STAFF BRIEFING NOTES

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATTERS

Zora Crnojacki

Issues Covered:

1.	Environmental assessment process

2.	Social Impacts

3.	Cumulative impacts

4.	Stream crossing

5.	Water wells

6.	Woodlots and specimen trees

7.	Prairies vegetation (Owen Sound-Brantford)

8.	Aggregate resources areas

9.	Prime agricultural land

10.	Archeological resources

11.	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.

•	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

Questions:

•	According to the response to Board Staff IR 42 most 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). Please describe the current status of the relevant communications with agencies and ministries that are not included in the table given in the response.

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

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

Issue 2: Cumulative Impacts

References:

Background:

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).

There are some residual cumulative impacts however these are not significant. Implementation of rehabilitation programs and post-construction monitoring the impacts are of low significance.

Residual potential effects are (Ref: Addendum, 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)

Issue 3: Stream crossing

References:

Board Staff IR #

Board Staff Supplementary IR # 11;

Section 2-Addendum to EA Owen Sound-Brantford, p 14

Background:

There is a total of 4 and 20 stream or drains crossings by Owen Sound to Brantford and Bright to Beachville routes, respectively. All crossings except the Grand River are planned to be by dam and pump method (in the event that a water course is dry it will be open cut). Along Owen Sound to Brantford loop, the Grand River will be crossed by the wet crossing method. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been developed in cooperation between Union and GRCA. This plan will form a main part of the crossing permit application.The Grand River crossing is the only one that may require a permit from Department of Fisheries. The GRCA will conduct fisheries assessment services (see IR 51).

The Addendum to the EA report recommends an update tp Grand River crossing mitigation plan.

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

Questions:

•	When will the updated mitigation plan for the Grand River Crossing be finalized by Union ?

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

•	What is the reason for not going with a generally more environmnetaly acceptable directional drilling for the Grand River Crossing ?

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 :

ask for commitment just confirm what's said in the IR 52

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. 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. 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:

•	Please describe the strategy to determine location for the replacement of the removed. trees within the municipalities affected.

•	Have all affected municipalities been approached regarding this matter ? If not why not? Please describe the progress, to date, of the tree replacement related communications with the municipalities ?

•	Has Union contacted municipalities (local and regional) about tree cutting permit required to clear the trees form the private properties ?

Issue 6: Prairie remnant ion (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 signifocant community was successful. The updated 2000 rehabiltitation plan prepared by the environmental consultants outlines pre-, during- and post-construction measures to rehabilitate and further protect the prairie community.

Question:

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:

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 10:	Other approvals and permits

References:

Questions:

•	Union will be applying for permits to the XXXX Conservation Authority and the Chatham Office of the MNR 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 ?