scientist 105 N May Street Suite 218 Thunder Bay ON P7C 3N marykenny@ifna.ca Laura Sayers Shibogama First Nation Council 81 King Street Thunder Bay ON P8T 1A lauras@shibogama.on.ca Theresa Hall Mushkegowuk Council Ring of Fire Coordinator 36 Birch St. South Timmins ON P4N 2A5 theresahall@mushkegowuk.ca Angela Gilles Alderville Band Administrator Second Line, P.O. Box 46 Roseneath ON K0K 2X agillies@aldervillefirstnation.ca Vicky Two Axe Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Executive Director of Operations 1657A Misomis Inamo Golden Lake ON K0J 1A ext executive.director@pikwakanagan.ca Jan Leroux Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Program Manager 1657A Misomis Inamo Golden Lake ON K0J 1A ext mgr.landsmembership@pikwakanagan.ca Janet Stavinga Algonquins of Ontario Executive Director 31 Riverside Drive, Suite 101 Pembroke ON K8A 8R jstavinga@nrtco.net Peter Nahwegahbow Aundeck-Omni-Kaning Band Manager RR #1, Box 21, 13 Hill Street Little Current ON P0P 1K nahwegahbowp@aokfn.com Denise Graham Beausoleil Band Administrator 1 O-Gema Street Christian Island, Cedar Point ON L0K 1C denisegraham2@gmail.com Janice Taylor Chippewas of Georgina Island Band Manager RR #2 N13 Sutton West ON L0E 1R Suzanne Howes Chippewas of Georgina Island Councillor RR #2 N13 Sutton West ON L0E 1R showes@georginaisland.com Dan Shilling Chippewas of Rama Band Manager 5884 Rama Road, Suite 200 Rama ON L0K 1T dans@ramafirstnation.ca Brian Hamilton Curve Lake General Manager 22 Winookeeda Road Curve Lake ON K0L 1R manager@curvelakefn.ca Melissa Dokis Curve Lake Liaison/Consultation 22 Winookeeda Road Curve Lake ON K0L 1R mdutytoconsult@curvelakefn.ca Tina Restoule Dokis Band Manager 940 Main Street PO Box 62 Via Monetville ON P0M 2K tina.r@dokisfirstnation.com Ken Noble Henvey Inlet Special Projects Laurie Paudash Hiawatha Band Manager 295 Pickerel River Road 123 Paudash Street, RR #2 Pickerel ON P0J 1J kennoble@vianet.ca Keene ON K0L 2G Diane Sheridan Hiawatha Lands Resource Worker 123 Paudash Street, RR #2 Keene ON K0L 2G HFNConsultation@nexicom.net Jerry Smith Magnetawan Band Manager RR #1 Box 15 Britt ON P0G 1A bandmanager@magfn.com Brenda Ense M'Chigeeng Chief Administrative Officer PO Box 333, 53 Highway 551 M'Chigeeng ON P0P 1G ext msg through website Keith Sayers Mississauga Lands and Resource Manager PO Box 1299, 64 Park Road Blind River ON P0R 1B ext Kathleen Brant Mississaugas of Scugog Island Administrator Island Road Port Perry ON L9L 1B ext kbrant@scugogfirstnation.com Monica Sanford Mississaugas of Scugog Island Community Consultation Administrative Assistant Island Road Port Perry ON L9L 1B ext msanford@scugogfirstnation.com Brendan White Mohaks of Akwesasne Manager, Communications Unit PO Box 579 Cornwall ON K6H 5T x 2211 brendan.white@akwesasne.ca Angela Maracle Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Senior Director of Operations RR #1, 13 Old York Road PO BOX 119, 3719 Rhonda Williams Moose Deer Point Band/Housing Manager Twelve Mile Bay Road Dwayne Nashkawa Nipissing Executive Director 36 Semo Road, RR#1 Deseronto ON K0K 1X ext. 121 Mactier ON P0C 1H angelam@mbq-tmt.org Garden Village ON P2B 3K2 dwaynen@nfn.ca 112

120 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment First Name Last Name Company/Community Title Address Address2 City Prov. Laura Owl Sagamok Band Manager PO Box Espaneil Street Massey ON P0P 1P Nishin Neawasige Serpent River Director of Operations 48 Indian Road Cutler ON P0P 1B Adam Good Shawanaga Band Manager 2 Village Road RR #1 Postal Code Business Phone Business Fax Nobel ON P0G 1G Address Cassandra Cadeau Shawanaga 2 Village Road RR #1 Nobel ON P0G 1G sfn.pca.cadeau@gmail.com Alison Aguonie Sheguiandah Band Manager PO Box 101, 142 Ogemah Miikan Sheguiandah ON P0P 1W Dennis Blackburn Sheshegwaning Band Manager PO Box 1 Sheshegwaning ON P0P 1X Mary Jane Wardell Thessalon Band Manager PO Box 9, RR #2 Thessalon ON P0R 1L mjward@soonet.ca Irvin George Wahnapitae Band Manager 36 Loon Way Road Capreol ON P0M 1H ext irvin.george@wahnapitaefn.com Cheryl Recollet Wahnapitae 36 Loon Way Road Capreol ON P0M 1H cheryl.recollet@wahnapitaefn.com Sandra Monette Wahta Senior Administrator 2664 Muskoka Road Bala ON P0C 1A ext sandra.monette@wahtamohawks.ca Linda Simon Wasauksing Chief Executive Director PO Box 250,1508 Lane G Geewadin Road Parry Sound ON P2A 2X ext ced@wasauksing.ca Craig Nootchtai Whitefish Lake Director of Operations 25 Reserve Road Naughton ON P0M 2M Don McGregor Whitefish River Executive Director PO Box A, 46 Bay of Islands Road Birch Island ON P0P 1A donm@whitefishriver.ca Murray McGregor Whitefish River Plant Manager PO Box A, 46 Bay of Islands Road Birch Island ON P0P 1A murraym@whitefishriver.ca Wayne Osawamick Wikwemikong Director of Operations Box 112, 19A Complex Drive Wikwemikong ON P0P 2J wosawamick@wiky.net Christine Sagon Zhiibaahaasing Band Administrator General Delivery Silverwater ON P0P 1Y chrismsagon@gmail.com Dayle Bomberry Six Nations SAO P.O. Box 5000, 1695 Chiefswood Road Ohsweken ON N0A 1M0 (519) (519) sao@sixnations.ca Margaret Sault Mississaugas of the New Credit Director 468 New Credit Road R.R. #6 Hagersville ON N0A 1H0 (905) (905) margaret.sault@newcreditfirstnation.com April Varewyck Oneida Nation of the Thames 2212 Elm Avenue Southwold ON N0L 2G0 (519) (519) carol.antone@oneida.on.ca Rolanda Elijah Chippewas of the Thames Director 320 Chippewa Road R.R. #1 Muncey ON N0L 1Y0 (519) ext.209 (519) relijah@cottfn.com Munsee Delaware Nation Band Manager R.R. #1 Muncey ON N0L 1Y0 pwaddilove@munsee.on.ca Mark French Moravian of the Thames Band Manager School House Line R.R. #3 Thamesville ON N0P 2K0 (519) (519) mcpeters@xplornet.ca Melody Watson Caldwell Office/Finance Manager 14 Orange Street Leamington ON N8H 1P5 (519) (519) finance@caldwellfirstnation.com Michael Dashner Bkejwanong (Walpole Island) Director of Operations 117 Tahgahoning Road R.R. #3 Wallaceburg ON N8A 4K9 (519) (519) Kelly Williams Aamjiwnaang Interim Band Administrator 978 Tashmoo Avenue Sarnia ON N7T 7H5 (519) ext.231 (519) Lorraine George Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation Manager 6247 Indian Lane Kettle and Stony Point First Nation ON N0N 1J1 (519) (519) Janet Root Saugeen First Nation Band Manager 6493 Highway 21 R.R. #1 Southampton ON N0H 2L0 (519) (519) rkahgee@saugeenfirstnation.ca Jimi Maurer Beavorhouse First Nation Land Resources Kirkland Lake ON (705) (705) bhfn_landsandresources@hotmail.com Jessica Nadjiwon Chippewas of Nawash Band Administrator 135 Lakeshore Blvd. Neyaashiinigmiing ON N0H 2T0 (519) (519) jnadjiwon@nawashfn.ca Mark Bowler Metis Nation of Ontario Director, Land, Resources and Consultation ON (416) ext 114 (416) markbowler@metisnation.org 113

121 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Class EA Local Distribution Company Contact List Local Distribution Company First Name Last Name Address Algoma Power Inc. Dan Richards Dan.Richards@algomapower.com Atikokan Hydro Inc. 114 info@athydro.com Bluewater Power Distribution Corporation Dominique Pinelli Dpinelli@bluewaterpower.com Brant County Power Inc. Glen Fuller gfuller@brantcountypower.com Brantford Power Inc. Altaf Hussain ahussain@brantford.ca Burlington Hydro Inc. Dan Guatto dguatto@burlingtonhydro.com Cambridge and North Dumfries Hydro Ron Sinclair rsinclair@camhydro.com Canadian Niagara Power Jie Han j.han@cnpower.com Centre Wellington Hydro Pat Flynn flynn@cwhydro.ca Chapleau Public Utilities Corp Allen Morin cpuc@ontera.net Chatham-Kent Hydro Mike Goodwin mikegoodwin@ckhydro.com Collingwood Utilities Larry Irwin lirwin@collus.com Cooperative Hydro Embrun Benoit Lamarche embrunhydro@magma.ca E.L.K. Energy Inc. Norm MacAulay nmacaulay@enersource.com Enersource Hydro Mississauga Dan Pastoric dpastoric@enersource.com. EnWin Utilities Ltd. Marvio Vinhaes mvinhaes@enwin.com Erie Thames Powerlines Corporation Chuck Dejong cdejong@eriethamespower.com Espanola Regional Hydro Kevin Bell Kevin.Bell@ssmpuc.com Essex Powerlines Mark Alzner malzner@essexpower.ca Festival Hydro Jac Vanderbaan vanderj@festivalhydro.com Five Nations Energy Inc. Lucie Edwards lucie.edwards@fivenations.ca Fort Francis Power Corp Brian Mueller bmueller@fort-frances.com Goderich Hydro - West Coast Huron Energy Tim Martin timm@hurontel.on.ca Greater Sudbury Hydro Brian McMillan brianm@shec.com Grimsby Power Richard Chrapala richardc@grimsbypower.com Guelph Hydro Electric Systems M Wittemund 'mwittemund@guelphhydro.com' Haldimand County Hydro Paul Heeg pheeg@hchydro.ca Halton Hills Hydro Don Matthews dmatthews@haltonhillshydro.com Hawkesbury Hydro Inc. Michel Poulin Michelpoulin@hydrohawkesbury.ca Hearst Power Distribution Company Ltd. Steven Blier sblier@hearstpower.com Horizon Utilities Corporation Jim Butler Jim.butler@horizonutilities.com Hydro 2000 Inc. Rene Beaulne aphydro@hawk.igs.net Hydro Ottawa Pierre Lemay pierrelemay@hydroottawa.com Innisfil Hydro Distribution System Wade Morris wadem@innisfilhydro.com Kenora Hydro Electric Corporation Dave Sinclair dsinclair@kenora.ca Kingston Hydro (Utilities Kingston) Jim Miller jmiller@utilitieskingston.com Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Jerry Van Ooteghem jvanooteghem@kwhydro.on.ca Lakefront Utilities Ron Little rlittle@lusi.on.ca Lakeland Power Distribution Brian Elliot belliott@lakelandpower.on.ca London Hydro Inc. Ken Walsh walshk@londonhydro.com Middlesex Power Distribution Corp Mike Steeper msteeper@middlesexpower.ca Midland Power Utility Corporation Phil Marley pmarley@midlandpuc.on.ca Milton Hydro Distribution Bruno Pereira brunopereira@miltonhydro.com Newmarket Tay Power Distribution Ltd. Gaye-Donna Young gdyoung@nmhydro.ca Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. Tom Sielicki tom.sielicki@npei.ca Niagara-On-The-Lake Hydro David Steinschifter dsteinschifter@notlhydro.com Norfolk Power Distribution Ernie Vidovic evidovic@norfolkpower.on.ca North Bay Hydro Distribution Todd Wilcox twilcox@northbayhydro.com Northern Ontario Wires Doug Theobold dougt@nowinc.ca Oakville Hydro Electricity Distribution Mike Brown mbrown@oakvillehydro.com Orangeville Hydro Rob Koekkoek Rob.koekkoek@orangevillehydro.on.ca Orillia Power Distribution Corp Keith McAllister kmcallister@orilliapower.ca Oshawa PUC Networks Denise Flores dflores@opuc.on.ca Ottawa River Power Corp Doug Fee dfee@orpowercorp.com Parry Sound Power Corporation Miles Thompson mthompson@pspower.ca Peterborough Distribution Inc. Jeff Guilbeault jguilbeault@peterboroughutilities.ca PowerStream Doug Fairchild doug.fairchild@powerstream.ca Renfrew Hydro Tom Freemark Jtfreemark@renfrewhydro.com Rideau St. Lawrence Distribution John Biccum jbiccum@rslu.ca Sioux Lookout Hydro Gord Maki slhydro@tbaytel.net St.Thomas Energy Shawn Filice sfilice@sttenergy.com Thunder Bay Hydro Electricity Distribution D Zimak dzimak@tbhydro.on.ca Tillsonburg Hydro Steve Lund slund@tillsonburg.ca Toronto Hydro-Electric Systems Mary Bryne Mbyrne@torontohydro.com Veridian Connections Peter Petriw ppetriw@veridian.on.ca Wasaga Distribution David Stavinga d.stavinga@wasagadist.ca Waterloo North Hydro Herb Haller hhaller@wnhydro.com Welland Hydro-Electric Systems Kevin Bailey kbailey@wellandhydro.com Wellington North Power Judy Rosebrugh jrosebrugh@wellingtonnorthpower.com Westario Power Lisa Milne lisa.milne@westario.com Whitby Hydro Electric Kevin Whitehead kwhitehead@whitbyhydro.on.ca Woodstock Hydro Services Jay Heaman jheaman@woodstockhydro.com Electricity Distributors Association Maurice Tucci mtucci@eda-on.ca RJ Burnside & Associates Tricia Radburn Tricia.Radburn@rjburnside.com

122 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Class EA Transmitter Contact List Transmitter First Name Last Name Address AltaLink Stephen Hodgkinson steve.hodgkinson@altalink.ca Canadian Niagara Power Inc. Douglas Bradbury doug.bradbury@cnpower.com Cat Lake Power Utility Ltd. Gordon Maki slhydro@tbaytel.net Chatham-Kent Transmission Inc. Chris Cowell regulatory@ckenergy.com Five Nations Energy Inc. Lucie Edwards lucie.edwards@fivenations.ca Great Lakes Power Transmission Inc. Andy McPhee amcphee@glp.ca Iccon Transmission Inc. Pablo De la Sierra psierra@isoluxcorsan.com Niagara West Transformation Corporation Karen Bubish karen.bubish@live.com TransCanada Power Transmission (Ontario) L.P. Brian Kelly brian_kelly@transcanada.com Class EA Miner Contact List Customer Name (Miner) First Name Last Name Address Agrium Ken Munnoch kenneth.munnoch@agrium.com Air Liquide Canada Inc. Moore Plant Brian Hussey 'nicole.gaudet@airliquide.com' Amherst Quarries Ltd. Ryan Wall rwall.amherst@gmail.com Apollo Gold Corporation (Brigus Gold) ir@brigusgold.com Armistice Resources Erik Andersen erik.andersen@armistice.ca Claude Resources Inc. Korin Johnson clauderesources@clauderesources.com Falcon Bridge Ltd. (Xstrata) Aurora Lehay alehay@xstratacopper.ca Falcon Bridge Ltd. (Xstrata) Martin Laferriere mlaferriere@xstratacopper.ca Goldcorp Canada Ltd. Laszlo Goltz laszlo.goltz@goldcorp.com Goldcorp - Porcupine Mine Bud Millions community.feedback@goldcorp.com Iko Industries Ltd. John Robinson john.robinson@iko.com Inmet Mining Corporation Chris Scholl christopher.scholl@inmetmining.com Lafarge Canada Inc. Doug England doug.england@lafarge.com Nelson Aggregate Co. Brian Caverson 'brian.caverson@nelsonaggregate.com' St. Lawrence Cement Inc. (Holcim) Mac Carmichael mac.carmichael@holcim.com Holcim Maria Topalovic maria.topalovic@holcim.com Vale Canada Limited valebasemetals@vale.com Vicdom Sand and Gravel Ontario Ltd. Bruno Giordano bruno@vicdom.com Walker Aggregates Inc. Wes Foebel wfoebel@walkerind.com Williams Operating Corporation Jeremy Dart jdart@barrick.com Ontario Mining Association Cheryl Brownlee cbrownlee@oma.on.ca 115

123 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment 2.0 Notice of the 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment 116

124 NOTICE OF CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR MINOR TRANSMISSION FACILITIES - DRAFT AMENDMENTS Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) is proposing an amendment to the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities (Class EA). The Class EA was originally developed by Hydro One s predecessor, Ontario Hydro. It was approved under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) in 1980 and has undergone several revisions since then. The current Class EA is a revision of the 1992 version. The Class EA sets out a standard planning and reporting process for defined classes or groups of transmission projects. The types of projects that are subject to the Class EA process are set out in the Electricity Projects Regulation (O. Reg. 116/01) enacted under the EA Act. These projects are considered to be routine in nature. Their environmental effects are predictable and manageable. Provided the planning process is followed, no further environmental approvals are required. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) requires Hydro One to amend its existing Class EA by The Class EA will be amended to update three main aspects. Firstly, the amendments will align the Class EA with current regulatory requirements, including the new process for establishing the need for transmission projects. Secondly, the Class EA will be updated to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice: Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments in Ontario (MOECC, 2009), which includes consultation with First Nation and Metis communities. Thirdly, the amendments will update the Class EA to reflect new technologies and changes to technical information. The amended Class EA will be consistent with the requirements of the approved Terms of Reference, The Class EA - Draft Amendments will be posted on the Hydro One website for 45-days during which the public may comment. For more information or to view a copy please visit the Hydro One website: and click on Class EA - Draft Amendment on the left side of the page or contact us directly at address provided below. The purpose of the review period is to provide an opportunity for input by interested parties including the general public, First Nations and Métis communities, and government agencies. You may submit comments on the Class EA - Draft Amendments, in writing, no later than August 26, 2013 to: Olivera Radinovic or Marylena Stea Environmental Planner Community Relations Environmental Services and Approvals Phone: Hydro One Network Inc. Community.Relations@HydroOne.Co 483 Bay Street, 6 th floor Toronto, ON M5G 2P5 Phone: Fax:

125

126 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment 3.0 Consultation Log 119

127 Date First Name Last Name Job Title Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Organization Class EA GRT Consultation Log Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Brett Smith Senior Advisor Ministry of Energy Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Karla Barboza Heritage Adviser Ministry of Tourism and Culture and Sport Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Paula Kulpa Team Lead Ministry of Tourism and Culture and Sport Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sally Renwick A/Team Lead Ministry of Natural Resources Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dawn Irish Manager Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Theresa Olender Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ashley Johnson Advisor Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered David Cooper Manager Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Victor Doyle Manager Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Steven Mitchell O.A.A., Architect Ministry of Education Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Jennifer Lillie Paetz Environmental Assessment Coordinator Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grace Lo Policy Advisors Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Samantha Dupre Policy and Planning Officer Conservation Ontario Susan A. Rapin Director, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Elise Croll Director GO Transit / Metrolinx Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lisa Myslicki Environmental Advisor Infrastructure Ontario Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Imshun Je Environmental Advisor Infrastructure Ontario Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Anjala Puvananathan Director, Ontario Region Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ontario Region Follow-up Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sara Edd Senior Habitat Biologist Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Office Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Ontario Region Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Rob Dobos Manager Environment Canada Olivera Radinovic Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 22-Jul-13 Samantha Dupre Policy and Planning Officer Conservation Ontario Olivera Radinovic Phone call Samantha called to ask if the vegetation control is subject to Class EA. 22-Jul-13 Samantha Dupre Policy and Planning Officer Conservation Ontario Olivera explained that the vegetation control is not subject to EA approval 23-Jul-13 Samantha Dupre Policy and Planning Officer Conservation Ontario Samantha ed asking Hydro One to clarify that the vegetation control is not subject to Class EA, as the Section 6 (Description of projects covered by the Class EA) of the Document refers to management/maintenance of vegetation 24-Jul-13 Samantha Dupre Policy and Planning Officer Conservation Ontario Olivera Radinovic Olivera responded that Vegetation control is an activity associated with some Class EA projects. It is not a stand-alone project that is subject to EA approval. Control measures would be described in the project ESR. For better clarity, the title of section 6.0 will be change to; " Description of Activities Associated with Class EA Projects 27-Aug-13 Antonia Testa Project Officer Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Olivera Radinovic Antonia forwarded comments from two MOECC's Regional Offices (Barbara Slattery- West Central Region and Bill Armstrong- Southwestern Region) that required some clarification related to mandate of the MOECC Regional Offices. 3-Sep-13 Antonia Testa Project Officer Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Olivera Radinovic Olivera provided response/clarification to the comments 1-Oct-13 Antonia Testa Project Officer Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Olivera Radinovic Antonia provided the final MOECC comments/recommendation to Hydro One. MOECC recommends Hydro One add a sentence to Section 3.3.3, paragraph 6 (p.21) for further clarity: Upon request, (If necessary), the proponent will provide a description of the screening results, including any information that led to the determination of potential environmental effects and/or documentation related to how the Class EA Screening Process was assigned." 14-Nov-13 William Gerrard Senior Policy Advisor Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) Olivera Radinovic William ed the comments to Hydro One. 25-Nov-13 William Gerrard Senior Policy Advisor Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) Olivera Radinovic Olivera ed Hydro One's response 120

128 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Class EA Municipality Consultation Log Date Region Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Algoma Town of Blind River Blind River Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Town of Bruce Mines Lennie Smith Zoning Administrator/Chief Building Official Bruce Mines Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of Dubreuilville Dubreuilville Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma City of Elliot Lake Elliot Lake Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of Hilton Hilton Beach Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of Hornepayne Hornepayne Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Municipality of Huron Shores Iron Bridge Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of Jocelyn Hilton Beach Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of Johnson Desbarats Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of Laird Echo Bay Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Algoma Township of Macdonald, Meredith & Aberdeen Add'l Township of Plummer Additional Jerry Dolcetti Municipal Planner Echo Bay Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bruce Mines Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of Prince Prince Township Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma City of Sault Ste. Marie Don McConnell Planning Director Sault Ste. Marie Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Town of Spanish Spanish Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of St. Joseph Richards Landing Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of Tarbutt & Tarbutt Additional Desbarats Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of The North Shore Algoma Mills Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Town of Thessalon Thessalon Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Municipality of Wawa Wawa Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Algoma Township of White River Randy Lethbridge Planner White River Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Brant County County of Brant Mark Pomponi Brant County City of Brantford Gregory Dworak General Manager of Development Services General Manager Community Development Services Burford Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Brantford Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bruce County Municipality of Arran-Elderslie Chesley Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bruce County Municipality of Brockton Walkerton Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bruce County County of Bruce Chris LaForest Director of Planning Walkerton Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bruce County Township of Huron-Kinloss Ripley Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bruce County Municipality of Kincardine Michele Barr Director of Building & Planning/Chief Building Kincardine Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Official Bruce County Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula Lions Head Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bruce County Town of Saugeen Shores Port Elgin Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bruce County Municipality of South Bruce Teeswater Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bruce County Town of South Bruce Peninsula Sabine Hammel Planner Wiarton Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Chatham-Kent Municipality of Chatham-Kent Ralph Pugliese Director, Planning Services Chatham Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Cochrane Cochrane Cochrane Township of Black River- Matheson Gary Quigley Planner/Fire Chief Matheson Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Cochrane Cochrane Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Fauquier-Strickland Fauquier Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 121

129 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Cochrane Cochrane Cochrane Cochrane Cochrane Cochrane Cochrane Cochrane Cochrane Cochrane Planner First Name Planner Last Name Town of Hearst Janice Newsome Planner Title Director of Planning/Chief Building Official City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Hearst Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Iroquois Falls Iroquois Falls Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Kapuskasing Kapuskasing Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Mattice-Val Cote Mattice Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Moonbeam Moonbeam Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Moosonee Moosonee Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Opasatika Opasatika Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Smooth Rock Falls Smooth Rock Falls Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered City of Timmins Mark Jensen Director of Community Services Timmins Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Val Rita-Harty Val Rita Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dufferin County Township of Amaranth Christine Gervais Director of Planning Amaranth Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dufferin County County of Dufferin Orangeville Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dufferin County Township of East Garafraxa Christine Gervais Director of Planning East Garafraxa Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dufferin County Township of East Luther Grand Valley Tracey Atkinson Township Planner Grand Valley Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dufferin County Township of Melancthon Shelburne Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dufferin County Town of Mono Mark Early Director of Planning Mono Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dufferin County Township of Mulmur Ron Mills Planner Mulmur Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dufferin County Town of Orangeville Orangeville Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dufferin County Town of Shelburne Steve Wever Planner Shelburne Olivera Radinovic / Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Durham Region Town of Ajax Paul Allore Director of Planning and Development Services Ajax Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Durham Region Township of Brock Cannington Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Durham Region Municipality of Clarington David Crome Director of Planning Services Bowmanville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Durham Region Regional Municipality of Durham Alex Georgieff Commissioner of Planning Whitby Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Durham Region City of Oshawa Tom Hodgins Durham Region City of Pickering Neil Carroll Commissioner, Development Services Department Director of Planning & Development Oshawa Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Pickering Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Durham Region Township of Scugog Don Gordon Director of Community Services Port Perry Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Durham Region Township of Uxbridge Uxbridge Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Durham Region Town of Whitby Robert Short Commissioner of Planning Whitby Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Elgin County Town of Aylmer Danial Dale Director of Planning & Municipal Services/ CBO Aylmer Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Elgin County Municipality of Bayham Margaret Underhill Co-ordinator of Planning/Lottery Licensing Straffordville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Officer Elgin County Municipality of Central Elgin Patrick Keenan Director of Planning St. Thomas Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Elgin County Municipality of Dutton- Dunwich Dutton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Elgin County County of Elgin St. Thomas Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Elgin County Township of Malahide Aylmer Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Elgin County Township of Southwold Fingal Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Elgin County City of St. Thomas Patrick Keenan Director of Planning St. Thomas Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 122

130 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Elgin County Municipality of West Elgin Rodney Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex County Town of Amherstburg Rebecca Belanger Planner Amherstburg Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex County Town of Essex Heather Jablonski Planner Essex Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex County County of Essex Bill King Manager of Planning Essex Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex County Town of Kingsville Jackie Lassaline Essex County Town of Lakeshore Kim Darroch Manager of Development Services Manager of Development Services Kingsville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Belle River Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex County Town of LaSalle Larry Silani Director of Planning and Development Services LaSalle Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex County Municipality of Leamington Danielle Truax Manager of Planning Services Leamington Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex County Township of Pelee Richard Zelinka Planning Consultant Pelee Island Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex County Town of Tecumseh Brian Hillman Director, Planning & Building Services Tecumseh Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex County City of Windsor Thom Hunt City Planner Windsor Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Frontenac County Frontenac County Frontenac County Frontenac County Frontenac County Frontenac County Township of Central Frontenac Cathy MacMunn Planning Co-ordinator/Lottery Licensing Officer Sharbot Lake Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Frontenac County Glenburnie Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Frontenac Islands Carol Dwyre Planning Co-ordinator Wolfe Island Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered City of Kingston Grant Bain Director of Planning Kingston Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of North Frontenac Jenny Duhamel Clerk / Planning Manager Plevna Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of South Frontenac Lindsay Mills Planning Co-ordinator Sydenham Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County Township of Chatsworth Chatsworth Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County Township of Georgian Bluffs Jenn Burnett Intermediate Planner Owen Sound Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County County of Grey Randy Scherzer Director of Planning and Development Owen Sound Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County Municipality of Grey Highlands Markdale Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County Town of Hanover Don Tedford Director of Development/CBO Hanover Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County Municipality of Meaford Rob Armstrong Director of Planning and Building Meaford Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County City of Owen Sound Nick Popovich Community Planner Owen Sound Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County Township of Southgate Denise Whaley Planner Dundalk Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County Town of The Blue Mountains Bryan Neal Planner Thornbury Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grey County Municipality of West Grey Durham Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Haldimand County County of Haldimand Craig Manley General Manager, Planning Cayuga Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Haliburton County Haliburton County Haliburton County Haliburton County Haliburton County Township of Algonquin Highlands Municipality of Dysart et al Patricia Martin Dawn Newhook Clerk/Planning Administrator Algonquin Highlands Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Director of Planning & Development Haliburton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered County of Haliburton Jane Tousaw Director of Planning Minden Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Municipality of Highlands East Wilberforce Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Minden Hills Minden Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Halton Region City of Burlington Bruce Krushelnicki Director of Planning and Building Burlington Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Halton Region Regional Municipality of Halton Oakville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Halton Region Town of Halton Hills John Linhardt Director of Planning, Development & Sustainability Halton Hills Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 123

131 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Halton Region Town of Milton Bill Mann Director of Planning and Development Milton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Halton Region Town of Oakville Dana Anderson Director of Planning Services Oakville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hamilton City of Hamilton Tim McCabe General Manager of Planning & Development Services Hamilton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Town of Bancroft Bancroft Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County City of Belleville Art MacKay Policy Planning Belleville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Township of Carlow/Mayo Boulter Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Municipality of Centre Hastings Madoc Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Town of Deseronto Deseronto Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Municipality of Faraday Bancroft Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County County of Hastings Brian McComb Director of Planning Belleville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Municipality of Hastings Reception/Planning Secretary Cathy Bujas Highlands Maynooth Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Township of Limerick Gilmour Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Township of Madoc Madoc Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Municipality of Marmora and Lake Marmora Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County City of Quinte West Charlie Murphy Director of Planning & Development Services Trenton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Township of Stirling-Rawdon Stirling Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Township of Tudor and Cashel Gilmour Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Municipality of Tweed Tweed Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Township of Tyendinaga Shannonville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hastings County Township of Wollaston Coe Hill Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County Township of Ashfield-Colborne- Wawanosh Monica Walker-Bolton Planner Goderich Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County Municipality of Bluewater Zurich Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County Municipality of Central Huron Susanna Reid Huron County Planning Clinton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County Town of Goderich Goderich Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County Township of Howick Gorrie Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County County of Huron Scott Tousaw Director of Planning and Development Goderich Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County Municipality of Huron East Seaforth Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County Municipality of Morris- Turnberry Brussels Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County Township of North Huron Sally McMullen Planner Wingham Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Huron County Municipality of South Huron Exeter Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kawartha Lakes City of Kawartha Lakes Ron Taylor Director of Development Services Lindsay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora City of Dryden Dryden Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora Township of Ear Falls Ear Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora Township of Ignace Ignace Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora City of Kenora Tara Rickaby Planning Administrator Kenora Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora Municipality of Machin Vermilion Bay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora Township of Pickle Lake Pickle Lake Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora Municipality of Red Lake Devon McCloskey Planner Balmertown Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora Municipality of Sioux Lookout Pat Uren Planning Administrator Sioux Lookout Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora Township of Sioux Narrows- Nestor Falls Jeff Port Director of Planning & Development Sioux Narrows Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lambton County Township of Brooke-Alvinston Alvinston Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lambton County Township of Dawn-Euphemia Dresden Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 124

132 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Lambton County Township of Enniskillen Petrolia Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lambton County County of Lambton Dave Posliff Manager, Planning & Development Services Wyoming Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lambton County Municipality of Lambton Shores Patti Richardson Senior Planner Forest Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lambton County Town of Petrolia Rob Nesbitt Planner Petrolia Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lambton County Town of Plympton-Wyoming Carlie Burns Planning Secretary Wyoming Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lambton County City of Sarnia Kim Bresee Lambton County Township of St. Clair Jeff Baranek Director of Planning and Building Coordinator of Planning/Deputy Clerk Sarnia Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Mooretown Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lambton County Township of Warwick Frank Garardo County Planner Watford Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County Township of Beckwith Niall Oddie Planning Administrator Carleton Place Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County Town of Carleton Place Lisa Young Director of Planning Carleton Place Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County Township of Drummond-North Elmsley Karl Grenke Planner Perth Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County County of Lanark Mary Kirkham Planning Administrator Perth Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County Township of Lanark Highlands Rob Wittkie Planning Administrator & Deputy Clerk Lanark Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County Town of Mississippi Mills Stephen Stirling Planner Almonte Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County Township of Montague Smiths Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County Town of Perth Eric Cosens Director of Planning Perth Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County Separated Town of Smiths Falls Smiths Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lanark County Tay Valley Township Noelle Reeve Planner Perth Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Leeds & Grenville United Township of Athens Athens Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Township of Augusta Prescott Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Leeds & Pascoe Grenville United City of Brockville Maureen M. Merkley Counties Director of Planning Brockville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Leeds & Grenville United Counties Lennox and Addington County Lennox and Addington County Township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal Township of Elizabethtown- Kitley Debra McKinstry Clerk/Planning, Administrator/Acting, CAO/Lottery Licensing Spencerville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Barbara Kalivas Director of Planning Addison Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Front of Yonge Mallorytown Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Separated Town of Gananoque Brenda Guy Manager of Community Gananoque Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered United Counties of Leeds and James (Sandy) Hay Counties Planner Brockville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Leeds and the Thousand Philip Costa Municipality of North Grenville Forbes Symon Director of Planning and Development Director of Planning and Development Lansdowne Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kemptville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Separated Town of Prescott Prescott Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Rideau Lakes Michael Dwyer Township of Addington Highlands Manager of Development Services Delta Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Flinton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Greater Napanee Gib Garrett Planning Clerk Napanee Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 125

133 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Lennox and Addington County Lennox and Addington County Lennox and Addington County Manitoulin Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken County of Lennox & Addington Napanee Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Loyalist Township Murray Beckel Director, Planning & Development Odessa Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Stone Mills Centreville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Assiginack Manitowaning Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Manitoulin Manitoulin Township of Billings Kagawong Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Burpee and Mills Evansville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Manitoulin Municipality of Central Manitoulin Mindemoya Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Manitoulin Township of Cockburn Island Spanish Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Manitoulin Municipality of Gordon/Barrie Island Gore Bay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Manitoulin Town of Gore Bay Gore Bay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Manitoulin Town of Northeastern Manitoulin and The Islands Little Current Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Manitoulin Middlesex County Middlesex County Middlesex County Middlesex County Township of Tehkummah Tehkummah Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Strathroy Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered City of London John Fleming Director of Planning London Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Lucan Biddulph Lucan Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered County of Middlesex Durk Vanderwerff Manager of Planning London Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Middlesex County Municipality of Middlesex Centre Ilderton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Middlesex County Municipality of North Middlesex Barb Rosser Planner Parkhill Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Middlesex County Municipality of Southwest Middlesex Glencoe Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Middlesex County Municipality of Strathroy- Caradoc Paul Hicks Planner Strathroy Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Middlesex County Municipality of Thames Centre Stewart Findlater Director of Community Services and Development Dorchester Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Muskoka Town of Bracebridge Dana Rahkola Muskoka Township of Georgian Bay Jill Lewis Assistant Director of Development Services Manager of Planning and Economic Development Bracebridge Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Port Severn Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Muskoka Town of Gravenhurst Scott Lucas Director of Development Services Gravenhurst Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Muskoka Town of Huntsville Chris Marshall Director of Planning Huntsville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Muskoka Township of Lake of Bays Stefan Szczerbak Planner Dwight Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Muskoka Municipality of Muskoka Marg French Commissioner, Planning & Economic Development Bracebridge Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 126

134 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Muskoka Township of Muskoka Lakes David Pink Senior Planner Port Carling Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Region Town of Fort Erie Rick Brady Director of Community and Development Services Fort Erie Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Region Town of Grimsby Grimsby Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Region Town of Lincoln Kathleen Dale Director of Planning and Devlopment Beamsville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Region Regional Municipality of Niagara Patrick Robson Niagara Region City of Niagara Falls Alex Herlovitch Niagara Region Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Milena Avramovic Niagara Region Town of Pelham Craig Larmour Niagara Region City of Port Colborne Dan Aquilina Niagara Region City of St. Catharines James Riddell Commissioner, Integrated Community Planning Director of Planning and Development Director of Planning & Development Director of Planning and Development Director of Planning and Development Services Director, Planning and Development Services Thorold Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Virgil Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Fonthill Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Port Colborne Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered St. Catharines Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Region City of Thorold Adele Arbour Director of Planning & Building Services Thorold Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Region Township of Wainfleet Grant Munday Manager of Planning Wainfleet Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Region City of Welland Welland Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Region Township of West Lincoln Brian Treble Director of Planning and Building Smithville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Township of Bonfield Douglas Laplante Director of Planning & Development/CBO Bonfield Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Municipality of Calvin Mattawa Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Township of Chisholm Powassan Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Municipality of East Ferris Melissa Mohr Community Planner Corbeil Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Town of Mattawa Wayne Belter Director of Planning Mattawa Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Municipality of Mattawan Mattawa Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing City of North Bay Beverley Hillier City Planner North Bay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Township of Papineau-Cameron Sandra Morin East Nipissing Planning Board Mattawa Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Township of South Algonquin Whitney Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Municipality of Temagami Wayne Koethe Planner Temagami Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nipissing Municipality of West Nipissing Melanie Ducharme Municipal Clerk/Planner Sturgeon Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Norfolk County Norfolk County Christoper Baird General Manager of Planning Simcoe Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Northumberland County Township of Alnwick/Haldimand Peter Josephs Municipal Planner Grafton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Northumberland County Municipality of Brighton Ken Hurford Manager of Planning Brighton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Northumberland County Town of Cobourg Glenn McGlashon Director of Planning and Development Cobourg Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Northumberland County Township of Cramahe Alison Torrie Lapaire Planning and By-law Coordinator Colborne Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Northumberland County Northumberland County Township of Hamilton Sandra Stothart Planning Co-ordinator Cobourg Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered County of Northumberland Cobourg Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Northumberland County Municipality of Port Hope Ron Warne Director of Planning and Development Services Port Hope Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 127

135 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Northumberland County Municipality of Trent Hills Jim Peters Director of Planning Campbellford Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ottawa City of Ottawa John Moser General Manager, Planning & Growth Management Ottawa Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oxford County Township of Blandford- Blenheim Alana Fulford Planner Drumbo Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oxford County Township of East Zorra - Tavistock Hickson Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oxford County Town of Ingersoll Ingersoll Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oxford County Township of Norwich Jason Brander Development Planner Otterville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oxford County County of Oxford Gordon Hough Corp. Manager of Community and Strategic Planning Woodstock Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oxford County Township of South-West Oxford Mount Elgin Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oxford County Town of Tillsonburg David Samis Director of Development & Communications Tillsonburg Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oxford County City of Woodstock Ron Versteegen City Planner Woodstock Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oxford County Township of Zorra Eric Gilbert Planner Ingersoll Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Township of Armour Robert Miller Planner Burk's Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Municipality of Callander Barbara Boland Planning Administrator Callander Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Township of Carling Nobel Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Township of Joly Sundridge Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Town of Kearney Kearney Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Township of Machar South River Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Municipality of Magnetawan Magnetawan Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Municipality of McDougall McDougall Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Township of McKellar McKellar Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Parry Sound Parry Sound Parry Sound Parry Sound Parry Sound Parry Sound Parry Sound Parry Sound Parry Sound Township of McMurrich/Monteith Sprucedale Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Nipissing Nipissing Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Parry Sound Iain Laing Director of Community Development Parry Sound Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Perry Emsdale Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Municipality of Powassan Kim Bester- Melanson Deputy Clerk Powassan Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Ryerson Burk's Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Seguin Chris Madej Director of Planning Seguin Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Strong Sundridge Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of The Archipelago Cale Henderson Planner Parry Sound Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Municipality of Whitestone Dunchurch Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 128

136 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Peel Region City of Brampton Marilyn Ball Chief, Planning & Infrastructure Brampton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peel Region Town of Caledon Mary Hall Director of Development Approval and Planning Policy Caledon Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peel Region City of Mississauga Edward Sajecki Commissioner of Planning and Building Mississauga Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peel Region Regional Municipality of Peel Eric Flora Principal Planner Infrastructure Planning & Brampton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Design Perth County Municipality of North Perth Listowel Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Perth County County of Perth David Hanly Director of Planning Stratford Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Perth County Township of Perth East Geoff VanderBaaren Planner Milverton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Perth County Township of Perth South David Hanly Director of Planning St. Pauls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Perth County Separated Town of St. Marys St. Marys Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Perth County City of Stratford Stratford Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Perth County Municipality of West Perth Dave Hanly County Planning Director Mitchell Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peterborough County Township of Asphodel-Norwood Norwood Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peterborough County Township of Cavan Monaghan Karen Ellis Director of Planning Millbrook Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peterborough County Township of Douro-Dummer Linda Moher Clerk/Planning Co-ordinator Warsaw Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peterborough County Peterborough County Peterborough County Peterborough County Peterborough County Peterborough County Peterborough County Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prescott & Russell United Counties Prince Edward County Township of Havelock-Belmont- Methuen Havelock Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of North Kawartha Apsley Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan Christine Wright City of Peterborough Malcolm Hunt CAO/Director of Planning & Economic Development Director of Planning and Development Services Keene Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peterborough Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered County of Peterborough Bryan Weir Director of Planning Peterborough Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Smith-Ennismore- Lakefield Township of Galway-Cavendish- Harvey Township of Alfred and Plantagenet Rob Lamarre Manager of Building and Planning Bridgenorth Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bobcaygeon Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Guylaine Poirier Zoning Administrator Plantagenet Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Champlain Vankleek Hill Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered City of Clarence-Rockland Michael Michaud Director of Planning Rockland Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of East Hawkesbury St. Eugene Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Hawkesbury Manon Belle-Isle Planner Hawkesbury Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered United Counties of Prescott and Russell Louis Prevost Director, Planning L'Orignal Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Russell Dominique Tremblay Director of Planning Embrun Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered The Nation Municipality Guylain Lafleche Planner Casselman Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Mississauga Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 129

137 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Prince Edward County Rainy River Rainy River Rainy River Rainy River Rainy River Rainy River Rainy River Rainy River Rainy River Rainy River Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken County of Prince Edward Gerry Murphy Commissioner of Planning Picton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Alberton Fort Frances Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Atikokan Atikokan Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Chapple Barwick Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Dawson Rainy River Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Emo Emo Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Fort Frances N. Faye Flatt Planner Fort Frances Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of La Vallee Devlin Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Lake of the Woods Rainy River Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Morley Stratton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Rainy River Rainy River Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of Admaston/Bromley Renfrew Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Town of Arnprior Robin Smith Planner Arnprior Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of Bonnechere Valley Eganville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan Palmer Rapids Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Town of Deep River Deep River Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of Greater Madawaska Charles Cheesman Planning & Forestry Manager Calabogie Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Townships of Head, Clara and Maria Stonecliffe Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of Horton Charles Cheesman Planner Renfrew Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards Killaloe Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Town of Laurentian Hills Gerry Dupuis Planning Co-ordinator/Chief Building Official R.R. #1, Deep River Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of Laurentian Valley Lauree Armstrong Planner/Economic Development Officer Pembroke Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of Madawaska Valley Silas Lorbetski Admin. & Planning, Officer/Lottery Licensing Barry's Bay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of McNab/Braeside Bruce Howarth Senior Planner Arnprior Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Municipality of North Algona, Wilberforce Township Eganville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County City of Pembroke Colleen Sauriol Manager of Planning Pembroke Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Town of Petawawa Karen Cronier Planning Coordinator Petawawa Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County County of Renfrew Paul Moreau Director of Development & Property Department Pembroke Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Town of Renfrew Renfrew Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew County Township of Whitewater Region Cobden Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Jacquie Tschekalin Director of Planning Alliston Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County City of Barrie Stephen Naylor Director of Planning Services Barrie Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Geoff McKnight Simcoe County Township of Clearview Michael Wynia Director of Planning and Development Services Director, Planning and Development Bradford Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Stayner Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 130

138 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Simcoe County Town of Collingwood Nancy Farrer Director of Planning and Development Collingwood Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Township of Essa Colleen Healey Manager of Planning and Development Utopia Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Town of Innisfil Tim Cane Manger of Land Use Planning Innisfil Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Town of Midland Wes Crown Director of Planning & Development Midland Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Town of New Tecumseth Eric Chandler Manager of Planning Alliston Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County City of Orillia Ian Sugden Simcoe County Township of Oro-Medonte Andria Leigh Director of Planning and Development Director of Development Services Orillia Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oro Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Town of Penetanguishene Jessica Klug Senior Planner Penetanguishene Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Township of Ramara Deb McCabe Planning and Zoning Administrator Brechin Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Township of Severn Nancy Tuckett Director of Planning Orillia Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County County of Simcoe Midhurst Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Township of Springwater Minesing Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Township of Tay Mara Burton Director of Planning & Development Victoria Harbour Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simco County Township of Tiny Shawn Persaud Manager of Planning and Development Tiny Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Simcoe County Town of Wasaga Beach Ray Kelso Manager of Planning & Development Wasaga Beach Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties City of Cornwall Stephen Alexander G.M., Planning Cornwall Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Stormont, Dundas & Director of Planning, Building Township of North Dundas Calvin Pol Glengarry United & Enforcement Winchester Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Counties Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry United Counties Township of North Glengarry Gerry Murphy Planner/Chief Building Official Alexandria Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of North Stormont Berwick Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of South Dundas Donald J.W. Lewis Manager of Planning and Enforcement Morrisburg Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of South Glengarry Lancaster Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of South Stormont Hilton Cryderman United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Manager, Planning & Development Services Long Sault Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Michael Otis County Planner Cornwall Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sudbury City of Greater Sudbury Paul Baskcomb Director of Planning Services Sudbury Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sudbury Township of Baldwin McKerrow Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sudbury Township of Chapleau Allan Pellow CAO/Clerk/Director of Planning Chapleau Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sudbury Town of Espanola Espanola Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 131

139 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Sudbury Municipality of French River Melissa Riou Director of Planning Noelville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sudbury Municipality of Killarney Melissa Riou Director of Planning Killarney Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sudbury Municipality of Markstay-Warren Melissa Riou Director of Planning Markstay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sudbury Township of Nairn and Hyman Nairn Centre Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sudbury Township of Sables-Spanish Massey Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Rivers Sudbury Municipality of St. Charles St. Charles Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Timiskaming Township of Conmee Kakabeka Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Dorion Dorion Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Gillies Kakabeka Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Municipality of Greenstone Geraldton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Manitouwadge Cecile Kerster Municipal Manager, Clerk/Planner/Lottery Licensing Manitouwadge Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Marathon Marathon Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Municipality of Neebing Neebing Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Nipigon Lindsay Mannila CAO/Clerk/Treasurer/Direct or of Planning Nipigon Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of O'Connor Kakabeka Falls Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge Sharron Martyn Manager of Planning Murillo Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Red Rock Red Rock Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Schreiber Schreiber Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Municipality of Shuniah Thunder Bay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Terrace Bay Terrace Bay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered City of Thunder Bay Mark Smith General Manager of Development Services Thunder Bay Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Armstrong Earlton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Township of Brethour Belle Vallée Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Casey Keith Harriman Planner Belle Vallee Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Chamberlain Englehart Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Municipality of Charlton and Dack Englehart Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Cobalt Cobalt Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Coleman Coleman Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Englehart Englehart Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Evanturel Englehart Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Gauthier Dobie Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 132

140 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Timiskaming Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Township of Harley Keith Harriman Planner New Liskeard Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Harris New Liskeard Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Hilliard Thornloe Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Hudson Keith Harriman Planner New Liskeard Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of James Elk Lake Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Kerns New Liskeard Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Kirkland Lake Kirkland Lake Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Larder Lake Larder Lake Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Latchford Latchford Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Matachewan Sarah Vereault Planner Matachewan Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of McGarry Virginiatown Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered City of Temiskaming Shores Karen Beauchamp Toronto City of Toronto Jennifer Keesmaat Waterloo Region City of Cambridge Janet Babcock Director of Community Growth & Planning Executive Director/Chief Planner Commissioner of Planning Services Haileybury Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Toronto Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Cambridge Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Waterloo Region City of Kitchener Alain Pinard Director of Planning Services Kitchener Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Waterloo Region Township of North Dumfries Steve Stone Director of Planning Cambridge Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Waterloo Region Regional Municipality of Waterloo Rob Horne Waterloo Region City of Waterloo Cameron Rapp Commissioner of Planning Services General Manager, Development Services Kitchener Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Waterloo Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Waterloo Region Township of Wellesley St. Clements Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Waterloo Region Township of Wilmot Harold O'Krafka Waterloo Region Township of Woolwich Dan Kennaley Wellington County Wellington County Wellington County Wellington County Wellington County Wellington County Wellington County Wellington County Director of Development Services Director of Engineering & Planning Services Baden Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Elmira Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Centre Wellington Brett Salmon Director, Planning Elora Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Erin Sally Stull Planner Hillsburgh Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered City of Guelph James Riddell General Manager of Planning & Development Services Guelph Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Guelph/Eramosa Rockwood Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Mapleton Drayton Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Town of Minto Mark van Patter County Planner Harriston Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Township of Puslinch Aldo Salis Consulting Planner Guelph Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered County of Wellington Gary Cousins Director of Planning and Development Guelph Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 133

141 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Date Region Municipality Wellington County Planner First Name Planner Last Name Planner Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Followup Action Taken Township of Wellington North Kenilworth Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered York Region Town of Aurora Marco Ramunno York Region Town of East Gwillimbury Carolyn Kellington York Region Town of Georgina Harold Lenters Director of Planning & Development Services General Manager, Development Services Director of Planning and Building Aurora Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sharon Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Keswick Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered York Region Township of King Stephen Kitchen Director of Planning King City Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered York Region Town of Markham Jim Baird York Region Town of Newmarket Richard Nethery York Region Town of Richmond Hill Ana Bassios Commissioner of Development Services Director, Planning & Building Services Commissioner, Planning & Regulatory Services Markham Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Newmarket Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Richmond Hill Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered York Region City of Vaughan John MacKenzie Commissioner of Planning Vaughan Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered York Region Andrew McNeely York Region Regional Municipality of York Dino Basso Director of Planning & Building Services Executive Director, Corporate and Strategic Planning Stouffville Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Newmarket Olivera Radinovic/ Marylena Stea Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 134

142 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Class EA First Nation and Métis Consultation Log First Name Last Name Company/Community Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required (August 7-14, 2013) Follow-up Action Taken Mitaanjigaming First Nation Band Manager Fort Frances Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Mocreebec Council of the Cree Nation Band Manager Moose Factory Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Donna Ashamock Mocreebec Council of the Cree Nation Moose Factory Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peter Welsey Moose Cree First Nation Executive Director Moose Factory Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Muskrat Dam First Nation Band Manager Muskrat Dam Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Darlene Smith Naicatchewenin First Nation Director of Administration Devlin Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Naotkamegwanning First Nation Band Manager Pawitik Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Neskantaga First Nation Band Manager Lansdowne House Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nibinamik First Nation Band Manager Summer Beaver Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nigigoonsiminikaaning First Nation Band Manager Fort Frances Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered North Caribou Lake First Nation Band Manager Weagamow Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dan Chikane North Caribou Lake First Nation Weagamow Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period North Spirit Lake First Nation Band Manager North Spirit Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Northwest Angle No. 33 First Nation Band Manager Kenora Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Northwest Angle No. 37 First Nation Band Manager Sioux Narrows Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Obashkaandagaang Band Manager Keewatin Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ochiichagwe Babigo ining Nation Band Manager Kenora Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ojibway Nation of Saugeen Band Manager Savant Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ojibways of Onigaming Band Manager Nestor Falls Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ojibways of Pic River Band Manager Heron Bay Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Scessfully delivered John Szura Pays Plat First Nation Chief Executive Officer Pays Plat Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Norm Jaehrling Pic Mobert First Nation Chief Executive Officer Mobert Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Pikangikum First Nation Band Manager Pikangikum Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Poplar Hill First Nation Band Manager Poplar Hill Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dean Wilson Rainy River First Nation Director of Administration EMO Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Priscilla Atkinson Red Rock Indian Band Band Manager Nipigon Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Edward Wawia Red Rock Indian Band Councillor Nipigon Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sachigo Lake First Nation Band Manager Sachigo Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sandy Lake First Nation Band Manager Sandy Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Seine River First Nation Band Manager Mine Centre Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Shoal Lake No. 40 First Nation Band Manager Shoal Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Slate Falls First Nation Band Manager Slate Falls Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kevin Archibald Taykwa Tagamou First Nation Band Manager Cochrane Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Temagami First Nation Band Manager Lake Temagami Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Joseph Katt Temagami First Nation Second Chief Lake Temagami Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Wabaseemoong First Nation Band Manager Whitedog Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Wabauskang First Nation Band Manager Ear Falls Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Chief Roy Michano called to inform us that they are working on their own Class EA and would like us to stop calling them regarding the Class EA Amendment 135

143 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment First Name Last Name Company/Community Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required (August 7-14, 2013) Follow-up Action Taken Ursula Chief Wabigoon First Nation/ Economic Development/Resource Assistant Band Manager Dryden Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ginger Sackaney Wahgoshig First Nation Band Manager Matheson Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Wauzhushk Onigum First Nation Band Manager Kenora Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Wawakapewin First Nation Band Manager Sioux Lookout Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Webequie First Nation Band Manager Webequie Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Whitesand First Nation Band Manager Armstrong Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Wunnumin Lake First Nation Band Manager Wunnumin Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Mary Bea Kenny Independent First Nations Alliance Environmental Scientist Thunder Bay Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Laura Sayers Shibogama First Nation Council Thunder Bay Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Theresa Hall Mushkegowuk Council Ring of Fire Coordinator Timmins Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Angela Gilles Alderville Band Administrator Roseneath Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Vicky Two Axe Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Executive Director of Golden Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Operations Jan Leroux Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Program Manager Golden Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Janet Stavinga Algonquins of Ontario Executive Director Pembroke Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peter Nahwegahbow Aundeck-Omni-Kaning Band Manager Little Current Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Denise Graham Beausoleil Band Administrator Christian Island, Cedar Point Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Janice Taylor Chippewas of Georgina Island Band Manager Sutton West Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Suzanne Howes Chippewas of Georgina Island Councillor Sutton West Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dan Shilling Chippewas of Rama Band Manager Rama Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Brian Hamilton Curve Lake General Manager Curve Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Melissa Dokis Curve Lake Liaison/ Consultation Curve Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Tina Restoule Dokis Band Manager Via Monetville Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ken Noble Henvey Inlet Special Projects Pickerel Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Laurie Paudash Hiawatha Band Manager Keene Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Diane Sheridan Hiawatha Lands Resource Worker Keene Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Jerry Smith Magnetawan Band Manager Britt Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Brenda Ense M'Chigeeng Chief Administrative M'Chigeeng Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Officer Keith Sayers Mississauga Lands and Resource Manager Blind River Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kathleen Brant Mississaugas of Scugog Island Administrator Port Perry Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Monica Sanford Mississaugas of Scugog Island Community Consultation Administrative Port Perry Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Assistant Brendan White Mohaks of Akwesasne Manager, Communications Cornwall Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Unit Angela Maracle Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Senior Director of Operations Deseronto Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Chief Ruben Cantin Sr. provided comments on August 21, 2013 by and mail (see attached letter). Hydro One responded on September 30, 2013 to a new elected Chief Paul Watts (see attached letter). Rhonda Williams Moose Deer Point Band/Housing Manager Mactier Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 136

144 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment First Name Last Name Company/Community Title City Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required (August 7-14, 2013) Follow-up Action Taken Dwayne Nashkawa Nipissing Executive Director Garden Village Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Laura Owl Sagamok Band Manager Massey Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nishin Neawasige Serpent River Director of Operations Cutler Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Adam Good Shawanaga Band Manager Nobel Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Cassandra Cadeau Shawanaga Nobel Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Alison Aguonie Sheguiandah Band Manager Sheguiandah Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dennis Blackburn Sheshegwaning Band Manager Sheshegwaning Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail/ Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Mary Jane Wardell Thessalon Band Manager Thessalon Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Irvin George Wahnapitae Band Manager Capreol Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Cheryl Recollet Wahnapitae Capreol Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sandra Monette Wahta Senior Administrator Bala Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Linda Simon Wasauksing Chief Executive Director Parry Sound Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Craig Nootchtai Whitefish Lake Director of Operations Naughton Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Don McGregor Whitefish River Executive Director Birch Island Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Murray McGregor Whitefish River Plant Manager Birch Island Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Wayne Osawamick Wikwemikong Director of Operations Wikwemikong Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Christine Sagon Zhiibaahaasing Band Administrator Silverwater Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Dayle Bomberry Six Nations SAO Ohsweken Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Margaret Sault Mississaugas of the New Credit Director Hagersville Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered April Varewyck Oneida Nation of the Thames Southwold Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Rolanda Elijah Chippewas of the Thames Director Muncey Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Munsee Delaware Nation Band Manager Muncey Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Mark French Moravian of the Thames Band Manager Thamesville Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Melody Watson Caldwell Office/Finance Manager Leamington Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Michael Dashner Bkejwanong (Walpole Island) Director of Operations Wallaceburg Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kelly Williams Aamjiwnaang Interim Band Administrator Sarnia Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lorraine George Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation Manager Kettle and Stony Point First Nation Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Fax/mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Janet Root Saugeen First Nation Band Manager Southampton Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Jimi Maurer Beavorhouse First Nation Land Resources Kirkland Lake Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Jessica Nadjiwon Chippewas of Nawash Band Administrator Neyaashiinigmiing Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett /mail Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Mark Bowler Métis Nation of Ontario Director, Land, Resources and Consultation Olivera Radinovic/Adam Bennett Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 137

145 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Local Distribution Company First Name Last Name Class EA Local Distribution Company Consultation Log Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Follow-up Action Taken Algoma Power Inc. Dan Richards Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Atikokan Hydro Inc. General mailbox Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Bluewater Power Distribution Corporation Dominique Pinelli Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Brant County Power Inc. Glen Fuller Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Brantford Power Inc. Altaf Hussain Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Burlington Hydro Inc. Dan Guatto Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Cambridge and North Dumfries Hydro Ron Sinclair Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Canadian Niagara Power Jie Han Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Centre Wellington Hydro Pat Flynn Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Chapleau Public Utilities Corp Allen Morin Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Chatham-Kent Hydro Mike Goodwin Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Collingwood Utilities Larry Irwin Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Cooperative Hydro Embrun Benoit Lamarche Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered E.L.K. Energy Inc. Norm MacAulay Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Enersource Hydro Mississauga Dan Pastoric Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered EnWin Utilities Ltd. Marvio Vinhaes Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Erie Thames Powerlines Corporation Chuck Dejong Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Espanola Regional Hydro Kevin Bell Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Essex Powerlines Mark Alzner Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Festival Hydro Jac Vanderbaan Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Five Nations Energy Inc. Lucie Edwards Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Fort Francis Power Corp Brian Mueller Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Goderich Hydro - West Coast Huron Energy Tim Martin Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Greater Sudbury Hydro Brian McMillan Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Grimsby Power Richard Chrapala Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Guelph Hydro Electric Systems M Wittemund Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Haldimand County Hydro Paul Heeg Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Halton Hills Hydro Don Matthews Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hawkesbury Hydro Inc. Michel Poulin Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hearst Power Distribution Company Ltd. Steven Blier Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Horizon Utilities Corporation Jim Butler Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hydro 2000 Inc. Rene Beaulne Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Hydro Ottawa Pierre Lemay Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Innisfil Hydro Distribution System Wade Morris Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kenora Hydro Electric Corporation Dave Sinclair Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kingston Hydro (Utilities Kingston) Jim Miller Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Jerry Van Ooteghem Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lakefront Utilities Ron Little Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lakeland Power Distribution Brian Elliot Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered London Hydro Inc. Ken Walsh Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Middlesex Power Distribution Corp Mike Steeper Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Midland Power Utility Corporation Phil Marley Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Milton Hydro Distribution Bruno Pereira Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Newmarket Tay Power Distribution Ltd. Gaye-Donna Young Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. Tom Sielicki Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara-On-The-Lake Hydro David Steinschifter Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Norfolk Power Distribution Ernie Vidovic Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered North Bay Hydro Distribution Todd Wilcox Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Northern Ontario Wires Doug Theobold Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oakville Hydro Electricity Distribution Mike Brown Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Orangeville Hydro Rob Koekkoek Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Orillia Power Distribution Corp Keith McAllister Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Oshawa PUC Networks Denise Flores Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ottawa River Power Corp Doug Fee Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Parry Sound Power Corporation Miles Thompson Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Peterborough Distribution Inc. Jeff Guilbeault Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered PowerStream Doug Fairchild Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Renfrew Hydro Tom Freemark Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Rideau St. Lawrence Distribution John Biccum Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Sioux Lookout Hydro Gord Maki Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered St.Thomas Energy Shawn Filice Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Thunder Bay Hydro Electricity Distribution D Zimak Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Tillsonburg Hydro Steve Lund Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Toronto Hydro-Electric Systems Mary Bryne Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Veridian Connections Peter Petriw Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Wasaga Distribution David Stavinga Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Waterloo North Hydro Herb Haller Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Welland Hydro-Electric Systems Kevin Bailey Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Wellington North Power Judy Rosebrugh Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Westario Power Lisa Milne Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Whitby Hydro Electric Kevin Whitehead Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Woodstock Hydro Services Jay Heaman Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Electricity Distributors Association Maurice Tucci Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered RJ Burnside & Associates Tricia Radburn Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 138

146 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment Transmitter First Name Last Name Class EA Transmitter Consultation Log Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Class EA Miner Consultation Log Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Follow-up Action Taken AltaLink Stephen Hodgkinson Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Canadian Niagara Power Inc. Douglas Bradbury Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Cat Lake Power Utility Ltd. Gordon Maki Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Chatham-Kent Transmission Inc. Chris Cowell Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Five Nations Energy Inc. Lucie Edwards Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Great Lakes Power Transmission Inc. Andy McPhee Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Iccon Transmission Inc. Pablo De la Sierra Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Niagara West Transformation Corporation TransCanada Power Transmission (Ontario) L.P. Karen Bubish Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Brian Kelly Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Customer Name (Miner) First Name Last Name Hydro One Representative Form of Correspondence Summary of Correspondence Follow-up Required/Follow-up Action Taken Agrium Ken Munnoch Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Air Liquide Canada Inc. Moore Plant Brian Hussey Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Amherst Quarries Ltd. Ryan Wall Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Apollo Gold Corporation (Brigus Gold) Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Armistice Resources Erik Andersen Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Claude Resources Inc. Korin Johnson Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Falcon Bridge Ltd. (Xstrata) Aurora Lehay Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Falcon Bridge Ltd. (Xstrata) Martin Laferriere Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Goldcorp Canada Ltd. Laszlo Goltz Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Goldcorp - Porcupine Mine Bud Millions Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Iko Industries Ltd. John Robinson Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Inmet Mining Corporation Chris Scholl Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Lafarge Canada Inc. Doug England Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Nelson Aggregate Co. Brian Caverson Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered St. Lawrence Cement Inc. (Holcim) Mac Carmichael Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Holcim Maria Topalovic Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Vale Canada Limited Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Vicdom Sand and Gravel Ontario Ltd. Bruno Giordano Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Walker Aggregates Inc. Wes Foebel Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Williams Operating Corporation Jeremy Dart Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered Ontario Mining Association Cheryl Brownlee Olivera Radinovic/Jonquil Li Notice of 45-day review period Successfully delivered 139

147 WAABIGONIIW SAAGA'IGANIIW ANISHINAABEG (Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation) Site 115 Box 300 RR#1 Dryden, Ontario P8N 2Y4 August 21, 2013 Olivera Radinvic Environmental Services and Approvals Hydro One Network Inc. 483 Bay Street, 6 th Floor Toronto, Ontario MSG 2P5 Olivera.Radinovic@HydroOne.Com Re: Notice of Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities Waabigoniiw Saaga'iganiiw Anishinaabeg (WSA) is alarmed by the draft amendments being proposed by Hydro One for Minor Transmission Facilities. Amendments are being developed on the basis of previous authorizations under a Class EA completed by Ontario Hydro in 1980 and Our Nation has serious concerns with the basis for the draft amendments, and thus has serious doubts that the Environmental Assessment will "govern" the Traditional territory of our Nation within Treaty #3 that meets the principles of cultural, environmental and economic sustainability, and shared authority over all land, air, water and life as contemplated by Treaty. The proposed amendments are based upon the previous Environmental Assessment Processes for the territory of our Nation within Treaty #3 where our consent was not sought nor given. The previous documents and processes were prepared without any involvement with our Nation. Our Nation does not support the context, process, inputs, and guidelines used in the preparation of these draft amendments and previous Environmental Assessment authorizations. Our Nation has concerns that the major purpose ofthe draft amendments is the provision efland and legal instruments over our territory without due process to rights, title and interests contemplated by Treaty #3. Our Nation insists on good faith negotiations that respect the rights title and interests to us as Inherent and Treaty rights holders within our territory based on the requirements to achieve free and prior consent. We expect that Hydro One take the necessary steps to accommodate the legitimate concerns of Waabigoniiw Saaga'iganiiw Anishinaabeg concerning transmission lines within our territory of Treaty #3. Telephone: (807) Fax: (807)

148 We are advising your corporation of our objection to proposed amendments for minor Transmission Lines until appropriate consultation process is undertaken by the Crown. To be clear, work proposed within Treaty# 3 and our traditional territory will infringe our section 35 rights. Waabigoniiw Saaga'iganiiw Anishinabeg vehemently objects to unilateral defined decision making which is reflected by this draft amendments now being proposed. Prior to such activities being approved, there must be consultation and accommodations to our concerns. Our First Nation would like to point out that there has been no understanding by the Ministry of Environment that the Canadian Constitution protects Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the territory of Treaty #3 and our Traditional territory. These protections are superimposed upon any ordinary common law or statutory obligations imposed on private parties in respect of a proposed project or development. Therefore since the authority of Ontario to license any activity in Treaty #3 without due regard to the protection of our ever-disappearing Treaty Harvesting Rights areas within Treaty #3, it is critical that a bona fide consultation process that meets requirements as set out by Manito Aki lnakonigaawin be achieved. In our consultation process, the Crown would have been directed information about the cumulative importance of our territory to the Anishinaabe, especially those who are members of Waabigoniiw Saaga'iganiiw Anishinabeg. Miigwech, Chief Ruben Cantin Sr cc. Ogichidaa Warren White, Grand Council Treaty 3 Minister of Environment 141

149 Hydro One Networks Inc Bay Street TCT6, South Tower Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2P5 Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Olivera Radinovic Environmental Planner, Environmental Engineering and Project Support September 30, 2013 Chief Paul Watts Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation RR #1 Site 115, P.O Box 300 Dryden, ON P8N 2Y4 Subject: Hydro One's amendments to its Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities Dear Chief Paul Watts, Thank you for the letter we received from the previous Chief on August 21, 2013 regarding Hydro One's proposed amendments for the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities ( Class EA document ). We understand that you are concerned that the proposed amendments will govern the Traditional territory as they are based on the previous Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities completed by Ontario Hydro in 1980 and revised in Hydro One would like to address your concerns by clarifying the purpose of the Class EA Document. The proposed Class EA document provides direction to transmission utilities on the conduct of environmental assessments for specific small-scale projects under the Environmental Assessment Act. Your community was notified as part of Hydro One s public engagement which included meetings with First Nations as part of a province-wide process. Please be assured that this document does not and cannot change anything in relation to consultation requirements as they pertain to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. The Class EA document is not related to the provision of land and legal instruments over territory, but discusses a process that utilities must follow in order to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act when undertaking a small project described in section 1.1 such as replacing wood poles. With respect to Waabigoniiw Saaga iganiiw Anishinaabeg s (WSA) Aboriginal and Treaty rights, where there is a risk of adverse impact on existing Aboriginal or treaty rights arising from a Hydro One project, the Crown may delegate the procedural aspects of consultation to Hydro One. The Class EA document will not alter any legal standards or obligations that may arise in relation to accommodation. The proposed amendments are still in the public comment phase; after which our draft document will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment for their public review and consultation. Hydro One is committed to building stronger relationships with First Nations communities, including on its minor transmission projects. If in the future, Hydro One has a project in WSA s traditional territory that falls under the Class EA document, we hope that Waabigoniiw Saaga iganiiw Anishinaabeg will want to discuss the project with us and provide input. If you have any further questions on the proposed amendments for the Class EA document, please contact me. 142

150 Sincerely, Olivera Radinovic, Environmental Planner Environmental Engineering and Project Support cc: Ogichida Warren White, Grand Council Treaty #3 cc: Antonia Testa, Project Officer-Environmental.Approvals Branch: Ministry of Environment cc: Brian J. McCormick, Manager, Environmental Engineering and Project Support 143

151 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment MTCS Detailed Comments on Class EA for Projects subject to the Hydro One Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities, August 2013 REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT 2 RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE 1. Class Environmental Assessment History Page 8 3. Section 1.1 Class Definition Page 9 a. Category A projects are projects which are expected to have minimal environmental effects. These projects do not require approval under the EA Act, and are not designated as being subject to the EA Act in the O. Reg. 116/01. Although projects in this category are not subject to EA requirements under the O. Reg. 116/01, they are required to comply with any other applicable existing legislative requirements. In addition, if Crown resources are necessary to carry out a project, there are requirements under the EA Act related to the disposition of Crown resources that must also be fulfilled (e.g., an environmental review by the Ministry of Natural Resources prior to the occupation or sale of Crown land). If there are significant environmental effects associated with a project in Category A, the MOECC (with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor) could designate it as being subject to an individual environmental assessment (individual EA) under the EA Act. Item b. i. The work requires replacement of poles or towers (other than angle poles or towers) ( ) Add the following footnote linked to the sentence underlined in the previous column: Any excavation or ground disturbance activities that occur in areas of archaeological potential may be subject to the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act. For determination of archaeological potential, refer to How archaeological sites are identified on the website of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport archaeology_planning.shtml#a2 See also comments regarding Section Environmental Inventory (in row 10 of this table) about the development of a Heritage Management Process. This Process should also advise on Category A projects as it relates to cultural heritage resources. It would appear that replacement of all angle poles / towers are exempt from the environmental assessment. MTCS would like to understand why these structures are excluded. Even if Category A projects are pre-approved, proponents would be wise to know how to address cultural heritage resources and avoid any impacts to them. The Ontario Heritage Act provides that it is illegal to knowingly alter (e.g., change in any manner, disturb, etc.) an archaeological site without a licence. MCTS recommends engaging a consultant archaeologist to undertake an archaeological assessment if there is any uncertainty about the presence of archaeological resources. Conducting assessments and implementing appropriate recommendations ensures that archaeological resources are identified, evaluated and protected, and reduces potential risks, costs and delays to the project. Knowing at an early stage what resources exist at the project location will help proponents plan, design and undertake their projects in a way that considers and avoids or mitigates impacts to those resources. In order for non-archaeologists to know whether their activities may affect an archaeological site, the Province has established Criteria for Evaluating Archaeological Potential. Archaeological potential is a term used to describe the likelihood that a property contains archaeological resources. Any activity that involves ground disturbance in an area of archaeological potential could irreparably damage cultural heritage resources. Even the use of heavy equipment can cause soil compaction resulting in damage to heritage resources. The text on page 8 of the Class EA document (Section titled Class Environmental Assessment History, under bullet (a) is a general statement that outlines the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) and also clarifies that all electricity projects are required to comply with any other applicable existing legislative requirements (e.g., Ontario Heritage Act.; Species at Risk Act; Environmental Protection Act; etc.). This section is not meant to provide details on the other legislative requirements. Angle poles and towers were granted an exemption from the EA Act over 30 years ago because of the benign nature of the facilities, technical requirement and lack of available alternatives. When O. Reg. 116 was put in place, most exemptions were removed but the status quo was retained. Consequently, angle structures are not subject to the Act (they are part category A projects) and this falls outside the scope of the amendment. Hydro One will respect heritage requirements but the Class EA amendment is not the place to make commitments on facilities which are not members of the approved Class of undertakings. The projects involving the replacement of angle poles are exempt from the EA Act, but they are not exempt from the Ontario Heritage Act; Species at Risk Act; Environmental Protection Act and other applicable existing legislative requirements. 1 Refers to the of the draft amendments Class EA document (July 2013 edition) 2 Recommended wording is shown in black line edits 144

152 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT 2 4. Section Similarities and Differences Among Project Types, Page 10 Similarities: a. All projects subject to this Class EA Document have predictable and readily manageable environmental effects. Similarities: All projects subject to this Class EA Document have predictable and readily manageable environmental effects that can likely be mitigated Similarity a. suggests that an assessment is not necessary (and that effects have already been evaluated). Added text is more consistent with the description of a Category B project in the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects. Wording change noted and made. 5. Section Study Area Definition Page 19 The environmental constraints may take the form of ecologically sensitive areas (e.g., rivers, lakes, and wetlands), man-made constraints, highways and urban centres. Technical constraints may involve issues associated with construction and maintenance (e.g., flood plains, soil conditions) or interference with other facilities (e.g., microwave communication, radio transmission). Other boundary location opportunities may include such features as favourable property fabrics or existing severances. What is meant by the term man-made constraints? Cultural heritage constraints should be added for areas of cultural heritage potential. Man-made constraints is an unfamiliar term. It should be defined or clarified elsewhere in the document, or, if appropriate, replaced with cultural heritage resources (see also comment in row 8, below). Cultural heritage resources should be acknowledged as potential constraints to avoid situations where proponents do not consider them in the early planning of transmission projects. The term man-made is used in the Environmental Assessment Act as part of the definition of the environment. It refers to any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans. Cultural heritage is included in the 15 screening criteria that are used in the planning for the project. 6. Section Initial Notification Page 19 b. Notify all potentially affected lower, upper or single-tier municipalities or districts and identify any of their official plan policies concerning environmental matters that may be affected by the project (such municipalities are to be considered as part of the "public"). For potentially affected areas without municipal organization, notify local planning boards, if they exist. Hydro One should include a broader statement unrelated to official plan policies that may be affected: if a project affects a known or potential heritage property, the proponent will contact the appropriate authority (e.g. municipality, MTCS, Ontario Heritage Trust). Municipalities may have concerns other than official plan policies e.g. impacts to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, properties that have a heritage conservation easement, etc. Section Initial Notification and Appendix D state that: in addition to the MOECC, municipal, provincial and federal government officials, government agencies, First Nations and Metis communities, potentially affected and interested persons, affected businesses, and interested groups will be notified ). This section is intended to provide more details on the groups that are not on the Government Review Team List (GRT) (see appendix D). The MTCS is part of the GRT list and will be notified whenever is required. 145

153 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT 2 RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE 7. Section Class Environmental Assessment Screening Process Page Screening Criteria Page 22 The following list of project types and project parameters provides some examples of undertakings that typically have insignificant environmental effects (i.e. would generally be subject to the Class EA Screening Process): a. The replacement, relocation and/or addition of wood pole structures along existing RoWs. b. The replacement, relocation and/or addition of steel transmission structures along existing RoWs. c. The construction of overhead transmission lines between 2 and 4 km in length. d. Underground transmission lines in urban areas. e. The upgrade/modification of existing transmission station involving site acquisition of no more than four (4) hectares (ha). f. The construction of a 115 kv transmission station. g. Certain connection facilities (e.g., for customers; generation station) including line taps and switching stations. h. Construction of telecommunication stations. o. Result in significant detrimental effects to man-made or natural heritage resources. MTCS recommends revising this paragraph to ensure cultural heritage resources are not inadvertently overlooked. The list includes undertakings that could potentially have irreversible, damaging impacts to irreplaceable cultural heritage resources. Amend text: o. Result in significant detrimental effects to man-made or natural heritage or cultural heritage resources (which may include built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and / or archaeological resources). Hydro One may wish to consider separating cultural heritage and natural heritage. Items a) and b) are not a concern if an EA has previously been conducted, or replacements are pole for pole or tower for tower. They would warrant cultural heritage studies if an EA has not been previously conducted and the work entails the relocation and/or addition of wood pole structures and/or steel transmission structures along existing RoWs. Wood pole replacements have been added to this list, but many of these undertakings would still have land impacts and at the very least require archaeology. The following undertakings would always warrant technical cultural heritage studies: c. The construction of overhead transmission lines between 2 and 4 km in length; and, e. The upgrade/modification of existing transmission station involving site acquisition of no more than four (4) hectares (ha); The following undertakings may warrant technical cultural heritage studies, but the scale of probable impact requires some definition: d. Underground transmission lines in urban areas (no length specified); f. The construction of a 115 kv transmission station (0.2 Ha for interior locations, 5.0 to 25.0 Ha for exterior sites according to Section 6.2.4); g. Certain connection facilities (e.g., for customers; generation station) including line taps and switching stations; and, h. Construction of telecommunication stations (tower and guy wire points plus building and access road, according to Section 6.3). The language in the Class EA should be consistent with approved heritage policy and as used elsewhere in this document. For the two types of resources (natural and cultural heritage) data sources, law, inventories, managers, processes, etc., are all different. Making this change would conform more closely with other Class EAs. It would also match better with page 22, Section (c) where cultural heritage resources are separate and distinct from both human settlement and natural heritage resources (see further comments below). The screening process is a long standing component of the Class EA. The changes (text in blue in the Section 3.3.3) proposed are for clarification purposes. The Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities (1992) describes two levels of assessment, the Class EA Process and the Class EA Screening Process (Section 3.0, pg. 14). It also describes the 15 screening questions required to determine which assessment process should be followed. The 15 screening questions consider all aspects of the environment as defined in the EA Act (including cultural heritage). The list of project types and project parameters in Section (pg.20) provides some examples of undertakings that typically have insignificant environmental effects based on several decades of experience. The projects on the list may be subject to the Class EA Screening Process (lower type of the EA Assessment that includes consultation requirements) if they pass the 15 screening questions. These projects (projects are assessed on a case-by-case basis) will be screened using the 15 screening questions along with the consultation with directly affected municipal, provincial and federal government officials, government agencies, First Nations and Metis communities, potentially affected and interested persons, affected businesses and interested groups to identify potential environmental concern. If any environmental situations (e.g., environmental and social-economic effects) are identified during this stage, the answers to some of the 15 screening questions will be Yes. Consequently the undertaking will be assessed under the Class EA Process (see section 3.0 of the Class EA document). Projects subject to either the Class EA process or the Class EA Screening process need to comply with any other applicable existing legislative requirements (e.g., Ontario Heritage Act.; Species at Risk Act; Environmental Protection Act; etc. Man-made is a term used in the EA Act. See answer 5. Hydro One separated cultural heritage and natural heritage. 146

154 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT 2 9. Section Environmental data is collected, summarized and mapped There is a need to clarify how and what kind of the data will be The risk is that only designated properties will be captured, Wording change noted and made. Environmental Inventory Page 22 according to the following factors: c. Cultural Heritage resources (i.e., built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological sites) collected. The text should refer to archaeological resources (versus archaeological sites) as it is a broader and more inclusive term. and it will not include properties listed on a municipal inventory or properties with potential CHVI which would be identified during a visual site survey. Please note that the ToR (2004) refers to Description of the Environment and not Environmental Inventory. MTCS recommends that the wording and the purpose be consistent with the MOECC Code of Practice - a description of the environment that may be affected or reasonably expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the alternatives and the undertaking 10. Section Environmental Inventory Page 22, 23 All proponents are expected to draft and follow their own respective set of environmental guidelines and practices which would be applied to their projects. MTCS is concerned that this statement leaves it up proponents to develop appropriate guidelines to address the factors listed in this section. For cultural heritage resources, Hydro One should develop appropriate guidelines and best practices that should be included as an appendix to the Class EA. This could be achieved through a Heritage Management Process that would describe how Hydro One identifies, evaluates, and addresses known and potential cultural heritage resources. Should MOECC approve the proposed Class EA amendments, MTCS recommend that a condition of approval be the requirement to develop a Heritage Management Process to be completed within one year of the MOECC approval? The proponent should be required to notify interested parties that the ESR has been finalized. Developing appropriate heritage guidance would be consistent with the EA intent, other provincial Class EA (e.g. MTO, MNDM, MNR). Assessment of the potential impacts of proposed projects on cultural heritage resources should be done at an early planning stage to help guide decisions. Also, guidance on what to do in the case of pre-approved projects to protect cultural heritage resources would avoid causing irreversible damage to irreplaceable heritage resources. There are a number of examples of guidance documents that could be adopted or adapted to the purposes of the Hydro One Class EA. Hydro One accepts the recommendation that appropriate guidelines for a Heritage Management Process should be developed. Hydro One Class EA is a principal-based compliance document and is not intended to contain details of other legislative requirements. Hydro One s intention is to develop the guidelines for a Heritage Management Process as a separate document and keep its Class EA consistent with other Class EAs in Ontario. Hydro One discussed this approach with other Class EA holders and learned that some of them have already developed their own guideline documents and did not include them as an appendix in their Class EA documents. 147

155 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT 2 RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE Environmental Study Report and Statement of Completion Page Addendum to the Environmental Study Report Page 27 Once the review period of the draft ESR is complete, the proponent will incorporate all comments into the report raised during the review period and finalize the ESR. Once the ESR is finalized, a copy will be placed on the proponent s project website, and sent to the EAB of MOECC for filing. The proponent will complete and submit the Statement of Completion form to the MOECC along with the finalized ESR - at which point the project is considered acceptable, and can proceed as outlined in the final ESR. As the Class EA Process is planned and carried out using preliminary/conceptual engineering design, it may be revealed later during detailed engineering design that it is not feasible to implement the undertaking in the way originally planned and documented in the ESR. This may come about as a result of a change in conditions, the development of new technology or mitigation measures or the appearance of previously unidentified concerns. Where a change to the commitments outlined in the ESR is determined, affected parties will be consulted. If, through such consultation, significant environmental implications are identified, an addendum will be prepared. This addendum will document the circumstances necessitating the change, the potential environmental impacts caused by the change and what can be done to mitigate any negative impacts Fifteen days will be allowed for affected parties to review the change and register any objections or concerns. During the review period no work will be undertaken which might adversely affect that part of the project under review, unless all affected parties have reached agreement that the 15 days for documentation and review are not required. Where there is no response within the review period, acceptance will be assumed. The Class EA should include direction not only on consulting affected parties, but also on how to identify them. Parties that participated and commented in previous stages should be identified as affected parties. The notification period should be increased to at least 21 days. It is unreasonable to expect interested parties to monitor the proponent s website to obtain the ESR. MTCS has commented on projects where the project changed after the ESR was filed but the proponent did not notify or consult with MTCS about the change. Fifteen days is not a reasonable timeline for review of complex situations. If proponents require review in less time, they should engage affected parties through active communication. This is a matter to be addressed by the MOECC and needs to be consistent across all EAs. The section 3.5 will be revised to state: Once the review period of the draft ESR is complete, the proponent will incorporate all comments raised during the review period into the report and finalize the ESR. Once the ESR is finalized, a copy will be placed on the proponent s project website, and sent to the EAB of MOECC for filing. The ESR will also appear on the MOECC website. The proponent will complete and submit the Statement of Completion form to the MOECC along with the finalized ESR - at which point the project is considered acceptable, and can proceed as outlined in the final ESR. Hydro One can notify interested stakeholders once the ESR is finalized. The Addendum process is a long standing component of the Class EA. It is not a change proposed with the amendment. All potentially affected persons will be engaged in the consultation to determine if an addendum to the ESR is needed. Our experience shows that the 15 day of public review period of the Addendum to the ESR has been sufficient. 148

156 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT 2 RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE 13. Section 5.2 Potential Delay in Project Implementation Page Section 6.0 Description of Projects covered by the Class Definition Page 39 Figure 2 - Component Parts of a Typical Transmission Line Page Conductor Stringing Page Section 6.5 Decommissioning Page 53 Consequently, if construction is not initiated within ten years of the ESR completion, the ESR will be reviewed to determine if any changes are required. This chapter describes the physical components and activities associated with the projects covered by this assessment. Construction, maintenance and RoW management activities will be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Guidelines for the of Transmission Facilities. Other proponents are expected to draft and follow their own set of environmental guidelines and practices that would be applied to their own projects. Reference to counterpoise. Conductor Stringing: The stringing of conductors can be done in two ways: slack stringing in which the conductor is pulled along the ground and placed in travellers at each tower before being tensioned, or tension stringing in which the conductors are pulled under tension through travellers and conductors are kept off the ground at all times. The first step in tension stringing is to install the insulator strings and travellers on the tower arms. That is followed by installing a light rope along the section of line to be strung. Stringing sections can be as long as 10 km. When transmission facilities become obsolete or unserviceable, the equipment is retired from service. The facilities may be removed and the site made suitable for some other purposes. The foundations are cut back 0.5 m below the groundline when transmission structures are removed. Treatment of abandoned station or tower sites will be in accordance with Environmental Guidelines for of Transmission Facilities. In addition, if a station site is suspected to be environmentally contaminated, the decommissioning of facilities will follow the MOECC's guideline for the Decommissioning and Clean-up of Sites in Ontario. The ESR only requires review if the project has not been initiated after 10 years from completion of the ESR. MTCS believes this is unreasonably long. Without having access to this document, MTCS cannot comment on Class EA provisions that refer to it. MTCS notes that counterpoise installations are significant ground disturbances. The extent of these installations justifies the need for guidance on the evaluation of archaeological potential and, where warranted, archaeological assessment. The Class EA makes no provision for construction of pullertensioner pads for stringing wires. See MTCS comment in row 15, above. Other Class EAs provide for a five year commencement period. (E.g., MNDM Class EA Section MNDM may proceed with a project within five years of filing a Statement of Completion.) Hydro One may also need to include a section about addendum procedure (see Section MNDM). The Class EA itself is subject to review every five years why would an ESR not be subject to at least that timeline? MTCS does not have a copy of the Environmental Guidelines for the of Transmission Facilities and it is not readily available. Is it possible to share an electronic copy of those Environmental Guidelines? Puller-tensioner pads require the evaluation of archaeological potential and, where warranted, archaeological assessment prior to their construction. Section 3.8 of the Hydro One Class EA explains the addendum procedure. The Class EA document s five year review period is a mechanism that is meant to capture any changes that occur, e.g., legislative changes, during that time. With regard to the ESR, it has been our experience that the changes that occur in this time period are usually minor. Hydro One s practice is to conduct an internal review to identify and verify that the information in the ESR is still current and applicable. Any changes, e.g., legislative changes, will be complied with. The Environmental Guidelines for the of Transmission Facilities is not part of the Class EA Amendment. It is an internal operational document. Hydro One will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act wherever required. Hydro One will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act wherever required. Hydro One will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act wherever required. 149

157 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT Appendix A - Environmental effects are the effects that a project has, or MTCS recommends revising the definition as follows. The draft amendment includes definitions related to Hydro One will comply with the Environmental effects are the effects that a project has, or could Glossary of could potentially have, directly or indirectly on the potentially have, directly or indirectly on the environment at any stage cultural heritage that are either out of date, too narrow or requirements of the Ontario Heritage Terms and Acronyms Page environment at any stage in the project life cycle. Environmental effects may include, but are not limited to, the harmful alteration, disruption, destruction, or loss of natural features, flora or fauna and their habitat, ecological functions, natural resources, air or water quality, and in the project life cycle. Environmental effects may include, but are not limited to, the harmful alteration, disruption, destruction, or loss of natural features, flora or fauna and their habitat, ecological functions, natural resources, air or water quality, and cultural or heritage resources. Environmental effects may also include the displacement, impairment, conflict or interference with existing land missing altogether. MTCS would be pleased to work with Hydro One to refine or improve the definitions to ensure proponents and the public have a clear understanding of the cultural heritage components of the environment, and to ensure Act wherever required. Hydro One will incorporate the definitions of the terms mentioned into the body of the Document as follows: uses, businesses or economic enterprises, recreational uses or cultural or heritage resources. Environmental effects may the Class EA uses language that is consistent with other archaeological resources, archaeological activities, cultural pursuits activities and expressions, social conditions also include the displacement, impairment, conflict or or the local economy. provincial documents (i.e., land use planning and heritage potential, cultural heritage resources, interference with existing land uses, businesses or legislation, regulation and policies). built heritage resources, and cultural economic enterprises, recreational uses or activities, cultural pursuits, social conditions or the local economy. MTCS also recommends including a number of definitions for other terms found in the Class EA. The following should be added: Archaeological Resources: include artifacts, archaeological sites, and marine archaeological sites. The identification and evaluation of such heritage landscape. The other definitions recommended by MTCS will be considered for inclusion in resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in the Heritage Guidelines once they are accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. Refer to Ontario Regulation 170/04 under the Act for definitions of the term developed. artifacts, archaeological site, marine archaeological site and archaeological fieldwork. Archaeological Potential: The likelihood that a property contains archaeological resources. Criteria for determining archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches which achieve the same objective may also be used. Archaeological potential is confirmed through archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. Consultant Archaeologist: means a licensed archaeologist who enters into an agreement with a client to carry out or supervise archaeological fieldwork on behalf of the client, produce reports for or on behalf of the client and provide technical advice to the client. Cultural heritage resources: include built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological sites. Built heritage resources: means one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, earthworks, monuments, installations, or remains that have cultural heritage value or interest. Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that human activity has modified and that has cultural heritage value. Such an area involves one or more groupings of individual heritage features, such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites, and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form distinct from that of its constituent elements or parts. Heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, main streets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trails, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value are some examples. 150

158 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT 2 RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE Cultural heritage value or interest: means the cultural heritage value or interest of a property determined in accordance with the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act or, in respect of properties of provincial significance, determined in accordance with the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value of Provincial Significance set out in Ontario Regulation 10/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act and, for archaeological resources as determined in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists prepared and published by MTCS under the Ontario Heritage Act. Ground Disturbance: means to interfere with or alter the existing condition of the ground, whether it s above or below water, through human actions that have the potential to affect cultural heritage resources, and includes altering the existing grade of land, compacting, excavating or removing topsoil, power spraying, dredging, placing or dumping fill, removing vegetation, allowing heavy vehicle traffic, trenching (for services, etc.), drainage ditch construction, trail construction, and scarification, but does not including regular farming practices such as plowing or tilling. Technical cultural heritage studies: may include archaeological assessments; historic research, site analyses and evaluations of cultural heritage value or interest; heritage impact assessments; heritage conservation plans; or studies of mitigation options appropriate to each. The Class EA requires guidance on how to determine the presence of cultural heritage resources, what factors to consider, or with whom to consult on establishing the nature and magnitude of impacts. 19. Appendix C Cultural Heritage Resources Page CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES Description This factor considers built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscape and archaeological sites. Typical Data Types: Designated historical sites Buildings of historical architecture Settlement patterns Known archaeological and historical sites Areas of archaeological potential Traditional Use Studies Typical Data Sources: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Parks Canada Upper and Lower Tier Municipalities Historical county atlases of Ontario Archaeological studies Survey plans of Ontario townships Local historical associations Local published and unpublished histories Air photo interpretation Field inspection Heritage Conservation Ontario Heritage Trust First Nations and Métis land use See MTCS comments in Row 10 regarding the development of a Heritage Management Process. As it may take a year to complete this process, MTCS recommends the following changes to Appendix C. Description This factor considers built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscape and archaeological sites resources. Typical Data Types: Designated historical sites Properties of cultural heritage value (as defined by Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act ) Buildings of historical architecture Properties designated, or subject to a notice of intention to designate, under Part IV or B of the Ontario Heritage Act Properties subject to an agreement, easement or covenant under the Ontario Heritage Act Properties designated as a historic site under Regulation 880 of the Ontario Heritage Act Provincial heritage properties Properties listed on a register or inventory of heritage properties maintained by the municipality Properties subject to a municipal, provincial or federal plaque National historic sites This section is not clear on what is required to address cultural heritage resources. The term consider does not provide direction on what needs to be done (e.g. a technical study) if any of the described resources are present. Each type of cultural heritage resource is distinct, subject to different processes of identification, management and reporting. In some cases, MTCS has a legislative and/or review role. Proponents and the public would benefit from more explicit direction on the types of technical studies that may be required to gather this information. Note: typical data types have been updated to reflect the Ontario Heritage Act (2005), as well as the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2010). Hydro One will incorporate the recommended changes into Appendix C- Typical Data Types. Hydro One will incorporate the recommended changes into Appendix C- Typical Data Sources Known or reported burial sites Properties that contains structures over forty years old 151

159 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT 2 RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE Properties situated on a parcel of land that contains or is part of a cultural heritage landscape (e.g. Aboriginal trail, park, relationship to a Canadian Heritage River, designed garden, historic road or rail corridor, unique landforms, etc. Properties that are considered a landmark in the local community or contain any structures or sites that are important to defining the character of the area (e.g. prominent buildings or landscape features, complexes of buildings, monuments, etc.) Properties that have special association with a community, person or historical event (e.g. Aboriginal sacred site, traditional use areas, battlefield, birthplace of an individual of importance to the community, etc.) Settlement patterns Properties designated as an archaeological site under regulation 875 of the Ontario Heritage Act Known or reported archaeological and historical sites Areas of archaeological potential Properties in the Canadian Register of Historic Places Properties in the Canadian Inventory of Historic Building Protected heritage properties as defined by the Provincial Policy Statement Traditional Use Studies remove this to the Human Settlement Category Typical Data Sources: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Parks Canada Upper and Lower Tier Municipalities, including its municipal heritage committee (where one exists) Ontario Heritage Trust Archaeological studies assessment reports Archaeological management plans Cultural heritage evaluation reports Heritage Impact Assessment reports OHA Part IV designation studies and by-laws OHA Part V Heritage Conservation designation studies, bylaws and plans Municipal Cultural Plan Historical county atlases of Ontario Survey plans of Ontario townships Local historical associations societies Local published and unpublished histories and academic studies Air photo interpretation Field inspection Heritage Conservation First Nations and Métis land use records, treaties and land claims 152

160 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment REFERENCE 1 EXISTING TEXT MTCS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT 2 RATIONALE HYDRO ONE RESPONSE 20. Appendix C Natural Environmental Resources Page 68 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES Description This factor considers areas of environmental sensitivity: floral and faunal components of the terrestrial concentration area, designated environmentally sensitive areas, Source Water Protection Areas, spawning areas, and wetlands. Typical Data Types: Prime winter deer yards and moose and caribou habitat Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest Environmentally Sensitive Areas Sensitive terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems Wildlife management areas Species at Risk (SAR) and habitat Wetlands Waterfowl staging and nesting areas and heronries Greenbelt lands Niagara Escarpment Commission lands Oak Ridges Moraine lands Source Water Protection Areas/ Vulnerable Areas (including: Well Head Protection Areas, Intake Protection Zones, Aquifers vulnerability and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas) Typical Data Sources: Ministries of: o Ministry of Natural Resources o Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (Archaeological Registered Sites) o Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (Source Water Protection Areas) Conservation Authorities Atlas of Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario Ontario's Reptile and Amphibian Atlas Aerial photography Topographic maps Field surveys GIS data sources (Land Information Ontario, SOLRIS) Municipal Register of Listed and Designated Properties Niagara Escarpment Commission Department of Fisheries and Oceans Federation of Ontario Naturalists Local naturalist organizations Local trappers Provincial Policy Statement Local Official Plans Source Protection Plans and available maps of Source Water Protection Areas Regional and Municipal Planners Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (Archaeological Registered Sites) should not be listed under Data Sources for Natural Environmental Resources. Hydro One will remove the reference to the MTCS (Archaeological Registered Sites) from Appendix C- Natural Environmental Resources- Typical Data Source. 21. Appendix E - Examples of Typical Mitigation Measures Societal Impacts Environmental concern Disturbance or destruction of archeological resources. Displacement of built heritage resources and/or cultural heritage landscapes by removal and/or demolition and/or disruption. Disturbance to traditional land used by First Nations and Métis communities Refer to MTCS comments in row 10. The description of concerns and the corresponding mitigation measures is too succinct to be of any practical use. The development of appropriate guidance for heritage resources should replace the need for mitigation measures described here. This will be dealt with in the Heritage Guidelines. This Class EA document is a broad document describing process and not specific mitigation measures. 153

161 Record of Consultation - Hydro One Networks Inc. 45-day Review Period of the Draft Class Environmental Assessment Amendment 154