Full Panel Review of the St. John River Wet Crossing

We, the undersigned, wish to endorse the letter (copied below) sent by Leland Thomas and Janice Eldridge-Thomas, and jointly call upon the National Energy Board to institute a Full Panel Review of the proposed wet crossing of the St. John River as submitted by Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd.

We thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.


PO Box 6152
RPO Brunswick Square
Saint John NB E2L 4R

February 23, 2008


Ms. Claudine Dutil-Berry
Secretary
National Energy Board
444 Seventh Avenue, S.W.
Calgary AB T2P 0X8


Dear Ms. Dutil-Berry:

Re: Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. (EBPC) Application for Alternative Technique to HDD Crossing of the St. John River
File OF Fac-Gas-E236-2007-01 01

I am writing in response to the application made by Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. for a wet crossing, as an alternative to the planned horizontal directional drill method of crossing the St. John River.

As you are aware, the only crossing method examined during the November 2006 panel hearings in Saint John was the HDD method of crossing the river. Any change in crossing method should undergo the same level of scrutiny that was given to the rest of the pipeline project. That is, a full panel review of a wet crossing (with CEAA funding being made to intervenors) must be carried out. The river crossing is one of the most environmentally sensitive areas of the entire pipeline route, and anything short of a full panel review may well be seen by citizens here as simply a way for the National Energy Board and EBPC to sidestep their responsibilities to the Canadian public, and to the environment.

Issues that must be examined in a full panel review of a possible wet crossing include the following, at minimum:

1) First, it is known that the proposed area for the crossing has a long industrial history, including activities like ship-breaking. A thorough history of the area must therefore be done to determine what other activities have been carried out over the decades, and what materials may still be present in the bottom sediments. Further, a complete study of these sediments must be undertaken to determine what effects the materials therein might have upon plant and animal life in the area, should these sediments be disturbed.

2) Second, as placed on the record of the hearing in 2006, this area is a key fish migration route, and in-depth studies of the possible effects of wet crossing construction on important fish species, as well as on other forms of marine life, need to be carried out.

3) Third, it is not unusual today for some ship traffic, particularly tugboats and barges, to pass through these St. John River narrows. In case of engine failure or other emergencies, it may be necessary for these vessels to anchor, due to the high currents in this channel, potentially damaging a pipeline placed by wet crossing construction methods.

Therefore, nothing less than a full panel review of this application is appropriate. Please take note that we do wish to participate further in this important matter of a possible wet crossing of the Saint John River.

Yours truly,

Signed Leland Thomas
Signed Janice Thomas

Leland T. Thomas, DVM.
Janice L. Eldridge-Thomas, BA, MBA