Comment by William A. Allen: “Image 207 is at position of proposed generator immediately below the proposed dam at The Chute.” Continue reading
Blog
Photo by Linda Heron
Ivanhoe River – The Chute: Xeneca response to Tony Godin
August 15, 2011: “# 19. This Run of the river system which modifies the flow of the river at certain time of the day or night and with the combination of so many kilometers of inundation will render this river inaccessible to tourism, canoeists, naturalists and fishermen alike. By doing so how is Xeneca prepared to deal with this without forgetting the damage to the tourists that are already talking about not coming back to Foleyet area because the Ivanhoe wilderness is the one of the main reasons for making these long and costly trips?
Xeneca has been consistent and clear in stating that public access to the river will not be unduly impeded. Other than specific locations such as high voltage equipment and intake channels, access will remain or be enhanced. If portage routes or trails are affected, Xeneca requests input from affected stakeholders to avoid or mitigate the effect. And, as stated with the Waterpower Class EA, Xeneca will work with the recreational fishing community, tourism operators and other interested parties to ensure a) impacts to fisheries are minimum; b) access to those fishing areas are not impeded; and c) to facilitate improvements to accessing the fishery and maximizing tourism potential.” Continue reading
Ivanhoe River – The Chute: Xeneca Response to Foleyet Chamber of Commerce
August 17, 2011:
Excerpt:
12. Who is going to pay for the extra cost under the FIT program? With $ .12 for regular power and $.185 for peak power guaranteed for 40 years. There is a considerable price difference between what we pay and what Xeneca will receive. Who is going to pay this difference? The price offered to Xeneca under contract is mixed in with all other sources of generation, including heritage assets that generate at 3 cents per kWh or in some cases less. The mix of both old and new nuclear, gas, biomass, wind, solar etc. will ultimately determine consumer cost. It may noteworthy that while 12 to 18 centre per kWh may seem expensive today, it may seem quite a bargain in 20 years and beyond. Xeneca’s contract is for 40 years. Continue reading
Xeneca Reply to G. Simmonds – Ivanhoe Lakes Cottagers’ Association
August 16, 2011:
Excerpt:
Regarding impacts on Ivanhoe Lake, we would like to reiterate that operation of The Chute GS will not affect the lake and there are no plans to alter operating plans in a manner that would cause any effects. Similarly we do not anticipate any impact on the Town of Foleyet or its water treatment facilities.
The concerns you have raised regarding government energy and environmental policy are outside the scope of our Environmental Assessment, however we would respectfully suggest contacting the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), Ontario Power Authority (OPA), Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Environment. Continue reading
Ivanhoe River – The Chute Dam Proposal – Ivanhoe Lake Cottagers’ Association – Comments to Xeneca
August 14, 2011
Mr. Mark Holmes
Vice President, Corporate Affairs
Xeneca Power Development
Re: Proposed Generating stations on Ivanhoe River
The Ivanhoe Lake Cottagers’ Assoc. met and discussed the proposed generating stations planned for the Chute and Third Falls. The Ivanhoe Lake Cottagers’ Assoc. is a group comprised of approximately 60 landowners that are committed to the protection and preservation of Ivanhoe Lake and surrounding area. Based on the information provided by public information sessions and on a one on one meeting with Mr. Holmes we have unanimously agreed to oppose this development.
Foleyet and the surrounding townships are recognized as an unorganized part of the Province and as such receive next to nothing from the Provincial Government. The community of Foleyet has a Local Service Board that struggles financially, barely able to provide any services to its residents. An example of this is the condition of its two fire trucks, they are old, in poor condition and one is not even serviceable. Foleyet and the surrounding area including the residents of Ivanhoe Lake have never received any attention from the Province until now. Unfortunately it is not to offer us any kind of services or provide better fire trucks or enhance the area. It is to destroy two of the most beautiful parts of the river and have us believe it is a necessity.
According to the Information available to us the Province of Ontario currently has an abundance of electrical power and is selling it to the United States. The stations they want to build on the Ivanhoe River will only generate enough power to serve 1500 homes. The Province will only see a profit of about 2 million dollars a year from these stations and yet the cost to build the stations will be over 20 million. The two stations will require a great deal of road construction and all year maintenance that will cost the tax payer millions and yield little in revenue. The Province did not request any reclamation plan or agreement from Xeneca to restore the area should the stations eventually fail or run their course of usefulness. Continue reading
Ivanhoe River – Third Falls and The Chute – Allen Comments to Xeneca on ER
William A. Allen
9 First Ave., Box 85
Burk’s Falls, ON P0A 1C0
August 12, 2011
Vanesa Enskaitis
Public Affairs and Stakeholder Relations
Xeneca Power Development
5160 Yonge Street, Suite 520
North York, ON M2N 6L9
Ref: (416) 590-9362 X104; E-mail venskaitis@xeneca.com
Dear Ms. Enskaitis,
Re: Ivanhoe River – Third Falls and The Chute
INTRODUCTION:
I write as a private citizen of Ontario, one of the citizens with whom Xeneca has made a “binding commitment” through the Class Environmental Assessment process. (Ref: The Chute Environmental Report [ER] Foreword, unnumbered page F4). I write in open format to share with others who may be interested.
Thanks for informing me on July 28 that Xeneca has issued a NOC for Ivanhoe: The Chute and for referring me to your website for details. I am working my way through the documentation. I also am awaiting responses to queries I have made to certain government officials who are familiar with The Chute file and to the Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA). Those queries cover issues relevant to the ER and also, in some cases, requests for face to face meetings. I also am awaiting the finalization of plans to make another personal visit to the Ivanhoe River Watershed.
Please register my name as a stakeholder for both hydroelectric development proposals on the Ivanhoe River, namely Third Falls and The Chute.
I am not satisfied with either The Chute proposal or the evaluation process evident to date. I have numerous concerns about the Environmental Report Ivanhoe River – The Chute. Because of the sheer volume of my concerns at this time I will issue an initial list of concerns and numbered questions to allow Xeneca time to answer those questions and attempt to resolve my initial concerns. I also will identify further concerns in the days ahead. Continue reading
Currie – Comments to Xeneca – Ivanhoe River, The Chute Hydro-electric Proposal
August 11, 2011
Vanesa Enskaitis
Public Affairs Liaison
Xeneca Power Development Inc.
T: 416-590-9362 X 104
Dear Ms. Enskaitis:
Please find enclosed my response to the two volumes of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Chute generating plant.
RESPONSE TO EA REPORT
I have come to the conclusion after reviewing the EA report for the Chute GS Project that there are many unresolved issues. Some of these deficiencies are permits not acquired; field studies still on going, and information gathered that has not been completed.
This report seems to have been fast tracked for what reason, political or financial, definitely not for the social and environmental impact on the river.
Issues to be addressed
1. The inundation distance for the Chute and Third Falls are a moving target. The Chute has changed from 2.8 km to 6.4 km and the Third Falls proposal is up in the air from 14 km to 30 km which would flood to the base of the Chute. With an inundation distance now of a total of 36.4 km, should these tow dams that are operating in tandem be assessed under one EA. Continue reading
Currie to Xeneca – Ivanhoe River, The Chutes – Proposed Modififed Run-of-River Hydro-electric Dam – Foleyet Chamber of Commerce
August 12, 2011
Vanesa Enskaitis
Public Affairs Liaison
Xeneca Power Development Inc.
T: 416-590-9362 X 104
Dear Ms. Enskaitis:
Please find enclosed my response to the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Chute generating plant.
First of all, I would like to comment on the fact that NO correspondence was received from Xeneca in respect to the proposed Chute Generation Station on the Ivanhoe River. I find this very disturbing as we represent local commerce in and around Foleyet.
The Chamber of Commerce has a list of questions that concern the local businesses and residents.
- What will be the tangible economic outcome for the community of Foleyet if and when this dam is built?
- Will local residents as well as First Nations have first priority to be employed as construction workers even if they have to be trained, and will this training take place in Foleyet? Continue reading
ORA Comments to Xeneca – Proposed Hydro-electric dam at The Chutes, Ivanhoe River.
August 11, 2011:
Excerpt:
The cumulative effects of all facilities, water management practices, obstructions, roads, transmission lines, diversions, as well as all resulting “Identified Potential Risks”, must be considered with a precautionary approach in order to protect the well-being of all communities, the environment, and the riverine ecosystem; and to comply with the EAA and the CEAA. These types of proposals must not be fast tracked, or policy and procedure skipped – there is too much at stake! Continue reading
Waterpower Agreements – Concerned Stakeholder/Citizen, by Rob MacGregor
June 23, 2011:
Excerpt:
a) Sitting now as a concerned stakeholder/citizen outside of government, I now see very clearly the problem governments are faced with regarding public communication and consultation. Government has a job to do, has deadlines to meet and needs to tick off the public consultation box. In the case of waterpower agreements, apparently public consultation was not really required for some reason, but you’re branch did it anyway. While I am glad you chose to consult, I am annoyed that there is a rule, policy or guideline that even suggests that public consultation is not mandatory for agreements with such far reaching and ongoing potential impacts; where does that policy appear? Now that there is a brief interlude, I have to get some things tabled; hopefully they will be helpful in future attempts to consult with the public. While I am obviously interested in these agreements and appreciate the opportunity to comment, I resent being put in the position I have been in over the last month. I, like all other members of the public, am extremely busy living life. I am also very interested and concerned over some matters that are going on with “sustainable management” of the environment within government, and I wish to have an opportunity to comment effectively. I did not, in the case of waterpower agreements, but I have the following synthesis comments: Continue reading