138 kv transmission line kensington fishing cove o’leary substation sherbrooke substation west...

Report No: 072613March 2008

PREPARED FOR:

EnvironmentalImpact

Statement

138 kV Transmission Line

O’Leary to Sherbrooke Substations

CBCL Limited Land Use and Environment Division 072613 - Phase II Transmission Line EA - Contents 1

Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................1 1.1 Proponent Information ........................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Overview.................................................................................................................1 1.3 Project Need and Justification.............................................................................................2 1.4 Study Boundaries ................................................................................................................2 1.5 Regulatory Context .............................................................................................................3 1.6 Approach to this Assessment and Known Issues ................................................................3 1.7 Structure of the Document ..................................................................................................4

Chapter 2 Project Description....................................................................................5 2.1 Project Purpose....................................................................................................................5 2.2 Project Routing....................................................................................................................5 2.3 Project Components ............................................................................................................6 2.4 Construction Procedures......................................................................................................7

2.4.1 The Construction Sequence ....................................................................................7 2.4.2 Special Procedures ..................................................................................................8

2.5 Operational Factors ...........................................................................................................10 2.5.1 Inspection Procedures ...........................................................................................10 2.5.2 Maintenance Procedures .......................................................................................10

2.6 Anticipated Emissions and Waste Streams .......................................................................10 2.6.1 Construction Protocols..........................................................................................10 2.6.2 Operational Protocols............................................................................................11

2.7 Project Schedule ................................................................................................................15 2.8 Malfunctions and Accidents ..............................................................................................15

Chapter 3 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ...............................................17 3.1 Approach and Methodologies ...........................................................................................17 3.2 Research and Field Work Undertaken...............................................................................18

3.2.1 Habitat Identifcation and Botanical Field Programs.............................................19 3.2.2 Ornithological Program.........................................................................................19 3.2.3 Consultations.........................................................................................................19

3.3 Phase I: Approach to Route Selection ...............................................................................20 3.4 Phase II: Approach to Assessment of the Preferred Route................................................21

3.4.1 Scoping: VECs and Socio-Economic Issues.........................................................21 3.4.2 Potential Pathways and VECs...............................................................................22


3.4.3 Analysis and Evaluation Criteria ..........................................................................23 Chapter 4 Environmental Baseline...........................................................................25

4.1 Regional and Local Context ..............................................................................................25 4.2 Physical Environment........................................................................................................26

4.2.1 Climatic Factors ....................................................................................................26 4.2.2 Topography, Geology and Hydrology ..................................................................28

4.3 Socio-Economic Environment ..........................................................................................28 4.3.1 Communities and Development Pattern................................................................30 4.3.2 Land Use ...............................................................................................................31 4.3.3 Transportation .......................................................................................................32 4.3.4 Land Ownership....................................................................................................33 4.3.5 Special Places........................................................................................................33 4.3.6 First Nations Interests ...........................................................................................34

4.4 Ecological Environment ....................................................................................................34 4.4.1 Habitat Characterization .......................................................................................34 4.4.2 Species of Concern................................................................................................34 4.4.3 Flora ......................................................................................................................37 4.4.4 Birds......................................................................................................................39

Chapter 5 Phase I: Evaluation of Alternative Routes...............................................42 5.1 Need and Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................42 5.2 Analysis – Ecological, Socio-Economic and Technical....................................................42

5.2.1 Review of Alternative Segments...........................................................................43 5.2.2 Selection of Preferred Alignment .........................................................................47

Chapter 6 Phase II Environmental Evaluation of Preferred Corridor.......................48 6.1 VECs and Socio-economic Issues .....................................................................................48 6.2 Analysis.............................................................................................................................49

6.2.1 Physical VECs ......................................................................................................49 6.2.2 Ecological VECs...................................................................................................55 6.2.3 Socio-Economic Issues .........................................................................................61

6.3 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects ...................................................................67 Chapter 7 Follow Up and Conclusions .....................................................................69

7.1 Public Consultation ...........................................................................................................69 7.2 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................69


Appendices A Mapping: Land Use and Environmental Constraints B Evaluation Matrices off 22 Route Segments Figures 1.1 Study Area 2.1 Route Options 2.2 Construction on Trans Canada Trail 2.3 Electromagnetic Spectrum 2.4 Schedule of Activity 4.1 Plate Index 4.2 Hydrology 5.1 Preferred Alignment 6.1 EMF Levels 138 kV Single Circuit Vertical Orientation Tables Table 2-1: Route Options ..............................................................................................................................5 Table 2-2: Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ...................................................14 Table 3-1: Routing Matrix...........................................................................................................................20 Table 3-2: Potential VECs and Socio-economic Issues ..............................................................................22 Table 4-1: Precipitation Normals and Extremes: O'Leary...........................................................................26 Table 4-2: Temperature Normals and Extremes: O'Leary...........................................................................27 Table 4-3: 30-Year Normals Wind Data: Summerside ...............................................................................28 Table 4-4: West Prince Employment by Major Industry ............................................................................29 Table 4-5: Approximate Population of West Prince Communities .............................................................30 Table 4-6: Types of Agricultural Establishments........................................................................................31 Table 4-7: Farm Land Area .........................................................................................................................32 Table 4-8: Species of Concern ....................................................................................................................35 Table 4-9: Tracked or Valued Flora Identified in the Field ........................................................................38 Table 5-1: Summary of Segment Evaluations.............................................................................................42 Table 5-2: Alternative Routings Evaluated .................................................................................................47 Table 6-1: Potential Interactions Between Project Activities and VECs/Socio-Economic Issues ..............48 Table 6-2: EMF Data Readings for Common Appliances (mG).................................................................54 Table 6-3: ICNIRP Guideline Summary for Exposure to EMFs.................................................................54 Table 6-4: Summary of Residual Effects ....................................................................................................68


Acronyms ACCDC Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre ATV All terrain vehicle CCA Chromated Copper Arsenate COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada DUC Ducks Unlimited Canada EMFs Electric and Magnetic Fields Hz hertz IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer MECL Maritime Electric Company, Limited mG milligauss PEI EEF Prince Edward Island Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry PEI Prince Edward Island Penta or PCP Pentachlorophenol RF radio frequency US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency V/m Volts per metre VECs Valued Ecosystem Components

CBCL Limited Land Use and Environment Division Introduction 1

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Proponent Information Project Name: Maritime Electric 138 kV Transmission Line (Y-115/Y-117) -

Routing and Environmental Assessment Project Location: O’Leary Substation to Sherbrook Substation, Prince County,

Prince Edward Island (PEI) Coordinates1: O’Leary Substation: Northing 743692.1 m Easting 309916.4 m

Sherbrook Substation: Northing 708296.2 m Easting 340751.1 m Project Scope: To choose an optimal route for the construction of a 138 kV

transmission line to carry energy generated at the Cape West Wind Farm from the existing O’Leary Substation to the Sherbrooke Substation.

Working Schedule: 2008 Estimated Life Span of New Structure:

40+ years

Proponent: Maritime Electric Company, Limited 180 Kent Street PO Box 1328 Charlottetown, PEI C1A 7N2

Proponent Contact Person: Brian Arsenault, P.Eng. Telephone (902) 629-3656 Fax: (902) 629-3665 E-mail [email protected]

Applicant: CBCL Limited 135 St. Peters Road Charlottetown, PEI C1A 5P3

Applicant Contact Person: Ann Wilkie, M.A., M.Sc., LL.B Telephone (902) 421-7241 Fax: (902) 423-3938 Email: [email protected]

1.2 Project Overview Maritime Electric Company, Limited (MECL) is proposing to construct and operate a 138 kV transmission line from its substation in St. Anthony near O’Leary to the Sherbrooke Substation near Summerside, a distance of approximately 60 km (see Figure 1.1) in Prince County in western PEI. The proposed transmission line will connect to the recently constructed 138 kV 3 phase transmission line that extends from the West Cape Wind Energy Inc. wind farm to the O’Leary Substation; it will also have the capacity to accommodate other wind farms that may be constructed in the future. From the O’Leary

1 The given coordinates for the substations are in NAD83 PEI Double Stereographic Projection.

SUMMERSIDE

KENSINGTON

Fishing Cove

O’Leary Substation

Sherbrooke Substation

West CapeWind Farm

UNION CORNERLINKLETTER

BELMONT

GREEN PARK

MILL RIVER

CABOT BEACH

G U L F O F

S T . L A W R E N C E

N O R T H U M B E R L A N D

S T R A I T

TROUT RIVER

St. ChrysostomeWildlife Management Area

Foxley RiverDemonstration Woodlot

Bloomfield Provincial Park

Camp TamawabyDemonstration Woodlot

Milo

Brae

Duvar

Derby

Burton

Howlan

Hebron

Enmore

Alaska

Conway

Baltic

Roxbury

Portage

O’Leary

Milburn

Harmony

Coleman

Northam

Darnley

Bayside

Toronto

Bayview

GlenwoodDunblane

Carleton

Sea View

Richmond

Richmond

Malpeque

Freeland

Bideford

Millvale

Mayfield

Elliotts

Piusville

Glengarry

Woodstock

West Cape

Unionvale

St-Hubert

Mill Road

Knutsford

Inverness

Cascumpec

Port HillLow Point

Irishtown

Ellerslie

Arlington

Granville

Cavendish

Bloomfield

West Point

West Devon

Springhill

LockeRoad

Kelly RoadHaliburton

Forestview

Cape Wolfe

Wellington

St-Raphaº l

St-Gilbert

Cap-Egmont

MacDougall

Birch Hill

Hope River

Hazelgrove

Campbellton

St-Philippe

St. Anthony

Mount Royal

Black Banks

Beaton Road

Urbainville

St-TimothØe

Mont-Carmel

Maximeville

Baie-Egmont

Tyne Valley

Park Corner

MurrayRoad

New Glasgow

Fredericton

Campbellton

NorthEnmore

Higgins Road

FoxleyRiver

Brae Harbour

Poplar Grove

Lady Slipper

French River

St. Patricks

Rennies Road

Founds Mills

Victoria West

Abram-Village

Spring Valley

Lower Darnley

Lennox Island

Alberton South

MountPleasant

McNeills Mills

LowerMalpeque

Lower Hamilton

Stanley Bridge

FrenchVillage

Mill River East

St. Chrysostome

SouthGranville

Pleasant Valley

Springfield West

BloomfieldCorner

Port Hill Station

New Glasgow Mills

E G M O N T B A Y

Hog Island

Whites Cove

Fish Island

Wrights Cove

PercivalBay

HowardsCove

Rich

mon

d Ba

y

M a l p e q u e

B a y

C a s c u m p e cB a y

Lennox Island

OultonIsland

Frederick Cove

New London Bay

MacWilliamsCove

BlackBanksCove

Bird Island

G r a n d R i v e r

SummersideHarbourB e d e q u e

B a y

Southwe st R

ive r

DarnleyBasin

CourtinIsland

CO

NW

AY

NA

RR

OW

S

2

1A

134

14

130

178

148

147

143

12

132

138

128

175

6

146

101

127

13

230

8

122

232

142140

107

136

149

165

231

144

126

150

120

20

133

110181

139

238

239

137

131

123

113

254

167

180

106

135

109

102

234

124179

164

176

173

246

163

129

233

174

172

104

262

170

266

168

121

169

148

107

144

176

110

148

131

109

107

8

239

110

148

12

234

169

141

125

170

135

228

168

164

108

263

262

105

240

143

123

148

112

179

176

6

13

11

6

11

135

142

145

177

166

103

224

129

142147

11

2

2

2

2

290000

290000

300000

300000

310000

310000

320000

320000

330000

330000

340000

340000

350000

350000

360000

360000

370000

370000

7109

00

7109

00

7209

00

7209

00

7309

00

7309

00

7409

00

7409

00

FIGURE 1.1: Study Area

0 5 10 Kilometres

Scale: 1:110000 on 32" x 22" paper.Source: Province of PEI; Maritime ElectricCartographic Design & Layout By [email protected]

Frid

ay, F

ebru

ary

15, 2

008

4:1

5:42

PM

D:\0

7261

3\La

yout

s\A

tlas\

Base

map

V15.

mxd

Existing Substations

Community

Major Roads

Minor Roads

Local Roads

Possible Powerline Route Options

Lennox Island Indian Reserve

Parks / Natural Areas


Substation the new line would be routed to the Sherbrooke Substation; there is no need for new substations, switching stations or other interconnections between these locations at this time. Construction at the Sherbrooke Substation will involve the installation of additional equipment inside the existing fenced area. At the O’Leary Substation construction will be limited to the removal of some of the existing equipment inside the fenced area. 1.3 Project Need and Justification Phase I of the West Cape Wind Farm, which is owned and operated by Suez Renewable Energy North America, was completed in 2007; the wind farm is located some 19 km from the O’Leary Substation. This first phase consisted of 11 x 1.8 megawatt (MW) wind turbines with the capacity of generating up to 20 MW. Phase II of this development is designed to increase the total generation capacity to 100 MW; the in-service target date is the fall of 2008. To accommodate this increased transmission load, a transmission line to enable later use at 138 kV was constructed from the wind farm along the highway right-of-way to the O’Leary Substation. With Phase II of the West Cape Wind Farm coming on line, there is a need to increase the capacity of the transmission system between the O’Leary Substation and the Sherbrooke Substation. It is therefore proposed to construct a new transmission line to connect the existing 138 kV line to the O’Leary Substation to the Sherbrooke Substation. 1.4 Study Boundaries An important factor in the environmental assessment process is the determination of spatial and temporal boundaries for the assessment, i.e., those periods during which, and the areas within which, the Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) and socio-economic issues are likely to interact with, or be influenced by, the Project. Temporal boundaries encompass the time period that Project activities, and their effects, overlap with the presence of a VEC or socio-economic issue, e.g., the likely consequences of any activity associated with construction are by their nature restricted. The physical study area for this environmental assessment includes two distinct dimensions:

the entire area considered to facilitate the identification and consideration of routing options; and the footprint of the proposed physical works.

At the outset a number of potential routes for the proposed transmission line were identified by MECL based upon a range of factors including easement locations, site access, topography, technical constraints, traffic and roadway patterns, and socio-economic issues including the density of residential development along a potential route and the location of recreational trails. These routes were then analyzed further by CBCL Limited by reference to secondary data, aerial photography and ground truthing. The study area included the area associated with each of the route segments which could be impacted by the construction and/or operation of the proposed transmission line. In general, this included the right of way where the transmission corridor follows a road or highway; where a potential corridor was located in an easement, or proposed easement, across country, the area considered was 18.3 to 50 m wide, i.e., 9.2 to 25 m on either side of the transmission line, and the length of the proposed corridor. Also identified for each alignment were the land uses, including residences and businesses, abutting the easement and those in proximity to the easement.


Given the nature of the project, it is not possible to establish a single study area boundary that accurately reflects the spatial characteristics of the potential project-environmental interactions. For example, in the consideration and evaluation of routing considerations within the larger regional area, data was compiled and field work undertaken to identify wetlands, the locations of valued plant species, locations of importance to breeding and migratory birds, etc.; in addition, consideration was given to land use, existing transportation corridors and the technical issues that would arise in routing the proposed transmission line in any specific alignment. At another scale, consideration has been given to the environmental considerations that may arise in the construction of the proposed works at the level of the footprint, i.e., how a transmission pole might be constructed in different terrain and how potential adverse environmental effects might best be avoided or addressed. Temporal project boundaries include the timeline associated with short term construction activities associated with construction as well as the long term operation of the facility and its eventual decommissioning. 1.5 Regulatory Context Transmission lines have been identified by the Prince Edward Island Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry (PEI EEF) as one of the categories of project that should be subject to environmental assessment pursuant to subsection 9(i) of the Environmental Protection Act. The Specific Information Request for Transmission Lines requires that the Proponent explain the route selection process and provide environmental mapping in support of the selection made. The environmental assessment process is in essence a planning tool in so far as it facilitates a coordinated and comprehensive review of the environmental issues associated with the proposed works. It also ensures that the public and responsible authorities are aware of environmental risks, if any, which may be associated with the proposed project. 1.6 Approach to this Assessment and Known Issues Environmental assessment is a process that is executed early in project planning to enable environmental factors to influence decisions and detailed engineering. The underlying intent of the process to ensure that all works associated with the Project’s construction, operation and decommissioning are executed in a manner that causes minimal harm to the physical, ecological and socio-economic environments. In general terms, the process involves the following stages:

describing the project and establishing the baseline environmental conditions; scoping the issues and establishing the boundaries of the assessment; assessing the potential environmental effects of the Project, including residual and cumulative effects;

and identifying potential mitigative measures to eliminate or minimize potential adverse effects.

To address the requirements of the Specific Information Request for Transmission Lines, the approach to this environmental assessment necessitated two distinct phases:

Phase I: Route Selection – this involved what might best be categorized as a regional environmental review whereby ecological, socio-economic and technical data was compiled and evaluated at a scale


that enabled an evaluation of alternative routings for the proposed alignment and the selection of a preferred routing; and

Phase II: Assessment of Preferred Route - this phase involved consideration of the more localized environmental issues that might arise through the construction and operation of the proposed works.

Given the nature of the proposed works, i.e., the development of a transmission line involving the installation of poles and overhead wires, valued sites at the very local level, e.g., wetlands, valued plant species, etc., can be avoided through careful siting of individual poles. Indeed, the Proponent has established protocols that have been reviewed by the provincial regulatory agencies for the installation and maintenance of poles in a number of distinct environmental situations. These are further referenced appropriately in subsequent sections. The challenges associated with this assessment are related to the larger issues that had to be addressed through the evaluation of alternate routing options and the consideration of specific issues of public concern including line noise, electromagnetic fields and property values. These are all addressed within the document. 1.7 Structure of the Document This report documents the environmental evaluation that has been undertaken to determine the preferred routing for the proposed 138 kV transmission line from the O’Leary Substation to the Sherbrooke Substation and the environmental issues associated with its construction and the operation of the necessary works in the preferred alignment. The report consists of the following sections and appendices:

Section 1.0 provides an introduction to the proponent and the proposed project, an overview of the approach taken to the environmental assessment and reference to the pertinent regulatory regime;

Section 2.0 identifies the principle Project components, activities, scheduling and anticipated emissions and discharges, as well as outlining how malfunctions and accidents will be addressed;

Section 3.0 outlines the scope of the environmental assessment, the work that was undertaken to compile the necessary databases, the approach to the determination of the preferred alignment and the subsequent assessment of that alignment;

Section 4.0 describes the existing biophysical and socio-economic environments having a bearing on the assessment;

Section 5.0 presents the Phase I environmental evaluation of the alternative routes; Section 6.0 presents the Phase II environmental evaluation of the preferred transmission route; and Section 7.0 references the consultation that will be undertaken and summarizes the conclusions of the

environmental assessment. The main text is supplemented by the following Appendices: A Mapping: Land Use and Environmental Constraints B Route Segment Matrices

CBCL Limited Land Use and Environment Division Project Description 5

Chapter 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Purpose As indicated in Section 1.1, MECL is proposing the construction and operation of a 138 kV transmission line from its substation near O’Leary (located on the Howland Road in St. Anthony) to its substation in Sherbrooke near Summerside. This transmission line will connect to the recently constructed 138 kV transmission line that extends from the West Cape Wind Farm to the O’Leary Substation. The new line will also have the capacity to accommodate the transmission needs of future wind farm projects in the area and the transmission of the electricity produced to Island and off-Island customers. 2.2 Project Routing The building blocks in the determination of a preferred route are many. There is a known starting point, the O’Leary Substation (Point A in Figure 2.1), and an end point, the substation in Sherbrooke (Point D in Figure 2.1). Between these two locations, there are a number of perhaps immediately obvious routing possibilities, e.g., running the transmission corridor along one side of Route 2, or along the Trans Canada Trail. After further consideration, it is apparent that the answer is not necessarily so straight forward. The preferred alternative, i.e., the routing that will be technically feasible and will also have the least ecological and socio-economic impact, is likely to be a composite not only of different segments, but will also necessitate a decision to be made between alternate alignments along the same segment. Figure 2.1 provides a schematic of the different segments considered and identifies, for example, where there are two potential routings on the same segment, e.g., A to AA where a transmission line could be constructed either within an easement some 400 ft to 600 ft to the southwest of the road or along the road. Excluding the routing along the Trans Canada Trail between BB and CC1, identified in green on Figure 2.1, 22 different route segments have been identified. Each of these segments, as detailed on Table 2.1, has been evaluated. This process is furthered detailed in Chapter 3 and in Section 5.2. Table 2-1: Route Options

Reference Description Distance #1 A to AA Easement 400 ft to 600 ft southwest of road 2,452 m#2 A to AA Along the road – underbuild circuit 2,525 m#3 AA to B Easement 400 ft to 600 ft from Route 2 8,550 m#4 AA to B Along Route 2 – underbuild circuit 8,624 m#5 AA to B Kelly Road route 11,803 m#6 B to BB Easement 400 ft to 600 ft from Route 2 2,614 m#7 B to BB Along Route 2 – underbuild circuit 2,737 m#8 BB to BB2 Along existing road – no under build 8,393 m#9 BB to BB1 Easement 400 ft to 600 ft from Route 2 7,919 m#10 BB to BB1 Along Route 2 – underbuild circuit 7,949 m#11 BB2 to BB1 Along Ballum Road – no under build 2,283 m#12 BB2 to CC Along existing road 9,269 m#13 BB1 to CC1 Along Route 2 – underbuild circuit 14,269 m


Reference Description Distance #14 BB1 to BB3 Through Tyne Valley – minimal under build 26,904 m#15 CC to C Partly located on an old forestry road – difficult to access and

service 26,374 m

#16 CC to CC1 Along existing road – no underbuild 9,517 m#17 CC1 to BB3 Along Route 2: to junction with Route 124, there would be a

need for underbuild; from junction with Route 124, no underbuild

6,383 m

#18 BB3 to C Along Route 2 – no underbuild. Move onto the easement towards the south end

5,199 m

#19 C to CC2 Along Route 11 to Kinsman Road and the intersection with the Trans Canada Trail

2,540 m

#20 CC1 to CC2 Along the Trans Canada Trail including the Wellington Bypass

14,165 m

#21 CC2 to D Kinsman Road and along Route 2 6,830 m#22 CC2 to D Cross County by-passing Summerside to the north of Route 2 8,691 m The routing depicted in green in Figure 2.1 is a portion of the Trans Canada Trail. That portion between BB and CC1 was eliminated early in the route evaluation because of its length and because there were other more effective alternatives possible. That portion between CC-1 and CC-2, but accommodating a bypass of Wellington, has been evaluated as an alternative to CC to C and CC-1 to C along Route 2. 2.3 Project Components Transmission lines on PEI are typically routed along the boundary of the Provincial highway right-of-ways, or through cross-country easements that have been negotiated with landowners. It is anticipated that the preferred route for this transmission line will run both on Provincial highway rights-of-way with the poles located at the edge of the normal 20.1 m right-of-way and along cross country easements. A cross-country option parallel to Route 2 on an existing MECL easement, for example, has been evaluated from the O’Leary Substation to the Bay Road and from the Bay Road to the Ballem Road. Construction will involve the use of single or double pole structures with pole heights that are approximately 18 m above grade. Poles may need to be taller when the route is traversing sloped areas, or when it is necessary to place additional circuits on the structure, i.e., under-builds. Wood and/or steel poles will be used depending on the circumstances of specific locations and to provide the strengths necessary for acceptable span lengths. As indicated on the photographs, six individual conductors will be used to provide two circuits, each consisting of three phases. The


conductor proposed will be composed of a multi-strand high strength aluminum alloy with a diameter of approximately 25 mm. Modifications to the O’Leary Substation will be limited to removing equipment that services the existing 69 kV transmission line to the West Cape Wind Farm when it is converted and connected to the new 138 kV transmission line to the Sherbrooke Substation. Modifications to the Sherbrooke Substation to accommodate the new transmission lines will involve the installation of concrete foundations, transformers, electrical breakers, switches and associated equipment. All necessary construction at the substations, with the exception of the connection to the transmission line, will take place within the existing fenced areas at the substations. 2.4 Construction Procedures 2.4.1 The Construction Sequence Once the preferred route has received regulatory approval, construction will be planned and initiated. Construction is expected to begin in late spring and to be completed by the end of 2008. Construction will typically take place during normal working hours, i.e., from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. To maintain the proposed schedule, however, some work may need to take place over weekends. Construction will consist of the following steps:

surveying of the line; determination of where poles, and guy wires where necessary, will be located and placing wooden

stakes at these locations; tree trimming and clearing of vegetation in the vicinity of the pole locations; preparing access areas as required to set poles; setting of the dressed poles, i.e., insulators and other hardware will be attached to the pole before their

erection; placing any necessary guy wires; stringing and installation of the conductors; and restoration of disturbed land areas as necessary.

The methods of construction to be employed will depend on whether the work is being done from the roadway or being done off-road. Where the transmission line is located along a roadway, the utility trucks will normally have sufficient reach to auger the holes and set the poles while parked on the side of the road. Figure 2.2 illustrates potential construction should routing occur on the Trans Canada Trail. Where the transmission line is located off-road, specialized tracked equipment will be used. Work will be conducted simultaneously by a number of separate crews on different segments of the proposed route. All work will be carried out in a manner that eliminates or minimizes any adverse impacts on the environment, inconvenience to highway or trail users and disturbance to the use of adjacent lands.


2.4.2 Special Procedures In the construction of transmission lines, MECL has established protocols to address recurring circumstances. Their protocols have been prepared on the basis of extensive discussion with the regulatory authorities, and as a result of the experience of the proponent of like circumstances. The following sections reference these protocols. 2.4.2.1 WATERCOURSES/WETLANDS On the preferred alignment, there are both watercourses, all of which will be spanned, and wetlands where it may be necessary to strategically place the poles to minimize environmental impacts. All locations where construction activities are required within 30 m of a wetland or water course will be identified as part of the detailed surveying of the line, and the appropriate Watercourse/Wetland Alteration Applications will be submitted to the department. At no time will vehicles be permitted, or required, to operate in a watercourse. In areas where the ground is wet, MECL’s work practice is to dig a hole using a 750 mm auger; while holding the pole in place, aggregate is poured around the pole and tamped, and the hole is filled with additional aggregate. This procedure has three advantages: i) Once the aggregate is packed down, it acts as a buffer between the pole and the surrounding soil; ii) The aggregate acts as a stabilizer for the pole and prevents it from leaning due to the wet soil

conditions; and iii) The resulting footprint is small when compared to a cribbing method of installation.

2.4.2.2 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT There are several sections of the preferred alignment where there will be a need to pay special attention to vegetation management due to both potential environmental risks and aesthetics. These areas will be identified during the detailed surveying of the line. Potential impacts to the vegetation in these areas will be minimized by use of the following construction methods and protocols: i) in areas along clay roads where channeling could be considered an issue in spring, construction will

not be initiated until such time as the roads are dry; ii) MECL, in conjunction with PEI EEF personnel, will provide awareness training to survey, line and

contract staff regarding the identification of rare tree species. If rare species are encountered, they will be left in place. If the trimming of these trees is required to ensure safe limits of approach, they will be trimmed by a qualified utility arborist in association with the appropriate Provincial authority;

iii) a 30 m buffer will be left on either side of all watercourses and wetlands. Within this buffer, any trees that encroach on the safe limits of approach to energized lines will be pruned, but all other vegetation will be left intact to protect the watercourse. Clear cutting will not be undertaken in these areas unless special permission is received from the Provincial authority;

iv) no work shall proceed without permission from the Provincial authority if any of the following tree species might be impacted: Red Oak, Hop Hornbeam, Bog Birch, Black Ash or White Ash;

v) tree trimming and cutting will be conducted from the road surface (except for the cross country sections) using an aerial device. Those trees located in wet lands that encroach on the safe limits of approach to energized lines will be pruned. For the most part, tree cutting in such areas is unlikely;


vi) all tree trimming and cutting waste will be chipped on site and will be dispersed in the local area with the permission of affected landowners. In cases where such permission is not obtained, the disposal of the chips would be at a Provincially approved waste disposal site; and

vii) pruning will be performed during the line’s operation on a five to seven year cycle. 2.4.2.3 MIGRATORY BIRDS To avoid disturbing or destroying migratory birds, their nests or their eggs during the nesting season, the following precautions will be taken: i) all personnel will be trained to identify nests and will be instructed in the significance of the nesting

period; ii) if maintenance personnel identify a nest during vegetation management activities, the nest location

will be clearly marked and a 3 m diameter buffer, with the nest acting as the center of the circle, will be left untouched until after the nesting period; and

iii) all nest buffer locations will be documented and reported to the engineer in charge. The nest buffers will be felled after the nesting period on the approval of the engineer in conjunction with the appropriate Provincial authority. 2.4.2.4 CROSSING AGRICULTURAL LAND Arrangements for access to agricultural land will be made with the individual landowners, and compensation, if necessary for crop damage or related land use issues where the transmission line crosses agricultural land, will be negotiated. Should circumstances warrant, easements will be negotiated. 2.4.2.5 RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY MECL will work with the land owners and the Province’s Chief Surveyor to determine the right-of-way boundary location in cases, if any, where there may be boundary disputes. Should MECL require the use of private property, MECL will negotiate with the owner for access and use. 2.4.2.6 FIRE CONTROL MECL personnel and all contractors working in wooded areas will be trained using the PEI EEF Basic Forest Fire Suppression Course. 2.4.2.7 USE OF CHEMICALLY TREATED POLES MECL’s current policy for the use of chemically treated poles is as follows:

“Chemically treated poles shall be placed such that any leaching that may occur will not enter into a well, wetland, river, pond, brook, lake or stream.”

MECL has two types of pole treatments approved for use: Pentachlorophenol (Penta or PCP) and Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA). There are no Provincial guidelines or restrictions on the use of chemically treated poles, and both pole treatments (Penta and CCA) are approved for use by Environment Canada. MECL uses the following guidelines when installing chemically treated poles to avoid adverse consequences to the environment:

Penta poles shall not be installed closer than 15 m from a well, river, pond, brook, lake or stream; and


CCA poles shall not be installed closer than 5 m from a well, river, pond, brook, lake or stream. 2.5 Operational Factors As is the case referenced above with respect to construction protocols, MECL has established protocols for the inspection and maintenance of operating transmission lines. These are referenced in the sections that follow. 2.5.1 Inspection Procedures A visual inspection of all transmission lines is typically conducted annually. For sections located along a highway, this is done by driving the route; for cross-country sections inspections are done using all terrain vehicles (ATVs) or snowmobiles. Transmission lines are also scanned biennially using a helicopter equipped with infra-red sensing equipment. 2.5.2 Maintenance Procedures When maintenance of the transmission line adjacent a road is required, MECL uses equipment that can access the line from the roadway. For sections of transmission line that cannot be accessed from a roadway, MECL uses tracked equipment to minimize environmental impacts in the area. 2.6 Anticipated Emissions and Waste Streams 2.6.1 Construction Protocols The anticipated emissions and waste streams associated with the construction of a transmission line are limited to the sedimentation, dust, wastes, noise and the accidental spill of a hazardous material. The following sections reference MECL’s protocols to address each of these topics. 2.6.1.1 CONTROL OF EROSION/SEDIMENTATION The environmental impacts associated with stripping, grading and excavation activities will be mitigated by minimizing the areas to be cleared, minimizing the duration of exposure and controlling the slopes of the exposed areas wherever run-off is a risk. Wherever necessary, silt fences will be used to control run-off. The deployment of these controls will also aid in the reduction of dust that may be associated with construction in certain areas. 2.6.1.2 CONTROL OF DUST Dust from construction activities is expected to be minimal given the nature of the proposed construction activities. Should dust from activities become an issue, e.g., during prolonged dry periods, a tanker truck will be used to wet those areas causing the dust. 2.6.1.3 HANDLING OF WASTES All solid wastes generated during construction will be collected from the site and disposed of in accordance with Provincial regulations. Source sorting will take place on site to enable the capture of recyclable and compostable materials.


2.6.1.4 NOISE During construction, noise will be generated by motorized equipment, pneumatic and impact equipment and traffic. Noise from these sources may be a nuisance for limited periods of time to residents who live near the site of the work being undertaken. Construction activities will be scheduled so that noisy activities normally occur between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and will be avoided at night. Information on any exceptionally noisy activities will be communicated to local residents prior to the start of the activity. 2.6.1.5 SPILL RESPONSE Any inadvertent release of fuel, hydraulic fluid, etc. will be handled through the application of MECL’s Spill Response Plan that is designed and approved for such contingencies. All construction vehicles are equipped with Emergency Spill Response Kits. Larger Spill Response Kits are available at the Sherbrooke Service Station, the Rosebank Depot and the O’Leary Substation. 2.6.2 Operational Protocols Once a transmission line is up and operational, there are few if any emissions and waste streams generated. Two that are raised on occasion are magnetic fields and noise; these are discussed below. 2.6.2.1 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS Power frequency (also referred to as extremely low frequency) electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are present every where electricity flows. All electrical wires and the lighting, appliances and other electrical devices they supply are sources of electric and magnetic fields. Although they are often referred to together as EMFs, electric fields and magnetic fields are actually distinct components of electricity. Electric fields are the product of voltage, or electric charge, which can best be compared to the pressure of water flow in a pipe. An electric field is present, for example, whenever an appliance is plugged into an outlet, even if it is not turned on. Electric fields are measured in Volts per metre (V/m); the higher the voltage, the greater the electric field.

Figure 2.3: Electromagnetic Spectrum


Magnetic fields are created by the flow of current in a wire or an appliance, which is comparable to the quantity of water flow in a pipe. As a result, they are only present in an appliance when it is switched on. As the flow (current) increases, so does the strength of the field. In North America, magnetic fields in electrical wiring are most commonly measured in milligauss (mG), where 1,000 milligauss equals one gauss. Elsewhere magnetic fields are measured in microtesla (µT), where one million µT equals one tesla2. Most of the public interest regarding possible health affects is related to magnetic fields. So usually, when the term EMF level is used, it is the magnetic field strength that is being referred to or measured. X-rays, visible light, radio waves, microwaves and power frequency EMF are all forms of electromagnetic energy making up an electromagnetic spectrum. A chart of the electromagnetic spectrum is provided in Figure 2.3. As shown, one property that distinguishes different forms of electromagnetic energy is the frequency, measured in hertz (Hz). These frequencies are plotted on the right side of the spectrum chart. At the top of the spectrum are high frequency, very short wavelength fields associated with ionizing radiation such as gamma rays, X-rays and ultraviolet rays. Below this are non-ionizing fields associated with microwaves and radio transmission. At the low end of the spectrum are the extremely low frequencies, long wavelength fields that surround all electrical devices including power lines and household appliances. These varying levels of frequency are all forms of electromagnetic energy, but each acts in a completely different way and they cannot be compared one to another. The energy from the higher frequency fields, i.e., shorter wavelengths, is absorbed more readily by biological material and can produce heating, e.g., microwave ovens. The high energy associated with ionizing radiation, e.g., X-rays, is so strong that it can break apart molecular bonds. The energy carried by power frequency fields, however, is too weak to break molecular bonds and, because of the extremely long wavelength involved, only a minute amount of this energy is transferred to objects the size of a person. The term “extremely low frequency” is used to describe any frequency below 300 Hz. Power frequency EMF has a frequency of 60 Hz, placing it in the extremely low frequency category. It is at the lower end of the spectrum near DC electricity and well below the microwave, or RF (radio frequency) radiation emitted by cellular phones and radio broadcast transmitters. Power frequency EMFs have little energy and no ionizing or thermal effects on the body. Both electric and magnetic fields, whether it is a power line or an appliance such as a hair dryer, dishwasher or microwave oven, are strongest at their source; these fields decrease rapidly as you move away from the source. Magnetic field exposure from power lines depends primarily on the current the wires carry and an individual’s distance from the lines. While electric fields are easily shielded by trees, fences and other building materials, magnetic fields pass through most objects. At present, there are no Canadian government guidelines for exposure to EMFs at extremely low frequency. Health Canada does not consider guidelines necessary because the scientific evidence is not strong enough to conclude that typical exposures cause health problems. Extremely low frequency fields

2 One µT equals 10 mG.


are known to interact with living tissues by inducing electrical currents in them. This is the only established mechanism of action of these fields. These currents, however, are much smaller than those produced naturally by your brain, nerves and heart, and are not associated with any known health risks. Some national and international organizations have issued exposure guidelines for EMFs at extremely low frequencies, but these guidelines are not based on a consideration of risks related to cancer, or to any other health problem. Rather, the point of the guidelines is to ensure that the electric currents in the body caused by exposure to EMFs are not stronger than those produced naturally by the brain, nerves and heart. Typical EMF exposures in Canadian homes, offices and other worksites are far below these guidelines. Scientists around the world have been researching possible human health effects of EMF since the 1970s. There are two main types of research which make up the body of scientific knowledge of EMF: epidemiological studies and laboratory studies. In epidemiological studies, researchers seek to establish whether there is a statistical association (mathematical link) between selected groups of people with certain types of exposure and certain kinds of disease. The stronger the statistical association, the greater the probability that the particular exposure may cause the disease. Epidemiological studies have not been able to establish a cause and effect relationship, because other possible causes that could explain the statistical relationship cannot be ruled out. Some epidemiological studies, for example, have suggested a possible statistical association between exposure to magnetic fields and some diseases, including childhood leukemia. Laboratory studies involve exposing cells, tissues, humans and/or animals to EMF under controlled conditions. These studies allow researchers to closely control EMF exposure and provide information about any small scale biological changes that EMFs may cause. Laboratory studies have not confirmed that magnetic fields are the cause of any disease. Since 1979 when epidemiological studies first raised a concern about exposures to power line frequency magnetic fields and childhood cancer, a large number of studies have been conducted to determine if measured extremely low frequency exposure can influence cancer development, particularly leukemia in children. There is no consistent evidence that exposure to extremely low frequency fields experienced in our living environment causes direct damage to biological molecules, including DNA. Since it seems unlikely that extremely low frequency fields could initiate cancer, a large number of investigations have been conducted to determine if extremely low frequency exposure can influence cancer promotion or co-promotion. Results from animal studies conducted so far suggest that extremely low frequency fields do not initiate or promote cancer. The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified power frequency EMF as a 2B carcinogen, a possible carcinogen, based on unanswered questions of the statistical association between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia. IARC found no consistent evidence that childhood EMF exposures are associated with other types of cancers, or that adult EMF exposures are associated with increased risk of any kind of cancer. Other 2B Possible Carcinogens


include coffee, pickled vegetables and gasoline engine exhaust. While the classification of extremely low frequency magnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans has been made, it is possible there are other explanations for the observed association between exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. In particular, issues of selection bias in the epidemiological studies and exposure to other field types deserve to be rigorously examined and will likely require new studies. Further references to the relationship between the proposed works and EMFs are provided in Sections 6.2.1.4. 2.6.2.2 NOISE There are two sources of noise associated with the development and operation of a 138 kV transmission line. These are:

equipment noise during project construction; and noise from corona discharge along high-voltage transmission lines during wet conditions and from the

operation of circuit breakers at substations. The construction of the transmission lines and the upgrading of the O’Leary and Sherbrooke substations will require the use of a variety of equipment as detailed in Table 2.2. This equipment will not be operated at night except as may be necessary in special circumstances, e.g., the operation of generators as emergency backup power for essential safety purposes. The typical noise levels for the referenced equipment at 15.2 m from the source are also provided in Table 2.2. Table 2-2: Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment

Equipment Range of Noise Level

(dBA) at 15.2 m Earthmoving Front Loaders/Excavators 72-84 Backhoes 72-93 Tractors, dozers 75-95 Scrapers/graders 80-93 Materials Handling Concrete Mixers 75-88 Concrete Pumps/Spreaders 81-83 Cranes 75-86 Stationary Pumps 68-71 Generators 71-82 Source: US EPA 1971 “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations NTID Construction of the transmission line will involve the intermittent use of line bucket trucks working from the roadway, truck augers and crew cab pick-up trucks. The use of this equipment in any area may be either temporary or repetitive. Much of the construction will take place along roadways and in open areas, including agricultural areas; where work may occur in proximity to residential property, it will


generally be limited in duration to daytime hours, i.e., between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. There may be exceptions to ensure safety or to accommodate construction procedures that cannot be interrupted. Such circumstances, when they occur, will be of limited duration in any one location. Construction related noise will be minimized by:

complying with manufacturer’s muffler requirements; shutting down engines when machinery is not in use; and minimizing equipment use.

The operation of the transmission line will include maintaining voltage across transmission lines and substations which, in turn, generate noise associated with corona discharge. This relates to the generation of random crackling or hissing sounds from the lines. Particles such as dust or water droplets that may come in contact with a conductor tend to increase corona discharge and associated noise, making the potential for corona discharge greatest during wet weather. The sound generated by a 138 kV transmission line during adverse weather conditions such as fog or rain is typically between 30 and 40 dBA at 30 m from the outer conductor. The installation and operation of additional circuit breakers at the O’Leary and Sherbooke substations will not result in any appreciable increase to the existing ambient noise levels at either site. There will, however, be a momentary increase in noise levels as they are activated, but no statistical increase in ambient noise levels over time. 2.7 Project Schedule As stated in Section 2.4.1, MECL would anticipate construction of the transmission line starting in the spring and being completed before the end of 2008. Figure 2.4 charts the anticipated schedule of activity. 2.8 Malfunctions and Accidents As is the case with the installation and maintenance of any equipment, malfunctions and accidents do occur. The hazards most often associated the installation and maintenance of transmission lines include:

electrocution; mobile equipment and pedestrian interaction; falls during construction and maintenance; downed power lines; fire; potential release of petroleum product, e.g., diesel, gasoline, hydraulic fluids, oils, etc., from

equipment and vehicles; and worker and vehicle interaction when working on highways and roads.

Malfunctions on transmission lines are usually caused by extreme weather events such as lightning, hurricanes and snow storms. The design of the transmission lines takes such events into consideration, and automated protection systems are installed to protect the public and to minimize damage to the transmission system. These protection systems are also designed to respond to the eventuality when a


vehicle comes into contact with a transmission pole and are designed to de-energize the lines once contact is sensed by the protection system. In addition to the automated protection systems that are an integral part of the engineered design, MECL also has in place procedures and response protocols whereby staff respond in a predetermined fashion to any and all malfunctions and accidents. These procedures are established with reference to the pertinent legislation and in association with all emergency services. All such incidents are documented, appropriately recorded and evaluated to ensure that public safety and the protection of the environment are at all times fully addressed.

CBCL Limited Land Use and Environment Division Scope of the Environmental Assessment 17

Chapter 3 Scope of the Environmental Assessment 3.1 Approach and Methodologies The environmental assessment methodology has been developed to meet the assessment regulations of the PEI EEF pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act for the installation of a high voltage power line and associated infrastructure. The approach has been to produce an environmental assessment that:

demonstrates that the study team has assembled the materials necessary to make an evaluation of the alternative routings;

enables site specific issues to be evaluated in the context of the preferred routing; is focussed on the issues of greatest concern whether these have been identified by the study team, by

the public or by the regulators; clearly addresses regulatory requirements; and integrates engineering requirements and mitigative measures into an execution program that will

enable the proposed works to be undertaken in an environmentally responsible manner. The preparation of the Project description and the environmental and socio- economic baseline are the two fundamental building blocks necessary for the phased environmental analysis which is the differentiating feature of this assessment. Phase I of the assessment involved the evaluation of the different route options. How this was done and the criteria used in the evaluation are discussed further in Section 3.3 below. Having identified a preferred route, Phase II of the assessment involved the evaluation of the different VECs and issues associated with that route; Section 3.4 provides further detail on the approach to this phase of the assessment. The compilation of the Project description is of necessity driven by the Proponent’s requirements. The Proponent and their engineers not only have defined technically what is required to address the deficiency in current transmission needs in the region, but have also established protocols that have been demonstrated by their work elsewhere in PEI to address the environmental and socio-economic issues identified. The preparation of the environmental and socio-economic baseline is derived through the review and compilation of pertinent secondary data sources and the execution of selected field programs. The completeness of these building blocks is critical to the credibility of the subsequent analysis. To compile the environmental and socio-economic baseline, the study team drew on its collective knowledge and experience and considered input and opinions expressed by others, the relevant regulations and guidelines and pertinent research including the field work undertaken. Lessons learned and knowledge gathered by the Proponent through past transmission line routing and installations was also used to develop the potentially important issues to be addressed in this environmental assessment. The assessment in Phase II examines the potential effects of each Project phase, i.e., construction, operation and decommissioning, as well as malfunctions and accidents, with regard to each VEC or socio-economic issue. VECs represent “key” or “indicator” species, communities, species groups or ecosystems, as well as specific media, e.g., water or air that may transport environmental effects. Social, cultural or economic factors, or issues, may also be affected by the proposed works and are identified as such. The final selection of VECs and socio-economic issues that provide the focus of this assessment


reflect an informed understanding of the consequences of the proposed works in the physical, ecological and socio-economic context of the receiving environment. These were determined through reference to pertinent literature, through consultation, as a result of work done on similar undertakings and through the execution of the field programs. 3.2 Research and Field Work Undertaken This environmental assessment was undertaken in an effort to identify the environmental, socio-economic, regulatory and technical constraints for each of the potential routes identified by the Proponent. It is in part a planning tool, the underlying intent of which is to ensure that all works associated with the Project's construction and operation are executed in a manner that causes minimal harm to the physical, ecological and socio-economic environments. The initial step was to compile, review and evaluate secondary data essential to the definition of the field programs and to the scoping of the environmental assessment for the routing and ultimately, the construction, of the proposed transmission line. This phase of the work included the following:

review of MECL’s health and safety and environmental policies, as well as their standard work practices and procedures for the installation of transmission lines and associated infrastructure;

acquisition of data sets from various government sources including, but not limited to, the PEI EEF; acquisition and review of secondary data pertaining to potential bird breeding, migratory patterns and

critical habitats; the acquisition and examination of aerial photographs from different eras to determine changes in

habitat over time; the acquisition of data sets from various non-government sources including, but not limited to, Ducks

Unlimited; review of other relevant texts; meeting with people who have specific knowledge of the transmission line routing and installation at

MECL; and compilation of demographic and related data from Statistics Canada and other sources to facilitate the

preparation of a regional and socio-economic profile. In addition to the above, selected field programs were undertaken to facilitate both the compilation of the environmental and socio-economic baseline and the determination of the VECs. The following investigations and/or surveys were undertaken to identify:

ecological habitats and vegetation patterns to determine locations that were subsequently subject to further field examination as habitat that might accommodate rare or endangered plants, or other species;

ground truthing to identify stream crossings, wetlands, and potentially sensitive ecological areas and habitats, highly populated areas; and

defined botanical field investigations. In January 2008 the study team using snow machines investigated two additional segments, i.e., CC-1 to CC-2 and CC-2 to D. The former, with the exception of the bypass to avoid the community of Wellington, follows the Confederation Trail; the latter follows an alignment to the north of Route 2 to avoid Summerside. Both are depicted on Plates IV, V and VI in Appendix A.


3.2.1 Habitat Identifcation and Botanical Field Programs The work undertaken to identify valued and sensitive habitat and to confirm the presence of absence of priority flora species has been inherently iterative as the parameters of the Project evolved. The Proponent at the outset commissioned the Island Nature Trust to conduct botanical field work along potential alignments between the O’Leary and Sherbrooke Substations. This field work was undertaken in 2006 to provide MECL with the locations of rare plants, bodies of water and other ecologically sensitive habitats in specific areas. The route was divided into seven sections and was surveyed on foot in an effort to cover as full a range of the potential alignments as possible. The emphasis was on those habitats most likely to contain rare botanical species, i.e., wetlands, woodlands, wet ditches and stream banks. The results of these field programs are further referenced in Section 4.4. Further to additional work by the Proponent to examine route alternatives and CBCL Limited’s appointment to compile the environmental assessment, two members of CBCL Limited’s study team and personnel from MECL spent time in the field in the spring of 2007 to verify the location of sensitive habitats based on the above referenced factors. As was the case with all the work done in the field, the presence of an environmental constraint was noted and geo-referenced with a GPS unit. Further information regarding the spatial extent of some of the areas identified was obtained from various data bases and from Ducks Unlimited. This in turn led to the further engagement of Island Nature Trust to conduct additional botanical field work at identified locations on several of the potential route alignments. The results of this second field program conducted in the summer of 2007 are further referenced in Section 4.4. 3.2.2 Ornithological Program A review of breeding and migratory birds in the study area was compiled by Dr. Andy Horn, a member of the CBCL Limited study team. More specifically he was asked to access and review pertinent secondary databases and relevant texts to determine whether any valued bird species frequented the area and to provide a professional opinion whether or not such species would be adversely impacted by the development and operation of the proposed transmission line. The results of his work are further discussed in Section 4.4.3. 3.2.3 Consultations In addition to work conducted in the field, the study team accessed secondary databases and made contact with pertinent federal and provincial departments and agencies to attain information and seek responses to questions. The following subsection reference these enquiries. 3.2.3.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL The Archaeological Survey of Canada was asked to provide information as to whether there were sites of archaeological significance in the area or vicinity of the proposed routes. Although several sites of archaeological significance were reported in the general area between the O’Leary and Sherbrooke Substations, none were identified on any of the proposed alignments. 3.2.3.2 DUCKS UNLIMITED Because of their extensive data base and their familiarity with many valued wetlands and associated sites, the study team asked Ducks Unlimited PEI to share information that would be of value to the


environmental assessment. Ducks Unlimited provided a mapped database that located their projects within the study area. This data was then transposed onto the route maps for purposes of the environmental assessment. 3.2.3.3 OTHER Additional land use and ecological data, including information on agricultural and forested land, protected sites, watersheds and other dimensions of land use and infrastructure was ascertained through the review of federal and provincial data bases. Transportation patterns, for example, were reviewed to identify, among other things, congested areas that may need to be avoided during construction. Databases distinguishing special places and sites designated by the provincial or federal governments along the proposed routes were searched. These included, but were not limited to, scenic vistas, heritage roads, heritage places, archaeological sites, wildlife management areas and First Nations lands. The resultant database is discussed further in Chapter 4 and presented on Plates I to VI in Appendix A. 3.3 Phase I: Approach to Route Selection As indicated in Section 1.6, this environmental assessment involved two distinct phases, the first of which was the determination of a preferred transmission alignment. The need was to find an alignment that would accommodate the construction of a 138 kV transmission line to carry energy generated by the West Cape Wind Farm, and potentially from other facilities, from the existing O’Leary Substation to the Sherbrooke Substation. Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1 depict the alternatives that were subject to evaluation. The evaluation of these routing alternatives involved: i) consideration of the research and fieldwork referenced in Section 3.2 and presented in Section 4.0; ii) its evaluation and weighting, the results of which are presented in Section 5.0. To facilitate this evaluation, a matrix was prepared (see Table 3.1) for each segment. On the vertical axis the ecological, socio-economic and technical characteristics deemed to be pertinent to the evaluation were identified. On the horizontal axis these factors received a weighting. This exercise drew upon the materials and data compiled as a result of i) above and the interdisciplinary resources available to the study team and to the proponent. Table 3-1: Routing Matrix

Weighting Factor Characteristic 10 5 0

i) Ecological Rare and endangered plants

Valued bird species/ bird habitat Clear cutting / forest disruption (in km) Wetlands Surface waters/streams Disruption of wildlife management areas Ducks Unlimited sites


Weighting Factor Characteristic 10 5 0

Bedrock Topography – slopes x 20 Subtotal (Occurrences x WF) ii) Socio-Economic Residences within 50 m of transmission line

Disruption of productive agricultural land Disruption of historical/archaeological site Cemeteries Wells/well fields Schools within 50 m of line Recreational land Trails Scenic intrusion Subtotal (Occurrences x WF) iii) Technical Access

Difficulty of line installation • Double circuit with distribution (km) • Triple circuit (km)

Difficulty of line repair • Double circuit with distribution (km) • Triple circuit (km)

Safety Subtotal (Occurrences x WF) Total A further step in the Phase I evaluation was to take account of the costs associated with the route alternatives. The results of this exercise are referenced in Section 5.3. In summary, the determination of the preferred alignment involved the review of all the data collated, the determination of which segments were environmentally susceptible to the greatest ecological, socio-economic and technical impact, and a critical review of the routing alternatives, their likely environmental impact and the costs of construction. This review was conducted by an interdisciplinary team including representation from CBCL Limited and MECL. 3.4 Phase II: Approach to Assessment of the Preferred Route 3.4.1 Scoping: VECs and Socio-Economic Issues It is impractical, if not impossible, for an assessment to address all of the potential environmental effects that might be directly or indirectly associated with a proposed undertaking. An important part of the assessment process, therefore, is to identify those matters upon which the assessment may be focused to


ensure a meaningful and effective evaluation. This process is often referred to as scoping, i.e., an activity designed to identify those components of the biophysical and socio-economic environment which may be impacted by the Project and for which there is public and professional concern (Sadar, 1994). This section references the steps that were taken to focus this assessment and to identify the VECs and socio-economic issues. As previously referenced, there was both extensive documentary research and the execution of selective field programs. The resultant database, in conjunction with the consultation undertaken, including consultation with pertinent provincial and federal departments, and the study team’s professional expertise and experience, enabled the definition of the VECs and socio-economic issues. This process has involved internal team meetings and discussions to ensure that the requisite interdisciplinary rigor brought focus to the assessment. These discussions have included the participation of the specialists contracted to execute specific field programs and the engineers employed by MECL. 3.4.2 Potential Pathways and VECs Once the scope of the Project was determined, it was possible to identify those facets of the Project that may cause consequences for the receiving environment. This is accomplished by identifying the linkages, or pathways, between the Project and the receiving environment. That is, those works and activities that will be carried out within the preferred corridor alignment during Project construction, operation and eventual decommissioning that may have the potential to interact with the physical, ecological and/or socio-economic environment. Such pathways will include, but will not be limited to, the use of equipment, the pruning of trees and the clearing of vegetation. The study team has determined the VECs and socio-economic issues that will be subject to assessment based upon its collective knowledge and experience; input received from the Proponent; review of the regulatory requirements and feedback from others as part of the consultation program; and selected field programs. The VECs and socio-economic issues that will be evaluated are identified in Table 3.2. Table 3-2: Potential VECs and Socio-economic Issues

Physical Components Ecological Components Socio-economic Issues Surface waters/streams Aquatic habitat Agricultural land use Air quality Wetlands

Aboriginal use of lands and resources

Noise Forest habitat Archaeological resources EMF Flora Recreational areas Birds and Bird Habitat Sensitive land uses (e.g.,

schools, hospitals) Wildlife management areas Vehicular traffic Economic opportunities Landscape aesthetics Worker and community health

and safety Property values


3.4.3 Analysis and Evaluation Criteria The definition of “environment” in the PEI Environmental Protection Act is as follows: “Environment” includes (i) air, land and water, (ii) plant and animal, including human, life, and any feature, part, component, resource or element

thereof. This environmental assessment focuses on the evaluation of the potential interactions between the VECs and socio-economic issues identified above and the various Project activities outlined in the Project description, i.e., in Chapter 2. A standard evaluation system has been used to ensure that potential residual effects are clearly and completely evaluated, i.e., those environmental effects that remain after mitigation and control measures are applied. The prediction of residual environmental effects follows three general steps;

determining whether an environmental effect is adverse; determining whether an adverse environmental effect’s significant; and determining whether a significant adverse environmental effect is likely to occur.

As will be demonstrated, many, if not all potential adverse effects, associated with the construction and operation of a transmission line, can be avoided through the application of good engineering and construction practices, the careful timing of activities, and the adherence to appropriate environmental management techniques. The effects evaluation for each VEC and socio-economic issue is conducted by Project phase, i.e., construction, operation and decommissioning. For each phase, the study team identifies those Project activities that may cause a positive or negative effect to the VEC or socio-economic issue. To determine if there are adverse effects, the study team took the following factors into account:

negative effects on the health of the biota; loss of rare and endangered species; loss of critical and/or productive habitat; fragmentation of habitat; transformation of natural landscapes; discharge of persistent and/or toxic chemicals; reductions of the capacity of renewable resources to meet the needs of present and future generations,

including those lands and resources used by aboriginal peoples; and interference with the use and enjoyment of property.

The resultant analysis evaluates the interactions between Project Activities and the VEC or socio-economic issue, references the mitigation to be employed and determines the significance of any residual adverse environmental effects, i.e., effects that may persist after all mitigation strategies have been implemented. To determine and appreciate the relevance of residual effects following mitigation, the following definitions of impact have been adhered to:

Significant: Potential impact could threaten sustainability of the resources in the study area and should be considered a management concern – research, monitoring and/or recovery initiatives should be considered; and


Negligible: Potential impact may result in a slight decline in the resource in the study area during the life of the project – research, monitoring and/or recovery initiatives would not normally be required.

As not all consequences of the Project’s development and operation on the identified VECs and socio-economic issues are adverse, the above definitions have been supplemented by the following:

No Impact, i.e., where the consequences of the Project have no effects on the specific VEC or socio-economic issue; and

Beneficial Impact, i.e., where the consequences of the Project enhance the specific VEC or socio-economic issue.

CBCL Limited Land Use and Environment Division Environmental Baseline 25

Chapter 4 Environmental Baseline As indicated in Sections 1.6 and 3.2, the evaluation process has involved the compilation of multi-layers of data and their mapping to enable the weighting and evaluation of the alternative routing options. The routing segments are identified on Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1. For mapping purposes and to facilitate the presentation of the data in sufficient detail, the study area was divided into six map plates. These are depicted on Figure 4.1; the individual maps are provided in Appendix A. These maps depict the 22 route segments shown diagrammatically in Figure 2.1 with land use detail and data extracted from the flora surveys and other work undertaken. This section provides data on the characteristics of the study area through the findings of the various field programs and associated background research and consultation; information is provided on the physical, ecological and socio-economic environments of the study area. This database provides the essential reference material for the evaluation of the alternative route segments. 4.1 Regional and Local Context PEI lies in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and is separated from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia by the Northumberland Strait. The Island is approximately 230 km long and ranges from 6.5 to 50 km wide. The proposed project corridor is located in central Prince County, in western PEI. The corridor begins in O’Leary and extends east to Sherbrooke, just beyond Summerside. Many communities are included in the area including Summerside, Miscouche, Wellington, Tyne Valley, Portage and Mill River. This area of West Prince is defined as all the communities in western PEI from the urban boundary of Summerside with Miscouche and extending to Tignish to the northwest. This region has been an integral and important contributor to the PEI economy for over 200 years. It is predominantly rural, and the landscape is a patchwork of agricultural land, forests and small towns. The population is currently about 19,600. Summerside, a city of approximately 14,650, serves the needs of this rural area providing commercial, institutional and industrial services to the entire hinterland. From a socio-economic perspective, West Prince remains stable demographically, but stagnant in terms of economic growth. While PEI has experienced significant economic growth over the past five to 10 years, western PEI has not benefited greatly from a trend, which has seen new investment initiatives taking place in the vicinity of Charlottetown. New manufacturing has underpinned much of this growth, but the economy of West Prince remains based in primary production and in those industries deriving their raw materials from agriculture, forestry and fishing. Population and the demographic profile of the area have not changed substantially, and very few people immigrate to West Prince. Although western PEI has many natural attributes and is culturally a rich area, it is not a primary tourist destination as is the central coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This, however, may change as development strategies that have been in place for a few years take effect to strengthen and unify the tourism industry in the area. The North Cape Coastal Drive, the Acadian communities between Egmont

138 kv transmission line kensington fishing cove o’leary substation sherbrooke substation west...

Documents