STAFF BRIEFING NOTES

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATTERS

Zora Crnojacki

Issues Covered:

1.	Environmental assessment process

2.	Stream crossing

Board Staff Supplementary IR # 11

3.	Water wells

4.	Woodlots and specimen trees

5.	Prairies vegetation (Owen Sound-Brantford)

6.	Aggregate resources areas

7.	Prime agricultural land

8.	Archeological resources

9.	Other approvals and permits

Issue 1: Environmental assessment process

References:

Prefiled evidence Section 7; Environmental Assessment binder; Board Staff IR #

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 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.

•	Union held public information sessions in 1992, 1993 as well as in 2000 to bring affected landowners and the public up-to-date.

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

•	There have been no adjustments in preferred Beachville to Bright routing since 1992. Therefore the route is entirely adjacent to the existing easement with no diagonal severances, meaning the route is on previously disturbed land.

•	Also, the addendums 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). However,

•	Union sought and received input on the EA reports and addendums from OPCC, conservation authorities, and municipalities.

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

•	The addendums to the EA reports note the

Issue 2: Stream crossing

References:

Background:

•

Questions:

•

Issue 3: 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.

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 :

•	ask for commitment

•	ask for a copy of water well monitoring program as an undertaking

Issue 8:	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:

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:

•	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 exchange or if any documentation is generated, please file with the Board as an undertaking.

Background:

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.

Questions:

•	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 file any correspondence or documentation generated, as an undertaking.

Issue 9:	Other approvals and permits

References:

Questions:

•	Union will be applying for permits to the XXXX Conservation Authority and the Chatham Office of the OMNR for the water crossing permits for this project. Which steps has Union taken to date to initiate and ensure the permits will be issued ?

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

•	Ask about municipal permits to use road allowances or road crossing...

•	Is permit from MoT needed ?