STAFF BRIEFING NOTES

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATTERS

References:

Prefiled evidence: Section 6 - Facilities Construction Section 7 - Environment;

Environmental Assessment Binder Section 1: Beachville to Bright EA (1993); Addendum to EA (2000);

Environmental Assessment Binder Section 2: Owen Sound to Brantford EA (1992); Addendum to EA (2000);

Board Staff IR # 42-57;

Supplementary Board Staff IR # 11

Issues Covered:

1.	Environmental assessment process - status of the OPCC review

2.	Cumulative impacts - boundaries and mitigation

3.	Stream crossing - Grand River crossing (mitigation, permits, cost of new studies)

4.	Water wells - update of inventory

5.	Woodlots and specimen trees - coordination with municipalities, replacement location, timing of clearing

6.	Prairie vegetation (Owen Sound-Brantford) - commitment to restoration

7.	Archeological resources - status of Stage 2 assessments

8.	Social Impacts

9.	Other approvals and permits - status, progress, prospects

Issue 1: Environmental assessment process

Background:

•	The EA studies were originally completed for Beachville to Bright and for Owen sound to Brantford loops in 1993 and in 1992 respectively, as Union expected to construct these loops in the mid 1990's. Changes in demand forecast prompted Union to postpone construction of these loops. Both EA reports were updated in 2000 and addendums are filed by Union as part of this application along with original reports. The routing methodology is sound and valid. Overall, EA follows the OEB Guidelines.

•	Union held public information sessions in 1992, 1993 as well as in 2000 to bring affected landowners and the public up-to-date. All landowners were re-notified of the project.

•	The new studies surveyed for changes in land use patterns or other bio-physical conditions along the preferred route. The addendums to the EA reports claim no significant changes that may warrant adjustments in the proposed routing.

•	Union is committed to implement all mitigation measures stated in the EA reports and addendums.

•	The addendums to the EA reports address the cumulative impacts as the Board directed in the EBLO 246.

•	FYI- Both EA emphasize impacts and mitigation of impact on agricultural land. Indeed, there are no major impacts on natural environment except for the Grand River Crossing and about 5 hectares of woodlot edge clearing. Judy Simon concerned that Union may place too much emphasis on agricultural impacts to appease landowners. She has no problems with that. Also, Judy is not concerned with the quality of this particular EA. Rather, she is concerned that, in the future, Union may neglect impacts on natural environment. In the hearing, Judy will make a statement addressing this concern.

•	Union sought and received input on the EA reports from OPCC, conservation authorities, and municipalities. However, the review of the Addendums by the OPCC seems incomplete as of December 1999.

Questions:

Ref. Staff IR # 42

Some of the member Ministries and municipalities of the OPCC have not responded to Union's September 2000 request to comment on the updated EA reports (Addendums).

1.	Please describe the current status of the relevant communications with agencies and ministries that are not included in the table given in the response IR #42.

2.	Please file as an undertaking copies of the comments received since December 1999.

3.	Which steps will Union take to complete the agency review (OPCC).

Issue 2: Cumulative Impacts

References:

Ref: EA Binder, Section 1-Addendum Beachville to Bright p. 17, Table 4.2; and Section 2- Addendum Owen Sound to Brantford, p. 19, Table 4.2.

Board Staff IR # 54

Background:

•	Union should implement all mitigation, rehabilitation and post-construction monitoring as recommended by consultants. Upon mitigation there will still be residual cumulative effects. However these will likely be of low significance. Residual potential effects are (Ref: EA Binder, Section 1-Addendum Beachville to Bright p. 17, Table 4.2): alteration of woodlots edge, structure, diversity of species; Permanent reduction in crop yield of approximately 10-20% (average crop yield for all crops over trench, spoil pile and work space are 81%, 84% and 91 % respectively).

•	The Addendums to EA report address the cumulative and incremental effects due to pipeline looping as directed by the OEB in Decision with Reasons - EBLO 246 (1994 Enniskillin to Brooke). Specifically , Decision with Reasons - EBLO 246. Pages 28 and 29, 4.4. Board Findings, paragraph 4.4.3 reads:

"In future applications for loopings on the Dawn Trafalgar system, the Board directs Union to file as part of its environmental report an explicit assessment of the cumulative, as well as incremental, socio-economic and environmental impacts which may be occurring as a result of the previous loopings in the vicinity, together with the proposed additional loop."

•	The Staff and the Panel feel that the environmental consultants interpreted what is implied by the above directive too narrowly especially with respect to the spatial boundaries for Cumulative Effect Assessment (CEA).

•	The spatial boundaries of the CEA as described in the environmental Addenums are: the easement and the temporary work area along of the proposed loops. Union's environmental consultants state that these boundaries have been based on the implied boundaries in the OEB decision on EBLO 246 (1994 Enniskillin to Brooke). The consultants state that the Cumulative Environmental Effects (CEE) are caused by the process of " interactive magnification" (e.i. construction activities repeated within the same location interacting over time) within the easement and temporary working area. That is completely acceptable.

•	However, other cumulative impacts occur on a broader spatial scale. For instance, woodlot clearing always changes the overall structure of the landscape patterns, impacts the flows of energy and species over the landscape on a larger spatial scale (e.i. regional). This is a compounding effects, multiple -additive as in pathway 3 (see Addendum Owen Sound to Brantford, page 17 Fig. 4.1. Typology of CEE Pathways).

•	Judy Simon and staff are concerned that the spatial boundaries should not be restricted to the easement and the temporary working area. Therefore, the EBLO 246 directive is not to be interpreted in such a limited way.

Questions:

Ref. Board Staff IR # 54; Addendums p 15 and p 14.

4.	Please confirm that the spatial boundaries of the identified potential impacts are limited to the boundaries of the easement and the temporary work area. What is the typical width of the cumulative impact area as determined for this project ? Please describe the rationale for identifying these boundaries.

5.	Please confirm that Union will consider broader cumulative impact study area ( beyond the easement width plus temporary working area) in the future EA studies.

Note:	In the hearing, Judy Simon will make a statement regarding this matter.

Issue 3: Stream crossings and The Grand River Crossing

References:

Environmental Assessment Binder Section 1: Beachville to Bright EA (1993) p. 73 par 5.3.1. ; Addendum to EA (2000); p.9, paragraph 3.7.1.

Environmental Assessment Binder Section 2: Owen Sound to Brantford EA (1992); p 5-7 and 6-2, Appendix V:Grand River and Cedar Creek Site Plans; Addendum to EA (2000) p. 10 and 11 paragraph 3.7.1;

Board Staff IR # 50 and 51; IR # 53;	# 55;#56

Board Staff Supplementary IR # 11.

Background:

•	There are 20 and 4 stream or drains crossings by Beachville and to Bright and Owen Sound to Brantford routes, respectively. See Supplementary IR 11 for a complete tabulation of crossings.

•	Stream crossings are Thames River (3.5 m wide avg 20 cm deep), Mud Creek (2 m wide 15 cm deep), and Phelan Creek (3m wide 30 cm deep) (Beachville to Bright) and Cedar Creek, unnamed tributary of Cedar Creek, and Grand River (Owen Sound to Brantford). All other crossings are drain crossings. All of the crossings, except the Grand River, are planned to be by dam and pump method. If a water course is dry it will be open cut.

•	For all crossing Union will adhere to the OMNR Generic sediment Control Plans to minimize the erosion and sedimentation impacts of the crossings (IR # 50).

•	Union has been working with GRCA and UTRCA regarding the "Fill, Construction, and Alteration of Waterways permits" for all the crossings (see IR 51)

•	Along Owen Sound to Brantford loop, the Grand River will be crossed by the wet crossing method. The Grand River is about 55 meters wide at the crossing location. This crossing represents the major impact associated with the project.

•	The EA study in the 1993, recommended a river diversion crossing method to cross the Grand River. In 2000, the Addendum recommends that the diversion method is not acceptable and recommended "wet crossing method".

•	The environmental consultants dismissed otherwise comparatively more environmentally acceptable "directional drilling method" as non-feasible because of the unsuitable Grand River bed geology.

•	Because the new crossing method will be implemented Union has to update all of the Grand River Crossing plans. Most importantly, the site specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the is being developed in cooperation between Union and GRCA. This plan will form a main part of the crossing permit application.(IR # 55)

•	The Grand River crossing is the only one that may require a permit from Department of Fisheries. The GRCA will conduct fisheries assessment services (IR #51).

•	There was a Class 7 wetland potentially directly affected by the construction in the vicinity of Beachville TS. Since the original inventory in 1993 the wetland was partially drained as described in the IR # 53. The draining of the wetland eliminated direct impact on this resource.

Questions:

All of the following questions deal with the Grand River Crossing:

6.	Please describe the procedural aspects and operations involved in the "wet" crossing of the Grand River. How long will the entire operation last ? When is the construction window for the Grand River crossing ?

7.	Comparing to the crossing method that requires a diversion channel (as originally contemplated), why is the proposed crossing method superior ?

8.	What would be the optimal weather conditions for the Grand River crossing operations ? Typically, what are major environmental impacts associated with this method of river crossing ?

9.	What would be the typical mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce and/or eliminate potential impacts of the wet crossing method ?

Ref: IT # 50; Ref: Environmental Assessment Binder Section 2: Owen Sound to Brantford Addendum to EA (2000), p. 10 paragraph 3.7.1.

The site specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the Grand River crossing has been developed in cooperation between Union and GRCA. This plan will form a main part of the crossing permit application.

10.	Please describe the contents of this site specific plan for mitigating impacts on the Grand River ? When is the plan due to be completed ? Identify next steps that have to be completed in order that Union gets a crossing permit for the Grand River.

11.	What is the status of the Grand River fisheries assessment studies that the GRCA obliged to conduct on behalf of the DFO ?

12.	What is the estimated approximate cost of the proposed crossing ? Is there a change in the crossing cost that is reflected in the "The Cost Update" filed with the Board on February 5, 2001.

Issue 4: Water wells

References:

Environmental Binder, Section 1 Addendum, p. 11 Paragraph 3.7.5. and Section 2, Addendum p. 12 paragraph 3.7.5.

Environmental Binder, Section 1 Schedule E; Section 2, Appendix 4.

Board Staff IR # 52

Background:

•	There is a number of water wells recorded and mapped in the vicinity of the loops. Also, there are high groundwater table in some areas in the corridor. The environmental reports recommends that Union's Standard Water Well Monitoring Program is implemented to assure the water quality standards are maintained. It is essential that Union update and verifies locations of all water wells locations in the vicinity of the corridor.

Questions :

Ref: IR # 52

13.	Please describe the program that will ensure that the up to date inventory of potentially impacted water wells.

14.	Please confirm that Union will adhere to its Standard Water Well Monitoring Program to ensure that the water quality is not affected by the construction.

Issue 5:	Woodlots and specimen trees

References:	Prefiled Evidence Section 1 (EA Report Beachville TS to Bright), p 68 and 69;

Prefiled Evidence Section 2 (EA Report Owen Sound to Brantford), p. 5-15, Appendix IV; Appendix VI ( photomosaics)

Board Staff IR 47 and 48; IR 54

Background:

•	There are relatively many woodlots and hedgerows affected by the routing. The original EA studies recorded and mapped 5 woodlots and 17 hedgerows and 7 woodlots potentially affected by clearing along Owen Sound to Brantford and Beachville TS to Bright respectively. For the Beachville to Bright project a total of 2.9 hectares (7.2 acres) will be removed. For the Owen Sound to Brantford segment a total of 1.95 hectares (4.81 acres) will be removed. (IR # 47). According to IR # 54 all of the removal will be from the woodlot edge

•	The prefiled evidence contains mapped location and detailed description and assessment of the woodlots. The consultants recommended that Union follow its relevant Construction Specifications and contact the affected municipalities to coordinate with municipal policies (local and regional).

•	Union will implement it's 2:1 tree replacement program. Clearing of the trees will be during the winter to avoid disturbance of the avian nesting habitats (IR # 54). Union discussed the program with the Region of Waterloo and UTRCA and GRCA regarding the use of native species and potential location of replacement should landowners do not want the replacement on their land.

•	There is a number of specimen trees recorded and flagged along the proposed routes. Union will ensure that these trees are protected during construction. Environmental inspector will be responsible for protection of these trees both during construction and in the year after clean up.

Questions:

Ref: IR # 54; Section 6, p. 1.

Union states that the discussions are in progress with the UTRCA and GRCA as well as the Region of Waterloo regarding the location of tree replacement and use of native species.

15.	It is not clear if other affected municipalities or agencies have been approached regarding this matter ? If not why not? Please describe the progress, to date, of the tree replacement related communications with the local municipalities.

16.	Has Union contacted the local municipalities and the Oxford County regarding any municipal tree cutting permits that Union may require to clear the trees situated on the private properties ? (Section 6, p1 of 5)

17.	Please describe the ecological and other principles that have been or will be applied to determine the locations for the replacement of. trees within the affected municipalities.

18.	Ref. IR # 45

Union is committed to clear the woodlots in January and February of 20001 in order to avoid migratory avian nesting habitat disturbance. What is the status of this pre- construction clearing to date? How many hectares have been cleared and at which locations ? If the clearing is not completed by early spring which measures will Union undertake to protect potential disturbance of the avian habitats ?

Issue 6: Prairie remnant (Owen Sound-Brantford)

References: Addendum to EA, Appendix E: Remnant Prairie Rehabilitation Plan-2000

Background:

•	A significant prairie relic (ESPA 63) east of Grand River between Highway 24 and the abandoned railway line. In 1985 after NPS 42 construction the restoration of this significant community was successful. The updated 2000 rehabilitation plan prepared by the environmental consultants outlines pre-, during- and post-construction measures to rehabilitate and further protect the prairie community.

Question:

19.	Please confirm that Union will adhere to the prescribed remedial plan for the prairie as outlined by environmental consultants in the Addendum to the EA.

Issue 7:	Archeological resources

Reference:	Response to Board Staff IR # 42 OPCC, Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (MCCR) comment on the addendum EA, dated October 2000.

Background Owen Sound to Brantford route:

•	The Stage 2 assessment conducted in 1992 and 1993 by Archeological Services Inc. discovered 6 sites, out of which 3 were recommended for Stage 3 assessment. In its letter to Union MCCR stated that it would not sign off the EA report until results of Stage 3 assessment for 3 sites are presented. The letter refers to Owen Sound to Brantford loop only.

Question:

20.	What is the status of Stage 3 assessment of 3 archeological sites within the Owen Sound to Brantford route ? What is the status of communications with MCCR on this matter ? If any written correspondence were exchanged or if any documentation is generated since the Application filing, please undertake to file these with the Board.

Background Beachville to Bright route:

•	It is not obvious from the evidence if the Stage 2 assessment was completed for Beachville to Bright loop. Also, it is not clear if the MCCR reviewed the Beachville to Bright Addendum report or any results of Stage 2 assessment for Beachville to Bright

•	In 1992, Archeological Research Associates completed the Stage 1 archeological assessment of the Beachville to Bright study area. The report was included in the original EA report. Eleven registered archeological sites were identified in the study area. The report recommended that further archeological studies (e.i. Stage 2 and 3) are conducted if the proposed route impact lands outside the existing right-of-way. The proposed route is entirely within the existing right-of-way. However, the main EA report ( Ref. Section 1./page 73/par 5.2.7.) indicates that the Stage 2 assessment should be completed along the preferred route. The addendum Beachville to Bright does not address archeology at all.

Question:

21.	Has Stage 2 assessment been completed along Beachville to Bright route segment ? If not, please explain why the Stage 2 assessment was not required ?

If so, were the results submitted to MCCR for a review ? Please describe the feedback from MCCR ? Please undertake to file any correspondence or documentation as received.

Issue 8: Social Impacts

Background (short term impacts):

•	Social impacts associated with the project are traffic disruption and associated safety concerns, noise and during construction, interference with accessibility to private properties during construction, restoration of easements and work areas after construction is completed. These potential impacts may be effectively mitigated if Union adheres to its standard construction, mitigation, and monitoring specification:

Question:

22.	Please confirm that Union will implement the standard construction and post-construction mitigation and restoration measures to minimize and eliminate the following impacts associated with construction:

traffic disruption

safety of traffic

noise abatement during construction

dust control

provide for continuous access to private properties during construction

restore the damaged lands on private properties (e.g. driveways, gardens)

Background (cumulative social impacts):

•	Crop loss and prime agricultural land productivity losses caused by soil compaction, increase in stoniness, subsidence is considered a long-term cumulative socio-economic impact.

•	These impacts will be mitigated through Union standard easement restoration specifications and through crop loss compensation program described in the evidence.

We may want Union to confirm its commitment to mitigate and monitor these impacts.

Issue 9:	Other approvals and permits

Questions:

23.	Describe the activities that Union has taken to date to obtain a MOE permit to discharge water from the hydrostatic testing of the pipeline.

Ref:	Environmental Assessment Binder Section 1: Beachville to Bright EA (1993) p 71 and 72; (Owen Sound to Brantford no mention of road crossing in the evidence)

24.	What is the status of Union's applications for municipal and regional permits or conditions to use local or regional road allowances or cross those roads ?

25.	Is a permit for highway crossing required from MoT ? If so, what is the status of the application?