1.1 Additional Information regarding Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands
Reference:
The following references pertain to all of the following documents: A86117, A86118, A86119, A86120, A86121, A86123, A86122, A86124, A86125, A86126, A86127, A86128, A86169, A86170, A86383, A86386, A86658, A86660, A86661, A86662, A86663, A86664, A86665, A86666, A87482, A87487, A87494, A87499,A87501, A87505, A87509, A87510, A87513, A87514, A87515, A87519
2 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain)
Information Request No. 1 – Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands
i) Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain), Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP), Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands, PDF pages 3 to 5 ii) Trans Mountain, TMEP, Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands, PDF 14 and/or 15
Preamble:
In reference i), Trans Mountain requests that the Board issue Orders the effect of which is intended to:
- Direct the relevant landowners and occupants to permit temporary access to their lands; and
- Forbid the relevant landowner or occupant to deny or obstruct Trans Mountain, or its representatives and agents, in gaining temporary access to the property.
Reference i) states that in order to satisfy the NEB’s 157 conditions for the TMEP, Trans Mountain must complete certain studies, surveys, or examinations (“Studies”) on the property. Further, Trans Mountain states that it must file certain information with the Board, including engineering, environmental, socio-economic, and geotechnical information for the TMEP, and that it is not possible to do so unless the property can be physically accessed by Trans Mountain’s representatives in order to perform the Studies.
Further, in reference i), Trans Mountain states it has been unable to access the Property in order to complete the Studies.
In reference i), Trans Mountain states that it relies upon section 73(a) of the NEB Act which confirms its legal right to enter into and on the land of any person, lying in the intended route of its pipeline.
In reference ii), in her affidavit, Trisha Lucas indicates that she is advised that further attempts to obtain voluntary consent from landowners to access the property to perform the Studies will prejudice Trans Mountain by causing increased costs for the approval and construction of the Project, and, creating further unwarranted delays in respect of fulfilling conditions mandated by the NEB.
3 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain)
Information Request No. 1 – Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands
Request:
a) Relief Requested
a.1) Explain how the relevant landowner/occupant has been made aware that their refusal to permit Trans Mountain temporary access contravenes Trans Mountain’s power to enter into or on lands as authorized in subsection 73(a) of the NEB Act.
a.2) Provide a more detailed description of how the landowner/occupant has denied or obstructed Trans Mountain from gaining temporary access to the lands.
b) For each parcel of land associated with Trans Mountain’s Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands:
Individuals Involved
b.1) Identify the registered landowner(s) or occupant;
Trans Mountain’s Studies
b.2) Identify the NEB condition or conditions (as applicable) that relate to the required Studies for each parcel;
b.3) Summarize what work has been completed to date;
b.4) Describe what work is remaining;
b.5) Specify the timing and duration of when the work is expected to occur;
Location of Trans Mountain’s Studies
b.6) Clarify whether the work is to occur on Trans Mountain’s existing right of way and if not, identify the approximate location of where this work is to occur;
Detailed Consultation Log
b.7) Provide a detailed log of the consultations with all landowners/occupants served with a Notice of Motion for Temporary Access to Certain Lands, relating to requests for temporary land access and the Studies. Include in the log all concerns expressed by the landowners/occupants related to temporary land access and the Studies, as well as Trans Mountain’s efforts to address those concerns.
Response:
a.1) On August 24, 2017, Trans Mountain sent a final letter to all landowners referenced in: A86117, A86118, A86119, A86120, A86121, A86123, A86122, A86124, A86125, A86126, A86127, A86128, A86169, A86170, A86383, A86386, A86658, A86660, A86661, A86662, A86663, A86664, A86666, A87482, A87487, A87494, A87499, A87501, A87505, A87509, A87510, A87513, A87514, A87515, A87519. This letter requested the respective landowners provide Trans Mountain voluntary access to the lands identified in the applications. This letter also indicated that Trans Mountain had not yet received the respective landowners’ consent to access the lands identified in the respective applications to complete the necessary studies. Trans Mountain further
4 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain)
Information Request No. 1 – Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands
advised that as a result, Trans Mountain was preparing an application to the NEB under section 73 of the NEB Act requesting Board approval to access the lands identified in the respective applications in order to complete certain studies. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Appendix “A”.
The landowner in reference A86665 was provided this letter on September 22, 2017, as indicated in the affidavit of Trisha Lucas filed in support of the application (Filing ID A86665). Trans Mountain notes that the application found in reference A87512 was subsequently amended to make minor formatting corrections and refiled as A87487 on November 2, 2017. Trans Mountain hereby requests that the Board disregard A86665 and make reference to A87512 for the landowner in question.
a.2) Landowners and/or occupants were provided with an information package that included a consent form providing Trans Mountain temporary access to the lands identified in the applications referenced in Reference i). Trans Mountain notes that if consent was not provided upon first contact, additional efforts were made to obtain landowner and/or occupant consent and Trans Mountain submits that these efforts are detailed within the respective affidavits of Trisha Lucas. Trans Mountain has also provided detailed logs of its consultations with all landowners and/or occupants served with a Notice of Motion for Temporary Access to Certain Lands, relating to requests for temporary land access and the Studies, attached hereto as Appendix “B”. Trans Mountain notes consent for temporary land access was continually sought on an ongoing basis where consent for temporary land access was not provided. Trans Mountain submits that it has the right to enter lands pursuant to section 73(a) and frustrating that right is contrary to the National Energy Board Act (the “Act”), whether by denying Trans Mountain temporary land access upon first contact and maintaining that denial or by providing consent and then later revoking it. Trans Mountain further submits that the Board has the authority to issue an order forbidding any action contrary to the provisions of the Act and that it is in the public interest for the Board to receive complete survey information to fully assess environmental, engineering and land issues.
b.1) Trans Mountain has detailed all relevant landowner and study information in a table attached hereto as Appendix “C”. See Appendix B for identification of all landowners and/or occupants for each parcel of land associated with Trans Mountain’s Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands.
b.2) See attached Appendix B.
b.3) See attached Appendix B.
b.4) See attached Appendix B.
b.5) See attached Appendix B.
b.6) See attached Appendix B.
b.7) Trans Mountain has provided detailed logs of its consultations with all landowners and/or occupants served with a Notice of Motion for Temporary Access to Certain Lands, relating to requests for temporary land access and the Studies. The logs provided reflect
5 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain)
Information Request No. 1 – Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands
a complete record of all interactions between Trans Mountain and the landowners and/or occupants served with a Notice of Motion for Temporary Access to Certain Lands relating to requests for temporary land access and the Studies to date. The logs reflect all concerns expressed by the landowners and/or occupants related to temporary land access and the Studies, as well as Trans Mountain’s efforts to address those concerns. The detailed logs of consultation with all landowners and/or occupants served with a Notice of Motion for Temporary Access to Certain Lands, relating to requests for temporary land access and the Studies is attached hereto as Appendix “B”.
6 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain)
Information Request No. 1 – Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands
Suite 2700, 300 – 5 Avenue SW, Calgary, AB T2P 5J2 CANADA
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL [DATE] Attention: [ADDRESS] Dear Landowner: Re: Trans Mountain Expansion Project (“Project” or “TMEP”) Request for Study Access
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (“Trans Mountain”) respectfully requests your consent to temporarily access your lands in order to complete certain studies, surveys or examinations (“Studies”) that are required by the National Energy Board (“NEB” or “Board”) for the TMEP. These Studies are described in the attached Field Program Description.
On December 1st, 2016, the NEB issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Project under section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (“NEB Act”). The Certificate authorizes Trans Mountain to construct the TMEP within the approved corridor subject to additional requirements, which include fulfilling 157 conditions mandated by the NEB. In order to fulfil the conditions, Trans Mountain has previously notified you that it must complete certain Studies on your lands. There is a low risk of any damage to your lands as a result of the Studies. However, Trans Mountain acknowledges and commits to comply with its obligations pursuant to section 75 of the NEB Act to do as little damage as possible in conducting its Studies and to make full compensation for any damage sustained.
To date, Trans Mountain has not received your consent to access your lands in order to complete these Studies. As a result, Trans Mountain is preparing an application to the NEB under section 73 of the NEB Act requesting Board approval to access your lands in order to complete certain Studies. If you are willing to consent to these Studies, or have any questions, please contact Trans Mountain on or before August 21, 2017 by email at [email protected] or by phone at 1-866-454-4717. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Carey Johannesson Project Advisor, Land and Right-of-Way Encl.
7 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain)
Information Request No. 1 – Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands
Appendix B
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA & Geotech Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 969 PID: 013-156-152 Landowner names: Denika Pamela Crucis Heaton Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner does not consent to Trans Mountain entering, accessing, utilizing or otherwise conducting surveys, geotechnical investigations or other investigations on this property. Landowner further advised that she does not consent to these surveys and investigations as her concerns for erosion have not been relieved. Landowner explained that the future development of this property will be infringed and impeded upon. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 22/12 – Land Agent, Dave Wood (DW) made phone call to Denika Heaton (L/O), requested information via courier and provided address in Halifax. Nov 13/12 –CF (Colleen Flynn) made phone call to L/O, L/O received package last week, will review and will call DW with any questions. Nov 20/12 – DW received call from L/O, L/O requested a copy of the SRW document and legal survey plan. L/O also requested a larger copy of the IOS as she believes the pipeline does not cross her property, advises DW that she approves of the access on the existing R/W only, and to send the documents via email. Nov 28/12 – Carla Xavier (CX) received a call from L/O wondering if we were able to obtain copies of documents she requested. Emailed L/O the easement and amending agreement for her review. Nov 30/12 – CX emailed L/O a larger version of the plan showing the R/W boundaries on her property. Received email confirmation from L/O that she has sent the signed consent and plan via mail. Jun 12/13 – Joey Andries (JA) sent email to L/O after conversation concerning Geotechnical Investigations, sent a photo of the Drill Rig that would be used. Jun 17/13 – JA received email response back from L/O with a list of questions and concerns regarding information package sent. Jul 5/13 – JA responded to questions and concerns from L/O regarding geotechnical investigations Jul 16/13 – JA received an email from L/O advising refusal of all survey’s, geotechnical investigations or any other investigations on her property as she has concerns of erosion, future development on her property, associated stigma of the pipeline expansion and injurious effects of future use of her land. Apr 1/15 – Darrell Goruk (DG) received call from L/O in response to a message left via phone, L/O would like to have a preliminary mail out with the information and confirmed it would come via registered mail. Apr 15/15 – Land Administrator sent out a copy of the NEB Section 87 Notice and Agreement for Grant of Statutory Rights of Way to L/O via registered mail. Dec 8/15 – DG called and left message for L/O.
May 13/15 – DG sent email to L/O for geotech access, also called Purchaser, Vic Reddy and left a message requesting a call back. Jan 14/17 – DG sent email to L/O to continue discussions Apr 10/17 – DG sent email to L/O to solicit a response to confirm contact information as to where we can send the Section 34 notice. Apr 12/17 – DG received email from L/O confirming correct address to send correspondences August 24/17 – Letter sent from Progress Land Services office via regular mail requesting access for studies. Aug 31/17 – DG sent follow up email to L/O to confirm she has received the letter requesting access for studies. Sept 1/17 – DG received a return email from L/O’s lawyer, Darryl Carter advising that it was not an adequate amount of time for a response but will consider granting access but would like to know the exact purpose of the studies, the area being requested, the time frame and the compensation being offered. Sept 5/17 – DG sent an email to L/O’s lawyer responding to the questions and concerns in his previous email. Sept 6/17- DG received response from Darryl Carter requesting clarification and sketch of Geotech area requested. Sept 6/17- DG received email from Elliott suggesting that manager will take lead with any further response.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 974.01 PID: 011-931-761 Landowner names: Lois Olga Freeman c/o Jason C. Dennis, Power of Attorney Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowners request an Easement Agreement to the "Land Owners" providing compensation to the Land Owners for temporary right to access Freeman Land for reconnaissance purposes AND such Easement Agreement is agreed to and signed by Lois Olga Freeman, Melissa Ann Freeman and Jason Cameron Dennis (seasonal occupants). Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Aug 27/12 - Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) confirmed address on US white pages listing. Telephone number is unlisted. Information package sent out to landowner via registered mail. Oct 9/12 - Received survey consent with Attachment A: Terms and Conditions: Lois Olga Freeman and family (herein referred to as "Land Owners") expressly denies Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P., its affiliates, successor, assigns, employees, contractors, and agents (collectively, "Trans Mountain") and all others any right to enter the above-described lands (herein referred to as Freeman Land) by foot or by vehicles for any reason until Trans Mountain tenders an Easement Agreement to the "Land Owners" providing compensation to the Land Owners for temporary right to access Freeman Land for reconnaissance purposes AND such Easement Agreement is agreed to and signed by Lois Olga Freeman, Melissa Ann Freeman and Jason Cameron Dennis. Any Trans Mountain employee or affiliate who enters Freeman Land without the Land Owners' express permission (as granted in the Easement Agreement) is guilt of Trespass as defined in The Trespass Act (B.C.) and will be subject to arrest. "A peace officer may arrest without warrant any person found on or in premises if the peace officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that the person is committing an offence under section 4 in relation to the premises." This Easement Agreement (for temporary right to access) must be specific to reconnaissance and surveying only and not inclusive of proposed pipeline construction if any, which would necessitate further negotiation and compensation to the Land Owners if such construction is accepted at all. This land has been n the Freeman family for over 100 years and the Land Owners have near-term plans for developing this beloved property into a lodge and retreat. Trans Mountain's Easement Agreement offer should include the following provisions: 1. A specific start and end date during which time surveying will be conducted; 2. Amount of compensation; 3. Indemnification clause indemnifying Land Owners for any damage Trans Mountain causes to 3rd parties, its employees or its affiliates while on Freeman Land.; 4. Property damage clause guaranteeing compensation for any damage done to the land, streams, water access, embellishments, flora or fauna etc… This response letter and the ensuing Easement Agreement neither waives nor amends any rights granted to the Land Owners by the Canadian Government or any other pertinent governing body. Aug 5/15 – Land Administrator, Manda Harding sent Section 87, agreement and bonus letter to Lois Freeman via Registered Mail Dec 7/15 – DG sent email to address in file; to Melissa Freeman (Throop?) No numbers for any parties available Feb 14/16 – DG sent & received emails to daughter; Scan & send documents to Melissa for review April 18/16- e-mail Geotech workspace document. Receive signed copy and forward to admin. Received verbal consent to complete required environmental surveys. May 4/16 – DG received wish list; review and receive approval; return for email confirmation by Owner
May 11/16 – DG called and emailed to confirm landowners will receive e-payments from office; contact Landowner – ready to sign; Return to office for mail delivery. May 23/16- Landowners have voided Geotech payment check and will return to office. Requesting payment by e-transfer. June 21/16- Melissa sent in email informing us that another family member also has POA for Lois Jul 29/16 – Land Administrator, Trisha Lucas (TL) sent email to Melissa Freeman in regards to obtaining an original copy of the Power of Attorney document, a court-certified committeeship order or a court-certified vesting order Aug 2/16 – TL received a copy of the Power of Attorney document from Melissa via email Aug 10/16 – DG received an email from Melissa regarding an original copy of the Power of Attorney, she is unable to locate the original and has done some research on how to replace Dec 10/16 – DG received an email from Melissa advising the status of obtaining an original copy of the Power of Attorney document, advised that another family member may be able to obtain an original copy and would follow up Dec 22/16- DG received scanned copy of POA from Melissa for Jason Denis. Forward to admin Jan 4/17- Admin send additional documents with explanation regarding requirements for registration. Forward to Melissa May 17/17- Confirm with office that survey consent was verbally granted back in April 2016 when Geotech activity workspace was granted. Oct 15/17- Scan and email 104 letter to Melissa to share with POA. Oct 23/17- DG emailed back and forth with Melissa regarding content of 104 letter and status of acquisition. DG explained that file is being completed out of the office and will pass current emails and enquires forward to administration.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA & Wetlands Land Agent: Peter McLeod Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 998 PID: 007-573-928a Landowner names: Richard Francis Calcutta As To An Undivided 1/2 Interest Darlene Sharon Grandbois As To An Undivided 1/2 Interest Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Mr. Calcutta is not happy with the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and does not support it. He does not wish to give his consent, nor want anybody on his property. He also asked that we not contact his lawyer regarding this matter. Note this is an undivided 1/2 interest with tract 999. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Aug 1/12 – Land Agent, Dave Wood (DW) met with Richard Calcutta (L/O), L/O advised Mrs. Grandbois moved 5 years, DW to follow up. Aug 10/12 – DW attempted to visit Mr. Calcutta’s residence, left card. Aug 20/12 – DW attempted to visit Mr. Calcutta’s residence, DW made a call to the management company who confirmed Mr. Calcutta lives with his mother in an unknown suite, left an envelope asking Richard to call DW. Sept 1, 3, 10, 16, 18, 26/12 – DW placed calls to L/O, left messages. Sept 27/12 – Colleen Flynn (CF) placed a call to Dedar Developments Corp. which is owned by Niho Land & Cattle group and spoke with John, they’ve advised they currently have a meeting scheduled with another land agent regarding the project and they’ve advised they will not go out on a limb for Mr. Calcutta, they will give consent but not on behalf of Mr. Calcutta or Ms. Grandbois. Sept 12/12 – CF spoke with receptionist of L/O’s lawyer, Halldor Bjarnason, She will leave a message for Halldor that we need to speak with Mr. Calcutta. Sept 27/12 – CF met with Darlene Grandbois at her residence regarding their property on Yellowhead Hwy, Tract 998 and discussed the survey consent form. Darlene advised she can’t make any decisions or sign anything until she speaks to her uncle Richard Calcutta. Informs us that Richard is very hard to get a hold of but she will call him today and leave a message. CF left two copies of the survey consent form and a copy of the plan. Darlene will call as soon as she speaks to her uncle and will arrange to meet o have the plans and consent reviewed and signed. Sept 28/12 – CF spoke with Phil McKenzie (PM) who has received consent from Rudy Nielson at Dedar for tract 999. Oct 15/12 – CF received call from Darlene Grandbois who confirmed she has left 2-3 messages with Richard Calcutta but has not yet heard from him. Oct 15/12 – CF placed a call to L/O’s lawyer, spoke to receptionist who confirmed that Mr. Bjarnason has been trying to contact Mr. Calcutta but has not been able to reach him. Oct 15/12 – CF attempted call to Richard Calcutta and left message to call back regarding consent form. Oct 16/12 – DW received a call from Richard Calcutta, he is not happy with the expansion of the pipeline and does not support it. He does not wish to give verbal or written consent nor does he want anybody on his property, L/O has requested we not contact his lawyer regarding this matter. Nov 26/12 – Land Administrator sent out information package and copy of refusal survey form via registered mail. Feb 4/15 – DW attempted call to L/O, left message regarding SRW and section 87.
Feb 16/15 – DW received return call from L/O regarding message left on Feb 4th. Mar 5/15 – DW placed a call to L/O and left message. June 10/15 – DW placed a call to L/O and left message regarding SRW and compensation. Jul 2/15 – DW placed call to L/O, no answer, left message. Aug 6/15 – Land Administrator served Section 87, sent copy of Agreement and bonus letter via registered mail to Richard Calcutta. Aug 13/15 – Land Administrator served Section 87, sent copy of Agreement and bonus letter to two different addresses on file for Darlene Grandbois via registered mail. Sept 30/15 – Don Grossberndt (DG) placed call to Mr. Calcutta’s residence, no answer, left message. Oct 3, 7, 9/15 – DG placed call to Mr. Calcutta’s residence, left message. Oct 25/15 – DG cold call to residence in east Vancouver, rang bell on entrance, waited until noon. No answer and no names on the mailbox, returned at 2pm and rang bell again, no answer. Oct 25/15 – DG cold call to Darlene Grandbois residence in Surrey, Occupant Colin advises Darlene has not lived on the property for 2+ years, drove to other address on file, occupant says she does not live there and does now know her. Oct 27/15 – DG placed call to Richard to verify that access on road for environmental studies was required and advised him to call if he had any issues. Jan 01/16 – DG attempted to call residence, left message providing an update and requested a return call. Dec 7/16 – Peter McLeod (PML) placed call to L/O, no answer. Dec 12/16 – PML cold call to L/O’s residence, no answer. Dec 15/16 – PML received a call from L/O’s roommate, he advised that Richard isn’t around often but will leave a note for him to call back. Mar 21/17 – PML attempted call to L/O, left message requesting a call back. Apr 18/17 - PML attempted call to L/O, left message requesting a call back. Apr 21/17 – PML cold call to residence, rang buzzer for apartment, no answer. May 10/17 – PML attempted call to L/O, voicemail box full. May 15/17 – Sent out Section 34 Notice by registered mail to Darlene Grandbois at
and . Sent out Section 34 Notice to Richard Calcutta at
May 16/17 – Recipient not located at address provided. Section 34 Notice being returned to sender (Darlene Grandbois-12142-98A Ave). May 23/17 – Received returned registered mail (Darlene Grandbois at ). Jun 5/17 – Received returned registered mail packages (Richard Calcutta and Darlene Grandbois at
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA & Wetlands Land Agent: Phil McKenzie Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 999 PID: 007-573-928b Landowner names: Dedar Development Corp. As To An Undivided 1/2 Interest Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Tracts 998 and 999 is an undivided 1/2 interest. The landowner, Rudy Nielson of Dedar Development Corp. provided written consent. However, the landowner of tract 998, Richard Calcutta, refused survey consent. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Sep 27/12 - Land Agent, Phil McKenzie (PM) called Rudy Nielsen to discuss Project and scheduled Meeting for Sept 28/12 Sep 28/12 – PM Met with Owner Rudy Nielsen and discussed project, Owner signed Consent Form Sep 28/12 – PM Met with Rudy Nielsen & John March; discussed the Project; they hold this Project with Richard Calcutta who they dislike; Rudy wonders why this Project does not use his company for all land data; as they have it all; Rudy signed consent form Feb 18/15 – PM called Rudy Nielsen and advised of plan to Option R/W; snet Section 87 Notice & agreement to Grant to Rudy Nielsen / John March via email Feb 25/15 – PM called Rudy Nielsen – left a message to call Mar 2/15 – PM received an email from Rudy Nielsen that he has a partner on this property that he has had to hire a Lawyer to force the partner to sell the property; Says he cannot do anything on this property; Replied that Project is dealing with Richard Calcutta separately Mar 3/15 – PM received an email from Rudy Nielsen to sign up Richard Calcutta first – Sent email to Land Agent, Dave Wood; as he is dealing with Calcutta Aug 21/15 – Land Administrator sent registered letter and served Section 87 to Landowners Dedar Development Corp. or Rudy Nielsen; also sent letter of agreement and bonus letter. Oct 20/16 – Phil McKenzie had telephone conversation with Joanne Nelsen (Rudy’s wife) – Phil McKenzie emailed revised sketch to Joanne Nielsen. Joanne Nielsen advised they have received a court order for the sale of the property in May 2015, they have had plenty of interest however there are issues with the pipelines on the property. April 17/17 – Phil McKenzie emailed Section 34 Notice to Rudy and Joanne Nielsen, advised that he had to meet with them to present the Section 34 Notice in person. April 19/17 – Phil McKenzie met with Rudy Nielsen and presented the Section 34 Notice.
Dedar have signed the survey consent form.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA & Wetlands Land Agent: Dave Wood Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 1000 PID: 010-771-093 Landowner names: Darren Dennis Burdeny Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner advised that he wants specific information as to what environmental work will be undertaken on his property. He had property in the USA reviewed for similar environmental studies which froze 50 acres of land for development. Phone calls were not returned by the landowner after the initial consultation by the Land Agent. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 21/12 – Land Agent, Dave Wood (DW) visited the residence of the landowner, Darren Burdeny (L/O) no answer. Oct 22/12 - DW called the L/O and left a letter and his card at the residence. DW received a call from the L/O, DW delivered the information package to the L/O along with the consent form. Nov 7/12 - DW called L/O, left message. Nov 9/12 – DW received a call from the L/O who wants specific information as to what environmental work will be undertaken on his property. L/O advised that he had a USA property reviewed for similar environmental studies which froze 50 acres of the land for development. DW is to confirm what environmental studies will occur. Jan 19, 25/13 - DW called L/O, left message regarding access on the surface right of way. Feb 2/13 - DW called L/O, left message. Feb 21/15 – DW met with the L/O and his wife to review the NEB offer and left copy for their records, reviewed compensation, explained legal fees being compensated. Landowners advised they have two cabins and water well located approximately 150’ from the North Thompson River, or approx. 1100’ from the SRW, Kinder Morgan will not impact this water well or cabins during construction, Landowners advised DW that the SRW area is very wet and boggy, if clean fill is surplus during construction they would allow the placement of clean fill material on their property. Jul 4/15 – DW called L/O at 11:35 am regarding SRW, left message. Received email from L/O’s advising they are available to meet on Sunday July 5th, DW sent reply email advising he will meet them at 1pm at their residence. Jul 5/15 – DW met with L/O to review questions on SRW and changes made to the IOS. Aug 7/15 – DW sent email to L/O regarding the ancillary rights clause and requested a meeting to discuss. The owners are concerned about grantng ancillary rights across their property. They will grant ancillary rights only on the SRW and tempoary working space. Note: SRW and temporary working space are located on the west boundary of the property, there is no nned to access the Thompson River which is approximately 1100’ away. Aug 12/15 – DW sent email to L/O requesting a meeting to review some changes in the ancillary rights and the new SRW which allows Trans Mountain restricted access to the new wider SRW. Aug 13/15 – DW placed calls to L/O regarding changes made to the IOS, DW delivered a revised hand drawn IOS to L/O’s residence. Aug 16/15 – DLW received email from L/O stating he is currently away and will return in September , requests we email the proposal, DW sent response email advising he would email the sketch showing changes. Aug 18/15 – DLW sent email to L/O with changes made to the Schedule D to incorporate additions made to the agreement . Sept 1/15 – DW received an email from L/O with amendments to proposed Schedule D
Sept 3/15 – DW called L/O to arrange a meeting for Friday Sept 4/15 to review SRW. Sept 4/15 – DW met with L/O and discussed the following: Agreed that the R/W would increase by approx. 10m on the east side of the existing R/W to accommodate a future access road for Kinder Morgan’s maintenance and Operations department, this new 10m R/W will not include the rights to install a 3rd pipeline, DW to confirm with operations and the construction team regarding the additional 10m. TMEP will also inquire a new 10m r/w on the west side of the R/W and on the east side of the Canadian National Railway R/W for access purposes, reviewed new sketch, areas are approximate. Compensation for land value, TMEP agrees to use the 2015 BC assessment value. Ancillary rights will not be required over the remainder of the property, the owners driveway will be kept open 24/7 during construction. It is not necessary to auger under the driveway however steel plates must be utilized to allow 24/7 access. TMEP will compensate owner for one additional power pole. TMEP will pay owner compensation for the removal of 400’ of birch and silver birch trees that were planted adjacent to the driveway. Apr 24/17 – DW met with L/O to serve Section 34 notice, Darren advised he was contacted by CGLAP to join the class action suit against Trans Mountain. Jun 30/17 – DW met with L/O and his wife to review amendments to the agreements in Schedule D, Soil must be clean without contaminants, Drainage ditches in R/W area must remain post construction. R/W Crossing the driveway must be able to accommodate 40 ton trucks if IOS is revised landowner must agree and be compensated for any additional land required. L/O to be compensated for at least one additional BC Hydro power pole (Quote is for ). Comp for tree loss to be determined by arborist and paid post construction if the pipeline is ever abandoned the pipeline must be removed. Owners to be compensated for damages or contamination, owners to be indemnified for all liabilities. Jul 5/17 – DW received an email from Nicole Burdeny, L/O have reviewed the revised Schedule D and provided their comments; 1. Hydro Pole, on the updated compensation offer there is a notation about the BC Hydro pole compensation, the notation states “BC Hydro Pole Replacement at TMEP cost – to be added to Schedule D of the agreement. The wording must be clear that the compensation is required for one or more additional pole(s) that will be required to span the SRW when Hydro is brought onto the property. This is not to replace an existing pole. Compensation for Tree loss – Please clarify what compensation is expected to cover. Include the removal of Section 8, Ancillary Rights. Initial payment is still payable, extension cut off dates, and total compensation. Jul 6/17 – DW sent a response email to L/O, DW to revised the Schedule D pursuant to the owners comments. Oct 2/17 – DW placed a call to L/O to advise of the revised agreement and compensation, sent a follow up email as well regarding the delivery of the new SRW agreement and increased compensation for review by the landowners. Oct 4/17 – DW sent email to L/O to confirm meeting set for October 5th at 1pm at l/o’s residence. Oct 5/17 – DW met with the L/O’s and discussed preparing drawings showing existing and new Right of Way locations and a drawing showing the area at ancillary rights, clauses to schedule D confirming trees being removed will be left as firewood and compensation for any cost incurred by BC Hydro related to crossing the right of way. Adjust compensation to reflect current market value and compensate for tree loss. Served revised Section 87 notice, revised purchase agreement and compensation details for owners review. Oct 5-8/2017 – DW sent follow up email regarding the October 5th meeting, owner had further notes regarding tree compensation, per tree on the temporary workspace to replant for aesthetics. Oct 8/17 – DW received email from L/O regarding trees on the driveway being compensated to replant for aesthetics being
per tree. Tree’s cut down in the TWS will be saved and piled but do not require replanting compensation but there should be something for the premature cutting of the trees and aesthetics, L/O advises Kinder Morgan should be responsible for all stumpage fees and permits. Dec 4, 2017 Email to owner requesting a date & time to meet to finalize the compensation issues and have SRW agreement signed. DLW suggests Friday Dec 8 or Dec 9 at 12:30 PM Follow up with a call to Mr. Burdeny. Dec 4, 2017 the owners concerns are: compensation, ancillary rights, and access to their property during construction. I believe we can resolve these issues at our next meeting. We have had 28 meetings with the land owners and believe that we can resolve their issues in the next few meetings.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 1007 PID: 012-988-511 Landowner names: William Elmer Ehlers Mary Jacoba Ehlers Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: True Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Quads okay. Restricted to R.O.W. only. Wash down equipment prior to entry. Landowner very concerned about Knap Weed. Contact 48 hours prior to entry. June 22/16 – Land agent spoke to the landowner and he stated that the reason he requires all crews contact information (names and phone numbers) is so he can provide this information to the RCMP when he charges them with trespass when they leave the right of way. He stated “they always do”. Survey Refusal Comments: No survey on any property outside of the right of way, THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED TRESPASSING. June 22/16 – Land agent spoke to the landowner and he stated that the reason he requires all crews contact information (names and phone numbers) is so he can provide this information to the RCMP when he charges them with trespass when they leave the right of way. He stated “they always do”. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Aug 14/12 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) left voicemail message for Landowners Bill Ehlers and Mary Ehlers. Aug 16/12 –DG met with L/O’s, discussed project and obtained survey consent with terms and conditions. May 21/14 – DG met with L/O’s to review the sketch, L/O does not like the new routing as shown, there will be an abundance of trees taken out, he would prefer that we followed the powerline, advises the south end would also be taking out the existing road. L/O would like us to take workspace on BC Hydro R/W as that would leave less trees taken out. On the south west, L/O will not agree to the new easement and feels that we could stay within existing if we fill the low edge against the swamp for workspace. L/O’s would like to look at the possibility of a land swamp if KM could purchase the adjoining lot 1 for exchange as this is owned by the Department of Highways. L/O’s advised DG of environmental survey crews did not stay within the R/W as directed in survey conditions. DG reviewed documents and compensation, L/O does not agree with compensation and would not sign Section 87, Reviewed copy of easement and left copy for L/O’s. In exchange for any per acre payment for any agreed upon route, L/O would like to have the adjoining lot purchased for him and will allow a road easement through the lot for KM to access the R/W from Highway 5. Mar 24/16 –DG met with L/O’s to review new sketch, L/O does not like the new portion of R/W and is refusing at this time, L/O would like to see if we can add something concerning what hydro paid. Jun 22/16 – DG contacted L/O concerning conditions change for future survey access. Also discussed compensation for acquisition and request to be paid same amount as telus provided. Dec 13/16 – DG spoke to L/O and advised compensation will not be increased. Dec 16/16 – DG met with L/O’s, They would like us to move back into the existing R/W at the north end, L/O would like reference to ancillary rights crossed out of agreement, buy out orchard, keep 2 existing crossings and add one at north end, increase per acre rate by a percentage increase if any for 2016. Jan 12/17 – DG spoke with L/O via phone to discuss new R/W, discussed options on how to address his concerns. Apr 24/17 – DG met with L/O to deliver Section 34 notice. May 1/17 – DG received phone call from L/O advising he will be opposing the route.
Aug 23/17- S73 Letters sent out to Landowner. Aug 30/17-DG called Bill to discuss S73 and attempt to obtain survey access. Again told to not leave right of way and to call when coming out. Also informed DG that he doesn’t want to negotiate or discuss acquisition as it is starting to affect his respiratory health.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 1009 PID: 007-334-214 Landowner names: Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: True Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Oct 25/17 - All crews and access permitted EXCEPT for the Archaeological Studies. Crews are to contact the landowner prior to entry. Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Sep 14/12 – Land Agent, John Bjornson (JB), called Landowner, Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd., Per: Hans Wadlegger, and set up meeting for Monday, Sep 17/12. Sep 17/12 – JB met with Hans and Richard Wadlegger and delivered information package. They signed consent. No concerns. Quads ok. Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) Note: This parcel is part of the woodlot. All removed trees come off the annual allowable cut (aac). Hans Wadlegger would like to know if it would be possible to get an upfront number for all required lands, paid prior to constructing including all damage amounts. With this number, we need to put the land back as per reclamation practice. This number is for all properties involved including Darren and Barb Coates, Seppie, Hans and Joe Wadlegger properties. Future access to right of way when operating is and has been an issue. Nov 21/14 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served the Section 87. DG left copies for review. Apr 11/15 – DG sent email to Kim Muddiman with letter of cooperation to assistant. May 1/15 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34. Nov 24/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for clarification on what is different between the old right of way agreement and the new agreement and what new rights will be granted to Trans Mountain. Nov 30/15 – DG responded to Sepp Wadlegger’s providing details on terms on both new and old agreement (see email in file). Nov 30/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for a copy of the existing agreement so they can review it. DG sent copies of missing original agreements. Feb 17/16 – DG received email from Kim Muddiman advising he has finished compiling the packages that detail the Wadlegger response to the Trans Mountain R/W agreement offers and requested to meet. Feb 18/16 – DG sent an email to Land Managers, Joey Andries (JA) and Elliott Friedrich (EF) with attached summaries of the Wadlegger tracts. He advised he will meet with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger Feb 19/16 to discuss the summaries (see email in file). Feb 25/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with meeting summary and compensation breakdown (see email in file). Mar 13/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with extensive review of Wadlegger’s requests (see email in file). May 30/16 – DG sent an email to Hans and Seppi Wadlegger responding to their requested conditions and concerns (see email in file). DG forwarded this email to JA and EF. Jun 10/16 – DG advised that Hans and Seppi Wadlegeer and rescinded all survey access consent. Aug 8/16 – DG sent an email to Bob Love and Joey Andries advising he had talked to Hans Wadlegger concerning suspending further negotiation and managerial inclusion until final approval is achieved end of year. Hans indicated he has no issue with keeping things on hold until then and thanked us for letting him know the status of his request.
Sep 22/16 – DG sent an email to Joey Andries advising that Matt Roberts is out doing locates for the Geotech sites acquired this spring. DG contacted Hans Wadlegger on their behalf for access and Hans is allowing us to enter to do our work for these sites that have been acquired and paid for. Jan 12/17 – DG sent an email to JA and EF advising that regarding moving forward with the Wadlegger’s, all negotiations had been suspended with the message that their request to meet with Bob Love or JA would not be happening until after all approvals were received and they were in agreement with that. DG suggested a conference call with all parties (see email in file). Jan 17/17 – JA arranged conference call with Bob Love to commit for a time to meet with Wadlegger’s to continue. Bob to advise. May 1/17 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34’s. They informed DG that they will only meet to discuss items contained in their addendum. May 16/17 – DG talked to JA and advised that Wadlegger’s are anxious to have a meeting. Oct 25/17 – Meeting at the Clearwater Lodge, In attendance was Sepp Wadlegger, Kim Muddiman, Joey Andries and Darrell Goruk. Subjects discussed; Wadlegger had comparative values prepared by real estate agent which included improvements to land, damages to be discussed file by file, discussed prescribed area/safety zone, Timber – Wadlegger value proposal based on professional foresters determination using industry accepted models. Access, Wadlegger would like to negotiate designated access to apply to both expansion and maintenance. Long term nuisance and risk: Wadleggers would like a proposal from Kinder Morgan on how to compensate. Decrease of value of lands; Isolated land parcels and removing future subdivision potential due to new r/w location, Wadleggers have proposed a percentage basis of land value. Site specific issues have been noted for each property. Properties that are listed for sale. Archeological situations on coates property. Survey access – there are no issues. Nov 15/17 – Hans Wadlegger sent email to DG and cc’d Joey Andries, Bob Love, Joseph Wadlegger and Kim Muddiman to clarify what was discussed at the previous meeting and address a few concerns. Hans has advised that while they agreed to allow surveys to continue on his properties he must still be notified when we plan to enter. Hans continues to not allow any archy crews on any of the properties due to the possibility of any found sites putting restrictions on theit land.Hans advises that on November 13th, Opus was heading down past Sep’s to conduct TMEP business without notification, and they were only aware this happened because they happened to be on the property, also advised that on November 14th while he was driving home from Avola he had seen the Opus truck in his pasture, when he stopped to chat with the associate he formed him that there was a second truck also on the property. Opus had not attempted to contact Hans prior to the 13th, however they did contact the office on the 14th and were given Hans’ number and advised not to travel on his property until they were able to reach Hans or Sep, they did not reach them but still trespassed on the property. Hans is upset that he now has to take time out of his day to deal with Kinder Morgan business by writing emails, inspecting his land for damage and speaking to Kinder Morgan staff while not being compensated. Nov 23/17 – Joey Andries responded to email received from Hans Wadlegger on November 15th to apologize for the oversight, as it was not noted that notification was still required on all survey work. Joey has advised Hans that this will be included in the next weekly update for all crews. Joey has advised Hans that Glenn Miller, Senior Land Negotiator with Kinder Morgan will now be working with them on the file details along with Darrell Goruk.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 1011 PID: 011-080-361 Landowner names: Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: True Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Oct 25/17 - All crews and access permitted EXCEPT for the Archaeological Studies. Crews are to contact the landowner prior to entry. Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Sep 14/12 – Land Agent, John Bjornson (JB), called Landowner, Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd., Per: Hans Wadlegger, and set up meeting for Monday, Sep 17/12. Sep 17/12 – JB met with Hans and Richard Wadlegger and delivered information package. They signed consent. No concerns. Quads ok. Nov 21/14 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served the Section 87. DG left copies of documents for review. Apr 11/15 – DG sent email to Kim Muddiman with IOS and copy of cooperation letter. May 1/15 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34. Nov 24/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for clarification on what is different between the old right of way agreement and the new agreement and what new rights will be granted to Trans Mountain. Nov 30/15 – DG responded to Sepp Wadlegger’s providing details on terms on both new and old agreement (see email in file). Nov 30/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for a copy of the existing agreement so they can review it. DG sent copies of missing original agreements. Feb 17/16 – DG received email from Kim Muddiman advising he has finished compiling the packages that detail the Wadlegger response to the Trans Mountain R/W agreement offers and requested to meet. Feb 18/16 – DG sent an email to Land Managers, Joey Andries (JA) and Elliott Friedrich (EF) with attached summaries of the Wadlegger tracts. He advised he will meet with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger Feb 19/16 to discuss the summaries (see email in file). Feb 25/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with meeting summary and compensation breakdown (see email in file). Mar 13/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with extensive review of Wadlegger’s requests (see email in file). May 30/16 – DG sent an email to Hans and Seppi Wadlegger responding to their requested conditions and concerns (see email in file). DG forwarded this email to JA and EF. Jun 10/16 – DG advised that Hans and Seppi Wadlegeer and rescinded all survey access consent. Aug 8/16 – DG sent an email to Bob Love and Joey Andries advising he had talked to Hans Wadlegger concerning suspending further negotiation and managerial inclusion until final approval is achieved end of year. Hans indicated he has no issue with keeping things on hold until then and thanked us for letting him know the status of his request. Sep 22/16 – DG sent an email to Joey Andries advising that Matt Roberts is out doing locates for the Geotech sites acquired this spring. DG contacted Hans Wadlegger on their behalf for access and Hans is allowing us to enter to do our work for these sites that have been acquired and paid for. Jan 12/17 – DG sent an email to JA and EF advising that regarding moving forward with the Wadlegger’s, all negotiations had been suspended with the message that their request to meet with Bob Love or JA would not be happening until after
all approvals were received and they were in agreement with that. DG suggested a conference call with all parties (see email in file). Jan 17/17 – JA arranged conference call with Bob Love to commit for a time to meet with Wadlegger’s to continue. Bob to advise. May 1/17 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34’s. They informed DG that they will only meet to discuss items contained in their addendum. May 16/17 – DG talked to JA and advised that Wadlegger’s are anxious to have a meeting. Oct 25/17 – Meeting at the Clearwater Lodge, In attendance was Sepp Wadlegger, Kim Muddiman, Joey Andries and Darrell Goruk. Subjects discussed; Wadlegger had comparative values prepared by real estate agent which included improvements to land, damages to be discussed file by file, discussed prescribed area/safety zone, Timber – Wadlegger value proposal based on professional foresters determination using industry accepted models. Access, Wadlegger would like to negotiate designated access to apply to both expansion and maintenance. Long term nuisance and risk: Wadleggers would like a proposal from Kinder Morgan on how to compensate. Decrease of value of lands; Isolated land parcels and removing future subdivision potential due to new r/w location, Wadleggers have proposed a percentage basis of land value. Site specific issues have been noted for each property. Properties that are listed for sale. Archeological situations on coates property. Survey access – there are no issues. Nov 15/17 – Hans Wadlegger sent email to DG and cc’d Joey Andries, Bob Love, Joseph Wadlegger and Kim Muddiman to clarify what was discussed at the previous meeting and address a few concerns. Hans has advised that while they agreed to allow surveys to continue on his properties he must still be notified when we plan to enter. Hans continues to not allow any archy crews on any of the properties due to the possibility of any found sites putting restrictions on theit land.Hans advises that on November 13th, Opus was heading down past Sep’s to conduct TMEP business without notification, and they were only aware this happened because they happened to be on the property, also advised that on November 14th while he was driving home from Avola he had seen the Opus truck in his pasture, when he stopped to chat with the associate he formed him that there was a second truck also on the property. Opus had not attempted to contact Hans prior to the 13th, however they did contact the office on the 14th and were given Hans’ number and advised not to travel on his property until they were able to reach Hans or Sep, they did not reach them but still trespassed on the property. Hans is upset that he now has to take time out of his day to deal with Kinder Morgan business by writing emails, inspecting his land for damage and speaking to Kinder Morgan staff while not being compensated. Nov 23/17 – Joey Andries responded to email received from Hans Wadlegger on November 15th to apologize for the oversight, as it was not noted that notification was still required on all survey work. Joey has advised Hans that this will be included in the next weekly update for all crews. Joey has advised Hans that Glenn Miller, Senior Land Negotiator with Kinder Morgan will now be working with them on the file details along with Darrell Goruk.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 1012 PID: 011-080-345 Landowner names: Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: True Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Oct 25/17 - All crews and access permitted EXCEPT for the Archaeological Studies. Crews are to contact the landowner prior to entry. Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Sep 14/12 – Land Agent, John Bjornson (JB), called Landowner, Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd., Per: Hans Wadlegger, and set up meeting for Monday, Sep 17/12. Sep 17/12 – JB met with Hans and Richard Wadlegger and delivered information package. They signed consent. No concerns. Quads ok. Nov 21/14 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served the Section 87. DG left copies of documents for review. Apr 11/15 – DG sent email to Kim Muddiman with IOS and copy of cooperation letter to assistant. May 1/15 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34. Nov 24/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for clarification on what is different between the old right of way agreement and the new agreement and what new rights will be granted to Trans Mountain. Nov 30/15 – DG responded to Sepp Wadlegger’s providing details on terms on both new and old agreement (see email in file). Nov 30/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for a copy of the existing agreement so they can review it. DG sent copies of missing original agreements. Feb 17/16 – DG received email from Kim Muddiman advising he has finished compiling the packages that detail the Wadlegger response to the Trans Mountain R/W agreement offers and requested to meet. Feb 18/16 – DG sent an email to Land Managers, Joey Andries (JA) and Elliott Friedrich (EF) with attached summaries of the Wadlegger tracts. He advised he will meet with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger Feb 19/16 to discuss the summaries (see email in file). Feb 25/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with meeting summary and compensation breakdown (see email in file). Mar 13/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with extensive review of Wadlegger’s requests (see email in file). May 30/16 – DG sent an email to Hans and Seppi Wadlegger responding to their requested conditions and concerns (see email in file). DG forwarded this email to JA and EF. Jun 10/16 – DG advised that Hans and Seppi Wadlegeer and rescinded all survey access consent. Aug 8/16 – DG sent an email to Bob Love and Joey Andries advising he had talked to Hans Wadlegger concerning suspending further negotiation and managerial inclusion until final approval is achieved end of year. Hans indicated he has no issue with keeping things on hold until then and thanked us for letting him know the status of his request. Sep 22/16 – DG sent an email to Joey Andries advising that Matt Roberts is out doing locates for the Geotech sites acquired this spring. DG contacted Hans Wadlegger on their behalf for access and Hans is allowing us to enter to do our work for these sites that have been acquired and paid for. Jan 12/17 – DG sent an email to JA and EF advising that regarding moving forward with the Wadlegger’s, all negotiations had been suspended with the message that their request to meet with Bob Love or JA would not be happening until after
all approvals were received and they were in agreement with that. DG suggested a conference call with all parties (see email in file). Jan 17/17 – JA arranged conference call with Bob Love to commit for a time to meet with Wadlegger’s to continue. Bob to advise. May 1/17 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34’s. They informed DG that they will only meet to discuss items contained in their addendum. May 16/17 – DG talked to JA and advised that Wadlegger’s are anxious to have a meeting. Oct 25/17 – Meeting at the Clearwater Lodge, In attendance was Sepp Wadlegger, Kim Muddiman, Joey Andries and Darrell Goruk. Subjects discussed; Wadlegger had comparative values prepared by real estate agent which included improvements to land, damages to be discussed file by file, discussed prescribed area/safety zone, Timber – Wadlegger value proposal based on professional foresters determination using industry accepted models. Access, Wadlegger would like to negotiate designated access to apply to both expansion and maintenance. Long term nuisance and risk: Wadleggers would like a proposal from Kinder Morgan on how to compensate. Decrease of value of lands; Isolated land parcels and removing future subdivision potential due to new r/w location, Wadleggers have proposed a percentage basis of land value. Site specific issues have been noted for each property. Properties that are listed for sale. Archeological situations on coates property. Survey access – there are no issues. Nov 15/17 – Hans Wadlegger sent email to DG and cc’d Joey Andries, Bob Love, Joseph Wadlegger and Kim Muddiman to clarify what was discussed at the previous meeting and address a few concerns. Hans has advised that while they agreed to allow surveys to continue on his properties he must still be notified when we plan to enter. Hans continues to not allow any archy crews on any of the properties due to the possibility of any found sites putting restrictions on theit land.Hans advises that on November 13th, Opus was heading down past Sep’s to conduct TMEP business without notification, and they were only aware this happened because they happened to be on the property, also advised that on November 14th while he was driving home from Avola he had seen the Opus truck in his pasture, when he stopped to chat with the associate he formed him that there was a second truck also on the property. Opus had not attempted to contact Hans prior to the 13th, however they did contact the office on the 14th and were given Hans’ number and advised not to travel on his property until they were able to reach Hans or Sep, they did not reach them but still trespassed on the property. Hans is upset that he now has to take time out of his day to deal with Kinder Morgan business by writing emails, inspecting his land for damage and speaking to Kinder Morgan staff while not being compensated. Nov 23/17 – Joey Andries responded to email received from Hans Wadlegger on November 15th to apologize for the oversight, as it was not noted that notification was still required on all survey work. Joey has advised Hans that this will be included in the next weekly update for all crews. Joey has advised Hans that Glenn Miller, Senior Land Negotiator with Kinder Morgan will now be working with them on the file details along with Darrell Goruk.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 1014 PID: 011-080-311 Landowner names: Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: True Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Oct 25/17 - All crews and access permitted EXCEPT for the Archaeological Studies. Crews are to contact the landowner prior to entry. Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 20/12 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), met with Landowner, Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd., Per: Joseph Wadlegger. He signed survey consent. Conditions: Keep all gates closed. DG delivered September update. Nov 21/14 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served the Section 87. DG left copies of documents for review. Apr 11/15 – DG sent email to Kim Muddiman with IOS and copy of cooperation letter to assistant. May 1/15 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34. Nov 24/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for clarification on what is different between the old right of way agreement and the new agreement and what new rights will be granted to Trans Mountain. Nov 30/15 – DG responded to Sepp Wadlegger’s providing details on terms on both new and old agreement (see email in file). Nov 30/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for a copy of the existing agreement so they can review it. DG sent copies of missing original agreements. Feb 17/16 – DG received email from Kim Muddiman advising he has finished compiling the packages that detail the Wadlegger response to the Trans Mountain R/W agreement offers and requested to meet. Feb 18/16 – DG sent an email to Land Managers, Joey Andries (JA) and Elliott Friedrich (EF) with attached summaries of the Wadlegger tracts. He advised he will meet with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger Feb 19/16 to discuss the summaries (see email in file). Feb 25/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with meeting summary and compensation breakdown (see email in file). Mar 13/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with extensive review of Wadlegger’s requests (see email in file). May 30/16 – DG sent an email to Hans and Seppi Wadlegger responding to their requested conditions and concerns (see email in file). DG forwarded this email to JA and EF. Jun 10/16 – DG advised that Hans and Seppi Wadlegeer and rescinded all survey access consent. Aug 8/16 – DG sent an email to Bob Love and Joey Andries advising he had talked to Hans Wadlegger concerning suspending further negotiation and managerial inclusion until final approval is achieved end of year. Hans indicated he has no issue with keeping things on hold until then and thanked us for letting him know the status of his request. Sep 22/16 – DG sent an email to Joey Andries advising that Matt Roberts is out doing locates for the Geotech sites acquired this spring. DG contacted Hans Wadlegger on their behalf for access and Hans is allowing us to enter to do our work for these sites that have been acquired and paid for. Jan 12/17 – DG sent an email to JA and EF advising that regarding moving forward with the Wadlegger’s, all negotiations had been suspended with the message that their request to meet with Bob Love or JA would not be happening until after all approvals were received and they were in agreement with that. DG suggested a conference call with all parties (see email in file).
Jan 17/17 – JA arranged conference call with Bob Love to commit for a time to meet with Wadlegger’s to continue. Bob to advise. May 1/17 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34’s. They informed DG that they will only meet to discuss items contained in their addendum. May 16/17 – DG talked to JA and advised that Wadlegger’s are anxious to have a meeting. Oct 25/17 – Meeting at the Clearwater Lodge, In attendance was Sepp Wadlegger, Kim Muddiman, Joey Andries and Darrell Goruk. Subjects discussed; Wadlegger had comparative values prepared by real estate agent which included improvements to land, damages to be discussed file by file, discussed prescribed area/safety zone, Timber – Wadlegger value proposal based on professional foresters determination using industry accepted models. Access, Wadlegger would like to negotiate designated access to apply to both expansion and maintenance. Long term nuisance and risk: Wadleggers would like a proposal from Kinder Morgan on how to compensate. Decrease of value of lands; Isolated land parcels and removing future subdivision potential due to new r/w location, Wadleggers have proposed a percentage basis of land value. Site specific issues have been noted for each property. Properties that are listed for sale. Archeological situations on coates property. Survey access – there are no issues. Nov 15/17 – Hans Wadlegger sent email to DG and cc’d Joey Andries, Bob Love, Joseph Wadlegger and Kim Muddiman to clarify what was discussed at the previous meeting and address a few concerns. Hans has advised that while they agreed to allow surveys to continue on his properties he must still be notified when we plan to enter. Hans continues to not allow any archy crews on any of the properties due to the possibility of any found sites putting restrictions on theit land. Hans advises that on November 13th, Opus was heading down past Sep’s to conduct TMEP business without notification, and they were only aware this happened because they happened to be on the property, also advised that on November 14th while he was driving home from Avola he had seen the Opus truck in his pasture, when he stopped to chat with the associate he formed him that there was a second truck also on the property. Opus had not attempted to contact Hans prior to the 13th, however they did contact the office on the 14th and were given Hans’ number and advised not to travel on his property until they were able to reach Hans or Sep, they did not reach them but still trespassed on the property. Hans is upset that he now has to take time out of his day to deal with Kinder Morgan business by writing emails, inspecting his land for damage and speaking to Kinder Morgan staff while not being compensated. Nov 23/17 – Joey Andries responded to email received from Hans Wadlegger on November 15th to apologize for the oversight, as it was not noted that notification was still required on all survey work. Joey has advised Hans that this will be included in the next weekly update for all crews. Joey has advised Hans that Glenn Miller, Senior Land Negotiator with Kinder Morgan will now be working with them on the file details along with Darrell Goruk.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Taso Gavriel Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 1036 PID: 003-599-604 Landowner names: Steve Capostinsky Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner advised he is not in favor of the project. In his opinion the product should be refined in Canada and not in other countries, so the Canadians are benefiting and employed. Further advised that he does not agree with a private company getting rich off of a Canadian resource- if the government owned the company then he would be more in favor of the project as the revenues would benefit Canadians. Landowner was not prepared to provide permission to survey the property at this time. Do not access this property as it will be considered trespassing. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 19/12 – Land Agent, Taso Gavriel (TG) made telephone call to Capostinsky residence and requested to speak with Mr. Capostinsky (L/O) regarding the TMX program, Daughter advised that her father is not home but would leave message advising I called. Oct 20/12 – TG attempted contact again, spoke with Mrs Capostinsky advised that her husband (L/O) is not home and she would leave a message that he called. Oct 23/12 – TG left another message for L/O. Oct 27/12 – TG made cold call to L/O residence, L/O’s daughter answered the door, explained that he was calling on behalf of KMC and the TMX program, further requested to speak to her father, the L/O. She advised that her father was not home and she did not know when he would return, asked if there was a better time to reach him and set up an appointment, she was very reluctant to provide any information, left consultation package. Nov 3/12 – TG made phone call to L/O, spoke with L/O’s wife and requested a meeting to review consultation package and discuss his concerns regarding the project, advised L/O is a rail engineer shift worker who is often away, will be in town tomorrow and will ask him to contact TG. Nov 7/12 – TG received a call from L/O, TG advised that KMC is planning to twin the pipeline in accordance with the NEB regulations and are contacting him to provide him with a consultation package, document concerns and request permission to conduct various surveys on his property. TG requested a meeting to discuss project. L/O has concerns regarding other countries benefitting off Canadian resources, he has advised that he has received the consultation package but is not prepared to sign survey consent . Landowner has concerns regarding compensation and requested to be paid annually. L/O advises his mother who lives beside the subject property has witnessed people walking the R/W and onto the remaining lands, he could not confirm whom the individuals were but requests that all crew members refrain from trespassing on his others property. He has concerns of routing due to trees along the R/W, no clearing has been done for many years and it’s his preference to keep the trees there. L/O has plans to construct his retirement home on the property in roughly 3 years, building will be in upper west bench. L/O requested casing for a water line and other utilities under pipeline. L/O advises that KMC had agreed to construct a crossing for heavy equipment over his property’s driveway that was never constructed but would like it to be done. TG advised landowner that his concerns would be brought to the project for further review. Nov 22/12 – Land administrator sent copy of refused survey consent form to L/O via regular mail. Nov 25, 28/12 – TG attempted call, left message for L/O requesting an appointment.
Dec 1, 9/14 – TG attempted call, left message for L/O requesting appointment. Dec 12/14 – TG attempted call, phone was picked up but then hung up. Feb 17/15 – TG left message for L/O requesting appointment. Feb 26/15 – Land Administrator served section 87 via registered mail, included copy of purchase agreement. June 5/15 – TG contacted L/O regarding documentation. L/O confirmed he received documents but is not prepared to move forward until he retains a forester to determine the impact to his lands, he intends to retain one by the end of the summer. He further advised the R/W on his property has not been cleared and would like Trans Mountain to clear it at their discursion. TG sent email to Kelvin Stelter regarding landowner concerns and Kelvin responded advising he has made contact with L/O and Trans Mountain will enter property this year and clear R/W. June 20/16 – TG attempted to contact L/O, left message advising that the project has been approved and requested a meeting to present new documentation and update. Mar 30/17 – TG attempted to contact L/O, left message requesting meeting to present new documentation. Apr 11/17 – TG called Keith Capostinsky regarding entry onto Steve’s property for an anomaly dig. Keith advised that his brother was in Thailand and he does not know when he will be returning. Keith will continue to try and contact L/O and will respond once he hears back. Apr 18/17 – TG left message for L/O requesting meeting to present new documents. Apr 25/17 – TG made a cold call to L/O residence and met with L/O and his wife. Presented section 87 notice, agreement to grant, incentive letter, and section 34 letter. Briefly provided explanation on all documents, confirmed by signing Sec 34 acknowledgement and Sec 34 letter but that this does not mean that they agree to the project’s compensation or routing. L/O signed Section 87 and Section 34 acknowledgement, he further advised his primary concerns regarding the project. 1) R/W expanding beyond existing. 2) Access payment for maintenance beyond project. 3) Construction of old (overgrown) driveway to access R/W that does not interfere with adjacent parcel access. He explained this has been discussed with KMC in the past but nothing was done. 4) Construction within workspace area post construction of R/W. Taso advised that 1) according to new survey (in agreement) new R/W overlaps old R/W. 2) Will inform TM of his request of payment for access. 3) Recent discussions with Kelvin Stelter suggest that access will be reviewed for maintenance purposes. 4) Post R/W construction the Owner can construct within WSA in accordance with pipeline regulations. 5) Requested L/O to review documentation and call with any questions he may have or if he would like to proceed with signing of document May 4/17 E-mail from Progress Lands confirming Mr. Joe Zak of HMZ Law is representing Mr. Capostinsky and he would like to discuss the impact to his clients property. Called Mr. Zak and left message for call back May 5/17 T/C to Mr. Joe Zak re: owners concerns. Mr. Zak advised Steve is concerned regarding the division of his property and future development. I explained to Mr. Zak TM has an existing easement on the property that is approximately 18.3 m. The new easement overlaps the existing and the new pipe will be installed in the same corridor. Therefore there is no division of the property caused by the new R/w. Furthermore Steve can continue to build on his property as he did in the past. This may also be an opportune time to install a water casing for his future building site. Mr. Zak will discuss the matter with Steve and have him respond directly to Taso May 19/17 Taso called Mr. Zak and requested meeting to discuss file Jun 29/17 Taso called Mr. Capostinskie advised Mr. Capostinskie outstanding acquisition are being prepared for process. Requested confirmation if he will be accepting the offer for the R/W. Steve advised he will not sign the agreement, in his opinion the money is not sufficient and he is further troubled by the 30 meter safety zone beyond the pipeline. I advised the 30 m zone is required to insure works within the area do not impact the pipe but it does not restrict the owner from working in this area. In regards to the value, we can enterer into an agreement where the owner transfers the easement but reserves the right to obtain an appraisal on the value that he is not bound by. If he disagrees with the value he can argue his clam at the NEB. Steve declined the suggested agreement and request TMEP proceed with Process Dec 4/17 – Glenn Miller (GM) left voicemails for Steve Capostinsky on both phone numbers requesting Steve to call GM back to discuss the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4A Tract: 1048 PID: 011-954-248 Landowner names: Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: True Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Oct 25/17 - All crews and access permitted EXCEPT for the Archaeological Studies. Crews are to contact the landowner prior to entry. Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Sep 14/12 – Land Agent, John Bjornson (JB), called Landowner, Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd., Per: Hans Wadlegger, and set up meeting for Monday, Sep 17/12. Sep 17/12 – JB met with Hans and Richard Wadlegger and delivered information package. They signed consent. No concerns. Quads ok. Feb 21/14 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), met with Hans and Wadlegger and served new Section 87. The sketch does not show the entire lot. DG returned to office for new sketch. Mar 19/15 – DG met with Hans Wadlegger and served the new Section 87. DG left copies for review. Apr 11/15 – DG sent email to Kim Muddiman with letter of cooperation to assistant. May 1/15 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34. Nov 24/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for clarification on what is different between the old right of way agreement and the new agreement and what new rights will be granted to Trans Mountain. Nov 30/15 – DG responded to Sepp Wadlegger’s providing details on terms on both new and old agreement (see email in file). Nov 30/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for a copy of the existing agreement so they can review it. DG sent copies of missing original agreements. Feb 17/16 – DG received email from Kim Muddiman advising he has finished compiling the packages that detail the Wadlegger response to the Trans Mountain R/W agreement offers and requested to meet. Feb 18/16 – DG sent an email to Land Managers, Joey Andries (JA) and Elliott Friedrich (EF) with attached summaries of the Wadlegger tracts. He advised he will meet with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger Feb 19/16 to discuss the summaries (see email in file). Feb 25/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with meeting summary and compensation breakdown (see email in file). Mar 13/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with extensive review of Wadlegger’s requests (see email in file). May 30/16 – DG sent an email to Hans and Seppi Wadlegger responding to their requested conditions and concerns (see email in file). DG forwarded this email to JA and EF. Jun 10/16 – DG advised that Hans and Seppi Wadlegeer and rescinded all survey access consent. Aug 8/16 – DG sent an email to Bob Love and Joey Andries advising he had talked to Hans Wadlegger concerning suspending further negotiation and managerial inclusion until final approval is achieved end of year. Hans indicated he has no issue with keeping things on hold until then and thanked us for letting him know the status of his request. Sep 22/16 – DG sent an email to Joey Andries advising that Matt Roberts is out doing locates for the Geotech sites acquired this spring. DG contacted Hans Wadlegger on their behalf for access and Hans is allowing us to enter to do our work for these sites that have been acquired and paid for.
Jan 12/17 – DG sent an email to JA and EF advising that regarding moving forward with the Wadlegger’s, all negotiations had been suspended with the message that their request to meet with Bob Love or JA would not be happening until after all approvals were received and they were in agreement with that. DG suggested a conference call with all parties (see email in file). Jan 17/17 – JA arranged conference call with Bob Love to commit for a time to meet with Wadlegger’s to continue. Bob to advise. May 1/17 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34’s. They informed DG that they will only meet to discuss items contained in their addendum. May 16/17 – DG talked to JA and advised that Wadlegger’s are anxious to have a meeting. Oct 25/17 – Meeting at the Clearwater Lodge, In attendance was Sepp Wadlegger, Kim Muddiman, Joey Andries and Darrell Goruk. Subjects discussed; Wadlegger had comparative values prepared by real estate agent which included improvements to land, damages to be discussed file by file, discussed prescribed area/safety zone, Timber – Wadlegger value proposal based on professional foresters determination using industry accepted models. Access, Wadlegger would like to negotiate designated access to apply to both expansion and maintenance. Long term nuisance and risk: Wadleggers would like a proposal from Kinder Morgan on how to compensate. Decrease of value of lands; Isolated land parcels and removing future subdivision potential due to new r/w location, Wadleggers have proposed a percentage basis of land value. Site specific issues have been noted for each property. Properties that are listed for sale. Archeological situations on coates property. Survey access – there are no issues. Nov 15/17 – Hans Wadlegger sent email to DG and cc’d Joey Andries, Bob Love, Joseph Wadlegger and Kim Muddiman to clarify what was discussed at the previous meeting and address a few concerns. Hans has advised that while they agreed to allow surveys to continue on his properties he must still be notified when we plan to enter. Hans continues to not allow any archy crews on any of the properties due to the possibility of any found sites putting restrictions on theit land.Hans advises that on November 13th, Opus was heading down past Sep’s to conduct TMEP business without notification, and they were only aware this happened because they happened to be on the property, also advised that on November 14th while he was driving home from Avola he had seen the Opus truck in his pasture, when he stopped to chat with the associate he formed him that there was a second truck also on the property. Opus had not attempted to contact Hans prior to the 13th, however they did contact the office on the 14th and were given Hans’ number and advised not to travel on his property until they were able to reach Hans or Sep, they did not reach them but still trespassed on the property. Hans is upset that he now has to take time out of his day to deal with Kinder Morgan business by writing emails, inspecting his land for damage and speaking to Kinder Morgan staff while not being compensated. Nov 23/17 – Joey Andries responded to email received from Hans Wadlegger on November 15th to apologize for the oversight, as it was not noted that notification was still required on all survey work. Joey has advised Hans that this will be included in the next weekly update for all crews. Joey has advised Hans that Glenn Miller, Senior Land Negotiator with Kinder Morgan will now be working with them on the file details along with Darrell Goruk.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: 1130 PID: 013-092-405 Landowner names: Hans Albert Wadlegger Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: True Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Oct 25/17 - All crews and access permitted EXCEPT for the Archaeological Studies. Crews are to contact the landowner prior to entry. Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Sep 14/12 – Land Agent, John Bjornson (JB), called Landowner, Wadlegger Logging & Construction Ltd., Per: Hans Wadlegger, and set up meeting for Monday, Sep 17/12. Sep 17/12 – JB met with Hans and Richard Wadlegger and delivered information package. They signed consent. No concerns. Quads ok. Jan 28/15 – DG met with Hans Wadlegger and delivered Section 87. DG to have engineering contact Hans to discuss boring process. Mar 19/15 – DG met with Hans Wadlegger and delivered new Section 87 with amended values and ROW document. Apr 11/15 – DG sent email to Kim Muddiman with letter of cooperation to assistant. May 1/15 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34. Nov 24/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for clarification on what is different between the old right of way agreement and the new agreement and what new rights will be granted to Trans Mountain. Nov 30/15 – DG responded to Sepp Wadlegger’s providing details on terms on both new and old agreement (see email in file). Nov 30/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for a copy of the existing agreement so they can review it. DG sent copies of missing original agreements. Feb 17/16 – DG received email from Kim Muddiman advising he has finished compiling the packages that detail the Wadlegger response to the Trans Mountain R/W agreement offers and requested to meet. Feb 18/16 – DG sent an email to Land Managers, Joey Andries (JA) and Elliott Friedrich (EF) with attached summaries of the Wadlegger tracts. He advised he will meet with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger Feb 19/16 to discuss the summaries (see email in file). Feb 25/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with meeting summary and compensation breakdown (see email in file). Mar 13/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with extensive review of Wadlegger’s requests (see email in file). May 30/16 – DG sent an email to Hans and Seppi Wadlegger responding to their requested conditions and concerns (see email in file). DG forwarded this email to JA and EF. Jun 10/16 – DG advised that Hans and Seppi Wadlegeer and rescinded all survey access consent. Aug 8/16 – DG sent an email to Bob Love and Joey Andries advising he had talked to Hans Wadlegger concerning suspending further negotiation and managerial inclusion until final approval is achieved end of year. Hans indicated he has no issue with keeping things on hold until then and thanked us for letting him know the status of his request. Sep 22/16 – DG sent an email to Joey Andries advising that Matt Roberts is out doing locates for the Geotech sites acquired this spring. DG contacted Hans Wadlegger on their behalf for access and Hans is allowing us to enter to do our work for these sites that have been acquired and paid for.
Jan 12/17 – DG sent an email to JA and EF advising that regarding moving forward with the Wadlegger’s, all negotiations had been suspended with the message that their request to meet with Bob Love or JA would not be happening until after all approvals were received and they were in agreement with that. DG suggested a conference call with all parties (see email in file). Jan 17/17 – JA arranged conference call with Bob Love to commit for a time to meet with Wadlegger’s to continue. Bob to advise. May 1/17 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34’s. They informed DG that they will only meet to discuss items contained in their addendum. May 16/17 – DG talked to JA and advised that Wadlegger’s are anxious to have a meeting. Oct 25/17 – Meeting at the Clearwater Lodge, In attendance was Sepp Wadlegger, Kim Muddiman, Joey Andries and Darrell Goruk. Subjects discussed; Wadlegger had comparative values prepared by real estate agent which included improvements to land, damages to be discussed file by file, discussed prescribed area/safety zone, Timber – Wadlegger value proposal based on professional foresters determination using industry accepted models. Access, Wadlegger would like to negotiate designated access to apply to both expansion and maintenance. Long term nuisance and risk: Wadleggers would like a proposal from Kinder Morgan on how to compensate. Decrease of value of lands; Isolated land parcels and removing future subdivision potential due to new r/w location, Wadleggers have proposed a percentage basis of land value. Site specific issues have been noted for each property. Properties that are listed for sale. Archeological situations on coates property. Survey access – there are no issues. Nov 15/17 – Hans Wadlegger sent email to DG and cc’d Joey Andries, Bob Love, Joseph Wadlegger and Kim Muddiman to clarify what was discussed at the previous meeting and address a few concerns. Hans has advised that while they agreed to allow surveys to continue on his properties he must still be notified when we plan to enter. Hans continues to not allow any archy crews on any of the properties due to the possibility of any found sites putting restrictions on theit land.Hans advises that on November 13th, Opus was heading down past Sep’s to conduct TMEP business without notification, and they were only aware this happened because they happened to be on the property, also advised that on November 14th while he was driving home from Avola he had seen the Opus truck in his pasture, when he stopped to chat with the associate he formed him that there was a second truck also on the property. Opus had not attempted to contact Hans prior to the 13th, however they did contact the office on the 14th and were given Hans’ number and advised not to travel on his property until they were able to reach Hans or Sep, they did not reach them but still trespassed on the property. Hans is upset that he now has to take time out of his day to deal with Kinder Morgan business by writing emails, inspecting his land for damage and speaking to Kinder Morgan staff while not being compensated. Nov 23/17 – Joey Andries responded to email received from Hans Wadlegger on November 15th to apologize for the oversight, as it was not noted that notification was still required on all survey work. Joey has advised Hans that this will be included in the next weekly update for all crews. Joey has advised Hans that Glenn Miller, Senior Land Negotiator with Kinder Morgan will now be working with them on the file details along with Darrell Goruk.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: 1216 PID: 013-161-423 Landowner names: Joseph Richard Wadlegger Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: True Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Oct 25/17 - All crews and access permitted EXCEPT for the Archaeological Studies. Crews are to contact the landowner prior to entry. Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 20/12 - Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), met with Landowner, Joseph Wadlegger. Dg Delivered September Project Update and Joseph signed survey consent. Conditions: Call and leave Landowner a message when entering land. Jan 28/14 - DG met with Joseph and delivered and discussed sketch with expanded study zone. Joseph had no issues. Jan 28/15 - DG met with Joseph Wadlegger and served the Section 87 Notice. DG left copies of documents for review. Apr 11/15 – DG sent email to Kim Muddiman with letter of cooperation to assistant. May 1/15 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34. Nov 24/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for clarification on what is different between the old right of way agreement and the new agreement and what new rights will be granted to Trans Mountain. Nov 30/15 – DG responded to Sepp Wadlegger’s providing details on terms on both new and old agreement (see email in file). Nov 30/15 – DG received an email from Sepp Wadlegger asking for a copy of the existing agreement so they can review it. DG sent copies of missing original agreements. Feb 17/16 – DG received email from Kim Muddiman advising he has finished compiling the packages that detail the Wadlegger response to the Trans Mountain R/W agreement offers and requested to meet. Feb 18/16 – DG sent an email to Land Managers, Joey Andries (JA) and Elliott Friedrich (EF) with attached summaries of the Wadlegger tracts. He advised he will meet with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger Feb 19/16 to discuss the summaries (see email in file). Feb 25/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with meeting summary and compensation breakdown (see email in file). Mar 13/16 – DG sent an email to EF and JA with extensive review of Wadlegger’s requests (see email in file). May 30/16 – DG sent an email to Hans and Seppi Wadlegger responding to their requested conditions and concerns (see email in file). DG forwarded this email to JA and EF. Jun 10/16 – DG advised that Hans and Seppi Wadlegeer and rescinded all survey access consent. Aug 8/16 – DG sent an email to Bob Love and Joey Andries advising he had talked to Hans Wadlegger concerning suspending further negotiation and managerial inclusion until final approval is achieved end of year. Hans indicated he has no issue with keeping things on hold until then and thanked us for letting him know the status of his request. Sep 22/16 – DG sent an email to Joey Andries advising that Matt Roberts is out doing locates for the Geotech sites acquired this spring. DG contacted Hans Wadlegger on their behalf for access and Hans is allowing us to enter to do our work for these sites that have been acquired and paid for. Jan 12/17 – DG sent an email to JA and EF advising that regarding moving forward with the Wadlegger’s, all negotiations had been suspended with the message that their request to meet with Bob Love or JA would not be happening until after
all approvals were received and they were in agreement with that. DG suggested a conference call with all parties (see email in file). Jan 17/17 – JA arranged conference call with Bob Love to commit for a time to meet with Wadlegger’s to continue. Bob to advise. May 1/17 – DG met with Hans and Seppi Wadlegger and served Section 34’s. They informed DG that they will only meet to discuss items contained in their addendum. May 16/17 – DG talked to JA and advised that Wadlegger’s are anxious to have a meeting. Oct 25/17 – Meeting at the Clearwater Lodge, In attendance was Sepp Wadlegger, Kim Muddiman, Joey Andries and Darrell Goruk. Subjects discussed; Wadlegger had comparative values prepared by real estate agent which included improvements to land, damages to be discussed file by file, discussed prescribed area/safety zone, Timber – Wadlegger value proposal based on professional foresters determination using industry accepted models. Access, Wadlegger would like to negotiate designated access to apply to both expansion and maintenance. Long term nuisance and risk: Wadleggers would like a proposal from Kinder Morgan on how to compensate. Decrease of value of lands; Isolated land parcels and removing future subdivision potential due to new r/w location, Wadleggers have proposed a percentage basis of land value. Site specific issues have been noted for each property. Properties that are listed for sale. Archeological situations on coates property. Survey access – there are no issues. Nov 15/17 – Hans Wadlegger sent email to DG and cc’d Joey Andries, Bob Love, Joseph Wadlegger and Kim Muddiman to clarify what was discussed at the previous meeting and address a few concerns. Hans has advised that while they agreed to allow surveys to continue on his properties he must still be notified when we plan to enter. Hans continues to not allow any archy crews on any of the properties due to the possibility of any found sites putting restrictions on theit land.Hans advises that on November 13th, Opus was heading down past Sep’s to conduct TMEP business without notification, and they were only aware this happened because they happened to be on the property, also advised that on November 14th while he was driving home from Avola he had seen the Opus truck in his pasture, when he stopped to chat with the associate he formed him that there was a second truck also on the property. Opus had not attempted to contact Hans prior to the 13th, however they did contact the office on the 14th and were given Hans’ number and advised not to travel on his property until they were able to reach Hans or Sep, they did not reach them but still trespassed on the property. Hans is upset that he now has to take time out of his day to deal with Kinder Morgan business by writing emails, inspecting his land for damage and speaking to Kinder Morgan staff while not being compensated. Nov 23/17 – Joey Andries responded to email received from Hans Wadlegger on November 15th to apologize for the oversight, as it was not noted that notification was still required on all survey work. Joey has advised Hans that this will be included in the next weekly update for all crews. Joey has advised Hans that Glenn Miller, Senior Land Negotiator with Kinder Morgan will now be working with them on the file details along with Darrell Goruk.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: 1233 PID: 001-999-044 Landowner names: Katherine Ingrid Karlstrom Richard Bruce Erlam Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: Surveys allowed on right of way ONLY. ANY SURVEYS DONE OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE CONSIDERED TRESPASSING. Survey Refusal Comments: No survey on any property outside of the right of way, THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED TRESPASSING. Landowners refused survey consent, but did acknowledge the fact that Kinder Morgan has the right to enter upon their ROW. Nov 15/13 - Land Agent called landowners and spoke with Mrs. Karlstrom. She advised that they will not re- consider allowing surveys outside of the right of way. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 22/12 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) met with the Landowners Katherine Karlstrom & Richard Erlam, Landowners are not keen on having another pipeline put on their property; contact information remains the same; Landowners would like to take the time to read through the information; Will check back on Oct 26/12 Oct 25/12 – DG received an email from Kathy and Richard with refusal and acknowledgement of KM right to enter upon ROW Dec 5/12 – Land Agent Dennis Worobec (DB) received an email response from G Babich’s Dec 5 /12 – DW called Darrell Goruk to update omissions; response to G Babich after discussing with Agent; concerns from the email sent to Dave Core @ CAEPLA (Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowners Associations) Letter from Katherine Karlstrom: Pros: 1. Potential settlement for us, 2. Increased employment opportunity for locals, around the construction stages, 3. Employment opportunity and security for BC residents, on construction, maintenance, and at the refinery, 4. Fuel production for BC residents Cons: 1. Hassle of living with pipeline rigs, 2. Minimal financial settlement for landowners, 3. Selling off of our valuable resource for foreign investors, 4. Environmental hazards of shipping crude from Vancouver. When I questioned the Land Agent on the amount of oil to be used at the Burnaby refinery and how much was to be shipped, he didn’t have these numbers. He insinuated that it was unpatriotic to not support this pipeline, because it supplied the refinery that produces our fuel. I feel there are far less benefits for Landowners with pipelines than Landowners without personally it feels like a huge sacrifice having a pipeline cross our property. Nov 12/13 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk made called and left messages Nov 15/14 – DG made calls and left messages; received a call back from Kathy; very polite on the phone but would not re-consider allowing surveys outside of Right of Way Dec 20/14 – DG met with Katherine and Richard and was asked are we boring Eakin Creek; Find out for sure; Served Section 87 and do up the affidavit; leave copies of the documents Dec 31/14 – DG received a message from Elliott from a call made to the office from Katherine; Called Katherine back and she informed that they will not be signing and are against the project; oil sands, etc, the tanker’s off shore for shipping; Katherine sent in a letter of opposition to NEB and told her that her note was persuasive as they will not look at going further unless they get the approval; This was explained to her when we met but she sent it in anyways Jan 6/15 – DG received a letter of opposition; Print to file; Hold for KM review and possibly re-visit to discuss W/S issue
Feb 25/17 – DG met with Kathy and Richard and delivered the Section 87 and document with new Schedule D Apr 22/17 – DG met with Kathy and Richard and served S34; discussed plans; Landowners remain as objecting to project Sept 7/17- Kathy sent email to CJ in response to receipt of S73 letter. Refusing any access off the right of way area. TL email DG to attempt consent to complete AIA. DG called and spoke to Kathy explaining need to complete studies. Kathy remains unwilling to grant access. Oct 15/17- DG travel out to meet with owners and deliver and discuss 104 letter. Also discuss Workspace document for additional shoofly access locations and compensation. Kathy request we delete northern portion to stay away from buildings and house yard. Indication from meeting was they may consider signing documents. Report to JA. Oct 18/17- JA send note to UPI to amend shoofly areas requested. George Fatoui will agree. John Jermyn concurred. Oct 28/17- DG receive email from Kathy. Kathy and spouse have decided they will go to Right of Entry. They do not believe the project is environmentally sound. They do not agree to extra tanker traffic. They are not in favor of an increased use of fossil fuels.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team & Survey Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA (ADDED Eng.Surv Sept14'17 -DON'T SEND ) Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: 1234 PID: 006-908-667 Landowner names: JBLC Holdings Inc. Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY CONSENT NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner has decided that he does not want Trans Mountain accessing his property until the concerns he raised have been addressed. Many of these concerns are construction related and cannot be answered at this time. The concerns are as follows: - Require Native consultation - ROW & TWS compensation - Abandonment (Clause included in ROW agreement stating Trans Mountain will remove the pipe if/when it is abandoned). - Expansion of ROW and alignment of second pipe - Terms for crossing ROW with water lines, etc. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Jun 12/14 – Land Agent, Corey Aldrich (CA), phoned and talked to Landowner, JBLC Holdings In., Per: Kym Jim. Kym refused consent until the following questions and concerns have been addressed: - Require native consultation - ROW & TWS compensation - Request an abandonment clause in ROW agreement stating that the pipe will be removed by KM if/when it is abandoned - Expansion of ROW and alignment of proposed pipeline - Terms for crossing the ROW with water lines, etc. Nov 14/14 - Land Agent, Don Grossberndt (DG), called and talked to Kym Jim. Dr. Jim said to make an appointment with Julie. Nov 12/14 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim can meet DG on Wednesday, Dec 17/14 at 7:00 p.m. Nov 17/14 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and delivered Notice and ROW documents. They discussed requirements. Dr. Jim insists on conditions on any agreement he signs to included, but not limited to: 1) Removal of pipe upon abandonment. 2) Ability to irrigate land, incremental expense to be KM’s. 3) Cattle management plan for 2 year period. 4) Waterlines across ROW to be installed at designated places with construction. 5) All fences disturbed to be replaced. 6) Existing line to be lowered. 7) KM must agree to support future subdivision of land. Kym declined to sign Acknowledgement. Feb 23/15 – DG phoned Kam Jim and arranged meeting for next day. Feb 24/15 – DG drove to Little Fort, BC and met with Kam Jim. DG delivered package and notice. Kam signed the Acknowledgement. Nov 9/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim, no answer. Nov 10/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 19/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message.
Nov 23/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office. Admin will find an appointment time. Dec 4/15 – DG received a phone call from Julie from Kym Jim’s office advising that Kym can meet with DG on Dec 8/15. Dec 8/15 – DG met with Kym Jim at his office and reviewed project status. They identified the following issues: bulls, crossings, topsoil, tree salvage, topography, cattle management, not enough money. DG to discuss with KM and re-draft Schedule D. Nov 1/16 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and left a message for Julie requesting a meeting. Julie called DG back to say she would discuss with Kym. Nov 9/16 – DG received a phone message from Julie to say that Kym Jim will meet DG on Nov 28/16 at 6:00 p.m. Nov 14/16 – DG sent an email to Bill Lasuta requesting an estimate for timber values. Nov 23/16 – DG met Kam Jim at the farm in Little Fort, BC. DG delivered revised notice and discussed access for timber evaluation and residences. Nov 28/16 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and provided project status update. DG delivered Notice and reviewed Assessment, Bonus and Schedule D. DG agreed to follow up to clarify timing and duration of construction, damages. Livestock management will be a major issue. Dec 15/16 – DG emailed Kym Jim meeting summary (see email in file). Jan 29/17 – DG received an email from Bill Lasuta and reviewed timber values. Mar 21/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim requesting to meet and solve issues in the field. Apr 18/17 – DG phoned and talked to Julie and requested a meeting. Apr 24-17 – DG received an email from Julie advising that Kym Jim can meet on Apr 26/17 at 7:00 p.m. Apr 26/17 - DG met with Kym Jim and delivered Section 34. He agreed to meet Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) on May 19/17 to work through issues and determine damages. Apr 30/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim with a summary of meeting (email in file). May 15/17- Kym Jim sent a letter of opposition to EF based on the inabilities to date of having his concerns addressed in a proper manner. May 19/17- DG (Darrell Goruk) met with Kym at the ranch. Did a drive through on all tracts. Pointed out pasture breeding paddocks and required bull separation. Water is crucial as is treated with anti-bloat additives to mitigate probable alfalfa grazing issues. Kym is not comfortable with suggestion to fence work area through construction period. Kym feels this would be too risky for the stock separation issue and safety of the cattle. Kym is not comfortable with access shown on the sketch as the access points are not clear. Kym is asking we look in to a winter construction where all stock will be penned out of the construction area. Kym will not go further with consent for further access until his concerns stated in his letter of May 15/17 have been addressed. Sept 13/17- DG contact Kym to see if there would be a chance to allow Opus on to the property to gather crossings data for the BC Hydro locations. Kym continues to refuse all access until his concerns have been met. Nov 25/17- DG send email to Kym Jim for clearance to arrange a meeting with farm operators Kam or Chris Jim along with Darcy and Lorne from Ledcor to view area and come up with the requested construction plan and look at the possibility of a winter construction. Include new agent Glenn Miller to join while in area. Nov 30/17- Glenn Miller (GM), Darrell Goruk (DG), and Ledcor representatives met with Chris Jim (nephew of Kym Jim) to drive and view all the tracts of land of where the TMEP is crossing their ranch, Little Fort Herefords. Kym Jim attended the meeting on and off on conference call along various tracts of the pipeline routing. Same issues and requests are present. Viewing on the ground will assist Ledcor in providing a work plan to the owners. Debrief and determine that Ledcor will work on plan and discuss consideration of a possible late fall construction. Dec 1/17 – GM sent a follow- up email to Kym Jim advising that Trans Mountain would put together a summer and winter construction plan scenario and sequencing for his review, outlining what may be expected in both scenarios. Trans Mountain also advised that we will include the proposed additional access of where we may need additional access to get at the right-of-way. Trans Mountain advised that we would try to get this to Kym Jim late the week of December 4th his review and then suggested a follow-up meeting with him the following week once he’s had a chance to review.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: 1235 PID: 013-159-488 Landowner names: Kym Lee Jim Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner advised that he has the following questions and concerns before granting survey consent: 1. Landowner would like to know who is handling native affairs as it is required for this property. 2. Landowner is concerned with ROW and TWS compensation. 3. Landowner would like a clause included in the ROW Agreement stating that Kinder Morgan will remove the pipeline when/ if it is abandoned. 4. Landowner is concerned with the expansion of the ROW and alignment of the second pipe. 5. Landowner would like to know what the terms are for crossing the ROW with water lines, etc. Landowner will not grant consent until all his questions and concerns are answered. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 4/12 - Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), phoned Dr. Kym Lee Jim and talked to his secretary, Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim has left for the weekend and he is hard to reach by phone. Julie suggested that DG mail out the information. Oct 9/12 – Land Administrator sent out information package to Kym Jim via registered mail. Oct 18/12 – Land Agent, Corey Aldrich (CA), phoned Dr. Kym Jim’s office but it was closed for the day. Oct 19/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and left a message with his secretary. Dr. Jim is away until Oct 30/12. Nov 1/12 – CA phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 9/12 – CA phoned Kym Jim and left a message with his secretary. Nov 22/12 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim and discussed the project. He requested that CA call his office and work with his secretary to schedule a meeting. Nov 24/12 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), met with Landowner, JBLC Holdings Inc., Per: Kam Jim and consulted and reviewed package. Nov 26/12 – DG met with Kam Jim and obtained signed survey consent. Conditions: Keep all gates closed. Kam will notify residents if any are present. Nov 26/12 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Kym Jim’s secretary, Julie. She will speak to Kym and get back to CA. Nov 27/12 – CA phoned and talked to Julie at Dr. Kim’s office and scheduled a meeting for Dec 5/12. Dec 5/12 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Kim’s secretary, Julie, to postpone the meeting with Dr. Jim due to inclement weather. Julie will phone CA back to reschedule the meeting. Dec 11/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office to see if Julie had scheduled another meeting between CA and Dr. Jim. Julie was not in. Dec 14/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Leah. She advised that Julie was gone for the day and she suggested that CA phone on Monday to see if a meeting was arranged with Dr. Jim. Dec 17/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and left a message.
Jan 2/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that the meeting has not been scheduled yet. She is waiting to confirm with Dr. Jim as he is away until Jan 14/13. Jan 15/13 – Julie phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She will get back to CA once she has talked to Dr. Jim. Jan 22/13 –CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Jan 28/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 4/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 11/13 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Jim’s secretary, Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim has been busy at the hospital the past few weeks and hasn’t responded to Julie’s email. Julie said she would send him another note. Feb 20/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Mar 12/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Apr 2/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Leah. She will speak to Julie and get back to CA the next day. Apr 5/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Apr 29/13 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim and arranged a meeting for May 8/13. May 8/13 – CA met with Kym Jim and discussed the project. Questions and concerns Kym would like answers to before he grants consent: 1) Native affairs, who is handling and require it for this property. 2) ROW and TWS compensation. 3) Abandonment – would like a clause included in ROW agreement stating KM will remove pipe when / if it is abandoned. 4) Expansion of ROW and alignment of the second pipeline. 5) Terms for crossing the ROW with waterlines, etc. Jul 15/13 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim. Kym will not grant consent until he has received the information that was requested at the meeting. CA advised Kym that KM cannot provide answers to all of his questions at this point and that CA will process the file as a refusal since he does not want KM on the property. Nov 14/14 - Land Agent, Don Grossberndt (DG), called and talked to Kym Jim. Dr. Jim said to make an appointment with Julie. Nov 12/14 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim can meet DG on Wednesday, Dec 17/14 at 7:00 p.m. Nov 17/14 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and delivered Notice and ROW documents. They discussed requirements. Dr. Jim insists on conditions on any agreement he signs to included, but not limited to: 1) Removal of pipe upon abandonment. 2) Ability to irrigate land, incremental expense to be KM’s. 3) Cattle management plan for 2 year period. 4) Waterlines across ROW to be installed at designated places with construction. 5) All fences disturbed to be replaced. 6) Existing line to be lowered. 7) KM must agree to support future subdivision of land. Kym declined to sign Acknowledgement. Feb 23/15 – DG phoned Kam Jim and arranged meeting for next day. Feb 24/15 – DG drove to Little Fort, BC and met with Kam Jim. DG delivered package and notice. Kam signed the Acknowledgement. Nov 9/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim, no answer. Nov 10/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 19/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 23/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office. Admin will find an appointment time. Dec 4/15 – DG received a phone call from Julie from Kym Jim’s office advising that Kym can meet with DG on Dec 8/15. Dec 8/15 – DG met with Kym Jim at his office and reviewed project status. They identified the following issues: bulls, crossings, topsoil, tree salvage, topography, cattle management, not enough money. DG to discuss with KM and re-draft Schedule D. Nov 1/16 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and left a message for Julie requesting a meeting. Julie called DG back to say she would discuss with Kym. Nov 9/16 – DG received a phone message from Julie to say that Kym Jim will meet DG on Nov 28/16 at 6:00 p.m. Nov 14/16 – DG sent an email to Bill Lasuta requesting an estimate for timber values. Nov 23/16 – DG met Kam Jim at the farm in Little Fort, BC. DG delivered revised notice and discussed access for timber evaluation and residences. Nov 28/16 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and provided project status update. DG delivered Notice and reviewed Assessment, Bonus and Schedule D. DG agreed to follow up to clarify timing and duration of construction, damages. Livestock management will be a major issue. Dec 15/16 – DG emailed Kym Jim meeting summary (see email in file). Jan 29/17 – DG received an email from Bill Lasuta and reviewed timber values. Mar 21/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim requesting to meet and solve issues in the field. Apr 18/17 – DG phoned and talked to Julie and requested a meeting. Apr 24-17 – DG received an email from Julie advising that Kym Jim can meet on Apr 26/17 at 7:00 p.m. Apr 26/17 - DG met with Kym Jim and delivered Section 34. He agreed to meet Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) on May 19/17 to work through issues and determine damages. Apr 30/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim with a summary of meeting (email in file).
May 15/17- Kym Jim sent a letter of opposition to EF based on the inabilities to date of having his concerns addressed in a proper manner. May 19/17- DG (Darrell Goruk) met with Kym at the ranch. Did a drive through on all tracts. Pointed out pasture breeding paddocks and required bull separation. Water is crucial as is treated with anti-bloat additives to mitigate probable alfalfa grazing issues. Kym is not comfortable with suggestion to fence work area through construction period. Kym feels this would be too risky for the stock separation issue and safety of the cattle. Kym is not comfortable with access shown on the sketch as the access points are not clear. Kym is asking we look in to a winter construction where all stock will be penned out of the construction area. Kym will not go further with consent for further access until his concerns stated in his letter of May 15/17 have been addressed. Sept 13/17- DG contact Kym to see if there would be a chance to allow Opus on to the property to gather crossings data for the BC Hydro locations. Kym continues to refuse all access until his concerns have been met. Nov 25/17- DG send email to Kym Jim for clearance to arrange a meeting with farm operators Kam or Chris Jim along with Darcy and Lorne from Ledcor to view area and come up with the requested construction plan and look at the possibility of a winter construction. Include new agent Glenn Miller to join while in area. Nov 30/17- Glenn Miller (GM), Darrell Goruk (DG), and Ledcor representatives met with Chris Jim (nephew of Kym Jim) to drive and view all the tracts of land of where the TMEP is crossing their ranch, Little Fort Herefords. Kym Jim attended the meeting on and off on conference call along various tracts of the pipeline routing. Same issues and requests are present. Viewing on the ground will assist Ledcor in providing a work plan to the owners. Debrief and determine that Ledcor will work on plan and discuss consideration of a possible late fall construction. Dec 1/17 – GM sent a follow- up email to Kym Jim advising that Trans Mountain would put together a summer and winter construction plan scenario and sequencing for his review, outlining what may be expected in both scenarios. Trans Mountain also advised that we will include the proposed additional access of where we may need additional access to get at the right-of-way. Trans Mountain advised that we would try to get this to Kym Jim late the week of December 4th his review and then suggested a follow-up meeting with him the following week once he’s had a chance to review.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: 1236 PID: 011-848-189 Landowner names: JBLC Holdings Inc. Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY CONSENT NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner has decided that he does not want Trans Mountain accessing his property until the concerns his brother, Kym, raised have been addressed. Many of these concerns are construction related and cannot be answered at this time. The concerns are as follows: - Require Native consultation - ROW & TWS compensation - Abandonment (Clause included in ROW agreement stating Trans Mountain will remove the pipe if/when it is abandoned). - Expansion of ROW and alignment of second pipe - Terms for crossing ROW with water lines, etc. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 4/12 - Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), phoned Dr. Kym Lee Jim and talked to his secretary, Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim has left for the weekend and he is hard to reach by phone. Julie suggested that DG mail out the information. Oct 9/12 – Land Administrator sent out information package to Kym Jim via registered mail. Oct 18/12 – Land Agent, Corey Aldrich (CA), phoned Dr. Kym Jim’s office but it was closed for the day. Oct 19/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and left a message with his secretary. Dr. Jim is away until Oct 30/12. Nov 1/12 – CA phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 9/12 – CA phoned Kym Jim and left a message with his secretary. Nov 22/12 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim and discussed the project. He requested that CA call his office and work with his secretary to schedule a meeting. Nov 24/12 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), met with Landowner, JBLC Holdings Inc., Per: Kam Jim and consulted and reviewed package. Nov 26/12 – DG met with Kam Jim and obtained signed survey consent. Conditions: Keep all gates closed. Kam will notify residents if any are present. Nov 26/12 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Kym Jim’s secretary, Julie. She will speak to Kym and get back to CA. Nov 27/12 – CA phoned and talked to Julie at Dr. Kim’s office and scheduled a meeting for Dec 5/12. Dec 5/12 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Kim’s secretary, Julie, to postpone the meeting with Dr. Jim due to inclement weather. Julie will phone CA back to reschedule the meeting. Dec 11/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office to see if Julie had scheduled another meeting between CA and Dr. Jim. Julie was not in. Dec 14/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Leah. She advised that Julie was gone for the day and she suggested that CA phone on Monday to see if a meeting was arranged with Dr. Jim. Dec 17/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and left a message. Jan 2/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that the meeting has not been scheduled yet. She is waiting to confirm with Dr. Jim as he is away until Jan 14/13.
Jan 15/13 – Julie phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She will get back to CA once she has talked to Dr. Jim. Jan 22/13 –CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Jan 28/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 4/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 11/13 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Jim’s secretary, Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim has been busy at the hospital the past few weeks and hasn’t responded to Julie’s email. Julie said she would send him another note. Feb 20/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Mar 12/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Apr 2/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Leah. She will speak to Julie and get back to CA the next day. Apr 5/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. CA phoned and talked to Kee Jim and discussed the project. Kee confirmed that he is able to sign on behalf of the company and requested that CA send him the documents in the mail. Apr 9/13 – Land Administrator sent out information package and survey form via registered mail to Gung Kee Jim. Apr 29/13 – CA called Gung Kee Jim and left a message. Jun 25/13 – CA called Gung Kee Jim and left a message. Jul 15/13 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim. Kym said his brother, Kee Jim, wasn’t fully aware of what he was signing and he would like to retract his consent. CA will phone Kee to confirm. Jul 22/13 – CA phoned and talked to Gung Kee Jim. He advised that he is meeting with Kym Jim next week to discuss the project. Consent has not been retracted at this time. Sep 12/13 – CA phoned Gung Kee Jim and left a message. Kee has decided that he has decided that he doesn’t want TM to access his property until Kym’s concerns have been addressed and his questions answered. Nov 14/14 - Land Agent, Don Grossberndt (DG), called and talked to Kym Jim. Dr. Jim said to make an appointment with Julie. Nov 12/14 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim can meet DG on Wednesday, Dec 17/14 at 7:00 p.m. Nov 17/14 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and delivered Notice and ROW documents. They discussed requirements. Dr. Jim insists on conditions on any agreement he signs to included, but not limited to: 1) Removal of pipe upon abandonment. 2) Ability to irrigate land, incremental expense to be KM’s. 3) Cattle management plan for 2 year period. 4) Waterlines across ROW to be installed at designated places with construction. 5) All fences disturbed to be replaced. 6) Existing line to be lowered. 7) KM must agree to support future subdivision of land. Kym declined to sign Acknowledgement. Feb 23/15 – DG phoned Kam Jim and arranged meeting for next day. Feb 24/15 – DG drove to Little Fort, BC and met with Kam Jim. DG delivered package and notice. Kam signed the Acknowledgement. Nov 9/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim, no answer. Nov 10/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 19/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 23/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office. Admin will find an appointment time. Dec 4/15 – DG received a phone call from Julie from Kym Jim’s office advising that Kym can meet with DG on Dec 8/15. Dec 8/15 – DG met with Kym Jim at his office and reviewed project status. They identified the following issues: bulls, crossings, topsoil, tree salvage, topography, cattle management, not enough money. DG to discuss with KM and re-draft Schedule D. Nov 1/16 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and left a message for Julie requesting a meeting. Julie called DG back to say she would discuss with Kym. Nov 9/16 – DG received a phone message from Julie to say that Kym Jim will meet DG on Nov 28/16 at 6:00 p.m. Nov 14/16 – DG sent an email to Bill Lasuta requesting an estimate for timber values. Nov 23/16 – DG met Kam Jim at the farm in Little Fort, BC. DG delivered revised notice and discussed access for timber evaluation and residences. Nov 28/16 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and provided project status update. DG delivered Notice and reviewed Assessment, Bonus and Schedule D. DG agreed to follow up to clarify timing and duration of construction, damages. Livestock management will be a major issue. Dec 15/16 – DG emailed Kym Jim meeting summary (see email in file). Jan 29/17 – DG received an email from Bill Lasuta and reviewed timber values. Mar 21/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim requesting to meet and solve issues in the field. Apr 18/17 – DG phoned and talked to Julie and requested a meeting. Apr 24-17 – DG received an email from Julie advising that Kym Jim can meet on Apr 26/17 at 7:00 p.m. Apr 26/17 - DG met with Kym Jim and delivered Section 34. He agreed to meet Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) on May 19/17 to work through issues and determine damages. Apr 30/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim with a summary of meeting (email in file).
May 15/17- Kym Jim sent a letter of opposition to EF based on the inabilities to date of having his concerns addressed in a proper manner. May 19/17- DG (Darrell Goruk) met with Kym at the ranch. Did a drive through on all tracts. Pointed out pasture breeding paddocks and required bull separation. Water is crucial as is treated with anti-bloat additives to mitigate probable alfalfa grazing issues. Kym is not comfortable with suggestion to fence work area through construction period. Kym feels this would be too risky for the stock separation issue and safety of the cattle. Kym is not comfortable with access shown on the sketch as the access points are not clear. Kym is asking we look in to a winter construction where all stock will be penned out of the construction area. Kym will not go further with consent for further access until his concerns stated in his letter of May 15/17 have been addressed. Sept 13/17- DG contact Kym to see if there would be a chance to allow Opus on to the property to gather crossings data for the BC Hydro locations. Kym continues to refuse all access until his concerns have been met. Nov 25/17- DG send email to Kym Jim for clearance to arrange a meeting with farm operators Kam or Chris Jim along with Darcy and Lorne from Ledcor to view area and come up with the requested construction plan and look at the possibility of a winter construction. Include new agent Glenn Miller to join while in area. Nov 30/17- Glenn Miller (GM), Darrell Goruk (DG), and Ledcor representatives met with Chris Jim (nephew of Kym Jim) to drive and view all the tracts of land of where the TMEP is crossing their ranch, Little Fort Herefords. Kym Jim attended the meeting on and off on conference call along various tracts of the pipeline routing. Same issues and requests are present. Viewing on the ground will assist Ledcor in providing a work plan to the owners. Debrief and determine that Ledcor will work on plan and discuss consideration of a possible late fall construction. Dec 1/17 – GM sent a follow- up email to Kym Jim advising that Trans Mountain would put together a summer and winter construction plan scenario and sequencing for his review, outlining what may be expected in both scenarios. Trans Mountain also advised that we will include the proposed additional access of where we may need additional access to get at the right-of-way. Trans Mountain advised that we would try to get this to Kym Jim late the week of December 4th his review and then suggested a follow-up meeting with him the following week once he’s had a chance to review.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team & Survey Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA (ADDED Eng.Surv Sept14'17 -DON'T SEND ) Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: 1237 PID: 011-260-041 Landowner names: Kym Lee Jim Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner advised that he has the following questions and concerns before granting survey consent: 1. Landowner would like to know who is handling native affairs as it is required for this property. 2. Landowner is concerned with ROW and TWS compensation. 3. Landowner would like a clause included in the ROW Agreement stating that Kinder Morgan will remove the pipeline when/ if it is abandoned. 4. Landowner is concerned with the expansion of the ROW and alignment of the second pipe. 5. Landowner would like to know what the terms are for crossing the ROW with water lines, etc. Landowner will not grant consent until all his questions and concerns are answered. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 4/12 - Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), phoned Dr. Kym Lee Jim and talked to his secretary, Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim has left for the weekend and he is hard to reach by phone. Julie suggested that DG mail out the information. Oct 9/12 – Land Administrator sent out information package to Kym Jim via registered mail. Oct 18/12 – Land Agent, Corey Aldrich (CA), phoned Dr. Kym Jim’s office but it was closed for the day. Oct 19/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and left a message with his secretary. Dr. Jim is away until Oct 30/12. Nov 1/12 – CA phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 9/12 – CA phoned Kym Jim and left a message with his secretary. Nov 22/12 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim and discussed the project. He requested that CA call his office and work with his secretary to schedule a meeting. Nov 24/12 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), met with Landowner, JBLC Holdings Inc., Per: Kam Jim and consulted and reviewed package. Nov 26/12 – DG met with Kam Jim and obtained signed survey consent. Conditions: Keep all gates closed. Kam will notify residents if any are present. Nov 26/12 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Kym Jim’s secretary, Julie. She will speak to Kym and get back to CA. Nov 27/12 – CA phoned and talked to Julie at Dr. Kim’s office and scheduled a meeting for Dec 5/12. Dec 5/12 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Kim’s secretary, Julie, to postpone the meeting with Dr. Jim due to inclement weather. Julie will phone CA back to reschedule the meeting. Dec 11/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office to see if Julie had scheduled another meeting between CA and Dr. Jim. Julie was not in. Dec 14/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Leah. She advised that Julie was gone for the day and she suggested that CA phone on Monday to see if a meeting was arranged with Dr. Jim. Dec 17/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and left a message.
Jan 2/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that the meeting has not been scheduled yet. She is waiting to confirm with Dr. Jim as he is away until Jan 14/13. Jan 15/13 – Julie phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She will get back to CA once she has talked to Dr. Jim. Jan 22/13 –CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Jan 28/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 4/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 11/13 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Jim’s secretary, Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim has been busy at the hospital the past few weeks and hasn’t responded to Julie’s email. Julie said she would send him another note. Feb 20/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Mar 12/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Apr 2/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Leah. She will speak to Julie and get back to CA the next day. Apr 5/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Apr 29/13 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim and arranged a meeting for May 8/13. May 8/13 – CA met with Kym Jim and discussed the project. Questions and concerns Kym would like answers to before he grants consent: 1) Native affairs, who is handling and require it for this property. 2) ROW and TWS compensation. 3) Abandonment – would like a clause included in ROW agreement stating KM will remove pipe when / if it is abandoned. 4) Expansion of ROW and alignment of the second pipeline. 5) Terms for crossing the ROW with waterlines, etc. Jul 15/13 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim. CA will process as a refusal as Kym will not not grant consent until his questions and concerns have been addressed. CA informed Kym that KM does not have all of the answers to his questions at this time. Nov 14/14 - Land Agent, Don Grossberndt (DG), called and talked to Kym Jim. Dr. Jim said to make an appointment with Julie. Nov 12/14 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim can meet DG on Wednesday, Dec 17/14 at 7:00 p.m. Nov 17/14 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and delivered Notice and ROW documents. They discussed requirements. Dr. Jim insists on conditions on any agreement he signs to included, but not limited to: 1) Removal of pipe upon abandonment. 2) Ability to irrigate land, incremental expense to be KM’s. 3) Cattle management plan for 2 year period. 4) Waterlines across ROW to be installed at designated places with construction. 5) All fences disturbed to be replaced. 6) Existing line to be lowered. 7) KM must agree to support future subdivision of land. Kym declined to sign Acknowledgement. Feb 23/15 – DG phoned Kam Jim and arranged meeting for next day. Feb 24/15 – DG drove to Little Fort, BC and met with Kam Jim. DG delivered package and notice. Kam signed the Acknowledgement. Nov 9/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim, no answer. Nov 10/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 19/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 23/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office. Admin will find an appointment time. Dec 4/15 – DG received a phone call from Julie from Kym Jim’s office advising that Kym can meet with DG on Dec 8/15. Dec 8/15 – DG met with Kym Jim at his office and reviewed project status. They identified the following issues: bulls, crossings, topsoil, tree salvage, topography, cattle management, not enough money. DG to discuss with KM and re-draft Schedule D. Nov 1/16 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and left a message for Julie requesting a meeting. Julie called DG back to say she would discuss with Kym. Nov 9/16 – DG received a phone message from Julie to say that Kym Jim will meet DG on Nov 28/16 at 6:00 p.m. Nov 14/16 – DG sent an email to Bill Lasuta requesting an estimate for timber values. Nov 23/16 – DG met Kam Jim at the farm in Little Fort, BC. DG delivered revised notice and discussed access for timber evaluation and residences. Nov 28/16 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and provided project status update. DG delivered Notice and reviewed Assessment, Bonus and Schedule D. DG agreed to follow up to clarify timing and duration of construction, damages. Livestock management will be a major issue. Dec 15/16 – DG emailed Kym Jim meeting summary (see email in file). Jan 29/17 – DG received an email from Bill Lasuta and reviewed timber values. Mar 21/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim requesting to meet and solve issues in the field. Apr 18/17 – DG phoned and talked to Julie and requested a meeting. Apr 24-17 – DG received an email from Julie advising that Kym Jim can meet on Apr 26/17 at 7:00 p.m. Apr 26/17 - DG met with Kym Jim and delivered Section 34. He agreed to meet Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) on May 19/17 to work through issues and determine damages. Apr 30/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim with a summary of meeting (email in file).
May 15/17- Kym Jim sent a letter of opposition to EF based on the inabilities to date of having his concerns addressed in a proper manner. May 19/17- DG (Darrell Goruk) met with Kym at the ranch. Did a drive through on all tracts. Pointed out pasture breeding paddocks and required bull separation. Water is crucial as is treated with anti-bloat additives to mitigate probable alfalfa grazing issues. Kym is not comfortable with suggestion to fence work area through construction period. Kym feels this would be too risky for the stock separation issue and safety of the cattle. Kym is not comfortable with access shown on the sketch as the access points are not clear. Kym is asking we look in to a winter construction where all stock will be penned out of the construction area. Kym will not go further with consent for further access until his concerns stated in his letter of May 15/17 have been addressed. Sept 13/17- DG contact Kym to see if there would be a chance to allow Opus on to the property to gather crossings data for the BC Hydro locations. Kym continues to refuse all access until his concerns have been met. Nov 25/17- DG send email to Kym Jim for clearance to arrange a meeting with farm operators Kam or Chris Jim along with Darcy and Lorne from Ledcor to view area and come up with the requested construction plan and look at the possibility of a winter construction. Include new agent Glenn Miller to join while in area. Nov 30/17- Glenn Miller (GM), Darrell Goruk (DG), and Ledcor representatives met with Chris Jim (nephew of Kym Jim) to drive and view all the tracts of land of where the TMEP is crossing their ranch, Little Fort Herefords. Kym Jim attended the meeting on and off on conference call along various tracts of the pipeline routing. Same issues and requests are present. Viewing on the ground will assist Ledcor in providing a work plan to the owners. Debrief and determine that Ledcor will work on plan and discuss consideration of a possible late fall construction. Dec 1/17 – GM sent a follow- up email to Kym Jim advising that Trans Mountain would put together a summer and winter construction plan scenario and sequencing for his review, outlining what may be expected in both scenarios. Trans Mountain also advised that we will include the proposed additional access of where we may need additional access to get at the right-of-way. Trans Mountain advised that we would try to get this to Kym Jim late the week of December 4th his review and then suggested a follow-up meeting with him the following week once he’s had a chance to review.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Survey Team S73 HANDOUT: Engineering Survey (added sep 14'17) Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: 1238 PID: 005-318-564 Landowner names: Kym Lee Jim Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner advised that he has the following questions and concerns before granting survey consent: 1. Landowner would like to know who is handling native affairs as it is required for this property. 2. Landowner is concerned with ROW and TWS compensation. 3. Landowner would like a clause included in the ROW Agreement stating that Kinder Morgan will remove the pipeline when/ if it is abandoned. 4. Landowner is concerned with the expansion of the ROW and alignment of the second pipe. 5. Landowner would like to know what the terms are for crossing the ROW with water lines, etc. Landowner will not grant consent until all his questions and concerns are answered. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 4/12 - Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), phoned Dr. Kym Lee Jim and talked to his secretary, Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim has left for the weekend and he is hard to reach by phone. Julie suggested that DG mail out the information. Oct 9/12 – Land Administrator sent out information package to Kym Jim via registered mail. Oct 18/12 – Land Agent, Corey Aldrich (CA), phoned Dr. Kym Jim’s office but it was closed for the day. Oct 19/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and left a message with his secretary. Dr. Jim is away until Oct 30/12. Nov 1/12 – CA phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 9/12 – CA phoned Kym Jim and left a message with his secretary. Nov 22/12 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim and discussed the project. He requested that CA call his office and work with his secretary to schedule a meeting. Nov 24/12 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), met with Landowner, JBLC Holdings Inc., Per: Kam Jim and consulted and reviewed package. Nov 26/12 – DG met with Kam Jim and obtained signed survey consent. Conditions: Keep all gates closed. Kam will notify residents if any are present. Nov 26/12 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Kym Jim’s secretary, Julie. She will speak to Kym and get back to CA. Nov 27/12 – CA phoned and talked to Julie at Dr. Kim’s office and scheduled a meeting for Dec 5/12. Dec 5/12 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Kim’s secretary, Julie, to postpone the meeting with Dr. Jim due to inclement weather. Julie will phone CA back to reschedule the meeting. Dec 11/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office to see if Julie had scheduled another meeting between CA and Dr. Jim. Julie was not in. Dec 14/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Leah. She advised that Julie was gone for the day and she suggested that CA phone on Monday to see if a meeting was arranged with Dr. Jim. Dec 17/12 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and left a message.
Jan 2/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that the meeting has not been scheduled yet. She is waiting to confirm with Dr. Jim as he is away until Jan 14/13. Jan 15/13 – Julie phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She will get back to CA once she has talked to Dr. Jim. Jan 22/13 –CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Jan 28/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 4/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 11/13 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Jim’s secretary, Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim has been busy at the hospital the past few weeks and hasn’t responded to Julie’s email. Julie said she would send him another note. Feb 20/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Mar 12/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Apr 2/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Leah. She will speak to Julie and get back to CA the next day. Apr 5/13 - CA phoned Dr. Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Apr 29/13 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim and arranged a meeting for May 8/13. May 8/13 – CA met with Kym Jim and discussed the project. Kym had the following concerns: 1) Native affairs, who is handling it and required for his property. 2) ROW and TWS compensation. 3) Abandonment – would like a clause included in ROW agreement stating KM will remove pipe when / if it is abandoned. 4) Expansion of ROW and alignment of the new pipeline. 5) Terms for crossing the ROW with waterlines, etc. Jul 15/13 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim. CA advised that KM cannot answer all of his questions at this time as details regarding compensation and alignment haven’t been determined yet. Kym said he will not grant access until his questions and concerns have been addressed. CA will process as a refusal. Nov 14/14 - Land Agent, Don Grossberndt (DG), called and talked to Kym Jim. Dr. Jim said to make an appointment with Julie. Nov 12/14 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim can meet DG on Wednesday, Dec 17/14 at 7:00 p.m. Nov 17/14 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and delivered Notice and ROW documents. They discussed requirements. Dr. Jim insists on conditions on any agreement he signs to included, but not limited to: 1) Removal of pipe upon abandonment. 2) Ability to irrigate land, incremental expense to be KM’s. 3) Cattle management plan for 2 year period. 4) Waterlines across ROW to be installed at designated places with construction. 5) All fences disturbed to be replaced. 6) Existing line to be lowered. 7) KM must agree to support future subdivision of land. Kym declined to sign Acknowledgement. Feb 23/15 – DG phoned Kam Jim and arranged meeting for next day. Feb 24/15 – DG drove to Little Fort, BC and met with Kam Jim. DG delivered package and notice. Kam signed the Acknowledgement. Nov 9/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim, no answer. Nov 10/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 19/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 23/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office. Admin will find an appointment time. Dec 4/15 – DG received a phone call from Julie from Kym Jim’s office advising that Kym can meet with DG on Dec 8/15. Dec 8/15 – DG met with Kym Jim at his office and reviewed project status. They identified the following issues: bulls, crossings, topsoil, tree salvage, topography, cattle management, not enough money. DG to discuss with KM and re-draft Schedule D. Nov 1/16 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and left a message for Julie requesting a meeting. Julie called DG back to say she would discuss with Kym. Nov 9/16 – DG received a phone message from Julie to say that Kym Jim will meet DG on Nov 28/16 at 6:00 p.m. Nov 14/16 – DG sent an email to Bill Lasuta requesting an estimate for timber values. Nov 23/16 – DG met Kam Jim at the farm in Little Fort, BC. DG delivered revised notice and discussed access for timber evaluation and residences. Nov 28/16 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and provided project status update. DG delivered Notice and reviewed Assessment, Bonus and Schedule D. DG agreed to follow up to clarify timing and duration of construction, damages. Livestock management will be a major issue. Dec 15/16 – DG emailed Kym Jim meeting summary (see email in file). Jan 29/17 – DG received an email from Bill Lasuta and reviewed timber values. Mar 21/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim requesting to meet and solve issues in the field. Apr 18/17 – DG phoned and talked to Julie and requested a meeting. Apr 24-17 – DG received an email from Julie advising that Kym Jim can meet on Apr 26/17 at 7:00 p.m. Apr 26/17 - DG met with Kym Jim and delivered Section 34. He agreed to meet Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) on May 19/17 to work through issues and determine damages. Apr 30/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim with a summary of meeting (email in file).
May 15/17- Kym Jim sent a letter of opposition to EF based on the inabilities to date of having his concerns addressed in a proper manner. May 19/17- DG (Darrell Goruk) met with Kym at the ranch. Did a drive through on all tracts. Pointed out pasture breeding paddocks and required bull separation. Water is crucial as is treated with anti-bloat additives to mitigate probable alfalfa grazing issues. Kym is not comfortable with suggestion to fence work area through construction period. Kym feels this would be too risky for the stock separation issue and safety of the cattle. Kym is not comfortable with access shown on the sketch as the access points are not clear. Kym is asking we look in to a winter construction where all stock will be penned out of the construction area. Kym will not go further with consent for further access until his concerns stated in his letter of May 15/17 have been addressed. Sept 13/17- DG contact Kym to see if there would be a chance to allow Opus on to the property to gather crossings data for the BC Hydro locations. Kym continues to refuse all access until his concerns have been met. Nov 25/17- DG send email to Kym Jim for clearance to arrange a meeting with farm operators Kam or Chris Jim along with Darcy and Lorne from Ledcor to view area and come up with the requested construction plan and look at the possibility of a winter construction. Include new agent Glenn Miller to join while in area. Nov 30/17- Glenn Miller (GM), Darrell Goruk (DG), and Ledcor representatives met with Chris Jim (nephew of Kym Jim) to drive and view all the tracts of land of where the TMEP is crossing their ranch, Little Fort Herefords. Kym Jim attended the meeting on and off on conference call along various tracts of the pipeline routing. Same issues and requests are present. Viewing on the ground will assist Ledcor in providing a work plan to the owners. Debrief and determine that Ledcor will work on plan and discuss consideration of a possible late fall construction. Dec 1/17 – GM sent a follow- up email to Kym Jim advising that Trans Mountain would put together a summer and winter construction plan scenario and sequencing for his review, outlining what may be expected in both scenarios. Trans Mountain also advised that we will include the proposed additional access of where we may need additional access to get at the right-of-way. Trans Mountain advised that we would try to get this to Kym Jim late the week of December 4th his review and then suggested a follow-up meeting with him the following week once he’s had a chance to review.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Survey Team S73 HANDOUT: Engineering Survey (added sep 14'17) Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: 1239 PID: 011-257-156 Landowner names: Gung Kee Jim Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY CONSENT NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner has decided that he does not want Trans Mountain accessing his property until the concerns his brother, Kym, raised have been addressed. Many of these concerns are construction related and cannot be answered at this time. The concerns are as follows: - Require Native consultation - ROW & TWS compensation - Abandonment (Clause included in ROW agreement stating Trans Mountain will remove the pipe if/when it is abandoned). - Expansion of ROW and alignment of second pipe - Terms for crossing ROW with water lines, etc. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 25/12 – Land Agent, Corey Aldrich (CA), phoned Landowner, Gung Kee Jim, and left a message. CA talked to Kee and discussed the project. CA told Kee that he would send him an information package in the mail. Oct 26/12 – Land Administrator sent information package with consent form to Gung Jim via registered mail. Nov 14/12 – CA called and left a message for Gung Jim. Nov 21/12 – CA spoke with Kee Jim to follow up on the information package that was mailed to him. Kee said that he had signed the survey consent form and has sent it back to CA in the mail. Nov. 22/12 – CA received signed survey consent form and initialed parcel map from Kee Jim. Kee’s signature was not witnessed on the survey consent form. CA phoned Kee Jim and discussed the terms and conditions. Nov 24/12 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), met with occupant Kam Jim to review package and sign survey consent form. Conditions: Keep all gates closed. Jul 15/13 – CA received a phone call from Kym Jim. He stated that Kee Jim was not fully aware of what he was signing and would like to retract his consent. CA to phone Kee to confirm. Jul 22/13 – CA talked to Kee Jim. Kee and Kym Jim meeting to discuss the project. The consent is not retracted at this time. Sep 12/13 – CA phoned Kee Jim. Kee has decided that he doesn’t want TM to access his property until Kym’s concerns have been addressed. Dec 23/14 – Land Agent, Don Grossberndt (DG), phoned Gung Kee Jim at his office, no answer. Jan 5/15 – DG phoned Gung Kee Jim’s office and talked to Tracy. Tracy will review with him and send DG email with appointment times. Jan 15/15 – DG phoned Gung Kee Jim’s office. He will meet DG Jan 21/15 at 9:00 a.m. Jan 21/15 – DG drove to Gung Kee Jim’s office in Okotoks. DG delivered notice and discussed project. Dr. Jim signed the acknowledgement. He also provided written direction to deal with his brother Kym to solve the issues outlined by Kym Jim. Feb 23/15 – DG called Kam Jim. He can meet with DG next day. Feb 24/15 – DG drove to Little Fort, BC to meet with Kam Jim. DG delivered package and Notice. Kam signed Acknowledgment.
Nov 9/15 – DG phoned Kim Jim, no answer. Nov 10/15 – DG phoned Kim Jim and left a message. Nov 19/15 – DG phoned Kim Jim, no answer. Nov 23/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office. Admin will find an appointment time. Dec 4/15 – DG received a call from Admin and advised that Kym Jim can meet on Dec 8/15 at 7:00 p.m. Dec 8/15 – DG met Kym Jim at his office in Red Deer and reviewed project status and identified the following issues: Bulls crossing, cattle management, topsoil, topography, tree salvage, not enough money. DG will discuss with KM and re-draft Schedule D. Oct 24/16 - DG phoned Kee Jim at the office. He can meet the next day at 10:00 a.m. Oct 25/16 – DG met with Kee Jim at his office and delivered notice and discussed project. Nov 1/16 – DG phoned Kee Jim’s office and left a message with Julie requesting a meeting with Dr. Jim. Nov 9/16 – DG received a phone message from Julie advising that Kym Jim will meet on Nov 28/16 at 6 p.m. Nov 14/16 – DG sent an email to Bill Lasuta requesting estimate for timber valuations. Nov 23/16 – DG met Kam Jim at Little Fort, BC and delivered revised Notice and identified access issues for timber valuations. Nov 28/16 – DG drove to Red Deer to meet Kym Jim and deliver Notice and discuss project status. DG also reviewed assessments, bonus and Schedule D. They agreed that construction timing and duration, damages and cattle management plan needs to be more defined. Cattle will be a major issue. Dec 15/16 – DG emailed meeting summary to Kym Jim (see email in file). Jan 29/17 – DG received email from Bill Lasuta with review of timber values. Mar 21/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim requesting to meet on site and solve issues. Apr 13/17 – DG phoned Kee Jim to set up an appointment. He away until the following Wednesday. Apr 19/17 – DG dropped in to see Kee Jim. He is back the next day and will see DG at 10:30 a.m. Apr 20/17 – DG met with Kee Jim and delivered the Section 34 and continued to negotiate with Kym Jim. Apr 24/17 – DG received an email from Julie advising that Kym Jim can meet on Apr 26/17 at 7:00 p.m. Apr 26/17 – DG met with Kym Jim to deliver other Section 34’s. He agreed to meet Darrell Goruk on May 19/17 to work through issues and determine damage Apr 27/17 – DG talked to Darrell Goruk. Darrell will meet Kym on May 19/17 on site. Apr 30/17 – DG sent email to Kym Jim with summary of meeting and soft copy of Section 34 delivered to Kee Jim on Apr 20/17. May 15/17- Kym Jim sent a letter of opposition to EF based on the inabilities to date of having his concerns addressed in a proper manner. May 19/17- DG (Darrell Goruk) met with Kym at the ranch. Did a drive through on all tracts. Pointed out pasture breeding paddocks and required bull separation. Water is crucial as is treated with anti-bloat additives to mitigate probable alfalfa grazing issues. Kym is not comfortable with suggestion to fence work area through construction period. Kym feels this would be too risky for the stock separation issue and safety of the cattle. Kym is not comfortable with access shown on the sketch as the access points are not clear. Kym is asking we look in to a winter construction where all stock will be penned out of the construction area. Kym will not go further with consent for further access until his concerns stated in his letter of May 15/17 have been addressed. Sept 13/17- DG contact Kym to see if there would be a chance to allow Opus on to the property to gather crossings data for the BC Hydro locations. Kym continues to refuse all access until his concerns have been met. Nov 25/17- DG send email to Kym Jim for clearance to arrange a meeting with farm operators Kam or Chris Jim along with Darcy and Lorne from Ledcor to view area and come up with the requested construction plan and look at the possibility of a winter construction. Include new agent Glenn Miller to join while in area. Nov 30/17- Glenn Miller (GM), Darrell Goruk (DG), and Ledcor representatives met with Chris Jim (nephew of Kym Jim) to drive and view all the tracts of land of where the TMEP is crossing their ranch, Little Fort Herefords. Kym Jim attended the meeting on and off on conference call along various tracts of the pipeline routing. Same issues and requests are present. Viewing on the ground will assist Ledcor in providing a work plan to the owners. Debrief and determine that Ledcor will work on plan and discuss consideration of a possible late fall construction. Dec 1/17 – GM sent a follow- up email to Kym Jim advising that Trans Mountain would put together a summer and winter construction plan scenario and sequencing for his review, outlining what may be expected in both scenarios. Trans Mountain also advised that we will include the proposed additional access of where we may need additional access to get at the right-of-way. Trans Mountain advised that we would try to get this to Kym Jim late the week of December 4th his review and then suggested a follow-up meeting with him the following week once he’s had a chance to review.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Ross Dalpre Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.3 Spread Name: 5A Tract: 1370.02 PID: 011-398-019 Landowner names: Tamihi Reforestation & Farming Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY CONSENT NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Tamihi Reforestation & Farming Ltd: Landowner advised that he is refraining from signing the survey consent form due to a legacy issue with Kinder Morgan. Landowner does not appear to be opposed to the project, but concerned about impact on property. Refused consent or any access until after a compensation package has been negotiated. The landowner further advised that only one Agent is to contact him about this matter. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Jun 2/13 - RD, Ross Dalpre (RD) called Mr. Ted Scott in regards to permission to survey. Mr. Scott advised that he has sold the property to Mr. Brian Dorman and the range land tenures would be transferred to him. Mr. Scott provided Mr. Dorman's phone numbers. RD called Mr. Dorman and left a message explaining the project and requested a call back to discuss the survey consent. Jun 3/13 - RD received a phone call from Mr. Dorman's secretary, Ms. Cousins. She advised that they have received his message and will pass it onto Mr. Dorman. RD provided a brief explanation on the project and further requested contact information. Ms. Cousins advised that she does not know which company has purchased the land or if Mr. Dorman has purchased it under his name, however, she will have Mr. Dorman respond to the inquiry. Ms. Cousins further advised that it may take a whole for Mr. Dorman to respond in light of his busy schedule. Jun 7/13 - RD received a telephone call from Mr. Brian Dorman. RD asked for permission to survey over his rangeland tenure 077579. Mr. Dorman advised that he is refraining from signing the survey consent form due to a legacy issue with Kinder Morgan. He explained that the Seabird Inland First Nations and his company were denied a crossing for logging purposes over the Trans Mountain Pipeline at Porsha (bottom of the Coquihalla near Hope). Prior to considering any future tenures over his licensed or private lands, in favor of Trans Mountain, he requests an onsite meeting to discuss the subject crossing. He further requests only one agent contact him regarding this matter. Mr. Dorman advised that he has two companies: Dorman Timber and Tamihi Logging. RD advised Mr. Dorman that he would inform the project and Kinder Morgan of his request and further have the appropriate party contact him. RD sent an email to the project team in regards to Mr. Dorman's legacy issue. Jul 18/13 - RD discussed the matters with a Land Manager and agreed that this file would be recorded as a refusal until the legacy issues are resolved. Oct 31/13 – Mr. Bob Love sent an email to Mr. Dorman and Ted Holtby on October 31, 2013 stating the following: “Thanks for taking time to review the road access yesterday. For access across the pipeline, beside the pipeline and above the line that might need further assessment to ensure hydrological aspects are OK, as we discussed you will need to obtain a proximity permit from Trans Mountain for these activities, and there is an application process and a bit longer timeline associated with that process. I would confirm that an access agreement to enter the Porta Gate end of the road (i.e. that part of the road before crossing our pipeline) would be a straight forward arrangement.
Our land group is going to organize a conference call with our engineering, operations and pipeline protection groups to make sure that we get the required feedback from them on how to best manage these type of road use agreements relative to safely and efficiently operating our pipeline. Ted, I would ask that you please confirm by email that you have custody of the two keys for the lower Portia Gate, and that for the time being your access will by for planning purposes only using pick up trucks or other passenger vehicles only. I would ask that you notify our Hope pipeline maintenance staff ) of any planned entry, and abide by any safety or other conditions necessary due to our operations. In addition, and due to the fact that there is restoration project being wrapped up that is under the control of our site contract foreman, I would also ask that you alert Tom Moug about the work, and he can let the security staff know that your entry is authorized as well as alert you to traffic. I am not certain when this work and additional security will end. By way of sending this e-mail, I am alerting our staff that Tamihi Logging (part of the Dorman Group of companies) has permission to enter the lower Portia Gate with pick up trucks or similar passenger vehicles for the purposes of surveying & planning timber harvesting opportunities, and they have a contractor key to that gate. If there are any issues with this please contact me directly ). Dorman Group Tamihi Logging Contact: Ted Holtby – Engineering Department cell ( ) Brian Dorman – President Sept 18/14 – RD called Mr. Dorman, not available. Sept 19/14 – RD called Mr. Dorman. Advised he is not back to work yet but plans to be at office in Harrison next week. RD to stop and meet Mr. Dorman on September 26, 2014. Sept 26/14 – RD met with Mr. Dorman in Harrison Mills. Owner does not appear to be opposed to project, but is concerned about impact on his property. Mr. Dorman refused survey consent or any access until after a compensation package has been negotiated. Jan 6/15 – RD called Brian Dorman who advised he is on vacation in California. RD to call back in two weeks to organize a meeting. Jan 15/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Jan 21/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Jan 30/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Feb 10/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Mar 1/15 – RD called and spoke to the receptionist who advised Brian Dorman is away from the office and there is no definite return date. RD to call back mid-year – owner is ill. Jul 23/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message to call. Jul 27/15 – RD called and left message for receptionist. Aug 10/17 – Land Administrator, Kirsten Nowak (KN) sent out the Section 87 Notice, Agreement for Grant and Incentive Letter via registered mail to Brian Dorman. Sep 1/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message at both numbers ( and . RD advised he could either meet to present offers or mail them. RD called the office again and spoke to the receptionist. Address –
. RD sent email to Progress to mail out package. Sep 2/15 – Received confirmation from Progress Land that Section 87 documents were served on Owner. Sep 29/15 – RD phoned and talked to Brian Dorman. He advised he wants pipe moved to the other side of Westside Rd. due to noise, dust, irrigation concerns. RD spoke with Progress. This move is not possible as it is outside study corridor. Oct 5/15 – RD phoned and talked to Brian Dorman. He now lives on Vancouver Island and is not available to meet at this time. RD will send him a copy of study corridor for review. Jan 19/16 – RD met with Joey Andries. Taso Gavriel (TG) is looking at values. Sep 13/16 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Sep 24/16 – RD received an email from Brian Dorman seeking an update. Sep 28/16 – RD called and spoke with Brian Dorman. He wants pipe moved across Westside Rd. He is concerned about dust and noise and timing for construction. Dec 15/16 – RD sent email to Brian Dorman requesting a meeting. Jan 10/17 - RD sent email to Brian Dorman requesting a meeting. Apr 6/17 – RD received a phone call from Brian Dorman requesting a meeting in Kamloops at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, April 7, 2017. April 7/17 – RD met with Brian Dorman. He wants pipe moved closer to Westside Rd. Timing for construction will be a problem. Brian wants a contract for logging new R/W. Ranch Manager, Sean Saboda ) wants compensation reviewed. Apr 25/17 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message for meeting in Kamloops. Apr 27/17 – RD called and talked to Brian Dorman. Will meet next week. Apr 28/17 – RD sent text to Brian Dorman to set up meeting for noon on Tuesday, May 2, 2017 in Harrison.
May 2/17 – RD met with Brian Dorman and VP of Operations, Don Borosky. RD presented Brian Dorman with 34 Notice. Owner concerns: Cattle management, proximity of line to house, ability to maintain access to lower field, worker safety, liability for road, loss of hay, access to water. Proposed site meeting for Friday, May 5, 2017. RD will attempt to arrange for agrologist to attend. Brian Dorman wants construction schedule, estimate time / length of construction and disturbance. He estimates crop loss at . Brian wants to hire his own agrologist. May need to transport cattle during construction. He asked what is earliest start date. He may want barns rebuilt. Herd size 14 bulls, 500 cow/calf, 53 heifers. Confirmed engineer on Project, Jason Squires KM ( ). May 5/17 – RD met on site with Brian Dorman. Bruce and Jamie McTavish attended to take measurements and locate R/W. Also started impact assessment. Offered to show Brian location of R/W and work space. Brian wants offer from KM that includes disturbance. Requested agreement with Performance Board. Anticipate 4 month construction period and one year to restore. Brian wants cheque in advance for loss of hay, equipment payments and 3 full time employees. May 15/17 – RD received email from Brian Dorman’s lawyer, Nathan Seaward, requesting contact information and copy of plans. May 17/17 – Received email and letter from lawyer, Nathan Seaward, representing Brian Dorman demanding . Forwarded to Progress Land and sent Acknowledgement back to Mr. Seaward. Return file for service of updated offer July 24/17- Owner refuses access onto property without comprehensive agreement. August 30/17- Request to survey denied. October 6/17-Email from owner suggesting that he now willing to consider granting access to ranch November 27/17- Text from owner confirming site meeting on December 7th to discuss all issues including survey access.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Ross Dalpre Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.3 Spread Name: 5A Tract: 1371, DL: 95 PID: 011-410-558 Landowner names: Tamihi Reforestation & Farming Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY CONSENT NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Tamihi Reforestation & Farming Ltd: Landowner advised that he is refraining from signing the survey consent form due to a legacy issue with Kinder Morgan. Landowner does not appear to be opposed to the project, but concerned about impact on property. Refused consent or any access until after a compensation package has been negotiated. The landowner further advised that only one Agent is to contact him about this matter. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Jun 2/13 - RD, Ross Dalpre (RD) called Mr. Ted Scott in regards to permission to survey. Mr. Scott advised that he has sold the property to Mr. Brian Dorman and the range land tenures would be transferred to him. Mr. Scott provided Mr. Dorman's phone numbers. RD called Mr. Dorman and left a message explaining the project and requested a call back to discuss the survey consent. Jun 3/13 - RD received a phone call from Mr. Dorman's secretary, Ms. Cousins. She advised that they have received his message and will pass it onto Mr. Dorman. RD provided a brief explanation on the project and further requested contact information. Ms. Cousins advised that she does not know which company has purchased the land or if Mr. Dorman has purchased it under his name, however, she will have Mr. Dorman respond to the inquiry. Ms. Cousins further advised that it may take a whole for Mr. Dorman to respond in light of his busy schedule. Jun 7/13 - RD received a telephone call from Mr. Brian Dorman. RD asked for permission to survey over his rangeland tenure 077579. Mr. Dorman advised that he is refraining from signing the survey consent form due to a legacy issue with Kinder Morgan. He explained that the Seabird Inland First Nations and his company were denied a crossing for logging purposes over the Trans Mountain Pipeline at Porsha (bottom of the Coquihalla near Hope). Prior to considering any future tenures over his licensed or private lands, in favor of Trans Mountain, he requests an onsite meeting to discuss the subject crossing. He further requests only one agent contact him regarding this matter. Mr. Dorman advised that he has two companies: Dorman Timber and Tamihi Logging. RD advised Mr. Dorman that he would inform the project and Kinder Morgan of his request and further have the appropriate party contact him. RD sent an email to the project team in regards to Mr. Dorman's legacy issue. Jul 18/13 - RD discussed the matters with a Land Manager and agreed that this file would be recorded as a refusal until the legacy issues are resolved. Oct 31/13 – Mr. Bob Love sent an email to Mr. Dorman and Ted Holtby on October 31, 2013 stating the following: “Thanks for taking time to review the road access yesterday. For access across the pipeline, beside the pipeline and above the line that might need further assessment to ensure hydrological aspects are OK, as we discussed you will need to obtain a proximity permit from Trans Mountain for these activities, and there is an application process and a bit longer timeline associated with that process. I would confirm that an access agreement to enter the Porta Gate end of the road (i.e. that part of the road before crossing our pipeline) would be a straight forward arrangement.
Our land group is going to organize a conference call with our engineering, operations and pipeline protection groups to make sure that we get the required feedback from them on how to best manage these type of road use agreements relative to safely and efficiently operating our pipeline. Ted, I would ask that you please confirm by email that you have custody of the two keys for the lower Portia Gate, and that for the time being your access will by for planning purposes only using pick up trucks or other passenger vehicles only. I would ask that you notify our Hope pipeline maintenance staff (James Robertson – ) of any planned entry, and abide by any safety or other conditions necessary due to our operations. In addition, and due to the fact that there is restoration project being wrapped up that is under the control of our site contract foreman, I would also ask that you alert Tom Moug about the work, and he can let the security staff know that your entry is authorized as well as alert you to traffic. I am not certain when this work and additional security will end. By way of sending this e-mail, I am alerting our staff that Tamihi Logging (part of the Dorman Group of companies) has permission to enter the lower Portia Gate with pick up trucks or similar passenger vehicles for the purposes of surveying & planning timber harvesting opportunities, and they have a contractor key to that gate. If there are any issues with this please contact me directly ). Dorman Group Tamihi Logging Contact: Ted Holtby – Engineering Department cell ( , Chilliwack – behind Ritchie Bros Auctioneers) Brian Dorman – President cell Sept 18/14 – RD called Mr. Dorman, not available. Sept 19/14 – RD called Mr. Dorman. Advised he is not back to work yet but plans to be at office in Harrison next week. RD to stop and meet Mr. Dorman on September 26, 2014. Sept 26/14 – RD met with Mr. Dorman in Harrison Mills. Owner does not appear to be opposed to project, but is concerned about impact on his property. Mr. Dorman refused survey consent or any access until after a compensation package has been negotiated. Jan 6/15 – RD called Brian Dorman who advised he is on vacation in California. RD to call back in two weeks to organize a meeting. Jan 15/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Jan 21/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Jan 30/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Feb 10/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Mar 1/15 – RD called and spoke to the receptionist who advised Brian Dorman is away from the office and there is no definite return date. RD to call back mid-year – owner is ill. Jul 23/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message to call. Jul 27/15 – RD called and left message for receptionist. Aug 10/17 – Land Administrator, Kirsten Nowak (KN) sent out the Section 87 Notice, Agreement for Grant and Incentive Letter via registered mail to Brian Dorman. Sep 1/15 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message at both numbers ( and ( . RD advised he could either meet to present offers or mail them. RD called the office again and spoke to the receptionist. Address –
RD sent email to Progress to mail out package. Sep 2/15 – Received confirmation from Progress Land that Section 87 documents were served on Owner. Sep 29/15 – RD phoned and talked to Brian Dorman. He advised he wants pipe moved to the other side of Westside Rd. due to noise, dust, irrigation concerns. RD spoke with Progress. This move is not possible as it is outside study corridor. Oct 5/15 – RD phoned and talked to Brian Dorman. He now lives on Vancouver Island and is not available to meet at this time. RD will send him a copy of study corridor for review. Jan 19/16 – RD met with Joey Andries. Taso Gavriel (TG) is looking at values. Sep 13/16 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message. Sep 24/16 – RD received an email from Brian Dorman seeking an update. Sep 28/16 – RD called and spoke with Brian Dorman. He wants pipe moved across Westside Rd. He is concerned about dust and noise and timing for construction. Dec 15/16 – RD sent email to Brian Dorman requesting a meeting. Jan 10/17 - RD sent email to Brian Dorman requesting a meeting. Apr 6/17 – RD received a phone call from Brian Dorman requesting a meeting in Kamloops at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, April 7, 2017. April 7/17 – RD met with Brian Dorman. He wants pipe moved closer to Westside Rd. Timing for construction will be a problem. Brian wants a contract for logging new R/W. Ranch Manager, Sean Saboda ( ) wants compensation reviewed. Apr 25/17 – RD called Brian Dorman and left a message for meeting in Kamloops. Apr 27/17 – RD called and talked to Brian Dorman. Will meet next week. Apr 28/17 – RD sent text to Brian Dorman to set up meeting for noon on Tuesday, May 2, 2017 in Harrison.
May 2/17 – RD met with Brian Dorman and VP of Operations, Don Borosky. RD presented Brian Dorman with 34 Notice. Owner concerns: Cattle management, proximity of line to house, ability to maintain access to lower field, worker safety, liability for road, loss of hay, access to water. Proposed site meeting for Friday, May 5, 2017. RD will attempt to arrange for agrologist to attend. Brian Dorman wants construction schedule, estimate time / length of construction and disturbance. He estimates crop loss at . Brian wants to hire his own agrologist. May need to transport cattle during construction. He asked what is earliest start date. He may want barns rebuilt. Herd size 14 bulls, 500 cow/calf, 53 heifers. Confirmed engineer on Project, Jason Squires KM ( ). May 5/17 – RD met on site with Brian Dorman. Bruce and Jamie McTavish attended to take measurements and locate R/W. Also started impact assessment. Offered to show Brian location of R/W and work space. Brian wants offer from KM that includes disturbance. Requested agreement with Performance Board. Anticipate 4 month construction period and one year to restore. Brian wants cheque in advance for loss of hay, equipment payments and 3 full time employees. May 15/17 – RD received email from Brian Dorman’s lawyer, Nathan Seaward, requesting contact information and copy of plans. May 17/17 – Received email and letter from lawyer, Nathan Seaward, representing Brian Dorman demanding . Forwarded to Progress Land and sent Acknowledgement back to Mr. Seaward. Return file for service of updated offer. July 24/17- Owner refuses access onto property without comprehensive agreement. August 30/17- Request to survey denied. October 6/17-Email from owner suggesting that he now willing to consider granting access to ranch November 27/17- Text from owner confirming site meeting on December 7th to discuss all issues including survey access.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Taso Gavriel Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.3 Spread Name: 5A Tract: 1377 DL: 100 PID: 011-409-576 Landowner names: 89 Cattle Co. Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER. SURVEY CONSENT NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Legacy needs to be resolved if landowners are to grant survey consent - July 30/12 - Landowners explained that 89 Cattle Co. Ltd and Kinder Morgan had a dispute over farming practices and the matter was reviewed by the NEB. According to the Landowners they were successful in their claim and they continued to farm as they did before. The experience set a negative tone with the Landowners and they are not prepared to sign the Survey consent form without having time to think about the matter. They further stated that in their opinion the existing R/W is not legal because KM did not register the plan within the time allotted after registering the easement document. Land Agent recommended they prepare a letter that would be attached to file. Aug 30/12 - Letter from Landowners received and placed in file stating that upon obtaining legal advice they would be unable to sign the agreement unless it was amended. The amending clause and reasoning is included in the letter. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Jul 30/12 – Land Agent, Taso Gavriel (TG) met with Sheila Chalmers and Chris Mundhenk of 89 Cattle Co. Ltd., gave them a full information package and explained the proposed project, further requested execution of survey consent form. Landowners requested 2 weeks to review the survey consent form prior to signing, they explained that 89 Cattle Co. Ltd. and Kinder Morgan had a dispute over farming practices and the matter was reviewed by the NEB. According to the landowners they were successful in their claim and they continued to farm as they did before but the experience has set a negative tone with them and they are not prepared to sign the survey consent form without having time to think about the matter. They’ve stated that in their opinion the existing Right of Way is not legal because Kinder Morgan did not register the plan within the time allotted after registering the easement document, noting that there were several concerns regarding past issues, TG recommended they prepare a letter that we would attach to their file regarding the proposed twinning of the pipeline, landowners agreed and requested TG return in 2 weeks. Aug 23/12 – TG met with Sheila and Chris, they advised that they have reviewed the consultation package and have further received advice from Jeff Frame (Lawyer) on the survey consent form, they are not prepared to execute the survey consent form as written but will send a letter within one week with the proposed changes and comments regarding the proposed project. Sep 6/12 – TG left a message for Sheila and Chris requesting status of the letter, Later in the day Sheila returned his call adivisng him that they have a letter for Kinder Morgan’s review and further attention. TG picked up the letter at approximately 5pm, letter identified the following concerns 1) Indemnity request for the survey consent form 2) Partial acquisition of 0.75ac in the amount of based on gravel value. 3) Digging in cathodic equipment on the Right of Way. 4) Payment of Taxes to the 89 Cattle Co. for Block A SE Section 22 Range 17 W6M commencing November 2003. Nov 21/14 – TG left voicemail message for landowners requesting a meeting to discuss TMEP acquisition. Nov 28/14 – TG met with landowners and presented and reviewed Section 87(1) notice, they wish to have all documentation reviewed by their lawyer Jeff Frame. They are disappointed in the lack of response from the project to their
letter dated August 30/12, advised TG that in the last 1-1/2 years they requested Trans Mountain to resolve legacy issues on their field with no response. They would like their legacy issues to be solved, 1) Trans Mountain sleeved a portion of the pipe on their property, the exposed pipe was covered by a high concentration of sand, they experienced poor hay growth over this area and request that Trans Mountain replace the sand with topsoil to improve growth. 2) Request all rocks to be removed from their field that were scattered by Trans Mountain, advised the rocks have impeded their farming within the area. The offer is below market value for the land, subdivision impact not considered, they do not want to elaborate on the value but shared that they purchased land from the government 2-3 years ago at approximately /acre. They are very concerned that the construction will conflict with the farming operation, primarily the pivot system and access to the lands beyond the proposed R/W during farming season. They feel damages can be significant to the farming operation if access or water is restricted. They explained that the pivot system is mobile and has underground electrical to 3 points within their lands. They feel that modification to the system would be expensive and not practical. Request confirmation on the accidental removal of survey pins during the farming operation, are owners liable. Request confirmation on financial hardship caused by arch finds. For example if an arch find precluded them from farming a portion of their property would the owners be compensated for the loss. They received a notice of abandonment, request explanation. (letter not provided but they will try to find) Should project proceed they request irrigation crossing (underground) at south end of tract 1375. TG advised Damages caused to the farming operation by the proposed works will be compensated by TM after construction (crop loss) Arch finds within the proposed R/W will be mitigated by TM, finds in areas not used by TM are grey in nature, further direction from the project is needed. In light of the owners valuation concerns an appraisal may be required to determine market value. Will review the legacy issues with TM and respond, Will request clarification on letter of abandonment and respond and Suggest a review of the farming operation by construction staff along with preconstruction meet may be beneficial to reduce conflict between construction and farming operation Dec 3/14 – TG left a voicemail for landowners requesting meeting to discuss legacy issues with Pipeline maintenance Dec 3/14 – TG spoke to landowners lawyer Jeff Frame over the phone, he advised that he has been retained by 89 Cattle Co. to act on their behalf and asked for background information regarding TM request. I provided a breakdown of the land requirements through the owners lands and the issues raised at Nov 28/14 meeting. Jeff will discuss the matter with his clients and further give them direction on signing the Section 87 notice Dec 4/14 – TG received an email from Jeff Frame with the signed Section 87(1) acknowledgement Dec 6/14 – TG met with landowners while delivering notices for the Blackpines information session. TG requested to set up a meeting to discuss the legacy issues with Trans Mountain pipeline maintenance. They asked that we refrain from meeting until late march when the snow is off the ground and we can have a better visual of the soils and rocks on their field. Dec 9/14 – TG sent an email to Jeff Frame requesting update on his client’s decision regarding documentation. Jeff replied later in the day advising that he will be forwarding a letter regarding his clients position shortly and he would need a letter advising that absent of an agreement TMPL would expropriate. Also he does not agree with the ingress and egress, I replied by advising that the registered easement on the properties has this provision Jan 6/15 - Project received letter from Jeff Frame outling the owners concerns, Carey Johannesson copied project team and requested input. Jan 20/15 – TG hand delivered Carey Johannesson’s letter responding to the above dated January 19, 2015, incentive letter and revised Section 87 along with revised agreement to Jeff Frame. Mr. Frame was away and will return on February 2, 2015 Feb 17/15 – TG sent an email to Jeff Frame requesting status of clients response to Trans Mountains proposal, Jeff provided the following response I have not heard from my client since sending a copy of TMP's response dated January 19, 2015. Part of that is my fault as it arrived while I was out of the office and did not get sent to the client until after I was back. In the interim, here are my comments to TMP's response, using the numbering from my January 5, 2015 letter. 1) what was the outcome of the additional survey investigation? 2-6) This seems acceptable. 7) My client needs a more concrete assurance of access or compensation in lieu thereof. 8) I do not understand TMEP's response. 9) I am lukewarm on TMP's response and will wait to receive my client's position. 10&11)This seems acceptable. 12) I find the requested level of access over the entire property to be excessive and open to legal challenge. I cannot imagine ever recommending to this or any other client that they accept this term. In fact, I will recommend challenging the validity of such a clause in the existing SRW. I refer you to Fisher v. Bosse, 2006 BCSC 674 at para's 48 - 55, and Malahat Chalet Ltd. v. Pfizenmaier, [1996] B.C.J. No. 790, and Bossler v. Burton, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1614. Feb 25/15 – TG Left message for landowners requesting meeting to discuss legacy issues Mar 4/15 – TG Left message for landowners requesting call back re: legacy issues Mar 5/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame, TG Requested Jeff’s assistance in having his clients respond to meeting request for legacy issues, Further asked if there were any outstanding concerns with the letter response provided by the project. Jeff will speak to the owners regarding the legacy issues, he further advised that the primary concern with the letter was the easement rights over the total property when there is a road providing easy access to the R/W. Mar 6/15 – TG Received message from Sheila advising that they would be available to meet and discuss the legacy issues after the April 6/15, requested I call back to confirm. Placed a call to Sheila, left message that I would be away between
April 6 and 18/15. Recommended we meet in the 1st week of April or sooner so TM can add the work in their spring schedule Mar 13/15 – TG received phone call from Sheila confirming that they can meet on Mar 23/15 @ 1:00 pm top review legacy issues. Mar 13/15 – TG sent e-mail to Doug Wood requesting confirmation of availability for Mar 23/15 Mar 18/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame, While meeting with Jeff Frame on various issues, he confirmed that he was aware of the meeting to discuss the legacy issues and further recommended to his clients that they proceed with the meeting. Jeff will further discuss the balance of the owners concerns when they return from holidays Mar 19/15 - TG Received confirmation from Doug that he will be available on Mar 23/15 @ 1:00 pm to meet with 89 Cattle Co. Mar 19/15 – TG left message for landowners confirming meeting on Mar 23/15 @ 1:00 pm with Doug Wood and himself Mar 23/15 – TG had an onsite meeting with Doug Wood, Chris and Sheila regarding legacy issues. The 2 issues identified in our previous meeting were, Rocks on R/W and gravely/sandy soils at a former dig area. We reviewed the former dig area and noted a high concentration of sandy/gravel soils impeded grass growth . We later reviewed the R/W where we observed a stretch of approximately 250 m of R/W was inhabited with round boulders. The owners assumed the boulder were caused by early construction practices and changing weather conditions. Doug advised that the 2 legacy issues can be addressed as per the following 1) Remove the sandy/gravel soils and replace with 6 inches of topsoil, then seed the disturbed grounds. 2) Bring in machinery and remove all surface rock, do not excavate into the ground and try to remove more rock, as it will cause rocks to surface. 3) Its Doug’s opinion that the work can be completed over a 2 – 2.5 day period. We agreed on the following Doug will discuss the matter with Kelvin and seek approval to do the work. Upon receiving approval Doug will advise Taso and Taso will inform the owners. Doug will seek approval this week and hopes to be on site within 2.5 weeks if work is approved Apr 20/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame, Jeff advised the majority of the response received on the agreement look fine with the exception of ancillary rights, he suggests I contact the owners and discuss their operational concerns then once they are satisfied we can meet and deal with any outstanding concerns Apr 20/15 – TG left message for landowners advising them that Jeff had requested I call and set up an appointment with them to discuss their concerns and further wanted to know if the work on the legacy issues was done to their satisfaction Apr 27/15 – TG left message for landowners requesting appointment to discuss R/W acquisition Apr 30/15 – TG received message from Sheila advising that they would be prepared to meet on May 7/15 May 1/15 – TG left message advising that I am available on the 6th or 8th, requested call back to confirm appointment May 14/15 – TG met with landowners at their residence, Shila and Chris advised that they are not prepared to move forward on the acquisition until Trans Mountain responds to the following. 1) They request a discharge of Easement 69020E (30” line established in 1958 +-) from all 3 properties, they claim Trans Mountains did not register the plan according to the easement particulars and in their opinion the easement is not legal. The owners are prepared to negotiate on this matter with compensation to be determined at a latter date. 2) Tract 1379, They request a royalty to be paid to the owners for the pipeline through Block A S.E. 1/4 S. 22 TP 22 R. 17 W6M. They explained the Property was purchased from the Crown and the easement allows for the owner to collect an annual payment. I asked if the payment was taxation? They replied it would be a royalty similar to what is paid to other entities like the TNRD. 3) Tract 1375. Request Trans Mountain to purchase severed area between road and property west boundary for . The price is based on gravel value, no particulars were provided 4) To be indemnified (reimbursed) for legal expenses of incurred in 2010 when they challenged Trans Mountain’s position on their farming practices. Taso advised that he will review with the Project and respond. Jul 9/15 – TG left message for landowners requesting permission to survey advised the survey will identify the pipe location and the respective R/W, this will accurately address the land requirement through the properties also their question regarding the 30’ easement through their property. Jul 10/15 – TG tried to leave message but the fax machine activated and message could not be left Jul 12/15 – TG made a cold call to the residence, knocked on the door, no response. Drove by hay field, noted gate was locked. Jul 13/15 – TG T/C to Owners, tried to leave message but the fax machine activated and message could not be left Jul 13/15 – TG spoke to Jeff Frame, requested entry to subject properties for survey purposes, explained that we have failed to reach the owners in the last few days. Jeff will try to contact owners by e-mail and phone and then respond. Jul 16/15 – Ian Cassie, Lawyer sent e-mail to Jeff Frame with attached letter responding to the owners concerns as per the following, he further confirmed a meeting requirement between the principles and asked for assistance in reaching his clients in light of the lack of response received by Taso, Items responded to in letter: Owner conducting Ordinary Farming Activities; Pipe will be berried 1 meter under ground the owner will have the right to use property for farming activity in accordance with the agriculture exemption order Mo-21-2010. Ancillary rights; TMEP will locate and survey agreed access corridors for ancillary rights if required by owner, alternatively rights could be limited to roads shown on sketch plan. Wording suggested in letter. 1957 Pipeline; Under review by TMPL. TMPL needs to have the second line located in relation to the boundaries of right of way surveyed for the 1952 SRW. TMPL’s letter to Forward Law dated January 19, 2015 and
response by Forward Law to Taso Gavriel via e-mail darted Feb 17/15; 7. TMEP will work with the owner to identify locations for construction of crossings and to issue permission under the crossing regulations to accommodate the construction and use of them following construction of TMPE. This crossings can be used for travel over the pipeline not accommodated by the Agricultural exemption order, 8. TMPL needs details as to the utility crossings, both existing and planned. TMPL will accomadate those in the construction of TMPL, 9. TMPL confirms that (a) post construction it will restore any changes made to the irrigation system to accomadate construction of TMPE. (b) TMPE will fully compensate owner for , among other things, any damage to the irrigation system that is not required (for reasons not forseen or otherwise) and for loss of income as a result of changes to the irrigation system during construction, including due to loss of fodder and crops resulting from lack of irrigation. Issues raised by Owner with Taso Gavriel during meeting of May 14, 2015 Owner requests discharge the of Easement 69020E (line established in 1958); See not A item 2 (should be item 3) Require survey work to determine pipeline locations. Tract 1379 Owner wants royalty to be paid for pipeline; The basis for owner’s position is not understood. No Royalty is granted to the province or TNRD. Tract 1375 Owner request purchase for land between road and property west boundary for ; This land is not required by TMPL for TMPE. If trespass is a concern TMPL is willing to discuss fencing part of the R/W to prevent access. Owner asks to reimbursed for legal expenses incurred in 2010; TMPL is willing to pay this amount as an incentive payment upon the owner signing the purchase agreement and R0W documents for their properties. That payment would be in addition to early sign up incentive payment, if applicable. Jul 17/15 – TG received call from Jeff Frame, Jeff confirmed by phone and later by e-mail to Ian that entry to the property for surveying was granted. Jul 27/15 – TG sent e-mail to Jeff Frame confirming surveyors have completed the ground work and the information has been sent to mapping. Aug 6/15 – TG spoke to Jeff Frame, requested owner’s position of TM response of July 16, 2015. Jeff will discuss with owners and respond on how to move forward Sep 8/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame regarding the status of files, TG suggested to Mr. Frame we proceed with identifying solution for the irrigations system by employing Delta irrigation to provide comment on any mitigation solution for the pivot system. Mr. Frame agreed but required the results of our survey to discuss with the owners prior to moving forward. Nov 17/15 – TG Sent Jeff Frame an e-mail with new sketch plans, also raised the following points that require further discussion 1) Ancillary rights. As noted in Ian's correspondence Trans Mountain is prepared to limit the Ancillary rights to roads on a sketch plan or defined by survey on agreed locations. 2) 1957 Easement: Trans Mountain is prepared to remove the 1957 easement from the owners title as part of these negotiations. 3) Pipeline Crossings: Trans Mountain is prepared to consider crossings that are not covered under Order Mo-21-2010. 4) Utility Crossing: Trans Mountain is prepared to consider the installation of a utility crossing during construction of TMEP, we require further particulars on this matter. 5) Impacts to Irrigation system: Trans Mountain is prepared to work with the owners to limit the impact to the irrigation system and any damages caused by the loss of irrigation. I suggest we engage Delta irrigation to assist in identifying any mitigation options 6) Legal invoice : Trans Mountain is prepared to consider this item in an all inclusive settlement for the prosed R/W requirement. 7) The following changes have been made to the land requirements and compensation. Tract 1375: R/W from 0.804 ac to 0.80 ac Compensation from to WSA from 0.55 ac to 0.47 ac compensation from to Incentive payment from to Tract 1377: R/W from 3.11 ac to 3.85 ac Compensation from to WSA from 6.4 ac to 8.03 ac compensation from to Incentive payment from to Tract 1379: R/W from 1.22 ac to 1.24 ac Compensation from to WSA from 2.29 ac to 2.27 ac compensation from to Incentive payment from to The incentive payments are time sensitive and will be canceled shortly, the project has or will be sending updates to all remaining land owners. 8) Land Values: 89 Cattle Co. has rejected TMEP assessed land values for the R/W requirements. If the owners are aware of any comparable properties with higher land rates the Project will be pleased to review the information and respond. Dec 18/15 – TG received e-mail with attached letter from Jeff Frame re: above. Responded as per the following, 1) This is satisfactory. 2) Easement should be removed. 3) Requests 4 heavy equipment crossings. 4) Requests 3 utility crossings. 5) All costs to be born by TM including crop loss, the owner may choose to be paid for the mitigation options and do it them selves. 6) Owner requests confirmation on payment 7) Fails to see any real incentive for people to cooperate with TM. 8) Values are too low, requests TM to support values. In closing he advises the owner feels they have been bullied or ignored by TM and sees no reason why the owners should make any effort to cooperate with TM. Jan 7/16 – TG spoke to Bob Love and Joey Andries regarding letter received from Jeff Frame. Agreed on the following; 1) Agree to proceed with sketch plan showing access locations, requested contacting Dug Wood to get his opinion on the best location to service the line, yet lowering the disturbance to the owner. 2) Bob will instruct Ian Cassie to remove easement from title. 3) Ok to proceed with 3 crossings, request confirmation on the 4th crossing at tract 1375. 4) Request confirmation on type of utility and size of casing. 5) Trans Mountain will remediate the land in accordance to the NEB requirement, TM can not contract out of their responsibility. If after remediation the owners are not satisfied TM will negotiate a plan to remediate the land. Also, TM would like to explore mitigation options to l owner impact to owner or support extent of crop loss. Suggest we engage Delta irrigation to assist in irrigation mitigation. 6) TM is prepared to
reimburse former legal fees in the amount of upon receiving signed R/W documents (condition of signing). 7) No comment required. 8) Taso to analyze values and make recommendation fro settlement on per ac rates. Jan 13/16 – TG had a meeting with Jeff Frame re: above. Jeff will inform his clients of TM decision and will further respond with reasoning for crossing on Tract 1375, the utility crossing requirements and deltas involvement in assisting with analyzing mitigation options for the irrigation. Meeting with Tanya of Delta irrigation. Requested cost estimate to assist in analyzing the farms operation irrigation and mitigation options. Tanya will review and discuss the matter with her team then respond. Jan 20/16 – TG received an E-mail from Bob Love requesting he inform Jeff Frame that the easement release is pending registration. TG had a phone conversation with Jeff, advised of the above along with confirming that I have submitted a proposal for the land values to the Project along with contacting Delta to obtain a quote for services in determining modification to irrigation and related costs. Jeff was pleased with the progress and will be in touch after I return from holidays on Feb 10/16. Feb 19/16 – TG sent email to Jeff Frame provided the following update; 1) Access - Trans Mountain has identified 3 access points on the subject lands that would satisfy entry onto the Right of Way. In choosing the noted access points they attempted to minimize the impact to the land and farming operation along with achieving their needs. The 1st access is adjacent to the existing pipe crossing on Westside Road, it has good road visibility and access can be obtained from the road directly onto the R/W. Minor construction will be required to create a driveway along with an access gate. The 2nd access is the primary farm access across from the residence. The 3rd access is immediately south where a gate currently exists. The 3rd access lowers the interruption to the pens but will require some grading to define a driveway to the R/W. Please see attached plan. Action: Require onsite meeting with 89 Cattle Co. to discus their concerns, if any, and proceed with sketch plan to identify access locations. 2) Easement 69020E - Trans Mountain has canceled easement 69020E as of Jan 19, 2016, please see attached title. Action: No further action required on this item. 3) Heavy equipment Crossings - Trans Mountain is agreeable to 3 of the 4 heavy equipment crossings requested. Please confirm the reason for the 4th crossing located on LS 1 and I can discuss with TM Action: Require reason for LS 1 heavy equipment crossing to discuss with TM. 4) Utility Crossing - Your client has requested utility crossings in the same locations as the heavy equipment crossings. Action: Please provide the type of utility crossings required and the size of conduit for the crossings. I will discuss with TM and respond. 5) Land mitigation - Your client has requested compensation for remediating their land after construction. TM can not contract out of their responsibilities to the NEB and is required to remediate the land in accordance with the NEB submission. TM is prepared to enter into negotiations with your client after the land has been remediated should the remediation not meet your clients standards. Action: Require confirmation this is acceptable to your client. 6) Crop loss - Your client is concerned the construction of the propose pipeline will impact the pivot and ultimately their farming operation. TM is in the process of engaging Delta Irrigation to analyze the pivot system and any mitigation options available. This information along with your clients assistance on farming revenues can be used to determine a solution to the pivot operation or a direction in assessing crop loss. Action: Upon engaging Delta a site visit will be required to review the pivot system and discuss farming revenues. Please advise if your clients are agreeable to a meeting to discuss the pivot and farming operation. 7) Past legal fees - TM is agreeable to compensate for past legal fees on receipt of the executed documents for the proposed twining of the pipeline. Action: Require executed documents to proceed with past legal fee payment of . 8) Land Values - Your client has reject the proposed land values for the new R/W. I have reviewed sales in the area and have made a recommendation to the Project on the respective properties R/W valuation. The project has agreed to revise the offers and re-present to your clients. Action: Upon receipt of new documents I will deliver the new offer for your clients review and further consideration Mar 16/16 – TG Met with Jeff re: outstanding issues. Jeff advised that he is pleased with the direction of the file and TM wiliness to resolve the owners concerns. He will respond in writing to the February 19, 2016 e-mail but for now his clients would prefer TM uses Highland Irrigation rather than Delta to assess the pivot system. I agreed to look into highlands costs for assessing the system. Jeff will provide their contact info. Mar 24/16 – TG met with Highlands representative, explained assignment and requested quote. Highlands will have their lead person Mr. Christopher Ford call on Monday to discuss their rate. Mar 30/16 – TG met with Christopher Ford, reviewed pipeline proposal and discussed fee for services to provide mitigation options for the Pivot system. Christopher confirmed that he works with the owners and are currently designing a pivot system fro them. He is prepared to provide a short report on mitigation option for /hr. anticipates 5 hr.’s total including a site visit. He is further available for the next 2 weeks and can juggle appointment to meet with the owners. TG sent e-mail to Jeff Frame asking the owners availability and received reply confirming April 6/16 at 10 am on site. Apr 6/16 – TG had onsite meeting with owner and irrigation rep. Reviewed fields and location of pipeline along with pivot system. Mr. Ford will draft mitigation options and costs for the pivot system. Mr. Ford may require drawing from our survey crew to prepare a better product, he will advise accordingly. I asked Mr. Mundhenk if he had any questions or concerns he would like me to look into for him. He advised not at this time but he did state that they will appose the shift of the pipeline R/W as it impacts his higher utility land.
Apr 14/16 – TG met with Jeff Frame, while meeting on other matters TG advised Jeff that we are pursuing the irrigation impact through Highland irrigation and should have the results shortly. Jeff advised his clients want him to send a letter regarding their position in this matter, he will send a letter in due course. Apr 26/16 – TG left message for Christopher Ford requesting status of estimate. May 26/16 – TG left message for Christopher Ford requesting status of estimate. May 30/16 – TG met with Chris Ford re: status of assignment. Chris advised that they have been working out of town and had no time to complete the estimate. He advised that he will have it completed by the end of the week. Jun 2/16 – TG met with Chris Ford at Highland Irrigation. Chris advised the following; 1) Using Google earth Chris estimates 89 Cattle co. farms 340 ac. 2) According to the map provided (SWIMAP) 89 Cattle Co. may loos 70 ac of farm land depending on season o0f impact. 3) Watering season is from April 1 to October 15. If the lands were impacted before these dates there should be minimal interruption to the farming operation as its mostly annual crops with the exception of the alfalfa fields. 4) Mota Dhaliwal farms potatoes and onions on the subject property. 89 Cattle Co. farms alfalfa on the balance but also helps with the farming of the potatoes and onions. 5) The crops are rotated every 3 – 5 years to protect the integrity of the crop yield. 6) 89 cattle Co. has 4 pivot systems, 1 – 9 span and 3 – 3 span Two of the 3 spans get moved to the desired locations for watering during the farming season. 7) If the farming operation was impacted during the farming season Chris recommends installing stops on the pivot systems to avoid entering into the proposed easement and working space areas costa s follows, Stops /stop X 4 Excavator 2 days at /day Highland irrigation time 3 days @ /day Total 8) Should the 70 ac be non productive for the year he suggests chemical treatment or fall rye to avoid weeds. Jun 9/16 – TG emailed Jeff Frame and provided the above information along with Highland Irrigations report on pivot mitigation. Requested meeting after he had the opportunity to discuss with his client. Further requested confirmation on lease and lease particulars, if any. Jun 21/16 – TG Received e-mail from Jeff with attached letter requesting/advising the following; 1) Owners don’t like dog leg (shift in alignment on Tract 1377) they believe it is not safe. 2) Request construction timing. 3) Request construction duration and extent of construction on subject properties. Discussed the above with Joey Andries, he advised construction can not be confirmed at this time. Also the project is in the process of redesigning the dog leg to comply with a road crossing requirement Jun 22/16 – TG e-mailed response to Jeff confirming redesign of dog leg and upon approval we will deliver new documentations Also advised we could not confirm construction timing and suggested pre construction meeting 60 days before commencement to lower potential impact to operation and respond to owners concerns Jul 27/16 – TG phoned Jeff Frame, general discussion was held on the status of the file, Jeff further indicated the owners were not pleased with the remediation of the land by the operation crew due to a former dig. TG informed Jeff that TM would be pleased to discuss their concerns and treat the problem. Jeff will contact the owners and suggest a meeting date. Sep 28/16 – TG met with Jeff Frame, presented entry requests for drilling along Westsyde road. Explained it has not been confirmed if the drill location is within 89 Cattle Co. land or Road, however, the crew can drill adjacent to the road outside of the fence line. Recommended price for entry for both holes. Jeff will review with his clients and respond. Oct 5/16 – TG received e-mail from Jeff advising his clients do not consent to entry and to have the area surveyed for drilling. Furthermore, future communication with 89 Cattle Co. should be direct and not through Jeff Frame. Oct 24/16 – TG Left message for landowners requesting permission to enter for timber cruise on south property Oct 26/16 – TG Left message for landowners requesting permission to enter for timber cruise on south property, further advised files have been returned from Progress, requested meeting to discuss outstanding concerns. Nov 22/16 – TG spoke to landowner and requested meeting, Sheila agreed to meet on Nov 25/16 at 10:00 am. Nov 25/16 – TG met with landowners, Meeting at 89 Cattkle co. The purpose of the meeting was to present new documents and 87 notice along with discussing outstanding concerns on items listed to date. The owners advised they do not want to discuss the project until the following legacy issues are addressed. 1) The owners have experienced poor vegetation growth over existing R/W where rocks were removed by TM. Further when the owners irrigated the area weeds spread beyond the R/W and into their pasture. (approximately 20 ac) In their opinion the poor growth is a direct result of the excavation practices mixing gravel with the topsoil when the pipe was installed. They request the land be mitigated with topsoil to improve growth. Picture was shown of noted area. 2) In 2011 (+_) TM excavated a part of the R/W and sleeved the pipe. The area is showing poor growth despite the fact that it is part of their hay field and the surrounding grounds are yielding good hay production. TM contractors have contacted them to access, inspect and treat the area for weeds but in their opinion the consultants have not treated or monitored the dig site. 3) TM entered the lands prior to 2010 (tract 1375 ?) prior to 2010 for cathodec protection/installation with out the owners consent. In their opinion this is not legal but can not confirm if any work was done outside the existing R/W. 4) They request reimbursement of legal fees in the amount of not for past legal expenses incurred to fight TM. The owners are not prepared to wait for a signed agreement on the new R/W as they feel it is a separate matter. I asked why they did not request reimbursement of fees at that time, they advised they just want to resolve the issue and not continue to argue. 5) They owners have little faith that TM will respond to the reclamation of the land in the new R/W if they do not respond to the above. 6) They initially were not prepared to accept the new documentation for Tracts 1375, 1377 and 1379 but latter agreed to receiving
them along with the Section 87 notice but they did not sign the notice. TG advised that I would review the above and respond. Nov 30/16 – TG Telephone conference with Bruce and Bob. We reviewed owners concerns and decided to proceed with a soils study to confirm the soil impacts and remediation program. Bob will discuss the financial request at a latter date as he had to move on to an other conference call. Bruce will confirm his availability but tentatively schedule December 5/16. Later in the day Bruce confirmed the 5th or the 8th would work. T/C to Sheila re: Bruce’s involvement, explained TM would like to move forward with a soil study through Bruce to determine soil impacts and mitigation options. Sheila confirmed December 8th would work for entry. Reported back to Bruce, confirmed Dec 8th /16. Dec 1/16 – TG received call from Sheila advising they are scheduled to be in Victoria on the 6th and would like to change the meeting day to the 5th. Contacted Bruce, he rescheduled the meeting and agreed to meet on Sunday the 4th with the owners then start work on the 5th . Confirmed with Sheila 3:00 pm Sunday. Dec 4/16 – TG had Meeting at 89 Cattle Co. with landowners, Bruce McTavish and Matt. Bruce provided a brief explanation on his background and roll in this assignment. He further explained the soil investigation process wherein he will be collecting soil samples over and beyond the pipeline corridor to determine the consistency in the soil. We latter viewed the R/W area, specifically the former dig site (2011 ?) and the rocky segment of the pipeline. It was noted poor growth is experienced over the former dig site and approximately 300 m of pipeline had a higher concentration of rocks when compared to the adjacent land. Chris explained after KM picked the bigger rocks from the pipeline R/W he irrigated the field and experience poor growth and a high concentration of weeds. Bruce will have his crew start on the 5th testing the soil and he hopes to have a report by the end of the year. Jan 18/17 – TG Received e-mail from Bruce with attached soils report. Telephone call to Sheila and Chris, left message advising requesting meeting to discuss soils report and owners concerns. 1. Jan 28/17 – TG met with landowners at their residence, The purpose of the meeting was to present the Bruce McTavish report and respond to items raised in previous meeting. Taso advised; 1) A copy of Bruce McTavish report dated Jan 17 2017 was provided. Taso explained the report has identified 300 m of the R/W within Tract 1379 that requires mitigation by removing the top 12” , sifting the soil and replacing the volume with top soil. The report further recommends remediating the former dig site by removing 12” of the upper sandy soil and replacing it with top soil. TM recommends the proposed work to be part of the reclamation program on the twining of the pipeline. 2) Report recommends existing weeds be treated to avoid encroachment in other areas of the farm. Taso suggest we proceed with the weed program early spring. 3) TMEP is prepared to reimburse legal fees of upon receiving a signed agreement. 4) Asked if they received copy of Highland irrigation report on pivot system with mitigation option. Owners confirmed receipt of report. 5) Requested contact info for lease hold interest and type of tenure. 6) Confirmed, could not determine to date if notification protocol was followed on previous dig. Advised while TM has a right to enter the R/W and maintain their works they do contact owners and advise of entry. Owners advised; 1) All concerns from previous meeting have not been addressed, outstanding items are compensation for cathodic protection installed on Tract 1375 (this is a small tract of land on the west side of Westsyde Road which according to the owner is side hill) The owners are further of the opinion that this part of the land can be developed for a building site and would like TMEP to make an offer. Note: in previous conversations the owners requested for this land based on gravel value, the company has rejected their request. 2) Explained concern re access to their land was not for maintenance but for construction purposes. They asked the project to enter from the south boundary of tract 1379 and refrain from entering through their main driveway that they will be using for their operation. 3) Request access to their filed during construction. Confirmed access will not be impeded and a small lad bridge can be erected during the construction period. 4) Asked if thrust block will be constructed at the dogleg on tract 1377, if so what is the height above ground of the trust block. 5) Confirmed there is a year to year verbal lease on parts of the property, tenants name was not provided. Agreed on the following; 1) Taso will request treatment of weeds on Tract 1379. Taso will coordinate through Cheryl Thiesen and let the owners know when they will be coming to treat the weeds. 2) Taso will inform project of owners access request from the south boundary of tract 1379, if approved the condition will be added to Schedule D. 3) Taso will confirm if any works (existing) are within tract 1375, if so, are they considered in the registered easement. 4) Taso will confirm if thrust block will be installed on tract 1377, if so, will it be above ground. A draft Schedule D was left with the owners, items considered represented concerns raised by the owners. I explained to the owners this is a draft only and its meant to facilitate further discussion to insure we consider all of the owners concerns. Following are items from the schedule D; 1) The Company or the contractor will arrange a pre-construction meeting with the owners at least 60 days prior to construction. Items to discuss will be crop rotation, constructing temporary fencing if required, access, construction timing and minimizing conflict between the pipeline construction and the farming operation. The Company will provide 7 days notice prior to entering the Land for construction. 2) The company agrees that when the contractors are working with topsoil, the equipment will arrive on the lands clean to mitigate the introduction of weeds from adjacent parcels. 3) The company agrees to compensate the owners for reasonable time spent with project representatives. The owners shall keep track of their time with detailed notes for reference. The company agrees to compensate the owners per hour for time spent with project individuals. 4) All disturbed grounds will be graded to there pre disturbed state. The company will seed the disturbed grounds, if required by the owner, in accordance with crop rotation. The Company will further remediate approximately 300 meters of the Right of Way within Tract 1379 by screening
and removing rocks within 30 centimetres from the surface and replacing the lost volume with top soil in accordance with Bruce McTavish’s report dated January 17, 2017 of which a copy was delivered to the owner on January 2017. The company will further remediate a historical integrity dig on Tract 1377 that is experiencing poor growth by removing 30 centimetres of the existing sandy soil and replacing it top soil. 5) The Company will construct 3 heavy equipment crossings at the locations shown on the attached heavy equipment crossing sketch plan along with installing one 8 inch conduit at each crossing for future utility crossings. (Joey can we get a labeled sketch plan showing the 3 properties or do we use SWIMAP) Access rights to the Right of Way are limited to 3, five meter wide driveways commencing at Westsyde Road to the Right of Way shown on the attached Access Plan (Joey, can we get a sketch drafted for the proposed driveways). 6) If the existing irrigation pivot system is impacted by construction or the reclamation of the land the Company will compensate for the installation of 2 barricades to stop the pivot system from entering the Right of Way construction area, cost of the barricades not to exceed 7) If required by the Owners the Company will install temporary fencing with adequate breaks for access along the east boundary for the working space area. 8) The Company will reimburse
of historical legal fees within 30 days of the company receiving executed agreement from the owners for Tracts 1375, 1377 and 1379. 9) The Company will compensate for reasonable crop loss damages resulting from the construction of the Right of Way and mitigation thereof in accordance with the National Energy Board regulations. Compensation will be made payable after construction and within 30 days of an agreement been reached for crop loss damages between the owners and the company. 10) All merchantable timber impacted by the Project on the land will be compensated by the Company at the end of construction. Compensation will be based on a timber cruise prepared by the Company at the Company’s expense. Jan 28/17 – TG sent email to Gabe, Joey, Maria and Cheryl requesting a response to weed issue from Cheryl, access and thrust block from Gabe/Joey and status of cathodic protection bed from Maria. Jan 30/17 – TG received email back from Cheryl advising that it was ok to proceed subject to more info. Provided copy of soil report and further called to discuss. Agreed to proceed with pre-entry meeting in early May followed with treatment in late May, weather permitting. Feb 1/17 – TG received an e-mail from Gabe advising thrust block will not be installed and access is slated from Westsyde Road on the north and from the road to the South. Maria sent e-mail confirming above ground structure is on the property, possibly a lead, further provided a copy of the easement confirming above ground structures are permitted on the easement. Feb 2/17 – TG sent letter to landowners regarding; 1) Tract 1375 - Acquisition of land - Cathodic protection installation. In past conversations you have requested Trans Mountain to acquire a triangular section of land on the west side of Westsyde road on Part LS 1 Sec 27 Twp.22 for In our recent meeting you requested Trans Mountain to make an offer for the noted lands which house an above ground structure for the cathodic protection system. Please be advised Trans Mountain is not prepared to acquire the lands as they are not required for the TMEP. I have further enclosed the Trans Mountain Pipeline easement for tract 1375 which permits above ground structures for the operation of the pipeline. 2) Tract 1379 - Weed treatment impacted area described in Bruce McTavish report added January 17, 2017, Bruce McTavish has identified a section of property within Tract 1379 that is impacted by weeds. Trans Mountain has registered the impacted area in their spring 2017 weed management program. Our crew lead will contact you in early May for a pre - entry meeting to review and discuss area of treatment, process and recommended treatment options along with access dates and number of treatments if necessary. 3) Tract 1377 - Thrust block, During our conversation you have asked if a thrust block will be installed in tract 1377 and if so, what will the height be above ground. Please be advised a thrust block will not be installed in this location. 4) Construction Access You have requested TMEP refrain from entering the pipeline from your primary driveway located on Tract 1377, you explained construction access will interfere with your farming operation. You request TMEP to access from the south boundary of Tract 1379. Please be advised north access to the Right of Way for construction of the TMEP is planned off Westsyde road onto the Right of Way on Tract 1375 and south access is planned from the road to the Right of Way on Tract 1379. There are no plans to use your main access on Tract 1377 unless the governing authorities reject the project’s access proposal, if so, we will contact you and discuss a new access location. 5) Property Lease, I confirm your advice that you have a verbal lease for a portion of your property. Please provide all particulars of your lease along with contact information. Trans Mountain will need to inform this party of the TMEP and determine if their interest is impacted. 6) Draft Schedule D, I confirm I provided you with a draft Schedule D comprising of construction items and concerns discussed to date with Jeff Frame and yourselves. I look forward to receiving your reply and working towards minimizing the impact to your property during the construction process. Mar 6/17 - Received e-mail from Bob advising 89n Cattle co has forwarded a letter to the NEB expressing concern regarding the electrical load the pump station would have on the owners power for his farm. TG responded advising the response should be prepared by TMEP electrical lead. Latter e-mail received from Bob Steele advising there would be no impact to owners electrical concern as power is retrieved from transmission line. Mar 13/17 – TG left message for landowners requesting call back to discuss response provided on Feb 2/17 and how they wish to move forward. Apr 3/17 – TG left message for landowners requesting call back to meet and discuss how to move forward.
Apr 6/17 – TG received e-mail from Sheila replying to phone message advising they have applied to the Ministry of Natural resources to appoint a mediator in regards to compensation. Apr 7/17 – TG responded to Sheila with CC to Progress lands confirming the Owner’s request and further advised that section 34 letters will be hand delivered to each owner impacted by the Pipeline R/W within 2 weeks. Apr 19/17 – TG received e-mail from Trisha Lucas of Progress Land Services with attached letter to 89 Cattle Co. dated Apr 19/17 responding to 89 Cattle co. concerns re: impact to their electrical system that may be caused by the new pump station in Black pines. Letter confirmed the following; 1) Electrical draw will not have any impact to 89 cattle co electrical system as power for the station is received from a separate system and appropriate action is taken to insure owners are not impacted and 2) There will be no vibration caused by the new pump station on the new pipeline running through their property. T/C to Chris and Sheila left message advising that they will receive a registered letter regarding responding to their concerns on the electrical system. Further advised that I need to hand deliver section 34 letters and request an appointment to serve same. Subsidiary Apr 28/17 – TG left message for landowners requesting meeting to present section 34 letters and discuss entry for the weed control program Apr 29/17 – TG made a cold call to the residence. Knocked on door, no response time 1:20 pm. Left card on door. May 1/17 – TG sent e-mail to Sheila requesting meeting to present Section 34 letters 4:45 pm May 6/17 – TG received e-mail from Sheila advising they are prepared to see me re: Section 34 letters on May 9/17 between 1 & 3 Responded advising I was out of town returning on May 9th and would respond upon reviewing my calendar May 9/17 – TG emailed Sheila and confirmed their meeting for 1:30pm. Met at residence with Sheila and Chris. Taso presented the Section 34 letters along with the new agreements with the revised schedule D and commitment based on former discussions. Further advised the Projects requests confirmation signatures on the duplicate section 34 letter, however, noting the owners former decision on not signing documents they are not obligated to do so. The owners advised the following; 1) They are not convinced that the lands will be remediated and crops will be in full production within 2 years. Taso – The Company will remediate the lands and monitor the impacted soils until mature growth has been established. Any crop loss incurred during the this period will be compensated at time of final settlement. 2) In their opinion the compensation does not reflect market value. They further want to know who was responsible for the appraisal and how was the easement value established. Taso – The Company employed an independent appraisal firm to value the impacted lands. The R/W value was decided by the company and the appraiser after reviewing easement values in the open market. In my opinion typical easement are 50% of market, easement that overlap existing easements are less. TM has selected the upper range in R/W value and has further bonused the R/W for early acquisitions by approximately 20%. Further advised the 2nd value was recommended by Taso and approved by the Project. 3) The owners concerns have not been ignored. Taso – All owners concerns provided by their lawyer and through discussion with the owners have been considered and written response to this items have been provided. If there are any outstanding issues Taso request the owners to send them by e-mail and he will respond. The Sheila latter agreed that they have received a response to item raised but not all responses favored the owners. 4) Owners do not agree with dog leg in the alignment and they intend to argue it with the NEB. 5) Advised Trans Mountain has contacted them regarding the weed control but has not confirmed a date to enter and treat the weeds. They played a telephone message advising of the weed management program but did not specify a date, they are concerned the window will be lost. Taso – The message was related to an annual program that treats impacted gig sites such as the one on their property. Taso will contact Cheryl Theses and ask her to contact the Owners direct regarding treating weeds in accordance with Bruce McTavish report. 6) The owners will review the section 34 letter and decide if they will sign the document. 7) The owners advised trees were not considered and they will not be replanted. Taso – Timber valuations will be completed by the Company and replanting will occur in the WSA. The owners were emotional/passionate about this matter as they understand time is of the essence, however, they were not prepared to accept any response that the company would be fair and equitable in their dealing regarding remediation or value. E-mail sent to Cheryl Thesen requesting Cheryl to contact owners and schedule the weed treatment for their property E-mail to Bruce requesting assistance with response to soil reclamation and crop rehabilitation. May 15/17 – TG received e-mail from Cheryl advising they have attempted to contact Sheila and Chris by phone and left messages for them but they have not received a reply. I responded by asking they e-mail Sheila and provided her e-mail address. Latter in the day Cheryl e-mailed Sheila and advised she would like to meet with her and discuss her weed concerns. Jun 12/17 – TG sent an e-mail to Sheila with attached Memo from Bruce McTavish dated Jun 11/17 regarding soil reclamation process and company’s requirement to reclaim under the NEB conditions Nov 16/17 Meeting with Stockman assosiation at the Knutsford Hall in Kamloops Sheila and Chris of the 89 Cattle Company advise dthey have no confendence in Kinder Morgan that they will resore the land to its origenal condition after their experience of a prviouse dig on gthier property that has not shown positive signs of good groth where the dig occurred. Also they confirmed weesa are contijnueing to be an uissue along the Right of Way on their property
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Taso Gavriel Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.3 Spread Name: 5A Tract: 1379, DL: 100.01 PID: 025-782-649 Landowner names: 89 Cattle Co. Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER. SURVEY CONSENT NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Legacy needs to be resolved if landowners are to grant survey consent - July 30/12 - Landowners explained that 89 Cattle Co. Ltd and Kinder Morgan had a dispute over farming practices and the matter was reviewed by the NEB. According to the Landowners they were successful in their claim and they continued to farm as they did before. The experience set a negative tone with the Landowners and they are not prepared to sign the Survey consent form without having time to think about the matter. They further stated that in their opinion the existing R/W is not legal because KM did not register the plan within the time allotted after registering the easement document. Land Agent recommended they prepare a letter that would be attached to file. Aug 30/12 - Letter from Landowners received and placed in file stating that upon obtaining legal advice they would be unable to sign the agreement unless it was amended. The amending clause and reasoning is included in the letter. Also included in the letter pertaining to this tract - Section 3 states "That the Grantee, its successors or assigns, shall pay and discharge all taxes, rates, duties and assessments whatsoever now charged or hereinafter to be charged upon or payable in respect of the said easement." It is our position that any payments made to the Province of British Columbia in respect to this easement since November 2003 should have accrued to 89 Cattle Co. Ltd. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Jul 30/12 – Land Agent, Taso Gavriel (TG) met with Sheila Chalmers and Chris Mundhenk of 89 Cattle Co. Ltd., gave them a full information package and explained the proposed project, further requested execution of survey consent form. Landowners requested 2 weeks to review the survey consent form prior to signing, they explained that 89 Cattle Co. Ltd. and Kinder Morgan had a dispute over farming practices and the matter was reviewed by the NEB. According to the landowners they were successful in their claim and they continued to farm as they did before but the experience has set a negative tone with them and they are not prepared to sign the survey consent form without having time to think about the matter. They’ve stated that in their opinion the existing Right of Way is not legal because Kinder Morgan did not register the plan within the time allotted after registering the easement document, noting that there were several concerns regarding past issues, TG recommended they prepare a letter that we would attach to their file regarding the proposed twinning of the pipeline, landowners agreed and requested TG return in 2 weeks. Aug 23/12 – TG met with Sheila and Chris, they advised that they have reviewed the consultation package and have further received advice from Jeff Frame (Lawyer) on the survey consent form, they are not prepared to execute the survey consent form as written but will send a letter within one week with the proposed changes and comments regarding the proposed project. Sep 6/12 – TG left a message for Sheila and Chris requesting status of the letter, Later in the day Sheila returned his call adivisng him that they have a letter for Kinder Morgan’s review and further attention. TG picked up the letter at approximately 5pm, letter identified the following concerns 1) Indemnity request for the survey consent form 2) Partial acquisition of 0.75ac in the amount of based on gravel value. 3) Digging in cathodic equipment on the Right of Way. 4) Payment of Taxes to the 89 Cattle Co. for Block A SE Section 22 Range 17 W6M commencing November 2003. Nov 21/14 – TG left voicemail message for landowners requesting a meeting to discuss TMEP acquisition.
Nov 28/14 – TG met with landowners and presented and reviewed Section 87(1) notice, they wish to have all documentation reviewed by their lawyer Jeff Frame. They are disappointed in the lack of response from the project to their letter dated August 30/12, advised TG that in the last 1-1/2 years they requested Trans Mountain to resolve legacy issues on their field with no response. They would like their legacy issues to be solved, 1) Trans Mountain sleeved a portion of the pipe on their property, the exposed pipe was covered by a high concentration of sand, they experienced poor hay growth over this area and request that Trans Mountain replace the sand with topsoil to improve growth. 2) Request all rocks to be removed from their field that were scattered by Trans Mountain, advised the rocks have impeded their farming within the area. The offer is below market value for the land, subdivision impact not considered, they do not want to elaborate on the value but shared that they purchased land from the government 2-3 years ago at approximately /acre. They are very concerned that the construction will conflict with the farming operation, primarily the pivot system and access to the lands beyond the proposed R/W during farming season. They feel damages can be significant to the farming operation if access or water is restricted. They explained that the pivot system is mobile and has underground electrical to 3 points within their lands. They feel that modification to the system would be expensive and not practical. Request confirmation on the accidental removal of survey pins during the farming operation, are owners liable. Request confirmation on financial hardship caused by arch finds. For example if an arch find precluded them from farming a portion of their property would the owners be compensated for the loss. They received a notice of abandonment, request explanation. (letter not provided but they will try to find) Should project proceed they request irrigation crossing (underground) at south end of tract 1375. TG advised Damages caused to the farming operation by the proposed works will be compensated by TM after construction (crop loss) Arch finds within the proposed R/W will be mitigated by TM, finds in areas not used by TM are grey in nature, further direction from the project is needed. In light of the owners valuation concerns an appraisal may be required to determine market value. Will review the legacy issues with TM and respond, Will request clarification on letter of abandonment and respond and Suggest a review of the farming operation by construction staff along with preconstruction meet may be beneficial to reduce conflict between construction and farming operation Dec 3/14 – TG left a voicemail for landowners requesting meeting to discuss legacy issues with Pipeline maintenance Dec 3/14 – TG spoke to landowners lawyer Jeff Frame over the phone, he advised that he has been retained by 89 Cattle Co. to act on their behalf and asked for background information regarding TM request. I provided a breakdown of the land requirements through the owners lands and the issues raised at Nov 28/14 meeting. Jeff will discuss the matter with his clients and further give them direction on signing the Section 87 notice Dec 4/14 – TG received an email from Jeff Frame with the signed Section 87(1) acknowledgement Dec 6/14 – TG met with landowners while delivering notices for the Blackpines information session. TG requested to set up a meeting to discuss the legacy issues with Trans Mountain pipeline maintenance. They asked that we refrain from meeting until late march when the snow is off the ground and we can have a better visual of the soils and rocks on their field. Dec 9/14 – TG sent an email to Jeff Frame requesting update on his client’s decision regarding documentation. Jeff replied later in the day advising that he will be forwarding a letter regarding his clients position shortly and he would need a letter advising that absent of an agreement TMPL would expropriate. Also he does not agree with the ingress and egress, I replied by advising that the registered easement on the properties has this provision Jan 6/15 - Project received letter from Jeff Frame outling the owners concerns, Carey Johannesson copied project team and requested input. Jan 20/15 – TG hand delivered Carey Johannesson’s letter responding to the above dated January 19, 2015, incentive letter and revised Section 87 along with revised agreement to Jeff Frame. Mr. Frame was away and will return on February 2, 2015 Feb 17/15 – TG sent an email to Jeff Frame requesting status of clients response to Trans Mountains proposal, Jeff provided the following response I have not heard from my client since sending a copy of TMP's response dated January 19, 2015. Part of that is my fault as it arrived while I was out of the office and did not get sent to the client until after I was back. In the interim, here are my comments to TMP's response, using the numbering from my January 5, 2015 letter. 1) what was the outcome of the additional survey investigation? 2-6) This seems acceptable. 7) My client needs a more concrete assurance of access or compensation in lieu thereof. 8) I do not understand TMEP's response. 9) I am lukewarm on TMP's response and will wait to receive my client's position. 10&11)This seems acceptable. 12) I find the requested level of access over the entire property to be excessive and open to legal challenge. I cannot imagine ever recommending to this or any other client that they accept this term. In fact, I will recommend challenging the validity of such a clause in the existing SRW. I refer you to Fisher v. Bosse, 2006 BCSC 674 at para's 48 - 55, and Malahat Chalet Ltd. v. Pfizenmaier, [1996] B.C.J. No. 790, and Bossler v. Burton, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1614. Feb 25/15 – TG Left message for landowners requesting meeting to discuss legacy issues Mar 4/15 – TG Left message for landowners requesting call back re: legacy issues Mar 5/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame, TG Requested Jeff’s assistance in having his clients respond to meeting request for legacy issues, Further asked if there were any outstanding concerns with the letter response provided by the project. Jeff will speak to the owners regarding the legacy issues, he further advised that the primary concern with the letter was the easement rights over the total property when there is a road providing easy access to the R/W.
Mar 6/15 – TG Received message from Sheila advising that they would be available to meet and discuss the legacy issues after the April 6/15, requested I call back to confirm. Placed a call to Sheila, left message that I would be away between April 6 and 18/15. Recommended we meet in the 1st week of April or sooner so TM can add the work in their spring schedule Mar 13/15 – TG received phone call from Sheila confirming that they can meet on Mar 23/15 @ 1:00 pm top review legacy issues. Mar 13/15 – TG sent e-mail to Doug Wood requesting confirmation of availability for Mar 23/15 Mar 18/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame, While meeting with Jeff Frame on various issues, he confirmed that he was aware of the meeting to discuss the legacy issues and further recommended to his clients that they proceed with the meeting. Jeff will further discuss the balance of the owners concerns when they return from holidays Mar 19/15 - TG Received confirmation from Doug that he will be available on Mar 23/15 @ 1:00 pm to meet with 89 Cattle Co. Mar 19/15 – TG left message for landowners confirming meeting on Mar 23/15 @ 1:00 pm with Doug Wood and himself Mar 23/15 – TG had an onsite meeting with Doug Wood, Chris and Sheila regarding legacy issues. The 2 issues identified in our previous meeting were, Rocks on R/W and gravely/sandy soils at a former dig area. We reviewed the former dig area and noted a high concentration of sandy/gravel soils impeded grass growth . We later reviewed the R/W where we observed a stretch of approximately 250 m of R/W was inhabited with round boulders. The owners assumed the boulder were caused by early construction practices and changing weather conditions. Doug advised that the 2 legacy issues can be addressed as per the following 1) Remove the sandy/gravel soils and replace with 6 inches of topsoil, then seed the disturbed grounds. 2) Bring in machinery and remove all surface rock, do not excavate into the ground and try to remove more rock, as it will cause rocks to surface. 3) Its Doug’s opinion that the work can be completed over a 2 – 2.5 day period. We agreed on the following Doug will discuss the matter with Kelvin and seek approval to do the work. Upon receiving approval Doug will advise Taso and Taso will inform the owners. Doug will seek approval this week and hopes to be on site within 2.5 weeks if work is approved Apr 20/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame, Jeff advised the majority of the response received on the agreement look fine with the exception of ancillary rights, he suggests I contact the owners and discuss their operational concerns then once they are satisfied we can meet and deal with any outstanding concerns Apr 20/15 – TG left message for landowners advising them that Jeff had requested I call and set up an appointment with them to discuss their concerns and further wanted to know if the work on the legacy issues was done to their satisfaction Apr 27/15 – TG left message for landowners requesting appointment to discuss R/W acquisition Apr 30/15 – TG received message from Sheila advising that they would be prepared to meet on May 7/15 May 1/15 – TG left message advising that I am available on the 6th or 8th, requested call back to confirm appointment May 14/15 – TG met with landowners at their residence, Shila and Chris advised that they are not prepared to move forward on the acquisition until Trans Mountain responds to the following. 1) They request a discharge of Easement 69020E (30” line established in 1958 +-) from all 3 properties, they claim Trans Mountains did not register the plan according to the easement particulars and in their opinion the easement is not legal. The owners are prepared to negotiate on this matter with compensation to be determined at a latter date. 2) Tract 1379, They request a royalty to be paid to the owners for the pipeline through Block A S.E. 1/4 S. 22 TP 22 R. 17 W6M. They explained the Property was purchased from the Crown and the easement allows for the owner to collect an annual payment. I asked if the payment was taxation? They replied it would be a royalty similar to what is paid to other entities like the TNRD. 3) Tract 1375. Request Trans Mountain to purchase severed area between road and property west boundary for . The price is based on gravel value, no particulars were provided 4) To be indemnified (reimbursed) for legal expenses of incurred in 2010 when they challenged Trans Mountain’s position on their farming practices. Taso advised that he will review with the Project and respond. Jul 9/15 – TG left message for landowners requesting permission to survey advised the survey will identify the pipe location and the respective R/W, this will accurately address the land requirement through the properties also their question regarding the 30’ easement through their property. Jul 10/15 – TG tried to leave message but the fax machine activated and message could not be left Jul 12/15 – TG made a cold call to the residence, knocked on the door, no response. Drove by hay field, noted gate was locked. Jul 13/15 – TG T/C to Owners, tried to leave message but the fax machine activated and message could not be left Jul 13/15 – TG spoke to Jeff Frame, requested entry to subject properties for survey purposes, explained that we have failed to reach the owners in the last few days. Jeff will try to contact owners by e-mail and phone and then respond. Jul 16/15 – Ian Cassie, Lawyer sent e-mail to Jeff Frame with attached letter responding to the owners concerns as per the following, he further confirmed a meeting requirement between the principles and asked for assistance in reaching his clients in light of the lack of response received by Taso, Items responded to in letter: Owner conducting Ordinary Farming Activities; Pipe will be berried 1 meter under ground the owner will have the right to use property for farming activity in accordance with the agriculture exemption order Mo-21-2010. Ancillary rights; TMEP will locate and survey agreed access corridors for ancillary rights if required by owner, alternatively rights could be limited to roads shown on sketch plan.
Wording suggested in letter. 1957 Pipeline; Under review by TMPL. TMPL needs to have the second line located in relation to the boundaries of right of way surveyed for the 1952 SRW. TMPL’s letter to Forward Law dated January 19, 2015 and response by Forward Law to Taso Gavriel via e-mail darted Feb 17/15; 7. TMEP will work with the owner to identify locations for construction of crossings and to issue permission under the crossing regulations to accommodate the construction and use of them following construction of TMPE. This crossings can be used for travel over the pipeline not accommodated by the Agricultural exemption order, 8. TMPL needs details as to the utility crossings, both existing and planned. TMPL will accomadate those in the construction of TMPL, 9. TMPL confirms that (a) post construction it will restore any changes made to the irrigation system to accomadate construction of TMPE. (b) TMPE will fully compensate owner for , among other things, any damage to the irrigation system that is not required (for reasons not forseen or otherwise) and for loss of income as a result of changes to the irrigation system during construction, including due to loss of fodder and crops resulting from lack of irrigation. Issues raised by Owner with Taso Gavriel during meeting of May 14, 2015 Owner requests discharge the of Easement 69020E (line established in 1958); See not A item 2 (should be item 3) Require survey work to determine pipeline locations. Tract 1379 Owner wants royalty to be paid for pipeline; The basis for owner’s position is not understood. No Royalty is granted to the province or TNRD. Tract 1375 Owner request purchase for land between road and property west boundary for ; This land is not required by TMPL for TMPE. If trespass is a concern TMPL is willing to discuss fencing part of the R/W to prevent access. Owner asks to reimbursed for legal expenses incurred in 2010; TMPL is willing to pay this amount as an incentive payment upon the owner signing the purchase agreement and R0W documents for their properties. That payment would be in addition to early sign up incentive payment, if applicable. Jul 17/15 – TG received call from Jeff Frame, Jeff confirmed by phone and later by e-mail to Ian that entry to the property for surveying was granted. Jul 27/15 – TG sent e-mail to Jeff Frame confirming surveyors have completed the ground work and the information has been sent to mapping. Aug 6/15 – TG spoke to Jeff Frame, requested owner’s position of TM response of July 16, 2015. Jeff will discuss with owners and respond on how to move forward Sep 8/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame regarding the status of files, TG suggested to Mr. Frame we proceed with identifying solution for the irrigations system by employing Delta irrigation to provide comment on any mitigation solution for the pivot system. Mr. Frame agreed but required the results of our survey to discuss with the owners prior to moving forward. Nov 17/15 – TG Sent Jeff Frame an e-mail with new sketch plans, also raised the following points that require further discussion 1) Ancillary rights. As noted in Ian's correspondence Trans Mountain is prepared to limit the Ancillary rights to roads on a sketch plan or defined by survey on agreed locations. 2) 1957 Easement: Trans Mountain is prepared to remove the 1957 easement from the owners title as part of these negotiations. 3) Pipeline Crossings: Trans Mountain is prepared to consider crossings that are not covered under Order Mo-21-2010. 4) Utility Crossing: Trans Mountain is prepared to consider the installation of a utility crossing during construction of TMEP, we require further particulars on this matter. 5) Impacts to Irrigation system: Trans Mountain is prepared to work with the owners to limit the impact to the irrigation system and any damages caused by the loss of irrigation. I suggest we engage Delta irrigation to assist in identifying any mitigation options 6) Legal invoice : Trans Mountain is prepared to consider this item in an all inclusive settlement for the prosed R/W requirement. 7) The following changes have been made to the land requirements and compensation. Tract 1375: R/W from 0.804 ac to 0.80 ac Compensation from to WSA from 0.55 ac to 0.47 ac compensation from to Incentive payment from to Tract 1377: R/W from 3.11 ac to 3.85 ac Compensation from to WSA from 6.4 ac to 8.03 ac compensation from to Incentive payment from to Tract 1379: R/W from 1.22 ac to 1.24 ac Compensation from to WSA from 2.29 ac to 2.27 ac compensation from to Incentive payment from to The incentive payments are time sensitive and will be canceled shortly, the project has or will be sending updates to all remaining land owners. 8) Land Values: 89 Cattle Co. has rejected TMEP assessed land values for the R/W requirements. If the owners are aware of any comparable properties with higher land rates the Project will be pleased to review the information and respond. Dec 18/15 – TG received e-mail with attached letter from Jeff Frame re: above. Responded as per the following, 1) This is satisfactory. 2) Easement should be removed. 3) Requests 4 heavy equipment crossings. 4) Requests 3 utility crossings. 5) All costs to be born by TM including crop loss, the owner may choose to be paid for the mitigation options and do it them selves. 6) Owner requests confirmation on payment 7) Fails to see any real incentive for people to cooperate with TM. 8) Values are too low, requests TM to support values. In closing he advises the owner feels they have been bullied or ignored by TM and sees no reason why the owners should make any effort to cooperate with TM. Jan 7/16 – TG spoke to Bob Love and Joey Andries regarding letter received from Jeff Frame. Agreed on the following; 1) Agree to proceed with sketch plan showing access locations, requested contacting Dug Wood to get his opinion on the best location to service the line, yet lowering the disturbance to the owner. 2) Bob will instruct Ian Cassie to remove easement from title. 3) Ok to proceed with 3 crossings, request confirmation on the 4th crossing at tract 1375. 4) Request confirmation on type of utility and size of casing. 5) Trans Mountain will remediate the land in accordance to the NEB requirement, TM can not contract out of their responsibility. If after remediation the owners are not satisfied TM will
negotiate a plan to remediate the land. Also, TM would like to explore mitigation options to l owner impact to owner or support extent of crop loss. Suggest we engage Delta irrigation to assist in irrigation mitigation. 6) TM is prepared to reimburse former legal fees in the amount of upon receiving signed R/W documents (condition of signing). 7) No comment required. 8) Taso to analyze values and make recommendation fro settlement on per ac rates. Jan 13/16 – TG had a meeting with Jeff Frame re: above. Jeff will inform his clients of TM decision and will further respond with reasoning for crossing on Tract 1375, the utility crossing requirements and deltas involvement in assisting with analyzing mitigation options for the irrigation. Meeting with Tanya of Delta irrigation. Requested cost estimate to assist in analyzing the farms operation irrigation and mitigation options. Tanya will review and discuss the matter with her team then respond. Jan 20/16 – TG received an E-mail from Bob Love requesting he inform Jeff Frame that the easement release is pending registration. TG had a phone conversation with Jeff, advised of the above along with confirming that I have submitted a proposal for the land values to the Project along with contacting Delta to obtain a quote for services in determining modification to irrigation and related costs. Jeff was pleased with the progress and will be in touch after I return from holidays on Feb 10/16. Feb 19/16 – TG sent email to Jeff Frame provided the following update; 1) Access - Trans Mountain has identified 3 access points on the subject lands that would satisfy entry onto the Right of Way. In choosing the noted access points they attempted to minimize the impact to the land and farming operation along with achieving their needs. The 1st access is adjacent to the existing pipe crossing on Westside Road, it has good road visibility and access can be obtained from the road directly onto the R/W. Minor construction will be required to create a driveway along with an access gate. The 2nd access is the primary farm access across from the residence. The 3rd access is immediately south where a gate currently exists. The 3rd access lowers the interruption to the pens but will require some grading to define a driveway to the R/W. Please see attached plan. Action: Require onsite meeting with 89 Cattle Co. to discus their concerns, if any, and proceed with sketch plan to identify access locations. 2) Easement 69020E - Trans Mountain has canceled easement 69020E as of Jan 19, 2016, please see attached title. Action: No further action required on this item. 3) Heavy equipment Crossings - Trans Mountain is agreeable to 3 of the 4 heavy equipment crossings requested. Please confirm the reason for the 4th crossing located on LS 1 and I can discuss with TM Action: Require reason for LS 1 heavy equipment crossing to discuss with TM. 4) Utility Crossing - Your client has requested utility crossings in the same locations as the heavy equipment crossings. Action: Please provide the type of utility crossings required and the size of conduit for the crossings. I will discuss with TM and respond. 5) Land mitigation - Your client has requested compensation for remediating their land after construction. TM can not contract out of their responsibilities to the NEB and is required to remediate the land in accordance with the NEB submission. TM is prepared to enter into negotiations with your client after the land has been remediated should the remediation not meet your clients standards. Action: Require confirmation this is acceptable to your client. 6) Crop loss - Your client is concerned the construction of the propose pipeline will impact the pivot and ultimately their farming operation. TM is in the process of engaging Delta Irrigation to analyze the pivot system and any mitigation options available. This information along with your clients assistance on farming revenues can be used to determine a solution to the pivot operation or a direction in assessing crop loss. Action: Upon engaging Delta a site visit will be required to review the pivot system and discuss farming revenues. Please advise if your clients are agreeable to a meeting to discuss the pivot and farming operation. 7) Past legal fees - TM is agreeable to compensate for past legal fees on receipt of the executed documents for the proposed twining of the pipeline. Action: Require executed documents to proceed with past legal fee payment of . 8) Land Values - Your client has reject the proposed land values for the new R/W. I have reviewed sales in the area and have made a recommendation to the Project on the respective properties R/W valuation. The project has agreed to revise the offers and re-present to your clients. Action: Upon receipt of new documents I will deliver the new offer for your clients review and further consideration Mar 16/16 – TG Met with Jeff re: outstanding issues. Jeff advised that he is pleased with the direction of the file and TM wiliness to resolve the owners concerns. He will respond in writing to the February 19, 2016 e-mail but for now his clients would prefer TM uses Highland Irrigation rather than Delta to assess the pivot system. I agreed to look into highlands costs for assessing the system. Jeff will provide their contact info. Mar 24/16 – TG met with Highlands representative, explained assignment and requested quote. Highlands will have their lead person Mr. Christopher Ford call on Monday to discuss their rate. Mar 30/16 – TG met with Christopher Ford, reviewed pipeline proposal and discussed fee for services to provide mitigation options for the Pivot system. Christopher confirmed that he works with the owners and are currently designing a pivot system fro them. He is prepared to provide a short report on mitigation option for /hr. anticipates 5 hr.’s total including a site visit. He is further available for the next 2 weeks and can juggle appointment to meet with the owners. TG sent e-mail to Jeff Frame asking the owners availability and received reply confirming April 6/16 at 10 am on site. Apr 6/16 – TG had onsite meeting with owner and irrigation rep. Reviewed fields and location of pipeline along with pivot system. Mr. Ford will draft mitigation options and costs for the pivot system. Mr. Ford may require drawing from our survey crew to prepare a better product, he will advise accordingly. I asked Mr. Mundhenk if he had any questions or concerns he would like me to look into for him. He advised not at this time but he did state that they will appose the shift of the pipeline R/W as it impacts his higher utility land.
Apr 14/16 – TG met with Jeff Frame, while meeting on other matters TG advised Jeff that we are pursuing the irrigation impact through Highland irrigation and should have the results shortly. Jeff advised his clients want him to send a letter regarding their position in this matter, he will send a letter in due course. Apr 26/16 – TG left message for Christopher Ford requesting status of estimate. May 26/16 – TG left message for Christopher Ford requesting status of estimate. May 30/16 – TG met with Chris Ford re: status of assignment. Chris advised that they have been working out of town and had no time to complete the estimate. He advised that he will have it completed by the end of the week. Jun 2/16 – TG met with Chris Ford at Highland Irrigation. Chris advised the following; 1) Using Google earth Chris estimates 89 Cattle co. farms 340 ac. 2) According to the map provided (SWIMAP) 89 Cattle Co. may loos 70 ac of farm land depending on season o0f impact. 3) Watering season is from April 1 to October 15. If the lands were impacted before these dates there should be minimal interruption to the farming operation as its mostly annual crops with the exception of the alfalfa fields. 4) farms potatoes and onions on the subject property. 89 Cattle Co. farms alfalfa on the balance but also helps with the farming of the potatoes and onions. 5) The crops are rotated every 3 – 5 years to protect the integrity of the crop yield. 6) 89 cattle Co. has 4 pivot systems, 1 – 9 span and 3 – 3 span Two of the 3 spans get moved to the desired locations for watering during the farming season. 7) If the farming operation was impacted during the farming season Chris recommends installing stops on the pivot systems to avoid entering into the proposed easement and working space areas costa s follows, Stops /stop X 4 Excavator 2 days at /day Highland irrigation time 3 days @ /day Total 8) Should the 70 ac be non productive for the year he suggests chemical treatment or fall rye to avoid weeds. Jun 9/16 – TG emailed Jeff Frame and provided the above information along with Highland Irrigations report on pivot mitigation. Requested meeting after he had the opportunity to discuss with his client. Further requested confirmation on lease and lease particulars, if any. Jun 21/16 – TG Received e-mail from Jeff with attached letter requesting/advising the following; 1) Owners don’t like dog leg (shift in alignment on Tract 1377) they believe it is not safe. 2) Request construction timing. 3) Request construction duration and extent of construction on subject properties. Discussed the above with Joey Andries, he advised construction can not be confirmed at this time. Also the project is in the process of redesigning the dog leg to comply with a road crossing requirement Jun 22/16 – TG e-mailed response to Jeff confirming redesign of dog leg and upon approval we will deliver new documentations Also advised we could not confirm construction timing and suggested pre construction meeting 60 days before commencement to lower potential impact to operation and respond to owners concerns Jul 27/16 – TG phoned Jeff Frame, general discussion was held on the status of the file, Jeff further indicated the owners were not pleased with the remediation of the land by the operation crew due to a former dig. TG informed Jeff that TM would be pleased to discuss their concerns and treat the problem. Jeff will contact the owners and suggest a meeting date. Sep 28/16 – TG met with Jeff Frame, presented entry requests for drilling along Westsyde road. Explained it has not been confirmed if the drill location is within 89 Cattle Co. land or Road, however, the crew can drill adjacent to the road outside of the fence line. Recommended price for entry for both holes. Jeff will review with his clients and respond. Oct 5/16 – TG received e-mail from Jeff advising his clients do not consent to entry and to have the area surveyed for drilling. Furthermore, future communication with 89 Cattle Co. should be direct and not through Jeff Frame. Oct 24/16 – TG Left message for landowners requesting permission to enter for timber cruise on south property Oct 26/16 – TG Left message for landowners requesting permission to enter for timber cruise on south property, further advised files have been returned from Progress, requested meeting to discuss outstanding concerns. Nov 22/16 – TG spoke to landowner and requested meeting, Sheila agreed to meet on Nov 25/16 at 10:00 am. Nov 25/16 – TG met with landowners, Meeting at 89 Cattkle co. The purpose of the meeting was to present new documents and 87 notice along with discussing outstanding concerns on items listed to date. The owners advised they do not want to discuss the project until the following legacy issues are addressed. 1) The owners have experienced poor vegetation growth over existing R/W where rocks were removed by TM. Further when the owners irrigated the area weeds spread beyond the R/W and into their pasture. (approximately 20 ac) In their opinion the poor growth is a direct result of the excavation practices mixing gravel with the topsoil when the pipe was installed. They request the land be mitigated with topsoil to improve growth. Picture was shown of noted area. 2) In 2011 (+_) TM excavated a part of the R/W and sleeved the pipe. The area is showing poor growth despite the fact that it is part of their hay field and the surrounding grounds are yielding good hay production. TM contractors have contacted them to access, inspect and treat the area for weeds but in their opinion the consultants have not treated or monitored the dig site. 3) TM entered the lands prior to 2010 (tract 1375 ?) prior to 2010 for cathodec protection/installation with out the owners consent. In their opinion this is not legal but can not confirm if any work was done outside the existing R/W. 4) They request reimbursement of legal fees in the amount of not for past legal expenses incurred to fight TM. The owners are not prepared to wait for a signed agreement on the new R/W as they feel it is a separate matter. I asked why they did not request reimbursement of fees at that time, they advised they just want to resolve the issue and not continue to argue. 5) They owners have little faith that TM will respond to the reclamation of the land in the new R/W if they do not respond to the above. 6) They initially were not prepared to accept the new documentation for Tracts 1375, 1377 and 1379 but latter agreed to receiving
them along with the Section 87 notice but they did not sign the notice. TG advised that I would review the above and respond. Nov 30/16 – TG Telephone conference with Bruce and Bob. We reviewed owners concerns and decided to proceed with a soils study to confirm the soil impacts and remediation program. Bob will discuss the financial request at a latter date as he had to move on to an other conference call. Bruce will confirm his availability but tentatively schedule December 5/16. Later in the day Bruce confirmed the 5th or the 8th would work. T/C to Sheila re: Bruce’s involvement, explained TM would like to move forward with a soil study through Bruce to determine soil impacts and mitigation options. Sheila confirmed December 8th would work for entry. Reported back to Bruce, confirmed Dec 8th /16. Dec 1/16 – TG received call from Sheila advising they are scheduled to be in Victoria on the 6th and would like to change the meeting day to the 5th. Contacted Bruce, he rescheduled the meeting and agreed to meet on Sunday the 4th with the owners then start work on the 5th . Confirmed with Sheila 3:00 pm Sunday. Dec 4/16 – TG had Meeting at 89 Cattle Co. with landowners, Bruce McTavish and Matt. Bruce provided a brief explanation on his background and roll in this assignment. He further explained the soil investigation process wherein he will be collecting soil samples over and beyond the pipeline corridor to determine the consistency in the soil. We latter viewed the R/W area, specifically the former dig site (2011 ?) and the rocky segment of the pipeline. It was noted poor growth is experienced over the former dig site and approximately 300 m of pipeline had a higher concentration of rocks when compared to the adjacent land. Chris explained after KM picked the bigger rocks from the pipeline R/W he irrigated the field and experience poor growth and a high concentration of weeds. Bruce will have his crew start on the 5th testing the soil and he hopes to have a report by the end of the year. Jan 18/17 – TG Received e-mail from Bruce with attached soils report. Telephone call to Sheila and Chris, left message advising requesting meeting to discuss soils report and owners concerns. 1. Jan 28/17 – TG met with landowners at their residence, The purpose of the meeting was to present the Bruce McTavish report and respond to items raised in previous meeting. Taso advised; 1) A copy of Bruce McTavish report dated Jan 17 2017 was provided. Taso explained the report has identified 300 m of the R/W within Tract 1379 that requires mitigation by removing the top 12” , sifting the soil and replacing the volume with top soil. The report further recommends remediating the former dig site by removing 12” of the upper sandy soil and replacing it with top soil. TM recommends the proposed work to be part of the reclamation program on the twining of the pipeline. 2) Report recommends existing weeds be treated to avoid encroachment in other areas of the farm. Taso suggest we proceed with the weed program early spring. 3) TMEP is prepared to reimburse legal fees of upon receiving a signed agreement. 4) Asked if they received copy of Highland irrigation report on pivot system with mitigation option. Owners confirmed receipt of report. 5) Requested contact info for lease hold interest and type of tenure. 6) Confirmed, could not determine to date if notification protocol was followed on previous dig. Advised while TM has a right to enter the R/W and maintain their works they do contact owners and advise of entry. Owners advised; 1) All concerns from previous meeting have not been addressed, outstanding items are compensation for cathodic protection installed on Tract 1375 (this is a small tract of land on the west side of Westsyde Road which according to the owner is side hill) The owners are further of the opinion that this part of the land can be developed for a building site and would like TMEP to make an offer. Note: in previous conversations the owners requested for this land based on gravel value, the company has rejected their request. 2) Explained concern re access to their land was not for maintenance but for construction purposes. They asked the project to enter from the south boundary of tract 1379 and refrain from entering through their main driveway that they will be using for their operation. 3) Request access to their filed during construction. Confirmed access will not be impeded and a small lad bridge can be erected during the construction period. 4) Asked if thrust block will be constructed at the dogleg on tract 1377, if so what is the height above ground of the trust block. 5) Confirmed there is a year to year verbal lease on parts of the property, tenants name was not provided. Agreed on the following; 1) Taso will request treatment of weeds on Tract 1379. Taso will coordinate through Cheryl Thiesen and let the owners know when they will be coming to treat the weeds. 2) Taso will inform project of owners access request from the south boundary of tract 1379, if approved the condition will be added to Schedule D. 3) Taso will confirm if any works (existing) are within tract 1375, if so, are they considered in the registered easement. 4) Taso will confirm if thrust block will be installed on tract 1377, if so, will it be above ground. A draft Schedule D was left with the owners, items considered represented concerns raised by the owners. I explained to the owners this is a draft only and its meant to facilitate further discussion to insure we consider all of the owners concerns. Following are items from the schedule D; 1) The Company or the contractor will arrange a pre-construction meeting with the owners at least 60 days prior to construction. Items to discuss will be crop rotation, constructing temporary fencing if required, access, construction timing and minimizing conflict between the pipeline construction and the farming operation. The Company will provide 7 days notice prior to entering the Land for construction. 2) The company agrees that when the contractors are working with topsoil, the equipment will arrive on the lands clean to mitigate the introduction of weeds from adjacent parcels. 3) The company agrees to compensate the owners for reasonable time spent with project representatives. The owners shall keep track of their time with detailed notes for reference. The company agrees to compensate the owners per hour for time spent with project individuals. 4) All disturbed grounds will be graded to there pre disturbed state. The company will seed the disturbed grounds, if required by the owner, in accordance with crop rotation. The Company will further remediate approximately 300 meters of the Right of Way within Tract 1379 by screening
and removing rocks within 30 centimetres from the surface and replacing the lost volume with top soil in accordance with Bruce McTavish’s report dated January 17, 2017 of which a copy was delivered to the owner on January 2017. The company will further remediate a historical integrity dig on Tract 1377 that is experiencing poor growth by removing 30 centimetres of the existing sandy soil and replacing it top soil. 5) The Company will construct 3 heavy equipment crossings at the locations shown on the attached heavy equipment crossing sketch plan along with installing one 8 inch conduit at each crossing for future utility crossings. (Joey can we get a labeled sketch plan showing the 3 properties or do we use SWIMAP) Access rights to the Right of Way are limited to 3, five meter wide driveways commencing at Westsyde Road to the Right of Way shown on the attached Access Plan (Joey, can we get a sketch drafted for the proposed driveways). 6) If the existing irrigation pivot system is impacted by construction or the reclamation of the land the Company will compensate for the installation of 2 barricades to stop the pivot system from entering the Right of Way construction area, cost of the barricades not to exceed 7) If required by the Owners the Company will install temporary fencing with adequate breaks for access along the east boundary for the working space area. 8) The Company will reimburse
of historical legal fees within 30 days of the company receiving executed agreement from the owners for Tracts 1375, 1377 and 1379. 9) The Company will compensate for reasonable crop loss damages resulting from the construction of the Right of Way and mitigation thereof in accordance with the National Energy Board regulations. Compensation will be made payable after construction and within 30 days of an agreement been reached for crop loss damages between the owners and the company. 10) All merchantable timber impacted by the Project on the land will be compensated by the Company at the end of construction. Compensation will be based on a timber cruise prepared by the Company at the Company’s expense. Jan 28/17 – TG sent email to Gabe, Joey, Maria and Cheryl requesting a response to weed issue from Cheryl, access and thrust block from Gabe/Joey and status of cathodic protection bed from Maria. Jan 30/17 – TG received email back from Cheryl advising that it was ok to proceed subject to more info. Provided copy of soil report and further called to discuss. Agreed to proceed with pre-entry meeting in early May followed with treatment in late May, weather permitting. Feb 1/17 – TG received an e-mail from Gabe advising thrust block will not be installed and access is slated from Westsyde Road on the north and from the road to the South. Maria sent e-mail confirming above ground structure is on the property, possibly a lead, further provided a copy of the easement confirming above ground structures are permitted on the easement. Feb 2/17 – TG sent letter to landowners regarding; 1) Tract 1375 - Acquisition of land - Cathodic protection installation. In past conversations you have requested Trans Mountain to acquire a triangular section of land on the west side of Westsyde road on Part LS 1 Sec 27 Twp.22 for In our recent meeting you requested Trans Mountain to make an offer for the noted lands which house an above ground structure for the cathodic protection system. Please be advised Trans Mountain is not prepared to acquire the lands as they are not required for the TMEP. I have further enclosed the Trans Mountain Pipeline easement for tract 1375 which permits above ground structures for the operation of the pipeline. 2) Tract 1379 - Weed treatment impacted area described in Bruce McTavish report added January 17, 2017, Bruce McTavish has identified a section of property within Tract 1379 that is impacted by weeds. Trans Mountain has registered the impacted area in their spring 2017 weed management program. Our crew lead will contact you in early May for a pre - entry meeting to review and discuss area of treatment, process and recommended treatment options along with access dates and number of treatments if necessary. 3) Tract 1377 - Thrust block, During our conversation you have asked if a thrust block will be installed in tract 1377 and if so, what will the height be above ground. Please be advised a thrust block will not be installed in this location. 4) Construction Access You have requested TMEP refrain from entering the pipeline from your primary driveway located on Tract 1377, you explained construction access will interfere with your farming operation. You request TMEP to access from the south boundary of Tract 1379. Please be advised north access to the Right of Way for construction of the TMEP is planned off Westsyde road onto the Right of Way on Tract 1375 and south access is planned from the road to the Right of Way on Tract 1379. There are no plans to use your main access on Tract 1377 unless the governing authorities reject the project’s access proposal, if so, we will contact you and discuss a new access location. 5) Property Lease, I confirm your advice that you have a verbal lease for a portion of your property. Please provide all particulars of your lease along with contact information. Trans Mountain will need to inform this party of the TMEP and determine if their interest is impacted. 6) Draft Schedule D, I confirm I provided you with a draft Schedule D comprising of construction items and concerns discussed to date with Jeff Frame and yourselves. I look forward to receiving your reply and working towards minimizing the impact to your property during the construction process. Mar 6/17 - Received e-mail from Bob advising 89n Cattle co has forwarded a letter to the NEB expressing concern regarding the electrical load the pump station would have on the owners power for his farm. TG responded advising the response should be prepared by TMEP electrical lead. Latter e-mail received from Bob Steele advising there would be no impact to owners electrical concern as power is retrieved from transmission line. Mar 13/17 – TG left message for landowners requesting call back to discuss response provided on Feb 2/17 and how they wish to move forward. Apr 3/17 – TG left message for landowners requesting call back to meet and discuss how to move forward.
Apr 6/17 – TG received e-mail from Sheila replying to phone message advising they have applied to the Ministry of Natural resources to appoint a mediator in regards to compensation. Apr 7/17 – TG responded to Sheila with CC to Progress lands confirming the Owner’s request and further advised that section 34 letters will be hand delivered to each owner impacted by the Pipeline R/W within 2 weeks. Apr 19/17 – TG received e-mail from Trisha Lucas of Progress Land Services with attached letter to 89 Cattle Co. dated Apr 19/17 responding to 89 Cattle co. concerns re: impact to their electrical system that may be caused by the new pump station in Black pines. Letter confirmed the following; 1) Electrical draw will not have any impact to 89 cattle co electrical system as power for the station is received from a separate system and appropriate action is taken to insure owners are not impacted and 2) There will be no vibration caused by the new pump station on the new pipeline running through their property. T/C to Chris and Sheila left message advising that they will receive a registered letter regarding responding to their concerns on the electrical system. Further advised that I need to hand deliver section 34 letters and request an appointment to serve same. Subsidiary Apr 28/17 – TG left message for landowners requesting meeting to present section 34 letters and discuss entry for the weed control program Apr 29/17 – TG made a cold call to the residence. Knocked on door, no response time 1:20 pm. Left card on door. May 1/17 – TG sent e-mail to Sheila requesting meeting to present Section 34 letters 4:45 pm May 6/17 – TG received e-mail from Sheila advising they are prepared to see me re: Section 34 letters on May 9/17 between 1 & 3 Responded advising I was out of town returning on May 9th and would respond upon reviewing my calendar May 9/17 – TG emailed Sheila and confirmed their meeting for 1:30pm. Met at residence with Sheila and Chris. Taso presented the Section 34 letters along with the new agreements with the revised schedule D and commitment based on former discussions. Further advised the Projects requests confirmation signatures on the duplicate section 34 letter, however, noting the owners former decision on not signing documents they are not obligated to do so. The owners advised the following; 1) They are not convinced that the lands will be remediated and crops will be in full production within 2 years. Taso – The Company will remediate the lands and monitor the impacted soils until mature growth has been established. Any crop loss incurred during the this period will be compensated at time of final settlement. 2) In their opinion the compensation does not reflect market value. They further want to know who was responsible for the appraisal and how was the easement value established. Taso – The Company employed an independent appraisal firm to value the impacted lands. The R/W value was decided by the company and the appraiser after reviewing easement values in the open market. In my opinion typical easement are of market, easement that overlap existing easements are less. TM has selected the upper range in R/W value and has further bonused the R/W for early acquisitions by approximately . Further advised the 2nd value was recommended by Taso and approved by the Project. 3) The owners concerns have not been ignored. Taso – All owners concerns provided by their lawyer and through discussion with the owners have been considered and written response to this items have been provided. If there are any outstanding issues Taso request the owners to send them by e-mail and he will respond. The Sheila latter agreed that they have received a response to item raised but not all responses favored the owners. 4) Owners do not agree with dog leg in the alignment and they intend to argue it with the NEB. 5) Advised Trans Mountain has contacted them regarding the weed control but has not confirmed a date to enter and treat the weeds. They played a telephone message advising of the weed management program but did not specify a date, they are concerned the window will be lost. Taso – The message was related to an annual program that treats impacted gig sites such as the one on their property. Taso will contact Cheryl Theses and ask her to contact the Owners direct regarding treating weeds in accordance with Bruce McTavish report. 6) The owners will review the section 34 letter and decide if they will sign the document. 7) The owners advised trees were not considered and they will not be replanted. Taso – Timber valuations will be completed by the Company and replanting will occur in the WSA. The owners were emotional/passionate about this matter as they understand time is of the essence, however, they were not prepared to accept any response that the company would be fair and equitable in their dealing regarding remediation or value. E-mail sent to Cheryl Thesen requesting Cheryl to contact owners and schedule the weed treatment for their property E-mail to Bruce requesting assistance with response to soil reclamation and crop rehabilitation. May 15/17 – TG received e-mail from Cheryl advising they have attempted to contact Sheila and Chris by phone and left messages for them but they have not received a reply. I responded by asking they e-mail Sheila and provided her e-mail address. Latter in the day Cheryl e-mailed Sheila and advised she would like to meet with her and discuss her weed concerns. Jun 12/17 – TG sent an e-mail to Sheila with attached Memo from Bruce McTavish dated Jun 11/17 regarding soil reclamation process and company’s requirement to reclaim under the NEB conditions Nov 16/17 Meeting with Stockman assosiation at the Knutsford Hall in Kamloops Sheila and Chris of the 89 Cattle Company advise dthey have no confendence in Kinder Morgan that they will resore the land to its origenal condition after their experience of a prviouse dig on gthier property that has not shown positive signs of good groth where the dig occurred. Also they confirmed weesa are contijnueing to be an uissue along the Right of Way on their property
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Taso Gavriel Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.3 Spread Name: 5A Tract: 1643 PID: 002-999-528 Landowner names: Diane Eileen Hoffman Grant William Hoffman Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: True Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Sept 14/16 – Landowner has now indicated (to Tammy Mcgovern at Trans Mountain) that they will NOT allow access for any archaeological field work on her property. All archaeological crews must stay off the property. Please provide 48 hours notice prior to entry with a description of the work to be completed and the identity if the contractor. SURVEY CREWS MUST REMAIN WITHIN A 150M CORRIDOR FROM THE EXISTING PIPELINE FOR ALL SURVEY WORKS, UNLESS FURTHER APPROVAL BY THE OWNER IS GRANTED. There must be no interference with gates, fences, crops, water courses or springs. Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 5/12 – Land Agent, Darren Lincoln (DL), phoned Landowners, Diane Eileen Hoffman and Grant William Hoffman at their residence. There was no answer and no answering machine. Oct 9/12 – DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman at their residence. There was no answer and no answering machine. Oct 17/12 – DL phoned An individual answered and provided the phone number for Diane and Grant Hoffman. Oct 18/12 – DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and left a message. Oct 18/12 – DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and talked to Diane Hoffman. DL advised her of the proposed project and arranged a meeting for October 23/12 at10 a.m. at their residence. Oct 23/12 – DL met with Diane Hoffman and her daughter, Rae-Lynn. DL provided the information package and reviewed it in detail. They have no concerns with project at this time. Diane requested a copy of her Land Title and the TM changes on title. DL agreed to copy and deliver on Friday Oct 26/12. Diane is concerned with allowing access for surveys outside of existing ROW. The property is over 2 ½ miles from their residence and it would be a challenge for them to monitor the surveys. There has been trespass issues by KM staff in the past, although they complimented the general working relationship with KM staff. Diane will review the Survey Consent form with her lawyer before responding. DL agreed to call in 1-2 weeks to follow-up. Oct 26/12 – DL delivered a copy of Land Title and SRW changes to Diane and Grant Hoffman. Oct 31/12 – DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and left a message to return DL’s call. Nov 9/12 – DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and left a message to return DL’s call. Nov 11/12 – DL received a phone call from Diane Hoffman. She advised they are still trying to get in to see their lawyer to review the Survey Consent form. Nov 18/12 – DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and left a message to return DL’s call. Nov 28/12 – DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and talked to Diane. They have met with the lawyer but still have a few more things to confirm. Their daughter is expecting a child any day which is a priority right now. Dec 6/ 12 - DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and left a message. Dec13/12 – DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and left a message. Jan 10/13 - DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and left a message.
Jan 17/13 – DL phoned Diane and Grant Hoffman and left a message. Feb 6/13 – DL met with Diane and Grant Hoffman. They signed off Consent for Survey form. The key issue is to remain within a 150m corridor for all survey works unless further approval is granted. Consent form is per 150m corridor. Contractors to advise them 48 hours prior to entry with a description of the work and identity of the contractor. Dec 29/14 – Land Agent, Taso Gavriel (TG), phoned and left a message requesting a meeting. Jan 8/15 – TG phoned and talked to Diane Hoffman and set a meeting for Jan 13/15 at 1:00 p.m. Jan 13-15 - Land Agent, Taso Gavriel (TG) met with Landowners, Diane Hoffman, Grant Hoffman and Rae-Lynn, Presented section 87 notice and agreement along with payment schedule. Owners advised the following, Executed section 87 acknowledgement, Request confirmation of final location of proposed R/W, Confirm status of road near realignment, They require access to north end of property during construction, subject area contains the salt station for cattle and is traveled on a regular basses with their equipment, Reinstatement of existing crossing and installation of new crossing for machinery on the north end due to realignment of R/W, Gates to be installed at north and south end of property, Request TMEP weed maintenance solution in the post construction scenario. They will review the documentation with their lawyer prior to signing and on the condition that their concerns are resolved. TG advised that he will review the above with our project team and respond. Feb 9/15 - TG received e-mail from the Hoffman’s requesting the following; 1. Exact location of proposed R/W, 2. Compensation package is unacceptable. TG Replied to the Hoffman’s requesting clarification on their concerns regarding the compensation package, further advised that their concerns will be discussed with the project team. Mar 4/15 - TG responded to Diane’s e-mail advising that we will try to provide a plan showing the proposed R/W and nearby improvements, however, if this is not possible we will stake the R/W for their review. Nov 27/15 - TG emailed Chris Jones requesting confirmation on staking, further requested plan that shows impact to road and mitigation. Mar 1/16 - TG called Mrs. Hoffman re: water impact concers. She requested confirmation on the potential impact to her water shed/springs caused by the proposed pipeline construction. She further requested confirmation on the road impact around the ravine. We agreed that the best time to view her concerns is June. Sent e-mail to progress recommending onsite meeting in June with Dian to discuss construction practices, road impacts and potential impacts to her watershed area. Mar 21/16 - TG Left message for Diane Hoffman advising I would contact Diane in June and set up a onsite meeting to review her concerns. Apr 25/15 - TG left message for Diane Hoffman requesting status of ground condition and timing to meet and discuss their water concerns. May 16/16 - TG received call from Mrs. Hoffman responding to the above messages. Mrs. Hoffman advised the grounds are suitable for travel and she would be available to meet now with the exception of May 27 – 28 and June 2 – 9 2016. TG advised he would get back to her with a confirmed time. Sept 19/16 - TG, Terrielyn, Diane, Mike, Gabe and Jose On site meeting with owners, the purpose of the meeting was to review the owners concerns relating to their ranching operation. The owners had the following concerns and further provided a letter outlining 36 issues. 1. Why did the R/W deviate from the existing alignment. Gabe advised the new R/W avoids the ravine and causes a lower impact to the property along with the elevation which can not be greater than 2. Will the R/W impede access during and post construction. Mike- Temporary road can be built at the edge but within the WSA for access during construction. Post construction the road crosses the R/W in 2 locations and further runs along side (possibly within) the R/W. Gabe will look into shifting the R/W or the Road to avoid encroachment for that section. The Company will construct heavy equipment crossing where required 3. Will trees and crops be compensated. Taso- Confirmed trees and crop loss will be considered in the final settlement. 4. How will live stock be protected from construction. Taso- The Company can erect temporary fencing with breaks for cattle and vehicle passage. Fencing should remain until grass lands are rejuvenated, team will follow up with owner’s for 5 years to insure growth5. Can TM request existing access roads for access. – Taso TM is working on a access plan, should any of the privet roads be required for access TM will contact the owners and negotiate terms of access. (New agreement separate form R/W agreement). 6. Will a survey plan be provided prior to signing, the owners explained they are concerned the R/W will change after signing the R/W agreement. Mike – The proposed R/W is registered with the NEB and can not deviate from the alignment unless it is absolutely necessary. Should a change be required the owners will be notified and a new agreement will be reached. Taso explained that minor changes should be expected but major changes will require authorization from NEB and owners. 7. Is better mapping available – Gabe showed a screen shot of the proposed R/W# through the property showing contours and water body locations. He will forward a plan to the owners for their review. 8. The new R/W alignment opens up the property (Width of new R/W and WSA) to recreational ATVs. Will TM consider installing a gate at north property boundary along with a fence line say 100 m. – Mike, TM can install a gate and requested fencing along with large boulders to detour recreational drivers from cutting the fence to get onto the property 9. Does TM have a survey identifying all underground springs and wells in the area that will be impacted by the R/W. – Mike, Gabe will send segment of survey showing all watercourses picked up by the aquatics surveyors. Should they be impacted by construction the plan is to allow the water to run as it did before construction thereby not changing the course and creating
other impacts down the water course. 10. The team agreed to review the written concerns and respond to them. The owners will provide their letter in word and the team will respond on the same letter, however, the owners were of the opinion that most of their concerns were answered. Sept 20/16 - TG received e-mail from Diane with an attached letter comprising of 36 questions requesting response. Most were discussed on our site meeting. Oct 26/16 - TG sent response to the 36 questions, further advised request for survey studies is in process. Nov 1/16 - TG sent environmental surveys data specific to the owners property. Nov 6/16 - TG received e-mail from Diaen requesting status of new plan and coordinates. TG passed request onto Gabe and advised Diane he would contact her upon receiving the information. Nov 19/16 - TG received e-mail from Diane requesting wetland ID numbers Nov 20/16 - TG received e-mail from Diane requesting status of coordinates for new plans. Nov 21/16 - TG sent e-mail to Diane with wetland ID 583 and 584, 622 and 623. Further advised coordinates will provided upon receipt and new plan have arrived, requested meeting to discuss the new plans and documents, Received responding e-mail from Diane latter in the afternoon requesting further clarification on the changes and advising that she does not recall in our meeting that the plan and documents were going to change. TG provided copy of new IOS, explanation on changes and confirmed new areas. Nov 22/16 - TG received responding e-mail from Diane requesting confirmation on payment for owners time on past. Present and future discussions with Trans Mountain. Nov 23/16 - TG responded to Diane advising that he has forwarded her request to Progress Land and will respond upon receiving a reply. Nov 25/16 - TG received e-mail confirming Brian Bondar met with the Hoffmans and discussed the method of valuing the timber. Brian advised the meeting when well. Dec 6/16 - TG sent e-mail to Diane providing the GPS coordinates, confirmed TMEP will pay owners /hr for owners time and requested time to meet and present the new documents. Dec 8/16 - TG received responding e-mail from Diane advising Grant and Diane have the flu and can not meet until next week. Dec 14/16 - TG sent email to Diane requesting dates for meeting Thursday of Friday or week of 19th. Dec 17/16 - TG received e-mail from Diane advising they can not meet on Thursday or Friday, recommend 1st week in January, TG responds by asking if January 3rd at 10:30 works for owners. Dec 30/16 - TG received e-mail from Diane advising they are prepared to meet on Jan 3/17 at 10:30 Jan 3/16 - TG met with Landowners at their residence, provided the following; 1. Copy of new 87 notice, 2. Copy of new agreement, 3. TMEP update dated Sep 2016. The Hoffman’s advised the following; 1. They are not prepared to sign the Section 87 notice as they believe TM is not dealing fairly with the owners. 2. Request further clarification on routing around ravine, they are not convinced there is greater disturbance constructing through the existing R/W. In their opinion TM requires the new alignment for access but are not honest with their intentions. 3. Concerned regarding access/trespass through new R/W 4. In the owner’s opinion TM has not properly addressed their concern on the riparian mitigation of Menanteau lake. They explained, Luke creek flows toward Mananteau lake, the R/W and road is higher then the land at this location and the water ponds in a marshy area before it spills over the road and eventually into the lake. There is a small culvert under the road that drains water to the lake but it only relives the pressure. In reading TM response they noted TM intends to keep the old culvert in place without further modification. This lack of attention leads them to believe that care and attention has not been given to this area. 5. Request copies of permits application to work around the lake 6. Timber compensation and replanting. Owners have reviewed Project info (10.2.8 Forest) on the internet confirming TM will plant timber trees in forested areas where disturbed by working space areas. In TM response to the owners timber replanting is the owners responsibility. 7. Advised compensation is not adequate. In their opinion there will be damages to the remaining lands beyond the suggested R/W value. 8. Advised legal review cost ( ) is not adequate. 9. Acknowledged owners rate of /hr. Wanted confirmation on when this will be paid. Further asked if others are paid more. 10. Confirmed 160 ac are severed on the west side of R/W. TG advised, (responded in order to items above) 1. Signing receipt of Section 87 notice is not necessary, Taso will prepare Affidavit. 2. Ravine – it is Taso’s understanding that constructing through the ravine would cause substantial earth disturbance therefore more impact to their land. This was discussed at the site meeting, however, will request further clarification from Project team and respond. 3. Access/Trespass – During the meeting it was suggested 2 gates can be installed at the north and south end of the property along with fencing the north boundary towards the west and installing large boulders along the new fence line to detour ATVs from entering the property. This item can be added to Schedule D. 4. TM has conducted numerous studies on riparian impacts and mitigation for this area the program will comply with the appropriate mitigation to insure impacts are kept at a minimum and the pipeline is not affected by the existing water drainage. Taso will request further information on the proposed riparian works around Luke creek and Menanteau Lake. 5. Permits. Taso will ask if Permit applications can be released. 6. Timber – It is Taso’s understanding if an owner is compensated fair market value for Timber the compensation includes replanting. Taso will request clarification from the Project
7. R/W value. Compensation is based on fair market value for the land. If the owners have any information that equivalent land is selling at a higher price or that there are damages to the remainder the project will review and respond. 8. Legal cost. The project remains consistent with all owners on this item. The owners have the opportunity to advance a claim to the NEB should a settlement not be reached. 9. Owners time – Owners time will be compensated after construction when settlement on all damages is reached. 10. Request confirmation on grazing patterns and cost for closing grazing area. This costs will be compared to installing temporary fencing along the new R/W. Feb 9/17 - TG received email from Land Manager, Joey Andries with the following environmental response; “The watercourse investigation carried out in April 2014 did in fact note the impoundment at the culvert for Luke Creek. This was compounded by the presence of a beaver dam, retaining flows within Menanteau Lake. Ultimately, Menanteau Lake is considered the source of Luke Creek, with Luke Creek discharging into Dropping Water Creek, approximately 9 km downstream. Typical construction methodology is to leave existing structures in place where possible. As was stated in the initial response to this question, in the case of the culvert at Luke Creek, if the culvert was deemed to be unsuitable for the weight (or width) of construction equipment, a ramp could be used over the culvert. However, if the landowner or tenure holder preferred, the culvert could be replaced, particularly if considered undersized or if known problems exist with that culvert. With respect to the relegation and reclamation of Menanteau Lake riparian vegetation, Trans Mountain documents the pre-construction condition and species assemblages of each riparian location being disturbed. This becomes the benchmark for vegetation following construction. Success of vegetation programs is determined by professional biologists retained by Trans Mountain who complete post-construction monitoring over 5-years following construction.” Feb 20/17 - TG e-mailed above response, further advised the contraction response around the ravine has not been received but invited them to the open house on Feb 23/17 4:30 – 8:00 to review and respond to their concerns. Feb 23/17 - TG met with Diane at the Kamloops open house. Dianne was requested response from our construction disciplines on why the pipeline shifted around the ravine. Jason agreed to review the matter in greater detail and respond to Diane through TG. Feb 24/17 - TG received e-mail from Dianne to Gabe CC Taso re: open house and concerns on alignment. Dianne confirmed her conversation with Jason (construction) where she expressed concern that the realignment of the pipe would have advise implications on day to day business operations. Based on her conversations at the open house it is her understanding that TM applied to the NEB for the route without adequate consultation with the owner. They further have serious concerns regarding the riparian impacts on their property. They are not apposed to the pipeline but feel their concerns on the above have not been addressed. Mar 2/17 - TG received e-mail from Dianne confirming the following; 1. Confirmed Jason will be providing explanation on construction/routing at the north end of property. 2. Requests TMEP policy on replanting of trees. 3. Request explanation of construction around Menententeau lake, in her opinion the former explanation was not adequate. 4. Requests confirmation on replanting of trees. 5. Explains legal allowance of is not adequate, states article suggests TM will pay all legal fees. 6. Market value is not adequate Mar 4/17 - TG responds to the above; 1. Requests Jason (CC on e-mail) to provide explanation on work around riparian area as well as the north end. 2. Replanting of trees at company costs will be considered if no compensation is paid for trees. If compensation is paid for trees the value would be all inclusive of replanting. 3. TMEP legal cost policy is to compensate upon receiving a signed agreement. If the owner is beyond a but is prepared to sign the land agent will seek approval from the company. 4. Advises company is working on new agreement that will purchase the R/W but reserve the owners rights to file a claim. Upon execution of document the Company would prepare an independent report estimating value of the R/W. The owner would not be bound by the report and can pursue their claim under the NEB. Requested confirmation if they wish to proceed with the new agreement once it is available. Mar 6/17 - TG advised Diane that it would be best to view the property when the snow is gone to discuss construction practices. Jason will contact Dianne at a later date. Mar 8/17 - TG received e-mail from Diane inquiring about the timber valuation. Mar 9/17 - TG spoke with Land Manager, Joey Andries re: Timber valuation compensation and process. After the conversation the following response was provided to Dianne, The timber valuation will used as a base line in determining damages. If all or close to all of the trees are impacted then the Project will compensate according to the timber cruise. If only a portion of the trees are impacted the company may re estimate the loss and compensate accordingly. Compensation will be made after construction when the loss can be confirmed. Mar 12/17 - TG received e-mail from Dianne advising they are very concerned regarding the timber response. Mar 13/17 - TG responded to Dianne’s e-mail requesting concern so our forestry specialist can respond, Dianne responded advising they need to see the timber valuation before they table their concerns. Mar 14/17 - TG forwarded Dianne’s e-mail to Land Manager, Joey Andries asking if timber valuation can be released and suggested it would be beneficial if Bill Lasuta can attend the meeting with Jason and the Owners to address timber valuation issues. (note meeting has not been confirmed, waiting for snow to melt) Received e-mail from Bill and Joey. Bill advised he would attend meeting if required. Joey confirmed timber valuations can be released once received. TG responded back to Dianne advising Timber valuations will be released oonce received and he will invite Bill to the upcoming meeting to explain results and respond to any concerns the owners may have.
Mar 15/17 - TG received e-mail from Dianne raising concern regarding the Timber valuation and future cash flows. Dianne explained they selectively log their property on a 30 – 40 year rotation, recently they logged 12.5 ac at 70% harvest rates, total volume was 586 m3/ac gross value /m3. Dianne compares this to the WSA and R/W requirement of 21.11 ac X by 3 rotations and estimates at current rates. Dianne requests TM to consider the permanent loss to their business through out the lifetime of the pipeline. Note to reader: Majority of permanent 7.58 ac R/W overlaps the existing R/W. Rough estimates suggest 3.2 ac is non encumbered land of which a portion is currently used as road. Dianne’s calculation considers future gross value and not net present value. The working space area will be assessed for timber and compensated accordingly, after the work is completed it can be replanted and back on the rotation cycle. Mar 17/17 - TG responded to Dianne advising will invite Bill Lasuta to the upcoming meeting with John Squires to address her concerns. Requested Dianne to let us know when the snow has melted so we cam arrange for a meeting to discuss her concerns. Apr 21/17 - TG received 3 e-mails from Dianne requesting the following 1. Snow will be melted by mid May, request confirmation for meeting between May 16 – 19. Taso sent invite to Jason and Bill Lasuta, requested confirmation for meeting. 2. Requested confirmation on section 34 letter delivery. Taso confirmed letters have been received and can deliver copy on Apr 24/17 pending owners availability 3. Questioned why log storage is planed on neighboring properties and not on their property. Taso replied by advising Project tries to limit impact to owners lands when accommodating construction. Also, topography and soil storage may play a roll in log storage location. Suggested Jason can elaborate during upcoming meeting. Apr 22/17 - Diane responded to the Section 34 letter delivery advising she will try to call when she is in town to pick up the letter. 2nd e-mail from Diane requested contact person to discuss timber storage location, explained timber must be stored on property where logged. She will further discuss the matter with Jason during the meeting. Apr 24/17 - TG sent e-mail to Diane, confirmed May 17/17 the crew is available to meet. Will e-mail with times upon receiving confirmation on traveling times . Received e-mail from Diane requesting contact person to discuss log stacking area. Apr 25/17 - TG responded to Diane advising her request has been passed on to the Project team and I am waiting fro the response. I explained the WSA were designed with input from various groups and in my initial discussion with our team they advised that not adding a log stacking area may have been an oversight. Upon receiving their reply I would respond. May 1/17 - TG Left message requesting meeting to present section 34 letter 4:35 pm. Diane returned call advising they are having a very difficult time with their cattle due to heavy rains and will try to meet on the week of 8th to receive the section 34 letters. May 9/17 - TG left message to present section 34 letters Diane replied by e-mail advising they will be in town and can meet in the morning Taso replied requesting 2:00 pm meeting due to conflicting schedules. May 10/17 - TG presented section 34 letters, Diane and Grant accepted service but did not sign acknowledgement. Dian further expressed concern regarding the exclusions of log decks on her property and alignment. I advised both items will be discussed at the upcoming meeting by Jason Squires, Bill Lasuta and Lynne Atwood. May 17/17 - Meeting with Diane, Carrie-Lynn, Jeff, Jason Squires, Lynn Atwood to review the R/W and discussed the following; 1. Project will commence on September 2017, crews will enter to stake the R/W and WSA. Clearing will start in the 3rd week of Oct and end Nov 15/17 Construction Aug 2018 to October 5 2018. Top soil will be reinstated mid June 2019. Seeding will be confirmed by owner. 2. Soil within riparian area will be hauled to either side of lake and reinstated immediately after installation of pipe. 3. No access is required through property to R/W, access will be along R/W on either side Haughton and Philips. 4. Road adjacent to lake will be elevated and rocks from 1952 pipeline installation will be removed. Road will be constructed to a better grade then existing.5. Log decks will be required Bill Lesuta will discuss with owners along with method of valuation. Owners confirmed they want to be paid for timber. 6. According to the owners 160 ac +- will be severed by the R/W construction. Owners suggest fencing one side of the R/W restricting access for cows may be the best alternative and have the Company compensate for feed. Fence would be 4 strand barb wire approximately 1700 meters in length The owners will review and provide cost for this purpose. We explained a business decision may be considered to compare the double fencing cost plus breaks vs. compensation for feed. 7. Confirmed should cows escape due to workmen negligence the Project is liable for damages 8. Reason for deviating off the existing R/W and installing new pipe around ravine. Jason explained, todays construction practices and the larger less flexible pipe require a cut of approximately 9 meters on commencing on the upper hill side. The soil removal would have a far greater footprint then the proposed alignment. Also, the owners concerns of the new R/W opening more area for trespass can be mitigated by adding material that would detour trespassers onto the new R/W. However, it is noted gated access exists adjacent to the existing pipeline and the problem of trespass exist today. 9. Owners do not agree with /hr for owner’s time. May 18/17 - TG received e-mail from Diane requesting Bill Lasuta’s availability to discuss timber. Responded to e-mail by CC Bill and asked to provide availability.
Jul 6/17 - Bill advised she spoke to Dianne regarding the valuation and will send copy to Dianne. Bill will further add to the value for non merchantable timber after he has discussion with Dianne on the report. Bill will notify Taso when an agreement has been reached Nov 16/17 Meeting with Stockman assosiation at the Knutsford Hall in Kamloops Diane and Kerry-Lynn expressed concerns during the construction process and their cattle operation. Concerns were raised in the past and responded to by project. Diane further requested Bill Lasutas Timber Valuation. Nov 21/17 TG sent copy of Bill Lasuta’s Timber Valuation Nov 22/17 E-mail from Dianne advising the timber valuation was incorrect, further expressed her disappointment in receiving wrong information
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA & Wetlands Land Agent: Taso Gavriel Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.3 Spread Name: 5A Tract: 1651 PID: 014-187-078 Landowner names: Agnes Irene Jackson Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Mrs. Jackson is not favourable to allow surveys over the entire property. She has had issues in the past with Trans Mountain staff accessing through her remainder property instead of accessing within the existing right of way. She indicated the R/W is there for access as well and needs to be respected. As the property is 5 miles away from her residence she does not want contractors over all of her property indicating this has happened in the past without her consent and she did not appreciate this. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 5/12 - Land Agent telephoned Mrs. Jackson, explained briefly the proposed project. Agreed to meet next Friday, October 12 at 2 p.m. Oct. 12/12 - Land Agent met with Mrs. Jackson at her residence at Napier Lake. Presented package for proposed project and consent for survey form. Reviewed all in detail. Mrs. Jackson is supportive of project and acknowledged that she has a good working relationship with KM staff. Mrs. Jackson was surprised as Land Agent was the third individual in contact with her, as two others have discussed the project within their Crown lease and woodlot properties. Mrs. Jackson is not favourable to allow surveys over the entire property. She has had issues in the past with Trans Mountain staff accessing through her remainder property instead of accessing within the existing right of way. She indicated the R/W is there for access as well and needs to be respected. Land Agent agreed to follow up the following week. Oct. 15/12 - Land Agent phoned to follow up with Mrs. Jackson. She requested to email a copy of the SR/W document to her. Oct. 18/12 - Land Agent telephoned Mrs. Jackson, she is not comfortable signing the consent for surveys form. As the property is 5 miles away from her residence, she does not want contractors over all of her property indicating this has happened in the past without her consent and she did not appreciate this. Nov 14/12 – Land Administrator sent copy of refusal survey consent form to L/O via regular mail. Aug 22/13 – Taso Gavriel (TG) spoke with L/O concerning weed management program in the R/W, L/O is pleased that Trans Mountain was so responsive to her inquiry and has further granted permission to proceed with the weed management program for this year and the spraying of the Oxeye Daisy in 2014. Jun 17/14 – TG received email from Jeff Frame (L/O’s Lawyer) advising that L/O is displeased with the fact that crews have been crossing her property, states there is currently a piece of heavy equipment parked on the SE 1/4 , L/O omitted to remove a lock that allowed KM to continue to trespass onto her lands, however that will be rectified shortly, advises if they can find a way to seize or impound the equipment they will be doing so. Jeff has been advised by his client to sue Kinder Morgan for trespassing and to seek punitive and exemplary damages and will likely add the contractors and employees once he has obtained that information through discovery process, plans to have the lawsuit prepared and filed next day. Advises that further entry onto L/O’s property will result in additional litigation and a request for criminal charges, they also plan on filing a complaint with the NEB.
June 17/14 – Bob Love responded to email from L/O’s lawyer, Bob has requested a sit down meeting with Lawyer and Landowner to see if they can mutually agree to a solution. June 24/14 – TG received email from L/O’s lawyer regarding meeting with Bob Love. Attached mapping referenced in meeting, advised his client has removed the lock to which KM had a key, gate will now be left open to allow for the removal of the excavator. L/O is putting her mind to her claim for compensation as a result of trespassing for the excavator, client does not intend to commence any legal action as a result of the trespass by excavator but that may change if there are any further trespasses or if we’re unable to come to an agreement over compensation. KM agreed to reimburse L/O for the costs already incurred in dealing with this trespassing including the preparation of documents for the commencement of legal proceedings, last Kinder Morgan has agreed to an initial budget of for L/O to negotiate with KM, Lawyers office will deliver to Kinder Morgan a copy of invoice. Dec 18/14 – TG placed call to L/O, left message requesting a meeting. Jan 6/15 – TG met with L/O, presented Section 87 notice and R/W agreement and further explained compensation. L/O will review documents prior to responding, she will be providing the documents to her lawyer so they can respond after her return from holidays, L/O signed Section 87 acknowledgement. Feb 25/15 – TG placed call to L/O, she has advised that she has not yet provided the documents to her lawyer but will do so soon, upon his review she will respond with her comments. Mar 5/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame regarding L/O’s concerns and will respond. Apr 20/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame, he suggested I meet with L/O and discuss her concerns, later sent an email advising it was okay to call and meet her directly. Apr 21/15 – TG email from Jeff Frame requesting budget for file. Apr 23/15 – TG responded to email from Jeff Frame advising TM is prepared to compensate up to for legal fees within 30 days of receipt of a signed agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached the owner will have the opportunity to request cost at the S104 hearing. Apr 27/15 – TG placed call to L/O and set a meeting for May 1. May 1/15 – TG met with L/O and Jennifer Jackson, L/O’s advised the following concerns: 1) the offer does not represent devastation caused by construction. 2) request a shift in R/W workspace (20 x 30) to crown land. 3) Concerned regarding impact to western toad 4) concerned regarding impact to dropping water creek. 5) Requested compensation for impacted timber. 6) Concerned regarding impact to Ranch operation, explained area near dropping water creek crossing is where they separate their cows, also cows migrate to area. TG able to address some concerns, if he cannot answer he will forward concerns to project and follow up. May 25/15 – TG received an email from Lawyer Jeff Frame with a letter attached listing concerns and issues from L/O. 1) Compensation being offered is inadequate. 2) developing a temporary workspace area will have a grave impact on the land occupied, it requires removal of trees which is near permanent change to the land and second the proposed work area is within 30 meters of dropping water creek and there is a natural spring west of the quarter section that drains into Dropping Water Creek. 3) Proposed additional 18m width to the existing SRW will involve the loss of timber. This permanent deforestation will have a negative value on the land for which there must be full compensation. The proposal to compensate based on the net value is not acceptable as it means the KM is using the value of the timber to offset its costs. As well, compensation must reflect that this is not the optimal or even an appropriate time to harvest the timber in this area. 4) the owner would like compensation for weed control based on a 30 year program. 5) Compensation must be paid for the loss of revenue from grazing, this will take into account 3 fences that are impacted, stock water in area is critical, there will be a change in the lands capacity in terms of the AUMs, impact of construction and area re-vegetation. 6) the project will result in the interrupton or permanent change to the flora and fauna, this needs to be identified and addressed to the greatest extent reasonably possible. 7) Finally, KM plans on the ranch’s crown grazing lease and crown woodlot must be dealth with at the same time, there is little value to the owner in resolving some but not all issues. July 9/15 – TG placed call to L/O and requested permission to enter property to obtain survey info on rw and pipe location to assist on requirements, TG also requested confirmation of time and date, advised we will notify her upon confirmation. July 24,15 – TG met with Jeff Frame and provided letter from the project responding to letter received from L/O and Mr. Frame. Aug 6/15 – TG placed call to Jeff Frame regarding the status of owners response to the TM letter and how we can move forward with discussionsm Jeff will review the letter with the L/O and advise. Aug 24/15 – TG sent email to Jeff Frame requesting permission for survey on crown and private lands to start August 26/15. Jeff responded with a few questions and concerns, he would like to know what would happen if they were to locate anything on the lands, TG advised site would be protected but the owner would be able to use their land and the finds will be to be remediated when the land was developed. Further advised he will seek direction on crown lands. Aug26/15 – TG sent email to Jeff Frame with answers to his concerns in last email, advised Jeff the finds would be protected under the heritage conservation act, unless it is a small enough find to mitigate prior to construction, likely the site would be protected from development, however farming can continue. TG requested status of L/O’s discussions. Jeff advised that there is no benefit to the owner to allow the survey request, TG suggested we meet to discuss. Sept 1/15 – TG placed call to Jeff Frame, left voicemail requesting status of owners decision on entry for Archy surveys.
Sept 8/15 – TG met with Jeff Frame, requested permission to enter lands for Archy study, Jeff is of the opinion that if the project enters under the act the project would be responsible for mitigating finds within the WSA and proposed RW therefore under this opinion he will not recommend signing survey consent to his client. TG explained that the project will mitigate finds in the RW but not the WSA, however the owner can continue to use the property and will not be required to mitigate unless they develop over the area, Jeff will discuss with L/O. Nov 6/15 – TG met with L/O at her residence regarding road, aquatic and archy survey for access roads. Plans and survey requirements were reviewed. L/O granted permission for road inspection but denied access to archy and aqua surveys. Oct 23/15 –TG placed call to L/O requesting permission for timber crews, L/O requested he call back in a couple of days. Oct 25/16 – TG placed call to L/O, she requested we refrain from valuing the timber, she explained that an agreement has not been reached for the RW and the timber value may change by the time we do, agreed to meet on Nov 1 to discuss the new plan and further concerns. Oct 27/16 – TG returned a call from L/O requesting clarification for meeting, TG explained it would give them an opportunity to present the revised plan and agreement and further determine if we can move forward on any outstanding issues. L/O is of the opinion that the offer presented to date is very low and doesn’t feel as though the meeting would be beneficial, L/O will contact TG in a few days and advise. Oct 31/16 – TG received call from L/O agreeing to meet on Nov 4. Nov 4/16 – TG met with L/O at her residence, presented new agreement and section 87 notice. Confirmed new RW will extend 2m beyond existing and extended workspace area was required for crossing the creek. L/O has new concerns as follows: 1) not prepared to sign agreement until they have all the information such as crown land tenures and access for pipeline construction, L/O explained this would help estimate the impact to the cattle operation and impacted lands. 2) Will TM consider a negotiated compensation. 3) L/O gave permission to proceed with timber evaluation but are concerned regarding changing values. 4) expressed concern regarding time spent on dealing with this matter, further provided an invoice for legal fees. TG addressed the landowners concerns regarding signing now or later, will not change operation damages etc. TG will advise timber crews to proceed with evaluations, he also explained how compensation was reached and how negotiations were based on bareland values, construction details and timeframe are not yet known and stated that TM will consider landowners time and compensation at the final settlement under damages. Nov 20/16 – TG received call from Bill Lesuta regarding his meeting with L/O regarding timber. He advised l/o had a few concerns regarding the lot and it being a wood lot since 1982, l/o confirmed she has grazing licenses and leases but that she leases out to other users as well, she is concerned about access through her property and the water rights, unsure when harvesting will occur, R/W construction and cattle movement concerns, elected the AAC uplift for permanent site loss. Mar 30/17 – TG placed call to L/O requesting meeting to update her on the project and present new documents. Apr 25/17 – TG placed call to L/O, left message requesting a meeting regarding Section 34 letter and new documents. Apr 26/17 – TG received call from L/O confirming she can meet regarding S34 notice, TG met with l/o and presented section 34 letter and notice as well as revised documents. L/O will review the documents with her family prior to signing. L/O has requested status of timber evaluation and method applied, TG advised Bill Lasuta will contact her in one week to set up an appointment to evaluate her lands. May 12/17 – Bill Lasuta met with L/O to discuss using a business agreement model to deal with the issues rleationg to area based tenure timber compensation on the TMEP line. L/O is receptive to the idea but wanted the following issues also resolved: 1) AAC compensation and 2) Access issues resolved before Business Agreement sign off. L/O stated Atlas Resource Management handles all of her woodlot license planning work and Marv Kempston handles all of the timber marketing on her property. L/O has given Bill permission to spreak with her forester to address AAC issues relating to her woodlot licence. Bill is to email her copies of discussed operational costing, a sample of the proposed MOU agreement and current pricing of gross value of timber in her operating area. Bill is to meet with Agnes during his next visit to Kamloops. Jul 6/17 – E-mail from Kate Stebbings advising Agnes Jackson has contacted Krista Barton, Agrologist of MRLNRO Kamloops and is seeking a site visit with TMEP to understand the construction impacts on her property Aug 2/17 Onsite meeting with Agnes Jackson, forestry consultants (John and Marv) , Jason Squires, Bruce McTavish and Taso Gavriel. The purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed pipeline R/W and WSA along with discuss timber valuation methods, weed control and access roads. A full inspection was conducted of the R/W through the privet and cwon land interest owned by Agnes. Construction practise were explained by Jason and Bruce explained TMEP would be responsible for any weeds that may be imposed on the owenrs lands from the TMEP activities. Access mapping was reviewed but the information was convolutaed and we aghreed to provide better mapping fro Agnes’s recoirds. Aug 14/17 TG e-mailed Agnes with plan showing access roads and confirmed access to the R/W near her privet lands will be via Peter Philips property on a access road established by KM. Agnes replied advising she is interested regarding the status of the crown lease tenures, Agnes received letters from Progres regarding this matter. Taso responded advising he assumes the letter were provided due to the proximity of the access roads to the crown land tenure, however, files have just been received on crown tenures and Taso will be calling soon to set up an appointment to present Agnes with information
Sep 3/17 e-mail from Agnes to Taso advising one of the proposed access roads goes through WL00314, explains it will become an issue if the road is upgraded and trees are removed. Sep 4/17 Taso responds to Agnes and CC Bill Lasuta, requests Bill to review Agnes concerns and respond accordingly Sep 9/17 Meeting with Agnes and Taso the purpose of the meeting was to present the Crown Land tenure documents. Advised Agnes TMEP will not be compensating for Crown tenures with exception to operational imacts and crop loss. Agnes requested a response on the following. 1. Wood lot 314 – Impact to AAC 2. Crown Reclamation – Specifically roll back application within CL 3. Fencing and Cattle Crazing – impact to gates and fencing during construction 4. Access near KP867 be maintained 5. Heavy equipment crossings be extended over new pipeline R/w Agreed to provide response in writing Sep 29/17 E-mail following response to Agnes 1. Wood lot 314 Thank you for identifying WL314 that was not plotted on the plans provided showing your Crown Land tenures. In our meeting you expressed concern that the proposed road construction will impact your Annual Allowable Cut. I have reviewed the matter with Mr. Bill Lasuta and he advised based on his calculations approximately 0.534 ha of the WL with an estimate of 80.1m3 will be impacted by the proposed road works. Assuming the AAC is 2.1m3 average growth per year the AAC long term loss will be below 5% this is not compensable based on discussion with FLNRO. However, the 80.1m3 will be added to your timber valuation/compensation. 2. Crown Land Reclamation (Specifically Rollback) You have raised concerns over the rollback reclamation method that will be applied to segments of the Crown Land properties. I have attached all relevant mitigation plans for the TMEP in your area that provides a greater understanding of the proposed reclamation in your area. The reclamation program was developed in consultation with the Provincial agency and must be applied in accordance with the NEB regulation. If you wish to change the reclamation plan I encourage you to discuss your concerns with your local range land tenure officer. Should the Province agree with your position they can request the plan to be amended. 3. Fencing and Cattle Grazing I confirm you are concerned regarding temporary and possible long term removal of fencing during the construction period. I understand through our conversation that cattle graze in the area between May and October but fencing must be secured to restrict migrating cattle throughout the year. I have been advised by our construction lead that all fences that are impacted by construction will be reinstated immediately and gates will be erected to allow for access but avoid migration of livestock to restricted areas. 4. Access near KP867 You have requested access to be maintained near KP867 to allow for the ongoing operation of your ranch. I have been advised that access in this vicinity can be maintained during the construction period. This item can be incorporate din the agreement and further discussed in a reconstruction meeting with the contractor to reduce conflict between the construction and your ranch operation. 5. Heavy equipment crossing permits I understand you have heavy equipment crossing permits or the existing pipeline R/W and you request that they are extended over the proposed pipeline R/W without further application by the owner. I have discussed this matter with our R/W leads and while they are prepared to construct the crossing over the new pipeline the Company will require a new application. I have attached a copy for your consideration. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate o call men at Sep 30/17 Received the following response from Agnes Taso, Looking over your response I appreciate the calculations that Bill Lasuta has done, however, I need to know what they are based on. Please send me a detailed map plus the cruise criteria. This area is within my cutting permit but requires 1st Nations consultation and would have to designated within the CP.
The whole narrative around AAC I believe was a mis understanding. I never requested that calculation. What we wanted was for you to understand that trees on either side of the Dropping Water Forest Service road are a part of W0314 and any loss of forest within WO314 impacts the Woodlot and yes our AAC. I look forward to seeing a detailed map detailing the improvements to DWForest Access road and confirmation of the calculations based on the map. Sincerely Agnes Jackson Oct 2/17 E-mal from Taso to Joey requesting road plan and timber estimate based on same Oct 4/17 e-mail to Agnes advising we are looking into her concerns Nov 22/17 E-mail reminder to Joey re: Agnes Request Nov 23/17 Joey requests confirmation from Bob I swe can go back to Bill Lasuta fro the requested information
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Geotech Land Agent: Matthew Walsh Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.3 Spread Name: 5A Tract: 1764.02 PID: 014-944-596 Landowner names: Juliann Sofia Kimoff As To An Undivided 6/10 Interest Rosanne Alice Kimoff As To An Undivided 4/10 Interest Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: True Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Landowners advised that there is a locked gate. If KM does not have a key, please call Juliann at to make arrangements when access is required. Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Dec 20/12 – Land Agent, Matthew Walsh (MW) phoned Landowners Julian & Rosanne Kimoff and explained that Land Manager, Joey Andries was looking to meet with them later today. Met with Julianne and Rosanne Kimoff to go over the project and consent for Survey work. Provided each owner with a copy of the NEB guidelines. Owner indicated that they never hear from Kinder Morgan and asked who they should call with any questions on the existing pipelines. Said would get back to them. Discussed the property and looked at the plan provided. There is a large blue polygon on the plan that indicates to be abandoned. Let them know this was an error as per advise from Phil & Dennis. The blue line could not be the property line. Owners did not have any problems with the survey notice. They indicated that the site is leased for grazing, but nobody lives there. They also said there are some buildings and a dwelling but they are vacant. There is a locked gate. Julian said that the area is snowed in now so she couldn’t imagine them needing access right now, If Kinder Morgan does not have a key please call Julian for arrangements. Jan 22/13 – Land Agent, Taso Gavriel (TG) Please contact Mr. Strand 48 hrs prior to entering insure that gates are closed after use Mr. Strand had no other concerns other than crop loss during construction. Nov. 13/14 – Land Agent Matthew Walsh (MW) Spoke with Julian by phone and set up a time to meet next Monday Nov 17 2014 @ 11:00 am Nov 17/14 – MW Met with Julian and Rosanne Concerned the gate wasn’t closed during the drilling. Concern about where the pipeline will go. The IOS does portray the area properly and looks as though part of the property is not included. No Peterson Road in this location. Concern also about the river erosion and that the river could change course. Need to explore some additional damage. Concern about additional wear on the road with construction and how will the pipe be brought in. How will they access it as the road is quite curvy with hairpin turns and steep. How will they go up the hill? Drill or cut the trees down. Need a better map with existing Spectra & Kettle Valley railway. This would be great. What time of year will they do it. Would like a new copy of the Sec. 87. Has the last drill hole been recessed as it has not been taken care of. If not then when are they going to. When was it done? Please send me copies of 87 & Agreement. Owners would like to have copies of the results if they are available. Both Julian and Rosanne seem to want to know more detail of the locations of the proposed pipeline before they agree. They are going to review the Sec. 87 and Agreement to grant. Will add with the other questions and get back to them. Left each a copy of the 87 agreement Nov. 19/14 – MW received email from Julian to ask when the project will be able to have the maps and questions answered. Replied saying at least weeks for Map and hopefully some questions answered next week. Nov. 19/14 – MW sent an email to Joey Andries regarding questions from meeting. Nov 26/14 – MW Julian called concerned about bench of land along Coldwater that would be a building. He is concerned about the route and email to NEB Cabin is on west side of the pipelines route and concern on what work is close? Are the
crews going to be working? Are they going to be working on long weekends? Having gates locked and security. Need to have them locked. Called them to touch base. Set a time to meet on Friday. The above are questions asked during the call. Concern on how they will access if they don’t use their road. They want to know if the bench of flat land up by the road is impacted, as this is an area to build house that can be accessed all year. Concerned that they only have 30 days from the date of Sec. 87, and they don’t have a good map. We will meet on Friday to look at Google Maps to see if they can get a good understanding of the route. Nov 26/14 – MW called Joey to discuss the Sec. 87 issues and property owners questions. Nov 26/14- MW called Julian Kimoff to discuss the 87 doc and left a message to call Nov 27/14 – MW attempted to call Julian Kimoff again and left a message Nov 27/14 – MW called Julian again to let him know that the 30 day notice with the Sec 87 does not apply to the 87 notice but the Sec 34 notice will happen at a later date, we talked about the bench of flat land at the top and Julian said SW was talking to the engineer earlier and apparently the line goes right through this area, will meet with her tomorrow to look at aerials. Feb. 10/15 – MW called Julian to touch base and to give him an update left message for Julian to call back. Mar 26/15 – MW received an email from Julian asking for an update. Spoke with him and said that things here were still under review but it was looking good as the re-route does not affect any other owner. Told her would let her know when we know something for sure as we still need confirmation. Jul 15/15 – MW Julian called to check on status and was informed had not received any word yet on the re-routing request but would bring it up again with the project and let them know. She also had some concern about the survey on the south end of the property. Jan 6/16 – MW Julian called looking for an update apologized and said have not heard yet and would make another inquiry and try to talk to him next week. Jan 14/16 – MW Joey sent an email outlining the reasons why they could not alter the route saying he will have to get aggressive with this file, potentially with more money due to the loss of building site. Sent him back an email with any more details I had. May 7/16 – MW phoned Julian to provide an update for the route change. At this stage the project is not considering the route change but I keep asking about the re-route May 27/16 – MW had a meeting with Julian and Rosanna to talk about the file and a borehole. They were not willing to sign a borehole agreement until this is settled. Aug 1/16 – MW phoned and met with Julian to obtain a key to go and view the property and they had no issue with that. Sept 22/16 – MW met with Gabe at the property to review the potential for route change and to look at the building site for the owners. May 5/17 – call to Juliann to make arrangements. Left message May 7/17 – talk to Juliann, made arrangements to meet next Friday. May 12/17 – MW met with Rosanne and Julian and delivered the Sec. 34 notice. We talked about the potential of the re-route. Let them know now is the time to write the letter of opposition as they have 30 days from this notice Aug 31/17 – call and talk to Juliann about access for the geo-tech. She asked if the proposed geo-tech area was in the area they are disputing. I confirmed it was, and so she said that they would not grant access for geo-tech in an area they do not want the line to go. She said we could do the work in their proposed new area close to the Spectra line. Sep 14/17 – Joey talked to Juliann about the detailed route opposition, and Juliann indicated they would like to meet on site with the project team to discuss the proposed re-route on the property as they are not happy with the proposed location of the new pipeline on the property when it goes up the hill towards Coldwater Road. Sep 18/17 – talked to Juliann about access and setting up a time to meet. We also talked about the geo-tech and again she said if it is in the new area close to the spectra line, than no problem, but not in the current proposed area as they do not want the line to go there. Sep 25/17 – MW talked to Juliann about setting up a time to meet at the property to go over the project team. She provided two dates, Sept. 29, 2017 or October 6, 2017. I let her know I would talk to the project and let her know which date, but likely the 6th as the 29th would be too soon. Oct 3/17 – talked to Juliann to confirm meeting on Friday and confirmed the time. Oct 6/17 – meet on site with project team (construction, environment, and project manager) and discussed the re-route proposed by the owner to prevent the clear cutting of another area on the hill. We discussed the project and potential. We left the meeting with the project manager confirming he would support the re-route and the construction and environment indicated this proposed new location should work. We left the meeting letting the owners know we would talk to them when we knew more and then we would ask them to remove their detailed route opposition. They also would provide a pivot map for their upcoming alfalfa operation. I asked them again about the geo-tech, they re-affirmed, they can complete the geo-tech as long as it is in the proposed re-route area, and not in the existing proposed area. Oct 10/17 – received the pivot map from Juliann and forwarded it onto the project
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Deep Testing Land Agent: Matthew Walsh Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.5 Spread Name: 5B Tract: 2098 PID: 005-029-929 Landowner names: 13HE13 Holdings Corp. Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY CONSENT NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner did not respond to the land agents attempts to contact him. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Oct 11/12 – Land Agent, Rob Greene (RG) placed call to original landowners Islamic College of British Columbia Canada, number out of service. Drove out to the property and it is currently unoccupied, placed a call to Ed Fitzgerald of Royal LePage who had a sign on the ground by the driveway but listing was on the neighbors property. Jan 28/13 – RG met with TS Sekhon, owner of new landowners, Unity Rehab Farming Institute Ltd., RG to follow up on Monday, dropped off information package to L/O who said he will review with his daughter. Feb 7, 12, 20/13 – Placed call to TS Sekhon, left message. Feb 27/13 – RG placed call to TS Sekhon, spoke with Mrs Sekhon who stated their concern is liability. Feb 28/13 – RG sent email to Mrs. Sekhon with information regarding liability clause. Mar 6/13 – RG stopped by office to pickup signed survey consent form. Aug 29/14 – Land Agent, Matthew Walsh (MW) went into the office to attempt contact with New Landowners, 13HE13 Holdings Corp, MW states it appears to be the same landowner as previous company, left information package with reception and they will provide it to the directors. Sept 10/14 – MW placed call to TS Sekhon to set up a time to meet to obtain a new survey consent form now that the title has been changed, left message requesting a return call. Apr 14/15 – MW placed call to L/O, left info with Ausrevy Sevie? And requested call back from L/O. Apr 15/15 - MW received return voicemail from L/O, MW returned call and set time to meet. Apr 15/15 – MW met with L/O and discussed the file for Laidlaw Road, Provided L/O with copies of the Section 87 and agreement to grant. L/O states the signing should be done by Daughter but she will not be available until next week, Will attempt to make meeting for next week with his daughter after they’ve had time to review documents. Sept 16, 28/15 – MW placed call to Manvir Sekhon, left message requesting a call back to arrange meeting. Sept 29/15 – MW returned call from Manvir, no answer, left message. Oct 2, 13/15 – MW placed call to Manvir, left message with office. Oct 14/15 – MW placed call to Manvir, stated she may be dealing with a family emergency as she has not been in the office for a few weeks, receptionist will send Manvir a message. Nov 16/15 – MW phoned to attempt contact again with Manvir, Receptionist took information and will pass it onto Manvir. Feb 29/16 – MW placed call to Manvir, no answer, no voicemail. May 30/16 – MW placed call to Manvir, Someone picked up but requested a call back the next day. Jun 29/16 – TS Sekhon contacted MW to touch base, he said they would like to meet next week and asked to call Monday to set up a meeting. Jul 4/16 – MW placed call to TS Sekhon, set up a meeting for the next day.
Jul 5/16 – MW met with TS Sekhon regarding project, generally L/O understands that the SRW already exists on the property but he feels as though compensation is too low, L/O mentioned that the project can bring the building up to code for compensation, MW stated this would not be an option, both agreed to review values and would set up a follow up meeting. L/O believes the property is worth per acre they reviewed some listings in the area and will touch base again once value review has been completed. May 2/17 – MW made contact to L/O’s to touch base and set up a time to meet with Manvir, TS Sekhon will speak with Manvir and arrange a meeting. May 9/17 – MW placed call to L/O’s, left message. May 10/17 – MW placed call to L/O’s, confirmed mailing address with receptionist, receptionist did not expect them back in the office this week to be able to meet. May 16/17 – Sent Section 34 Notice by registered mail. Jun 9/17 – Received returned registered mail. Jul 13/17 – I stopped by the property early in the day with no one home, went to the real estate brokerage where he has his licence registered. No luck. Went back to his house and sat waiting for him to arrive. When his car pulled in the driveway, I spoke with him and provided him with two copies of the notice. We talked about issues, and it seems the only issue is the value of the SRW and workspace. I believe our payment is approx. for the SRW with a land value about acre, where he believes the land value is probably in the /acre range. I said I would discuss this further with the project and would talk to him again. I also received his new contact number, , if you could update the line list. Aug 31/17 – called TS about access for the deep testing. Left message. Oct 24/17 – call TS to try to make contact again. He answered, but couldn’t talk. He said he would call back, he did not.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Art Swenson Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Chilliwack Segment 6.4 Spread Name: 6 Tract: 2402 PID: 025-567-870 Landowner names: Richard William Dunham Michelle Therese Dunham Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: True Survey Refused: Survey Comments: **DO NOT complete any archaeological or historical resource surveys on this property. FOOT access only.** Please contact landowner 24 hours prior to access. Sept 4/17 - Email received from the landowners: Further to your letter dated August 24, 2017 and received at 5523 Lickman Road, Chilliwack, BC on August 31, 2017 in reference to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project Request for Study Access for PID:025-567-870_Tract 2402, we write to confirm we are opposed to an Archeological Impact Assessment (AIA) being conducted on our private lands outside of the pipeline right-of-way. At this time, we have not agreed to provide any of our private lands outside of the current pipeline right-of-way, to Kinder Morgan Canada for construction of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project and therefore, we deem Kinder Morgan’s application to the National Energy Board (NEB) under Section 73 of the NEB Act an infringement of our rights and privileges as private land owners. Should access to our private lands outside of the current pipeline right-of-way, be granted to Kinder Morgan by the NEB in order to conduct an AIA and any type of heritage management be required as a result of the AIA we will hold Kinder Morgan responsible for any and all future losses realized by us or future land owners of this property parcel as a result the required heritage management. Furthermore, our lawyer advises us that typically the NEB endeavors to see negotiations between industry and landowners occur in good faith. As such we should be entitle to legal representation for all contract review, negotiation and dealing in relation to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project as Kinder Morgan has legal representation in this regard. Currently Kinder Morgan has an allowance of only which converts to approximately one hour of legal advice. This amount of legal advice is significantly less than is required to deal in fairness and good faith with landowner issues arising from the Kinder Morgan Expansion Project. Please let us know if this matter should be taken up directly with the National Energy Board, BC government representatives or is an issue which Kinder Morgan is prepared to discuss further with us? Finally, as we have not agreed to provide our private lands outside of the pipeline right-of-way to Kinder Morgan for the expansion project please be advised we are planning to go forward this fall with establishment of our agroforestry business on our private lands to the west of our home as well as landscaping in and around our new home. Survey Refusal Comments: Sept 4/17 - Email received from the landowners: Further to your letter dated August 24, 2017 and received at 5523 Lickman Road, Chilliwack, BC on August 31, 2017 in reference to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project Request for Study Access for PID:025-567-870_Tract 2402, we write to confirm we are opposed to an Archeological Impact Assessment (AIA) being conducted on our private lands outside of the pipeline right-of-way. At this time, we have not agreed to provide any of our private lands outside of the current pipeline right-of-way, to Kinder Morgan Canada for construction of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project and therefore, we deem Kinder Morgan’s application to the National Energy Board (NEB) under Section 73 of the NEB Act an infringement of our rights and privileges as private land owners. Should access to our private lands outside of the current pipeline right-of-way, be granted to Kinder Morgan by the NEB in order to conduct an AIA and any type of heritage management be required as a result of the AIA we will hold Kinder Morgan responsible for any and all future losses realized by us or future land owners of this property parcel as a result the required heritage management. Furthermore, our lawyer advises us that typically the NEB endeavors to see negotiations between industry and landowners occur in good faith. As such we should be entitle to legal representation for all contract review, negotiation and dealing in
relation to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project as Kinder Morgan has legal representation in this regard. Currently Kinder Morgan has an allowance of only which converts to approximately one hour of legal advice. This amount of legal advice is significantly less than is required to deal in fairness and good faith with landowner issues arising from the Kinder Morgan Expansion Project. Please let us know if this matter should be taken up directly with the National Energy Board, BC government representatives or is an issue which Kinder Morgan is prepared to discuss further with us? Finally, as we have not agreed to provide our private lands outside of the pipeline right-of-way to Kinder Morgan for the expansion project please be advised we are planning to go forward this fall with establishment of our agroforestry business on our private lands to the west of our home as well as landscaping in and around our new home. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Feb 2/15 – Land Agent, Art Swenson (AS) called the future Landowner on his cell and he has no removed all subject conditions and his sales contract will complete on March 27/15; Richard lives at
and his email is and he recently provides for the He plans to build a new house SW of the existing house that looks like a barn and convert
it to an office; described the WS area to Richard as a North/South line projected from the point where the South Boundary of the Trans Mountain 18M SRW intersects Keith Wilson Road and would rent this west 60% of this property but would not interfere with his proposed Building location; He will email his current building location and I will forward it to KM Engineering as we may need to revise the IOS and will meet him in the first ½ of April, 2015 when he gains title to this parcel Feb 3/15 – AS sent the proposed new Landowner information on the project schedule and asking his future house location as it appears to be in the future TWS area; Let Richard know that we propose to rent the west 94 meters of his property subject to the future house location and asked that he email me that plan Mar 20/15 – AS emailed and asked the future Landowner if he had his house plans finalized yet Mar 23/15 – AS received an email from Richard that he will take possession at the end of the month and should have future house plans in a couple of weeks Jul 10/15 – AS called Richard and he has now had to revise his house plans and will be submitting them to Chilliwack in two weeks but the now house will be within the TWS; We arranged to meet on site with his wife @ 3 pm today. July 10/15 – AS travelled out for a meeting with the two new Landowners;
reviewed the information package and left them their copies with them; received written consent with no vehicle access and no Archaeological and historical resource studies and they require 24 hrs notice when entering property; we then walked the IOS area that requires the West 93m of their parcel; They then brought out their proposed house plans that will be entirely within the IOS; This new house may have a new septic elevated field within the IOS as well or it will be pumped into the house system and into the existing field located on the center and eastern part of the Lot and well outside of the IOS; Richard will email me the PDF of the drawings which will be forwarded onto Engineering at KM; Michelle is not too happy the TWS area will be close to their house and understands that we have the right to build in the SRW but may not want to grant TWS; Showed house the MV =
/AC and neither knew if that was a fair price; pointed out the 1.37 AC for TWS will be greatly reduced due to their proposed house; They signed the Section 87 acquisition and consent acquisition and it was offered to them
for Legal review if they wanted; Richard will send his house plans to me and they hope to start their house in Sept and will require a variance and have talked to their neighbors and Office/Barn may have to be changed to a Barn; Aug 13/15 – AS received an email from one of the Landowners Michelle to have her email forwarded to Operations as they want to relocate a shed from one side of the SRW to the other Aug 13/15 – AS forwarded Michelle’s email to Alex Markham; will cc to Larry Green to have them send the Landowner a permit to do work within the safety zone Oct 8/15 – AS Travelled on a cold call and met one of the two Landowners; They are now just planning an extension in an “L” shape at the west end of the house that looks like a Barn due to a difficulty with getting a variance with the City; Also walked the IOS with Richard in his Truck and it appears the current IOS may not conflict with their expansion since the west wall of existing Barnlike house is at least 30M from the East side of the TWS; Richard said Michelle may have questions about compensation and will be at our next meeting; They just finished relocating the open horse shelter from the South side of the SRW to the North Side working with Larry Green of Operations Nov 27/15 – AS stopped by residence, no one home Nov 29/15 – AS sent an email to the two Landowners asking if they can meet tomorrow or next day Nov 30/15 – AS received an email from Michelle; will meet tomorrow @ 3:30 Dec 1/15 – AS travelled out and met the 2 Landowners and I reviewed the Nov 5/15 3 page Carey letter and the compensation; Then showed them the IOS on my IPAD that seemed to have been altered for their future home that the city turned down; They now plan to add on about 10M on the west side of their existing house (that looks like a barn) which will be about 10M outside of the proposed TWS; Then explained that the Bonus will only be offered until year end at this time; They realize that we can add a second pipe within the terms of the existing 1952 Easement but not the TWS; They want to think about this and will email me with their thoughts
Dec 2/15 – AS Landowners sent an email saying they will hold off and await the NEB May decision Apr 21/15 – AS received a call from Richard to say he has a new home under construction and needs someone from Operations to approve his building and fill so he was provided with Larry Greens cell # and asked him to email me his house plans Apr 25/16 – AS travelled out on a cold call and met with one of the two Landowners at the site of the new house with crane placing the Tress Sections of the roof; He forgot to email me the drawing so I took a photo of the plans and a photo of a similar house and two photos of the new house taken from the porch of his existing house that looks like a barn; This new house is well inside the proposed 24M workspace but he is willing to rent out the SW corner where he plans a veggie garden and chicken shed and the NE corner except for basketball court; He will email the drawings and hand draw the circular driveway which will be on fill and covered with gravel 15 to 20 M north of the 2 circle post holders for the roof of the drop off area; We will meet again when the new drawings are received Apr 27/16 AS – sent the Landowner an email reminding him to send me his new house plans (house under construction) Apr 27/16 AS – Richard emailed a PDF of his house plans as well he had added a red line showing the extension of the fill that will be graveled for driveway with turning circle Apr 27/16 – AS emailed Richard to thank him for the PDF of his new house Dec 2/16 – AS travelled to residence, no one home, left note to give him a call. Dec 2/16 – AS received a call from Richard and we will meet Mon @ 1 PM Dec 5/16 – AS travelled out for a meeting with both Landowners Richard and Michelle; We walked the revised IOS area and they were not happy with how close the west end of the 24m wide TWS as it is very close to their house & bedrooms; They want the 24m wide TWS reduces by 15m as well as 6m from the 3 green tops to their septic tanks which appears to be cleaning these tanks by using the IPAP’s but it appears to be 3-5 m in accurate at the time; They also want to know if they can extend their concrete turn around within the TWS since there is no end to the KM document; Told them will consult with the Project as well as the revised IOS to reduce the 24M wide by 15M; Gave them the file copy of the original 1952 KMC easement # 151224C and pointed out the section about valve stations has been removed and that since no valve station is required for their property we could insert that in Schedule “D” if we receive approval from the Project; They are also both Forresters and providing Timber Cruising and other Forest Service Consulting north of Hope on the proposed Trans Mountain Exp. Dec 6/16 – AS sent email to Michelle with respect to their refusal Apr 10/17 – AS travelled out on a cold call and presented the Landowners with the latest SRW – within 30 days of registration on Schedule D since it was not a color copy went ahead and highlighter and hatched the two different TWS; they asked if KMC currently have the right to use the TWS and they we told no just the 60’ – 1952 Easement; they said what would happen if they refused to allow the Project to use this workspace; They were told the file would be returned to my office and they will most likely ask Engineering if they really need the space, but told them that was my personal opinion and really did not know what the next steps would be; Said one possibility is the Federal NEB “Right of Entry” and then showed them in the NEB Booklet (which) was left with them Chapter 8 on ROE; Michelle said that the Chapter was no longer legal as they do lots of tree work with
Told Michelle that not being a Lawyer cannot tell him about the overturning of this ROE; Told them that would soon be delivering the Section 34’s and when back at the office will bring the Links or email them to Michelle who said to send to Richard’s email because she gets too much junk email Michelle said she will be at a Hockey Tournament with her son next week in Salmon Arm; Michelle said they would not allow any above ground structures like Valve Station etc but only would allow pipeline marker posts and she said the original 1952 Easement that was provided to her had “above ground structures, valves etc was struck out and initialed in the 60 year old KMC R/W; Told her would be back soon with the Section 34 Apr 11/17 – AS travelled out at 2:45 pm on a cold call and met the Landowners and reviewed and served the Section 34 to both Landowners in a meeting in their office on the Ground Floor of the smaller East House; they want to be put down as refusals but they are in favor of our Project; Their concerns are as follows: 1. The agreement is open ended with no defined period, 2. They will only sign when they know when the Contractor will start and for a maximum of 6 months, 3. They don’t want large equipment near their house that they live in and may have to stay at a Hotel @ KMC expense if too noisy and close to the house, 4. Compensation is much too low for open ended contract; Told them file would be sent back as a refusal and emailed Richard 2 links @ NEB on Right of Entry which explained might be the next step if the Project proceeds. Sept 4/17 - Received an email from L/O's stating that they are responding to the August 24/17 letter and that they will not grant access for the required surveys. Sept.11/17 –Landowners were contacted by McTavish Landscape to do an inventory of plants and were told that it was too early since they plan to plant forestry products this fall Sept.16/17 LM (Lori) met Richard and Michelle advised amounts appraisals updated in new Agmet to Grant and review of docs and they will review and discuss with Art and may review with neighbour bvefore talking to Art Oct,13/17 – AS Travelled out on a cold call and met both Landowners in their Barn/Office and reviewed the new compensation that Lori had left on Sept. 16/17 showing MV had moved form . They wanted a copy of the original 1952 SRW so I gave them a copy of SRW Plan 12988 and reviewed that. I then gave them a copy of the two
page letter in which the 3rd paragraph state they have 2 weeks to agree to the compensation or they rish losing the for SRW & Bonus of and I dated the letter Oct. 13/17. I explained that since the original SRW did allow
for a 2nd pipe that we do not have to re-purchase the SRW. They said they would consider it and get back to me before the two weeks are up. Oct. 19/17 – Michelle sent an email asking for a response to their Sep. 4/17 email and asking what the difference is between the 1952 KMC Easement and the new SRW Agreement that we have presented them. Oct.21/17 – AS replied to the Landowner’s email from 2 days ago to say KMC will pay up to in Legal Costs upon them signing our agreement and that we will seek access for the AIA via Section 73. I also stated the main difference in the 1952 and our porposed SRW is the new agreement only allows for 1 pipeline where the 1952 Easement allows for 1 or more pipelines and the new SRW allows for anillary Rights for Ingress and Egress. Oct. 25/17- Michelle sent and email asking 3 questions about the proposed SRW Oct. 26/17 – AS emailed a response to the above three questions. #1 The new SRW allows for one future pipeline, whereas the existing 1952 agreement allows for one or more pipelines as they are 2 separate agreements. #2 The new pipeline SRW will include ancillary rights for access to our pipeline for maintenace or emergency repairs. The proposed pipeline access would only be via the Temporary Access and SRW. #3 The proposed pipeline will have no above ground installations except for pipeline marker posts.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Lori White Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Abbotsford Segment 6.7 Spread Name: 6 Tract: 2555 PID: 002-181-380 Landowner names: Darshan Singh Randhawa Nirmal Jit Kaur Randhawa Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner is unhappy with Kinder Morgan due to legacy issues. Landowner advised that he and Kinder Morgan are "in court" over the damage to 400 trees. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Nov 26/12 – Land Agent, Dave Wood (DW) met with Landowner, Darshan Randhawa at 3:30pM. Darshan Randhawa informed DW that Darshan Randhawa and Kinder Morgan are in court over the damage to 300 to 400 trees. Darshan Randhawa and DW inspected the SRW area. Darshan Randhawa refuses access to his property until tree damages have been paid. DW will contact Bob Love to get more information regarding the situation with Darshan Randhawa. See notes in file. Nov 27/12 – DW phoned Bob Love who informed DW not to contact Darshan Randhawa. Contact Bob Love for details. DW didn’t leave any information with Darshan Randhawa. Nov 29/12 – Land Agent, Dennis Worobec (DW), DW and Bob Love met with Darshan Randhawa to review Darshan Randhawa’s objection to the project. Darshan Randhawa indicated he had a meeting with his lawyer, a Mr. Palmer, on Dec 4/12. Darshan Randhawa also commented that there were approximately 15 people on the field with an excavator and Darshan Randhawa stopped them from working. The two parties are committed to have information regarding arbitration by Dec 15/12. See email dated Dec 5/12 in file for more details on this meeting. Dec 12/12 – There is an email in the file from Bob Love to Peter Forrester discussing an encounter Bob Love had with Darshan Randhawa at the project open house at Straiton Hall the week before the email. Darshan Randhawa stayed for the four full hours of the open house and used it as an opportunity to speak his opinion regarding Kinder Morgan. Please see email in file for more details. Dec 12/12 – DWB emailed Darshan Randhawa updating the landowner on the progress Kinder Morgan and the Trans Mountain on resolving the compensation issue. DWB also requested some information from Darshan Randhawa regarding his lawyer. See email in file. Dec 13/12 – Land Administrator, Kirsten Nowak sent Darshan Randhawa and Landowner, Nirmal Jit Kaur Randhawa an information package via registered mail. Feb 6/13 – DW met with Darshan Randhawa to review Kinder Morgan’s written offer of compensation. Darshan Randhawa refused to sign the agreement as he feels the compensation is too low. Darshan Randhawa didn’t make a counter offer nor did he agree to contact his lawyer to commence the arbitration process. Darshan Randhawa is not prepared to allow access to his property until this matter is settled to his satisfaction. These meeting notes are in an email from DW to Zenith Appraisal and Land Consulting. This email is in the file and can be viewed for more details. Apr 23/14 – Darshan Randhawa emailed Carey Johannesson regarding the compensation issues. See email in file. Nov 16/14 – Land Agent, Lori White (LW) was advised not to contact Darshan Randhawa as he is in a legal dispute with Kinder Morgan.
Apr 27/15 – LW phoned Darshan Randhawa. There was no answer so LW left a message for Darshan Randhawa to contact him. Apr 28/15 – LW received a call from Darshan Randhawa. Darshan Randhawa is very upset with Kinder Morgan and Progress Land as the legacy issue regarding crop damage has not been dealt with. Darshan Randhawa is also upset over the fact that the legacy issue did not go to arbitration. Darshan Randhawa wants the issue dealt with and requests that Kinder Morgan stops sending him cheques. Darshan Randhawa wants to arbitrate and states he will shoot anyone who enters his property. Darshan Randhawa refuses to deal with the new documents until satisfied legacy issue is dealt with. Aug 10/15 – LW phoned Darshan Randhawa to set up a meeting to serve Section 87 notice. Darshan Randhawa explained that he only wants the legal documents and indicates that the lawyer (no mention which one) had lied to him about arbitration. Darshan Randhawa is still upset with Kinder Morgan in relation to past damages. Darshan Randhawa wants arbitration and did not get it. Darshan Randhawa states that LW has no authority and he only wants to deal with someone with authority. Darshan Randhawa also wants any compensation to be put into a trust before he signs any documents or looks at any documents. Darshan Randhawa refuses to take a receipt of the documents. LW will have the file sent to Progress Land so they can send Darshan Randhawa the documents by registered mail. Aug 21/15 – Land Administrator, Manda Harding served Section 87 to Darshan Randhawa and Nirmal Jit Kaur Randhawa via registered mail. Manda Harding included copies of the agreement and bonus letters. Aug 21/15 – Manda Harding served Section 87, a copy of agreement and the bonus letter to the Lawyer, Gerald Palmer of Dhindsa Law Corporation, for Darshan and Nirmal Jit Kaur Randhawa. Apr 21/17 – LW met with Darshan Randhawa who refused service of Section 34. Darshan Randhawa also refused to take the paper work and stated he wants a surveyor to show him the right of way area. LW will advise Land Manager, Joey Andries that Progress Land and Kinder Morgan need to set up a meeting with a surveyor and Darshan Randhawa. LW will also advise Joey Andries that Progress Land needs to send Section 34 by registered mail. Legacy Issue Note: Landowner, Darshan Randhawa and Kinder Morgan are in legal court over tree damages and compensation issues. Darshan Randhawa is very upset over this and has threatened anyone who comes onto his property without permission.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Matthew Walsh Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.5 Spread Name: 5B Tract: PC: 7079.02 PID: 010-320-521 Landowner names: 0999758 B.C. Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Jun 14/17 – Land Agent, Matthew Walsh (MW) received a call from the landowners rep, Chuck Stam from Precision Building Design, discussed the project and the impacts to their property, When the landowners purchased the property from the previous owner, they were not informed of the proposed new SRW on the property. The rep indicated this would affect their design, MW spoke with him about getting survey consent, he advised he was going to talk to his clients and get back to us. He said the owners were doctors who work out of Vancouver. Aug 17/17 - MW left message for contact rep asking him to attempt contact again with landowners. Aug 29/17 – MW called Chuck Stam to see if we could set up a meeting to go over the project. He will work on setting up a meeting with the owners of the property who are all from Surrey or Vancouver. Sep 12/17 – Chuck Stam called MW back and we set up a time to meet at his offices in Chilliwack tomorrow. Sep 13/17 – Met with Chuck Stam and Mr. Gill (one of the owners of the property). We went over their plans for the property and the proposed preliminary development. I asked how much they paid for the property, but they declined to answer. I indicated I would follow up with the project with their proposed development and let them know how it goes. I also was told that Chuck would act as their agent on this file. I asked for them to send through a letter to that effect. They would let me know. I asked about the AIA inspections. They said they would review and let me know, but they weren’t necessarily opposed. Sep 9/ 17 – sent the proposed information to the Joey at the project regarding their development. Sep 15/17 – sent an email to Chuck about sending through the proposed documents for the development proposal at the site. Received an email back from Chuck with the information and also indicating they are working on the pro-forma and they should have it for us in the next few weeks. Sep 20/17 – sent an email to Chuck about about the AIA and to find out if they have approved access for this investigation. I sent a second message asking for a copy of the agency letter. Sep 20/17 – received a message from Chuck providing the agency letter. No word on the AIA.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Matthew Walsh Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Black Pines - Wahleach Segment 5.5 Spread Name: 5B Tract: PC: 7079.03 PID: 014-646-986 Landowner names: 0999758 B.C. Ltd. Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Survey Comments: Survey Refusal Comments: Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Jun 14/17 – Land Agent, Matthew Walsh (MW) received a call from the landowners rep, Chuck Stam from Precision Building Design, discussed the project and the impacts to their property, When the landowners purchased the property from the previous owner, they were not informed of the proposed new SRW on the property. The rep indicated this would affect their design, MW spoke with him about getting survey consent, he advised he was going to talk to his clients and get back to us. He said the owners were doctors who work out of Vancouver. Aug 17/17 - MW left message for contact rep asking him to attempt contact again with landowners. Aug 29/17 – MW called Chuck Stam to see if we could set up a meeting to go over the project. He will work on setting up a meeting with the owners of the property who are all from Surrey or Vancouver. Sep 12/17 – Chuck Stam called MW back and we set up a time to meet at his offices in Chilliwack tomorrow. Sep 13/17 – Met with Chuck Stam and Mr. Gill (one of the owners of the property). We went over their plans for the property and the proposed preliminary development. I asked how much they paid for the property, but they declined to answer. I indicated I would follow up with the project with their proposed development and let them know how it goes. I also was told that Chuck would act as their agent on this file. I asked for them to send through a letter to that effect. They would let me know. I asked about the AIA inspections. They said they would review and let me know, but they weren’t necessarily opposed. Sep 9/ 17 – sent the proposed information to the Joey at the project regarding their development. Sep 15/17 – sent an email to Chuck about sending through the proposed documents for the development proposal at the site. Received an email back from Chuck with the information and also indicating they are working on the pro-forma and they should have it for us in the next few weeks. Sep 20/17 – sent an email to Chuck about about the AIA and to find out if they have approved access for this investigation. I sent a second message asking for a copy of the agency letter. Sep 20/17 – received a message from Chuck providing the agency letter. No word on the AIA.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Matthew Walsh Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Hargreaves - Blue River Segment 3 Spread Name: 3C Tract: PC: 7166 PID: 004-106-717 Landowner names: Stewart David Danielsen Objection to Detailed Route: Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER. SURVEY PERMISSION NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: June 22/16 – Landowner has now refused access to his property. Refusal is based on requests for TMEP acquisition and that no agreement has been made. Do not enter the property. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Apr 9/13 – Land Agent, Don Grossberndt, (DG) researched contracting Dr Danielsen Apr 10/13 – DG drove to Mr. Danielsen’s residence in Victoria, met with Mrs. Danielsen; she explained that he has never seen the property; it was transferred to him as a debt reduction; she didn’t want to provide any contact info 12:55 pm Apr 16/13 – DG called Mr. Danielsen @ will think on it & get back to me May 21/13 – DG called Stewart to inquire about purchaser; no purchaser; no occupant; advised him no payments for survey June 19/13 – DG called Stewart and he said he has never been to the property; doesn’t know if there are any improvements, vacant land Nov 13/14 – Land Agent, Matthew Walsh (MW) attempted to contact Stewart and spoke with him He asked me to call him on Sunday to set up a time to meet on Monday; he is now living in Port Alberni; so we will have to meet there; he will give me the address when I call on Sunday Nov 16/14 – MW spoke with Mr. Danielson; we discussed setting up a time to meet; will call him tomorrow when I leave Victoria and set a time and place to meet Nov 17/14 – MW called to set time to meet Stewart Nov 17/14 – MW met with Stewart and went through the project paperwork with him and provided him with the Section 87 Notice; he refused to sign the acknowledgment; he felt the compensation being offered is low and will not accept this; he said he would sell the property for the assessed value of ; told him that would speak with the project; asked him how much compensation would he expect for this and he said he didn’t know; he kept going on about it would only work out to /month for 60 years; explained this is not a rental, but a purchase of our interest in the land; he was not interested in the amount of money and said again he would sell the whole thing; gave him a copy of the Agreement to Grant and told him to read through it; went through a couple of items with him; he said he would look at it but again would not sign the acknowledgment or agree to the money; after meeting filled out the affidavit of service Landowner sent letter addressed to Bob Love dated January 20, 2016 as followed: Thank you for your letter dated November 5th, 2015 explaining Kinder Morgan Canada’s position annual or periodic payments as well as identifying your compensation approach and potential voluntary signing bonus. In your letter dated December 23rd, 2015 you made known those additional financial incentives, such as a potential signing bonus, for voluntary agreements and had the deadline extended to April 30, 2016. As I am sure you are aware, your initial offer for the establishment of right of way through my property was not acceptable. I agree that payments made, periodic or lump sum, constitute a disposition of interest in my property and not rent. More specifically, payments would be made for granting a perpetual interest that not only devalues my land but places significant restrictions on future land use. As the highest and best use of my property has not been determined, it is difficult to determine a fair market value for such an interest. Although your letters have identified that
Kinder Morgan Canada has implemented financial incentives for voluntary agreements, and you have set a deadline for which voluntary agreement must be made, you have not provided any details as to the quantum of financial incentive, the fair market value you ascribe to my property or the methodology or facts by which you have estimates fair market value for my property. I appreciate that the Trans Mountain Expansion Project is working hard with all stakeholders to ensure positive forward movement in all stages of the project. I trust that you will approach our discussions with the same collaborative and goodwill efforts that are used with other land owners. Respectfully, I request you provide me with following: 1. The details of the financial incentive being offered to affected landowners; 2. Written details of the offer you are making for the interest in my property; 3. The facts relied upon and methodology used to determine your assessment of the fair market value of the interest in my property. Oct 20/15 – Letter sent out from Kinder Morgan to all affected landowners to provide update on key events and recent changes in the schedule for the proposed expansion project. Dec 23/15 – Letter sent out to landowner from Kinder Morgan following up on the last update in regards to the incentive date and advising them the incentive date has been revised and pushed back to April 30, 2016. Jan 10/16 – Response letter from landowners in regards to the November 5th letter sent out explaining Kinder Morgan’s position on annual or periodic payments as well as identifying the compensation approach and potential voluntary signing bonus. L/O reiterates that the original offer made on his property was unacceptable, he has yet to determine the highest and best use of the property so he believes it’s difficult to determine a fair market value. L/O requests the following items: 1) details on the financial incentive being offered to affected landowners. 2) Written detail of the offer that we are making for the interest in the property. 3) The facts relied upon and methodology used to determine the assessment of fair market value of the interest in the property. Feb 8/16 – Land Administrator, Kirsten Nowak sent response letter to L/O in regards to his letter dated January 10th. Provided responses to his requests regarding A) the details of the financial incentive being offered to affected landowners. B) Written details of the offer for the lands affected and C) the facts relied upon and methodology used to determine the fair market value for the property. Jun 22/16 – MW called and talked to Stewart; He is still not happy with offer; feels TMEP should buy the property & he deserves He has cancelled survey access. May 5/17 – MW called Stewart; he is in Port Alberni; set time to meet him later this afternoon; drove to Port Alberni; met with Stewart at a job he was doing; He is not happy with the project and was very unhappy during the meeting, Does not feel as though the compensation is enough and feels he should be paid something per barrel of what is sent through the line. Jun 15/17 – Stewart called into the information line and the message was passed onto me. I called him back and discuss the project again. Went over the monetary offer. He asked for copies of the agreements as he could not locate the ones I had provided. I said I would follow up with the project and send them to him when I received them. Jun 16/17 – Stewart called again saying he hasn’t received the documents yet. I said that they have been requested, and I would send them to him as soon as I had them. He again called into the information line, and they confirmed what I told him. Jun 20/17 – recevied the documents from the project. Sent them over to Mr. Danielsen. Called him to confirm, and he had not received them. Tried twice at his email address, and then ended up sending them to his girlfriends address as his request. Aug 24/17 – Letter sent out to landowners requesting study access. Aug 31/17 – MW contacted Stewart to follow. MW asked Stewart about access for the study, and the owner re-affirmed his refusal because he believes he should receive monthly compensation for the use of this property for the pipeline. Reaffirmed with him that is not how SRW’s work. Stewart confirmed he would like Kinder Morgan to buy the property for
and then it wouldn’t be an issue.
REASON FOR s73 APPICATION: Environment Team S73 HANDOUT: Mainline AIA Land Agent: Darrell Goruk Amendments Land Agent: PPBoR Segment: Blue River - Darfield Segment 4 Spread Name: 4B Tract: ADJ: 306 PID: 011-848-219 Landowner names: JBLC Holdings Inc. Objection to Detailed Route: Objection-Detailed Route (filed at NEB) - HearingStatus Acquired: False Paid in Full for Acquisition: False Verbal Survey Consent: False Written Survey Consent: False Survey Refused: Yes Survey Comments: **DO NOT ENTER LANDS. SURVEY CONSENT NOT GRANTED. Survey Refusal Comments: Landowner has decided that he does not want Trans Mountain accessing his property until the concerns his brother, Kym, raised have been addressed. Many of these concerns are construction related and cannot be answered at this time. The concerns are as follows: - Require consultation - ROW & TWS compensation - Abandonment (Clause included in ROW agreement stating Trans Mountain will remove the pipe if/when it is abandoned). - Expansion of ROW and alignment of second pipe - Terms for crossing ROW with water lines, etc. Chronology (Contact Visit Report and Emails): Nov 24/12 – Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG), met with Landowner, JBLC Holdings Inc., Per: Kam Jim and consulted and reviewed package. Nov 26/12 – DG met with Kam Jim and obtained signed survey consent. Conditions: Keep all gates closed. Kam will notify residents if any are present. Jan 22/13 – Land Agent, Corey Aldrich (CA), phoned Dr. Kym Lee Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Jan 28/13 – CA phoned Dr. Kym Lee Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 4/13 – CA phoned Dr. Kym Lee Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Feb 11/13 – CA phoned and talked to Dr. Jim’s secretary, Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim has been busy at the hospital the past few weeks and hasn’t responded to Julie’s email. Julie said she would send him another note. Feb 20/13 - CA phoned Dr. Kym Lee Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Mar 12/13 - CA phoned Dr. Kym Lee Jim and left a message for his secretary, Julie. Apr 2/13 – CA phoned Dr. Jim’s office and talked to Leah. She will speak to Julie and get back to CA the next day. Apr 9/13 – Land Administrator sent out information package and survey form via registered mail to Gung Kee Jim. Apr 29/13 – CA called Gung Kee Jim and left a message. Jun 25/13 – CA called Gung Kee Jim and left a message. Jul 15/13 – CA phoned and talked to Kym Jim. Kym said his brother, Kee Jim, wasn’t fully aware of what he was signing and he would like to retract his consent if possible. CA will phone Kee to confirm. Jul 15/13 – CA phoned Gung Kee Jim and left a message. Jul 22/13 – CA phoned and talked to Gung Kee Jim. He advised that he is meeting with Kym Jim to discuss the project. Consent has not been retracted at this time. Sep 12/13 – CA phoned Gung Kee Jim and left a message. Kee doesn’t want TM accessing his property until the concerns his Kym Jim’s concerns have been addressed. Concerns are as follows: Require native consultation, ROW and TWS compensation, Abandonment – Clause included in ROW agreement stating TM will remove pipe if/when it is abandoned, Expansion of ROW and alignment of second pipe, Terms for crossing ROW with water lines etc.
Nov 14/14 - Land agent, Don Grossberndt (DG), called and talked to Kym Jim. Dr. Jim said to make an appointment with Julie. Nov 12/14 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and talked to Julie. She advised that Dr. Jim can meet DG on Wednesday, Dec 17/14 at 7:00 p.m. Nov 17/14 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim and delivered Notice and ROW documents. They discussed requirements. Dr. Jim insists on conditions on any agreement he signs to included, but not limited to: 1) Removal of pipe upon abandonment. 2) Ability to irrigate land, incremental expense to be KM’s. 3) Cattle management plan for 2 year period. 4) Waterlines across ROW to be installed at designated places with construction. 5) All fences disturbed to be replaced. 6) Existing line to be lowered. 7) KM must agree to support future subdivision of land. Kym declined to sign Acknowledgement. Feb 23/15 – DG phoned Kam Jim and arranged meeting for next day. Feb 24/15 – DG drove to Little Fort, BC and met with Kam Jim. DG delivered package and notice. Kam signed the Acknowledgement. Nov 9/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim, no answer. Nov 10/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 19/15 - DG phoned Kym Jim and left a message. Nov 23/15 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office. Admin will find an appointment time. Dec 4/15 – DG received a phone call from Julie from Kym Jim’s office advising that Kym Jim can meet with DG on Dec 8/15. Dec 8/15 – DG met with Kym Jim at his office and review project status. They identified the following issues: bulls, crossings, topsoil, tree salvage, topography, cattle management, not enough money. DG to discuss with KM and re-draft Schedule D. Nov 1/16 – DG phoned Kym Jim’s office and left a message for Julie requesting a meeting. Julie called DG back to say she would discuss with Kym. Nov 9/16 – DG received a phone message from Julie to say that Kym Jim will meet DG on Nov 28/16 at 6:00 p.m. Nov 14/16 – DG sent an email to Bill Lasuta requesting an estimate for timber values. Nov 23/16 – DG met Kam Jim at the farm in Little Fort, BC. DG delivered revised notice and discussed access for timber evaluation and residences. Nov 28/16 – DG drove to Red Deer and met with Kym Jim. DG delivered notice and provided project status update. They reviewed Assessment, Bonus and Schedule D. DG agreed to follow up to clarify timing and duration of construction, damages. Livestock management will be a major issue. Dec 15/15 – DG emailed Kym Jim meeting summary (see email in file). Jan 29/17 – DG received an email from Bill Lasuta and reviewed timber values. Mar 21/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim requesting to meet on site and discuss issues in the field. Apr 18/17 – DG phoned and talked to Julie and requested a meeting. Apr 24-17 – DG received an email from Julie advising that Kym Jim can meet on Apr 26/17 at 7:00 p.m. Apr 26/17 - DG met with Kym Jim and delivered Section 34. He agreed to meet Land Agent, Darrell Goruk (DG) on May 19/17 to work through issues and determine damages. Apr 30/17 – DG sent an email to Kym Jim with a summary of meeting (email in file). May 15/17- Kym Jim sent a letter of opposition to EF based on the inabilities to date of having his concerns addressed in a proper manner. May 19/17- DG (Darrell Goruk) met with Kym at the ranch. Did a drive through on all tracts. Pointed out pasture breeding paddocks and required bull separation. Water is crucial as is treated with anti-bloat additives to mitigate probable alfalfa grazing issues. Kym is not comfortable with suggestion to fence work area through construction period. Kym feels this would be too risky for the stock separation issue and safety of the cattle. Kym is not comfortable with access shown on the sketch as the access points are not clear. Kym is asking we look in to a winter construction where all stock will be penned out of the construction area. Kym will not go further with consent for further access until his concerns stated in his letter of May 15/17 have been addressed. Sept 13/17- DG contact Kym to see if there would be a chance to allow Opus on to the property to gather crossings data for the BC Hydro locations. Kym continues to refuse all access until his concerns have been met. Nov 25/17- DG send email to Kym Jim for clearance to arrange a meeting with farm operators Kam or Chris Jim along with Darcy and Lorne from Ledcor to view area and come up with the requested construction plan and look at the possibility of a winter construction. Include new agent Glenn Miller to join while in area. Nov 30/17- Glenn Miller (GM), Darrell Goruk (DG), and Ledcor representatives met with Chris Jim (nephew of Kym Jim) to drive and view all the tracts of land of where the TMEP is crossing their ranch, Little Fort Herefords. Kym Jim attended the meeting on and off on conference call along various tracts of the pipeline routing. Same issues and requests are present. Viewing on the ground will assist Ledcor in providing a work plan to the owners. Debrief and determine that Ledcor will work on plan and discuss consideration of a possible late fall construction. Dec 1/17 – GM sent a follow- up email to Kym Jim advising that Trans Mountain would put together a summer and winter construction plan scenario and sequencing for his review, outlining what may be expected in both scenarios. Trans
Mountain also advised that we will include the proposed additional access of where we may need additional access to get at the right-of-way. Trans Mountain advised that we would try to get this to Kym Jim late the week of December 4th his review and then suggested a follow-up meeting with him the following week once he’s had a chance to review.
8 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain)
Information Request No. 1 – Applications for Orders Authorizing Temporary Access to Certain Lands
Appendix C
Wildlife Soils Wetland Vegetation Riparian Water Noise & Air Aquatic
Resources
Archaeology &
Palaeontology
Traditional
Knowledge
Studies
Forestry and
Forest Health
Engineering Civil
Survey
Route and Facility
Site Selection
100 Mainline AIA
Standard Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) Fieldwork
will include:
•Pedestrian survey to identify the potential for
archaeological sites within the Project footprint.
•If areas with potential for buried archaeological deposits
are identified, small shovel tests, measuring approximately
35 cm x 35 cm will be excavated to a depth of 70 cm and
sediments from these tests, passed through wire mesh
screens. In some instances where testing results in the
discovery of an archaeological site, larger tests measuring 50
cm x 50 cm or 1 m x 1 m may also be excavated.
•All subsurface tests are backfilled upon completion.
•Survey will be limited to the proposed Project right-of-way,
access roads and/or temporary workspaces.
AIA work is weather dependent and must be conducted in
snow free conditions and ideally when the ground is not
frozen. We anticipate completing this work sometime
between April - July 2018. The survey work is anticipated to
take 1/2 a day. However, should areas of potential be
identified duration of field work will increase.
Partial
41 Wetlands
One wetland to be surveyed: Emergent Marsh - Blue-
Darf_W630point5
• Confirmation of wetland delineation, classification and
functional condition (habitat, hydrologic and
biogeochemical)
• Determine any site-specific mitigation, as warranted
• Data collection involves notes on vegetation, hydrology
and substrate observations, sketch, GPS coordinates and
tracks, photos
Commitment to NEB Condition 41 is to conduct wetland field
survey at every wetland on Project Footprint prior to
construction.
Wetland surveys are ideally conducted during snow-free
conditions.
Survey to be conducted immediately prior to construction if
required. If construction schedule changes, survey to be
conducted between May 15 to 31 and will take up to 1 day.
Yes
Lois Olga Freeman c/o Jason C. Dennis 974.01 011-931-761 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Mainline AIA
Standard Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) Fieldwork
will include:
•Pedestrian survey to identify the potential for
archaeological sites within the Project footprint.
•If areas with potential for buried archaeological deposits
are identified, small shovel tests, measuring approximately
35 cm x 35 cm will be excavated to a depth of 70 cm and
sediments from these tests, passed through wire mesh
screens. In some instances where testing results in the
discovery of an archaeological site, larger tests measuring 50
cm x 50 cm or 1 m x 1 m may also be excavated.
•All subsurface tests are backfilled upon completion.
•Survey will be limited to the proposed Project right-of-way,
access roads and/or temporary workspaces.
AIA work is weather dependent and must be conducted in
snow free conditions and ideally when the ground is not
frozen. We anticipate completing this work sometime
between April - July 2018. The survey work is anticipated to
take 1 day. However, should areas of potential be identified
duration of field work will increase.
Partial OF - Fa c - O i l - T 2 60 - 20 13 - 03 21 A86118
Dedar Development Corp 999 007-573-928b 100 N/A N/A
Standard Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) Fieldwork
will include:
•Pedestrian survey to identify the potential for
archaeological sites within the Project footprint.
•If areas with potential for buried archaeological deposits
are identified, small shovel tests, measuring approximately
35 cm x 35 cm will be excavated to a depth of 70 cm and
sediments from these tests, passed through wire mesh
screens. In some instances where testing results in the
discovery of an archaeological site, larger tests measuring 50
cm x 50 cm or 1 m x 1 m may also be excavated.
•All subsurface tests are backfilled upon completion.
•Survey will be limited to the proposed Project right-of-way,
access roads and/or temporary workspaces.
AIA work is weather dependent and must be conducted in
snow free conditions and ideally when the ground is not
frozen. We anticipate completing this work sometime
between April - July 2018. The survey work is anticipated to
take 1/2 a day. However, should areas of potential be
identified duration of field work will increase.
No OF - Fa c - O i l - T 2 60 - 20 13 - 03 40 A86663
Grant William Hoffman 1643 002-999-528 100 Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes No N/A N/A N/A Yes Mainline AIA
Standard Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) Fieldwork
will include:
•Pedestrian survey to identify the potential for
archaeological sites within the Project footprint.
•If areas with potential for buried archaeological deposits
are identified, small shovel tests, measuring approximately
35 cm x 35 cm will be excavated to a depth of 70 cm and
sediments from these tests, passed through wire mesh
screens. In some instances where testing results in the
discovery of an archaeological site, larger tests measuring 50
cm x 50 cm or 1 m x 1 m may also be excavated.
•All subsurface tests are backfilled upon completion.
•Survey will be limited to the proposed Project right-of-way,
access roads and/or temporary workspaces.
AIA work is weather dependent and must be conducted in
snow free conditions and ideally when the ground is not
frozen. We anticipate completing this work sometime
between April - July 2018. The survey work is anticipated to
take 1/2 a day. However, should areas of potential be
identified duration of field work will increase.
No OF - Fa c - O i l - T 2 60 - 20 13 - 03 41 A86664
Gung Kee Jim 1239 011-257-156 104 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No Engineering Survey One BC Hydro O/H power line crossing to survey Approximately one day of field work is required to complete
the survey. Partial OF - Fa c - O i l - T 2 60 - 20 13 - 03 42 A86665
Standard Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) Fieldwork
will include:
•Pedestrian survey to identify the potential for
archaeological sites within the Project footprint.
•If areas with potential for buried archaeological deposits
are identified, small shovel tests, measuring approximately
35 cm x 35 cm will be excavated to a depth of 70 cm and
sediments from these tests, passed through wire mesh
screens. In some instances where testing results in the
discovery of an archaeological site, larger tests measuring 50
cm x 50 cm or 1 m x 1 m may also be excavated.
•All subsurface tests are backfilled upon completion.
•Survey will be limited to the proposed Project right-of-way,
access roads and/or temporary workspaces.
AIA work is weather dependent and must be conducted in
snow free conditions and ideally when the ground is not
frozen. We anticipate completing this work sometime
between April - July 2018. The survey work is anticipated to
take 1/2 a day. However, should areas of potential be
identified duration of field work will increase.
Yes
1238 005-318-564 104 N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A No N/A Engineering Survey One BC Hydro O/H power line crossing to survey Approximately one day of field work is required to complete
the survey. Partial
No N/A YesN/A N/A N/AAgnes Irene Jackson
Kym Lee Jim A86666OF - Fa c - O i l - T 2 60 - 20 13 - 03 43
A86661OF - Fa c - O i l - T 2 60 - 20 13 - 03 38 YesN/A1651 014-187-078 N/A N/A N/A No N/A
