Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the Contact Us page.

Notice of permit

Regional or Local Number: DFO-16-HCAA-01491

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the provisions of section 73 of the Species at Risk Act permit no. DFO-16-HCAA-01491 is issued.

Activity affecting the species is incidental to the carrying out of the activity

The pipeline replacement requires temporary, short term in-stream isolation, fish relocation and dewatering. Pugnose Shiner may be present in the watercourse at the location of the isolation works.

Start Date: 2017-02-23   End Date: 2017-03-15

Issuing Authority: Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Authority Used:

  • Species at Risk Act

Location of Activity (province, territory or ocean):

  • Ontario

Affected Species:

a) Alternatives: Trenchless crossing of these watercourses is feasible but is not the preferred option as the size of the pipe to be installed has a significant impact on the difficulty and cost associated with trenchless installation compared to open cut methods. At 91.44cm, the proposed pipeline is considered large, which limits the instances for which trenchless would be the preferred method. As directed by the Ontario Energy Board, Union Gas is to try to reduce costs to the customer as they are directly paid by customers at these locations. Open cut methods are significantly cheaper to install compared to trenchless crossing. Open cut requires far less time to complete which reduces the amount of time that heavy equipment, generators, and pumps are working in the vicinity of the watercourse causing impacts through vibration and the risk of spills. Open cut methods have less risk of coating damage and/or cathodic protection issues and therefore less risk of long term integrity issues that may cause additional replacement crossings at a later date. Open cut methods have the ability to adapt to any unforeseen ground conditions or inaccurate utility information increasing the success of installation. Trenchless crossings contain a risk of failure that may require the drill/bore to be pulled and reattempted, thus increasing the duration of the activity, or use open cut methods to install the pipe as a backup. The aquatic habitat observed at SC23, SC24, and SC28 is not limited to the pipeline crossing location and was prevalent along at least 300 m of the watercourse during field investigations. b) Measures to minimize impact: Union Gas has agreed to use additional mitigation measures for open-cut crossings at SC23, 24, and 28. Extra pumps will be readily available on-site to pass higher flows (i.e. a 2-year return event) should they occur. Pumps will be discharged using a flow velocity dissipation device to reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation downstream if required. Silt fencing will be upgraded to double rows of reinforced silt fencing with straw bales in between, or a two-layered system of re-enforced silt fencing with silt socks where appropriate. Daily monitoring during the timing window extension to identify deficiencies in erosion and sediment control measures will be conducted. An environmental monitor will be on-site during the in-water installation of temporary crossings and during the installation and removal of isolation measures, and during any in-water work associated with the crossings. c) Effects on survival and recovery: It is expected that there will be little impact, if any, to any species at risk.

Contact Person(s)
Mr. Raymond Ratynski
Regional Manager, Species at Risk Program
Freshwater Institute, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
501 University Crescent
Winnipeg, MB
R3T 2N6
Tel: 204-983-4438
Fax: 204-983-5192