4.0 ROUTE SELECTION PROCESS

Transcription

1 4.0 ROUTE SELECTION PROCESS 4.1 GENERAL The evaluation method addresses the objectives of the Ontario Energy Board Environmental Guidelines for the Location, Construction and Operation of Hydro Carbon Facilities in Ontario, Fifth Edition, May 2003 which are to: Minimize any potentially significant, adverse environmental effects from the construction and operation of proposed oil or gas pipelines and facilities; Ensure that appropriate environmental considerations are identified and addressed at an early stage in the planning process; and Identify the legislation and approvals that may apply to activities associated with oil or gas pipelines and facilities. In order to minimize adverse environmental effects, the existing environment (social, economic and natural) is described (refer to Chapter 3), and a route selection process is undertaken that ultimately identifies the pipeline route alternative that will incur the least negative environmental effects. The route selection process for this project occurred in a series of steps including: 1. Preliminary screening of a long list of alternative routes based on technical and environmental constraints and potential significant impacts to the natural and socio-economic environment that are not easily mitigated; 2. Comparative evaluation of a short list of sub-routes to identify a preliminary preferred route; 3. Presentation of the sub-route evaluation and preliminary preferred route to the public to obtain input and gather additional data on the natural and social environments along the route alternatives; and 4. Modifications (if required), to the preliminary preferred route based on public input and additional data gathered. Following the public meeting, the route alternatives were evaluated in detail to incorporate the full range of information gathered in the study process. Based on the outcome of route evaluation north of Highway 401, the preferred route from the Glenburnie Gate Station to the Industrial Park will make some of the sub-routes south of Highway 401 redundant. The results of these stages in the evaluation are presented in greater detail in the following sections December SENES Consultants Limited

2 4.2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF POTENTIAL ROUTES The pipeline is intended to reinforce the natural gas supply in the City of Kingston and to service both the large Industrial Park south of Highway 401 and the Queens University Central Heating Plant. Within the study area, there are a number of potential routes linking the starting point of the proposed pipeline reinforcement at the Glenburnie Gate Station to the terminus of the route at Queens University. In order to develop a short list of reasonable alternatives to consider in the evaluation, a long list of potential sub-route alternatives were identified and a preliminary screening of those sub-route alternatives was undertaken. The screening was based on input received from Utilities Kingston and from the agencies contacted early in the study. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 identify each of the potential sub-route alternatives within the north and south halves of the study area respectively, and provide the rationale for screening some of these sub-route alternatives from further evaluation as part of a potential route based on the following criteria: Adding significantly to the length (and subsequently cost) of the route; Potential for cumulative effects associated with reconstructing recently constructed sections of road; Potential for significant impacts related to traffic volumes during construction (identified by City staff); Sensitive land uses that require additional safety considerations in the event of accidents or malfunctions; and Extensive clearing of vegetation required. Table 4.1 From Glenburnie Station to Industrial Park Preliminary Screening of Route Sections Route Section Description Conclusion Unity Road/ Sydenham Road Pipeline ROW/ Cole Hill Road/ Sydenham Road Union Gas Service area. This route alternative requires traveling a considerable distance out of the way to the west, and then backtracking to return to the tie-in point at the Joseph Clyde Industrial Park. It crosses watercourses in 7 locations, crosses a wetland, crosses over Highway 401 and the CN Rail Line. Union Gas Service area. This alternative requires traveling a considerable distance out of the way to the west, and then backtracking to return to the tie-in point at the Joseph Clyde Industrial Park. It crosses one watercourse, one wetland, and crosses over Highway 401 and the CN Rail Line. The additional cost resulting from the greater distance cannot be mitigated by adding customers. Additional length also increases the potential for environmental impacts. Recommend dropping from further evaluation. The additional cost resulting from the greater distance cannot be mitigated by adding customers. Additional length also increases the potential for environmental impacts. Recommend dropping from further evaluation December SENES Consultants Limited

3 Table 4.1 (Cont d) From Glenburnie Station to Industrial Park Preliminary Screening of Route Sections Route Section Description Conclusion Perth Road/ Bur Brook Road/ Sunnyside Road/ Hydro ROW Perth Road/ Bur Brook Road/ Sunnyside Road/ Overland south to tie-in Perth Road/ Dalton Road There is an existing Utilities Kingston Pipeline on Perth Road. Vegetation is extensive along Bur Brook and Sunnyside Roads and the land slopes steeply down toward the Conservation Area on the east side of Sunnyside Road. The Hydro ROW extends across the Little Cataraqui Creek Conservation Area requiring directional drilling under the area of impoundment and extensive clearing as well as potentially incurring an additional EA process (Ontario Realty Corporation). There is an existing Utilities Kingston Pipeline on Perth Road. Vegetation is extensive along Bur Brook and Sunnyside Roads and the land slopes steeply down toward the Conservation Area on the east side of Sunnyside Road. There is the possibility of extensive clearing being required along the western limits of the Conservation Authority lands. There is an existing Utilities Kingston Pipeline on Perth Road. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has indicated that they will be upgrading the interchange at the 401 and lowering the elevation of Perth Road by about 6 meters. MTO has also indicated that they would not support a pipeline crossing at any interchange with Highway 401. This route alternative has some constraints associated with clearing within the road and Hydro ROW and crossing the Conservation Area. Recommend dropping from further evaluation. This route alternative has some constraints associated with clearing within the road ROW and along the western limits of the Conservation Area; however, the use of an existing road through the conservation authority reduces clearing requirements. Retain for evaluation. This alternative has some technical constraints due to proposed road improvements. Drop alternative of Perth Road from McAdoo to 401 from further evaluation. Retain the balance of Perth Road with a revised overland route from McAdoo to the Industrial Park for evaluation. The preliminary screening of the long list of sub-route alternatives in the north half of the study area resulted in 2 possible route alternatives from the Glenburnie Gate Station to the Industrial Park December SENES Consultants Limited

4 Table 4.2 From Industrial Park to Queen s University Central Heating Plant Preliminary Screening of Route Sections Route Section Description Conclusion Portsmouth Avenue King Street Union Street Sir John A. McDonald Boulevard Division Street This route alternative is at the western limit of the study area and adds unnecessary distance to the pipeline by detouring west from Sir John A. MacDonald Blvd only to return again to reach the end point. Sections of King Street west of Centre Street and east of the University campus past Albert Street have numerous heritage buildings and high traffic flows. In addition, the presence of the penitentiary poses unique constraints in terms of additional construction provisions for continued emergency access/egress and for planning in the event of future malfunctions or repairs. The restricted sections of this route alternative limit north/south connections to Beverly St., Collingwood St., University Ave. or Albert St. in terms of reaching the Central Heating Plant. This route alternative houses the communications network and steam heating ducts linking the two campuses of Queens University. In addition, this route also passes a hospital and will pose unique constraints in terms of additional construction provisions for continued emergency access/egress and for planning in the event of future malfunctions or repairs. This route alternative provides a common, direct and efficient north/south link for routes traveling from the Industrial Park to the end point of the study area. It is a wide ROW, which until it reaches Princess Street travels along a series of Industrial Parks including the Alcan property from Counter Street to Princess Street. Because portions of King Street and Union Street have been screened from further evaluation, this route alternative terminates at Johnson Avenue. Division Street has been recently reconstructed from Counter Street to Elliot Avenue and it is proposed to be reconstructed from Elliot to Fraser. Recent construction has been delayed and this has created public concerns with respect to ongoing nuisance effects and inconveniences associated with the construction. Dropping Division Street from further analysis limits the range of route alternatives from the east to the Queen s University Heating Plant. This route adds significant length to the route. Recommend dropping from further evaluation. This alternative has significant traffic constraints and unique land uses that have high constraints (i.e. penitentiary, hospital). In terms of requiring emergency access/guess and security measures. Recommend dropping from further evaluation. This alternative has unique land uses that have high constraints. Recommend dropping from further evaluation. Retain for evaluation. The new construction required for the pipeline will create additional inconvenience and nuisance to the public resulting in cumulative effects. Recommend dropping from further evaluation December SENES Consultants Limited

5 Table 4.2 (Cont d) From Industrial Park to Queen s University Central Heating Plant Preliminary Screening of Route Sections Route Section Description Conclusion Princess Street/ Albert Street Sir John A. MacDonald Blvd/ Johnston Street Counter Street/ Leroy Grant Blvd/ East side of Alcan on City property Princess Street has a wide ROW with a number of commercial uses and City staff have identified that there are high traffic volumes that would pose constraints to construction. This route alternative has a wide ROW and a mix of commercial uses with residential uses backing onto the ROW. There is some traffic on the route. The route alternative would not be within an existing ROW, but the lands would be owned by the City of Kingston. It provides an alternative to using Division Street in the areas proposed for, and having been, reconstructed. This route alternative has some constraints associated with traffic, but it has a wide ROW and a number of lanes. Retain for evaluation. This route alternative has some constraints associated with traffic. Retain for evaluation. This alternative has some technical constraints due to proposed road improvements. Retain for evaluation. 4.3 SUB-ROUTE EVALUATION The goal of this part of the study process is to select the preliminary preferred route, which has the least negative impact on the natural, social and economic environment as well as being reasonable to construct in terms of distance and technical constraints. The short list of subroute alternatives carried forward from the preliminary screening have been evaluated based on a series of criteria to determine which sub-routes have the least potential environmental impact. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 evaluate the potential negative impacts of the various sub-route alternatives on the biophysical and socio-economic environments as well as identifying technical constraints. The evaluation forms the basis for selecting a preliminary, preferred route that was presented to the public on October 20 and 21. Table 4.2 evaluates the 2 alternative sub-routes from the Glenburnie Station to the Tie-In point in the Industrial Park at Binnington Court. Table 4.3 evaluates the alternative sub-routes from the Industrial Park to the end point of the pipeline route. Based on the evaluation of sub-routes and the subsequent determination of a preferred route from Glenburnie Station to the Industrial Park Tie In point presented in Table 4-3, a number of sub-routes from the Industrial Park to Queens Central Heating Plant will be dropped from further analysis because they will add significant length to the pipeline, (see Figure 9). For example, if the sub-route down Perth Road to the Industrial Park Tie-In is preferred, subroutes from Division Street to Sir John A. MacDonald would mean traveling west for some December SENES Consultants Limited

6 distance then backtracking to reach the easterly end-point of the Queens Central Heating Plant. The evaluation of sub-routes will therefore first identify the preferred route to arrive at the Industrial Park Tie In from the Glenburnie Gate Station. This ensures that if the Central Heating Plant project does not go forward, that the route that has the least adverse environmental effects to the Industrial Park is selected. It also ensures that the preferred route to the Tie-In point will direct the selection of a preferred route from the Industrial Park to the Central Heating Plant Evaluation of Sub-Route Alternatives from Glenburnie to Industrial Park Tie In Table 4.3 Sub-Route Evaluation from Glenburnie Station to Industrial Park Tie In Sub- Sub- Unit Description of Constraints Route Route 1a 1b BIOPHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS Watercourse Crossings Number 2 1 Rare and endangered species habitat within 100 metres Number 0 0 Length within designated ANSI, ESA or Wetland Metres Approximate Length of Clearing Vegetation for Pipeline ROW Metres Identified springs, seepage areas along the Route Number 1 0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS Private Properties Crossed in Overland Route Number 0 1 Public Properties Crossed in Overland Route Number 2 2 Non-farm Residences within 100 metres (approx.) Number 37 9 Farm Complexes within 100 metres (approx.) Number 3 2 Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision within 100 metres Number 0 0 Conservation/Parks/Recreation Areas within 100 metres Kilometres 1 1 Length adjacent to Conservation Authority Kilometres Commercial/ Industrial Uses within 100 metres (approx.) Number Waste Disposal Sites within 100 metres Number 0 0 Active Aggregate Operations within 100 metres Number 0 1 Area of High Archaeological Potential Crossed Kilometres TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS Length Kilometres Transmission Line crossings Number 1 0 Crossing of Provincial Highway ROW Number 1 1 Municipal/Agricultural Drain Crossings Number 8 8 Road Crossings Number 5 3 Rail Crossings Number 0 0 Potentially Contaminated Sites Number December SENES Consultants Limited

7 Table 4.3 (Cont d) Sub-Route Evaluation from Glenburnie Station to Industrial Park Tie In Sub- Sub- Unit Description of Constraints Route Route 1a 1b Adequacy of Construction Work Space Fair/Poor Fair Fair Approximate Distance of Directional Drilling Required Metres Traffic High/Low Low High Length of Pipeline Paralleling Existing Route Metres As Table 4.3 illustrates, there are some important differences between the route alternatives from the Glenburnie Station to the Industrial Park Tie In. Route alternative 1a crosses one more watercourse than 1b. Route alternative 1b parallels the existing pipeline for a longer distance, is longer than 1a, and requires crossing of one private property in the overland section near Highway 401. Each sub-route requires crossing of public lands owned by the City of Kingston and by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. The crossing of the watercourses can be accomplished by directional drilling, resulting in minimal impacts, but the difficulties associated with property negotiations with private landowners and the need to minimize the distance in which the pipeline is in close proximity to the existing pipeline make sub-route 1a the preferred route from the Glenburnie Station to the Industrial Park. In addition, sub-route 1b requires the use of the Knox Farm property owned by the City of Kingston and used for the storage of potentially contaminated waste from dredging material. Future use of the lands may include expansion of the existing uses, which may be incompatible with a pipeline or result in requiring the pipeline to be relocated in the future. Furthermore, MTO has indicated that proposed interchange improvements will result in substantial regrading of Perth Road, making it difficult to determine how far the pipeline will need to be set back from the interchange to minimize the potential for it to be relocated at a later date. For the following reasons, sub-route 1a is preferred sub-route alternative from the Glenburnie Station to the preferred Tie In point in the Industrial Park. It is one kilometer shorter in length; It uses less traveled roads the Perth Road has heavy traffic volumes, increasing the possibility of traffic disruptions; Both alternatives have a crossing of Little Cataraqui Creek. Alternative 1a also crosses a tributary of the Little Cataraqui Creek near Sunnyside and Bur Brook Roads. The Perth Road alternative (1b) uses Dalton Avenue for a portion of its length, which has significantly disturbed the wetland complex; The Ministry of Transportation objects to the pipeline being constructed in Highway 401 interchanges. This requires the Perth Road Alternative to cross the Knox Farm property December SENES Consultants Limited

8 In addition to the possibility of encountering potentially contaminated lands, a greater area of forest clearing is involved; Route 1a only crosses publically-owned land while a small amount of private land is crossed on Alternative 1b; and, The existing supply main for the City of Kingston runs along the Perth Road. There are system and security advantages to having the pipelines located in different geographic areas Evaluation of Sub-Route Alternatives from the Industrial Park to Queens CHP The sub-route alternatives to be considered extend southeast across the study area to the Queens CHP. The selection of sub-route 1a in the north half of the study area reduces the viability of the full range of sub-routes originally identified in the south half of the study area, because they would mean traveling some distance east of the endpoint, which would increase the length and cost of the pipeline. These sub-routes have been eliminated from further evaluation (see Figure 9). The alternative sub-routes to be considered are further reduced by the preferred routes from Johnson Street to Queens University, which through public consultation and ongoing discussions will now be a new sub-route alternative that travels primarily on the University lands. The smaller residential streets (Collingwood, Beverly and Albert) have narrow ROWs and many have residences set close to the street. There would be a constrained work area and the potential to disrupt traffic significantly due to the narrow right of way and 2 lane traffic. The University Street alternative is primarily on University property and there are only a few residential uses along the right of way. This sub-route alternative provides a direct north-south connection to the CHP and minimizes length of pipeline on King Street. Queens University is the primary beneficiary of the pipeline in this portion of the study area, which mitigates the impact of nuisance effects. Furthermore, the costs for reconstruction of the road will be shared by the University as opposed to being totally borne by UK, which is a further benefit in terms of cost savings. The use of the University sub-route results in three viable alternatives from the Industrial Park to the University sub-route, which are described as follows: Sub-route 2a Sub-route 2b Sub-route 2c Dalton/Sir John A. MacDonald Blvd/Johnson Street/Albert Street Dalton/ Sir John A. MacDonald Blvd/Counter Street/Lappans Lane extension/princess Street/Albert Street Dalton/ Sir John A. MacDonald Blvd/Princess Street/Albert Street December SENES Consultants Limited

9 December SENES Consultants Limited

10 Watercourse Crossings Number Rare and endangered species habitat within 100 metres Number Length within designated ANSI, ESA or Wetland Kilometres Length of Clearing of Natural Vegetation for Pipeline ROW Kilometres Identified springs, seepage areas along the Route Number SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS Residences within 100 metres (approx.) including complexes Number Institutional Uses within 100 metres (approx.) Number Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision within 100 metres Number Conservation/Parks/Recreation Areas within 100 metres Kilometres Commercial/ Industrial Uses within 100 metres (approx.) Number Waste Disposal Sites within 100 metres Number Active Aggregate Operations within 100 metres Number Area of High Archaeological Potential Crossed Metres TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS Length Kilometres Transmission Line crossings Number Crossing of Provincial Highway ROW Number Municipal/Agricultural Drain Crossings Number Road Crossings Number Rail Crossings Number Potentially Contaminated Sites Number Table 4.4 Sub-Route Evaluation Industrial Park to Queen s University Central Heating Plant Sub- Sub- Unit Description of Constraints Route Route 2a 2b BIOPHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS Subroute 2c Adequacy of Construction Work Space Fair/Poor Good Fair Poor Approximate Distance of Directional Drilling Required Metres Traffic High/Low Low High High Length of Pipeline Paralleling Existing Route Kilometres The preferred sub-route from the Industrial Park to the University Street sub-route to the CHP is sub-route 2a. The least preferred sub-route is 2b. Although the three sub-routes evaluated in Table 4-4 are similar in many respects, sub-route 2c has the greater potential for effects associated with traffic congestion and nuisance effects during construction along Princess Street. Although the right of way is wide, the high level of December SENES Consultants Limited

11 traffic would make it difficult to safely re-route traffic and maintain access to commercial and industrial uses during construction. Sub-route 2b utilizes Counter Street, which has proposed improvements that are currently in the EA process. Routing the pipeline along Counter Street poses some potential for having to move the pipeline at a later date depending on the outcome of the EA with respect to lane locations and other detailed design issues that have yet to be addressed fully in that process. Sub-route 2b extends along the eastern limits of the Alcan property using public lands, including parks and road right of way in small residential neighbourhoods. There is a significant potential for impacts due to disruption to residential and recreational uses along this stretch that would be difficult to mitigate given the size of the right of way and types of uses along it. Sub-route 2a utilizes Sir john A. MacDonald Blvd and Johnson Street, both of which are wide rights of way. Although Sir John A MacDonald Blvd has residential uses, they typically back onto the right of way, which minimizes the potential for impact. In addition, the Alcan property represents an opportunity to locate the pipeline for a substantial length along vacant industrial lands. Finally, Johnson Street has less traffic than Princess Street (sub-route 2c) and is a two lane, one way street, which will allow for traffic flow to be maintained easily during construction. Figure 10 depicts the final preferred route for the pipeline December SENES Consultants Limited

12 December SENES Consultants Limited

13 4.4 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Public and agency consultation was an important part of this project and continued through all of the study phases. From the outset and throughout the EA process, UK stressed the importance of consulting with area residents, community organizations and government agencies. To meet the EA consultation requirements set by the Ontario Energy Board, and to set the stage for achieving the UK consultation objectives, the consultation plan called for a series of communication and consultation activities that would be closely linked to the technical work being conducted as part of the EA. Communication activities included a newspaper notice, letters of invitation/notification, a public open house meeting and a project Web site. In addition, meetings in person, by telephone and electronic mail were also undertaken by SENES/UK staff. The following sections detail public and agency consultation activities since the inception of the environmental assessment Objectives of the Public and Agency Consultation Program The following were objectives of the public consultation program: To seek out and involve potentially affected members of the public in the process; To provide participants with the information they required to participate in a meaningful way; To make all reasonable efforts to identify the interests of, and meet the needs of participants; To provide opportunities to participants for meaningful input into the process; To consider public issues/concerns in developing the project design and making project approval decisions; and To communicate how the input from the public affected outcomes (i.e., project design and review/approval decisions) Website Since a portion of the project was conducted in a densely populated urban area with multiple layers of jurisdiction, a decision was made to develop a project website, ( in order make information accessible to as many groups as possible. In addition, by including all information on the project in a downloadable format, it provided a cost-effective and expeditious method of communicating with the public and agencies. The final Environmental Report, also in a downloadable format, was available to all interested property owners and agencies as per OEB guidelines. An illustration of the website is included in Figure December SENES Consultants Limited

14 Figure 11 Website Home Page All material presented at public meetings, as well as public notices and reports were posted on the website Agency and Interest Group Contacts A list of interest groups and regulatory agencies active in the area was compiled through discussions with municipal and provincial agencies and published information. Preliminary contacts with key agencies were done in person to expedite the process and to develop a rapport. A mailing list was compiled that subdivided the groups into seven categories: 1. Local Government, including Federal Government and Local Members of Parliament (along with Executive Assistants); 2. Local and Municipal Agencies and Councillors in the City of Kingston; 3. Provincial Government Agencies 4. Members of the Ontario Pipeline Coordinating Committee; 5. Interest Groups; 6. Corporations (i.e. Canadian National Railway, Trans-Northern Pipelines); and, 7. Federal Agencies December SENES Consultants Limited

15 A contact list can be found in Appendix A. This list was compiled based upon searches through government listings, previous studies completed in the area, the Internet, telephone calls and meetings. A contact log that highlights project correspondence is included in Appendix B. UK also received a number of letters with comments on the proposed project. A copy of these letters is also included in Appendix B Public Notice A Public notification of the study and notice of the public open house meeting (Figure 12) was placed in the following newspapers: Kingston Whig-Standard; Kingston This Week; and Queen s University Campus Newspaper The Journal; In addition, letters inviting agencies, interest groups, and politicians were mailed prior to the meeting. To expedite the process, agency letters were sent by electronic mail. In this way, responses could be dealt with more efficiently. To ensure that letters were received, an automatic return message was placed on all electronic mail. Letters received from a number of agencies indicated positive feedback as a result of providing correspondence electronically. Approximately 2,700 letters were mailed out to residents along the alternative routes. This list was obtained through records contained at the Utilities Kingston Office. A copy of the agency and landowner letters can be found in Appendix E Public Open House Meeting Figure 12 Public Notice FIGURE 9 PUBLIC NOTICE A public open house meeting was held on October 20, 2004 at the Glenburnie Fire Hall to provide an opportunity for public comment for residents in the area north of the 401 on the planning process and alternate routes. In addition, a second meeting was held on October 21, 2004 to accommodate residents south of 401. The purpose of the meetings was to solicit public response to the study process and identification of alternate routes. This would achieve the following objectives: Introduce participants to the project, the EA process and consultation plans; and, Seek feedback from participants, at an early stage in the process, on local environmental considerations, issues or concerns that should be addressed through the EA December SENES Consultants Limited

16 Twenty (20) persons attended the meeting in Glenburnie, while Fifteen (15) attended the meeting in the UK Administration Building. Sixteen (16) questionnaires were completed (see Appendix F for a copy of the questionnaire. At this meeting, a number of panels were prepared to illustrate the project process as well as the following important areas: An introduction to Utilities Kingston; Regulatory Process; Project Process and Schedule; Pipeline Construction Procedures; Pipeline Safety; Pipeline Constraint Maps; and Pipeline Route Aerial Mosaic. A section of pipe to provide an example of the size of pipe to be installed. In addition, some common equipment used in pipeline locating and measurements were also used as visual displays at the meeting. Some photos from this meeting can be seen below. In addition to personnel from SENES, UK staff was also present at the meeting to answer questions and listen to comments from interested agencies and members of the community. A copy of the panels presented at the public open house meeting is included in Appendix F Results from the Open House Meetings Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire once they had a chance to see the panels and speak to project experts. Based on a review of the 16 participant comment forms completed by Open House participants, the following provides highlights of feedback received: December SENES Consultants Limited

17 Water Table Tree Cutting Construction Areas Natural and Other Features Benefit to Taxpayers in Area north of 401 Impacts to Cisterns, Wells, Etc. Using other roads Disruption from construction: how long will it take, hours of construction? Safety Specifically, residents were concerned with the fact that construction may affect the local water table. Residents commented that they would like tree cutting to be avoided or to be kept at a minimum. Residents had questions about the construction areas, including equipment, areas along ride alignments, and other areas. Residents reminded the project team about natural features in the area, including wetlands and the conservation authority lands. In addition, the Cataraqui Creek and the presence of a natural spring along Bur Brook Rd. were also mentioned in many comments. They were concerned that these areas may be impacted by construction. The area north of the 401 is a Union Gas Service Area. As such, residents of some of the streets north of the 401 were questioning the benefit for the pipeline being along their streets seeing as though they will not be able to connect for gas service. Several residents in the rural area experienced damage to cisterns and wells as a result of vibration impacts from nearby quarries. As such, they were interested in how the construction will impact these features and ensuring that they will be protected. A number of residents asked that the study team consider other roads not listed in the preferred route and sub-routes. Some residents were interested in construction periods, length of time along certain roads, and methods. Some residents were concerned with the dangers of having a natural gas pipeline in the area. The environmental and socio-economic impact assessment report has responded to these concerns and as a component of the program, ensured that these issues have been addressed to the fullest extent possible. In addition, various parties were responded to directly by project staff. The detailed mitigation plans identified in Section 5.0 are reflective of these concerns and address possible impacts identified in comments from the public Route Refinements Resulting From Public Input Public input played an important role in the selection of the Preliminary Preferred Route. The public open house meeting provided public confirmation of the Preferred Route. Based upon public comments and meetings with landowners, some refinements were made to the preferred route, including the addition of the University Avenue sub-route alternative, which is not part of the preferred route December SENES Consultants Limited

18 4.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ROUTE Based upon public and agency consultation, technical constraints, data analysis, and evaluation of alternatives, a preferred route for the pipeline was chosen. The preferred route is described as follows: From Glenburnie Gate Station south on the west side of Perth Road to Bur Brook Road; West on the south side of Bur Brook Road to Sunnyside Road; South on the east side of Sunnyside Road to the point where Sunnyside Road heads due west. On the south side there is a point where the embankment drops off to an unmanageable condition where the pipeline will change to the north side of Sunnyside Rd.; South across the Conservation Authority lands through a fire break in the plantation forest to Highway 401; South under Highway 401 and a narrow section of Little Cataraqui Creek to the end of Binnington Court; South along the City of Kingston easement (rear of lots on West of Binnington Court to Dalton Road); East on the north side of Dalton Road to the east side of Sir John A. MacDonald Blvd.; South on the east side of Sir John A. MacDonald Blvd. to Johnson Street; East on the north side of Johnson Street to the west side of Albert Street; South on the west side of Albert Street to Union Street; East on the north side of Union Street to University Avenue; and South on the west side of University Avenue to the Central Heating Plant (the terminus of the pipeline) December SENES Consultants Limited