EMAIL To SaskEnvironment requesting clarification and assurance regarding environmental factors to be applied to private lands.
----- Original Message ----- From: Gerald Regnitter at Friendly Forest
To: Randy Seguin
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:27 PM
Subject: Further clarifications requested
Thank you for the fax on Friday and the other material that arrived by mail today. In a discussion about the mitigation conditions you attached to your PA 8 decision we began to look for assurances that SaskPower would be required to reach agreement with landowners and the RM about application of conditions to construction methods and maintenance procedures. I believe I recalled one of our phone conversations in which you said you were requiring SaskPower to sit down with us and to reach agreement with us about these issues.
When we re-examined the documents, we did not find any assurance that SaskPower would be required to reach agreements with us. Telling them to talk to us is one thing, but it is not the same as saying that they could not proceed without having negotiated an agreement with us. Just what requirement is there for SaskPower to have our consent before determining final construction methods and maintenance procedures? Can you help us out by pointing out to the parts of your document that does this, or correct the perceptions we have about this?
As you can imagine, we are most concerned to have a reliable assurance that SaskPower would be required to meet the conditions on private land that are the same as you are requiring on Public lands.
We were told by the Prince Albert Herald that SaskPower had informed them that SaskPower and SERM were meeting on Monday of this week to "clarify' items in the document. Has this meeting happened, and are there things coming from the meeting that we need to know? Please advise me as soon as possible.
We are still considering our option for court intervention and we cannot make good judgements without full information. I plan to meet with the RM of Lakeland on February 11 to talk to them about implications of your document on the RM. and the RM's role along with us as land owners should Pink Alt 3 proceed according to SERM's decision.
Gerald Regnitter Friendly Forest ,
Box 289 Christopher Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada S0J 0N0 ph: (306) 982-3614
web address: www.friendlyforest.ca email: email@example.com
Reply received to the above email:
----- Original Message -----
From: Seguin, Randy ERM
To: 'Gerald Regnitter at Friendly Forest' Cc: Lechner, Larry ERM ; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: Further clarifications requested
Dear Gerald: Perhaps the best way to answer your questions is to note first that if SPC undertakes the work then they are bound by the "no development" letter and should they deviate without permission then various ramifications could follow (per my previous letter).
Second, if you look at the "no-development" letter I indicate what SPC must do within the Northern Provincial Forest (in essence) and then state that SPC will/shall be required/apply to...lands (in essence from the corridor's entry into the NFP to the point where the three line options diverged, in most cases)...as appropriate and maybe agreed to by affected landowners... To achieve an agreement (whether or not the landowner accepts or rejects what is in the letter) requires that the two parties discuss the particular situation and the landowner may agree to follow the procedure outlined in the letter or they may agree to follow some other procedure (e.g. SPC's usual approach etc.). That a discussion will occur with individual landowners is in the letter, the choice of action is left to the landowner.
You are quite right, the approach I have recommended deliberately involves the RM (including their relationship with Dept. of Highways and Transport) to, as best as is possible, ensure that potential RM concerns/plans are considered in this undertaking.
I hope this answers your questions. As to meeting with SPC to clarify the letter; yes it did take place. SPC will be forwarding their understanding from that meeting back to me in writing, likely tomorrow, for my review. I had indicated to them that once SPC and SERM had reviewed the clarification I would be forwarding to FFCC.
Some items discussed were: yes - the area of tree clearing and subsequent shrub regrowth is to be confined to that necessary to meet the CSA standard for rights-of-way for this type of transmission line as this is of legal standing.
Yes - outside of the CSA standard corridor only those trees that may immediately (the three year growth item) threaten the line are to be cut and in a selective fashion (per the letter item). During construction they have to use anchor points
- yes - these can be used as a temporary operation but must be reclaimed once they are no longer required (i.e. once construction of the line is complete).
In any event, you will receive the final document as to what was clarified as soon as available. As an aside, the issues of no use of herbicides...and the requirement to apply the stated mitigations on private lands, with landowner consent,... were not discussed.
Will keep you informed. I trust the documents sent to you by regular mail have arrived.
Sincerely, Randy Seguin
Email confirmations that Saskatchewan Environment Conditions would apply to private lands.
Return to SASKPOWER FINAL ASSAUALT ON FRIENDLY FOREST (Documents)