Blog

Photo by Linda HeronPhoto Credit

Bid Eddy Site, Waterpower Development, Petawawa River – Notice of Commencement

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT

of an Environmental Assessment

Big Eddy Site, Waterpower Development, Petawawa River,Town of Petawawa

Petawawa (ON)

March 3, 2011 (Updated March 4, 2011) — Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Transportation Agency, National Defence and Transport Canada are required to ensure that a screening is conducted commencing on February 24, 2011 in relation to the development proposal: Big Eddy Site, Waterpower Development, Petawawa River,Town of Petawawa.

Xeneca Power Development Inc. has proposed to build a waterpower electricity generating facility on the Petawawa River. The Big Eddy waterpower development site is located in the City of Petawawa and is situated partially on Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. The proposed project at Big Eddy would capture the suveyed gross head of 9m. The conceptual development incorporates the use of a concrete weir and an earthen dam. A conveyance channel situated on the north shore of the river would conduct flow from the river to an intake which woud power one or more Kaplan turbines coupled to a generator with a combined rated nameplate capacity of 5.3 MW. Continue reading


Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s – 2007/08 Annual Report

Ontario’s EA Process is Broken:

In his 2007-2008 Annual Report, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO), Gord Miller, stated: “Ontario’s EA process is broken,”(p.28) and that, “a no decision is not a possible outcome” (p. 42).  Since then, little has been done to address this issue. Continue reading


Grassy Narrows – Landmark Legal Victory – Traditional Territory Treaty Rights

Ontario: Landmark Legal Victory Could End Clearcut Logging In Grassy

Narrows Territory

Yesterday the Grassy Narrows First Nation (Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek) won a major victory in their more than decade long battle to stop clearcut logging in Grassy Narrows’ traditional territory. Grassy Narrows Chief and Council welcome the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to protect the rights promised to the Anishinaabe from interference by Ontario. Madam Justice Mary-Anne Sanderson’s decision, over 300 pages in length, finds that the Government of Ontario does not have the power to take away the rights in Treaty 3 by authorizing development including logging and mining.

This decision will set the stage for proper recognition and protection of those rights and, even more importantly, will help protect the Anishinaabe way of life in Northwestern Ontario. Grassy Narrows hopes that this will be a turning point in this battle. We expect that real protection for the endangered boreal forest and our way of life will be put in place immediately.

Joseph Fobister, one of the trappers who were plaintiffs in this case said, “this is a victory for our people. We have struggled for many years to save our way of life in the face of uncontrolled clearcutting, which has contaminated our waters and destroyed our lands.” Mr. Fobister also thanked the people of Grassy Narrows and the supporters who have stood by the community in the fight against clearcut logging.

Chief Simon Fobister urges the Governments of Ontario and Canada to come to the table to negotiate a modern understanding that will fully respect and implement our rights. Chief Fobister said that “this will require protecting the way of life of the Anishinaabe who were here before the logging industry came to these lands and will be here after the logging companies have moved on to other forests.”

This case describes the long history of the Anishinaabe and their fight to hold the Government of Canada to the promises made in Treaty 3. Grassy Narrows calls on Canada and Ontario to honour the spirit and intent of this decision by moving to eliminate clearcut logging in Grassy Narrows Traditional Territory and to develop a meaningful new approach to the management of this territory in partnership with Grassy Narrows.

Source: Grassy Narrows First Nation


Unionid mussels – our subtly beautiful largest invertebrate animals!

Become a Local Expert

Because of their constant filtering, Unionids are the heavy-duty in-stream providers of “water quality,” and unlike fish, they can’t get out of the way and then quickly swim back to recolonize a site. Stream projects should avoid disturbing the streambed where they’re abundant, since the mussels mature slowly, and mature individuals can keep providing improved water quality for several decades. Water level fluctuations in impoundments can make
vast areas of the bottom behind dams uninhabitable.

To become the local unionid expert, search shores & bottoms of streams, and shores & shallows of lakes, concentrating on clear-water habitats and on riffles, and especially on streams right below lake outlets, where phytoplanktonic food from the still water flows like a perpetual buffet. Some species are wedged into the mucky banks of streams. Muskrats accumulate shell piles beside stumps and rocks on the bank, which you’ll find easily once you begin to think like a Muskrat. Flood waters concentrate shells at the foot of bars, or in eddies. It’s important to examine lots of animals and collect lots of shells, because many species are superficially hard to tell apart and many are rare. Since you can collect dead shells without harming the populations, it’s possible to gather material documentation of the occurrence of species, and their variation. Continue reading


Bioaccumulation of Mercury by Aquatic Biota in Hydroelectric Reservoirs: A Review and Consideration of Mechanisms, by PM Stokes and CD Wren, Institute of Environmental Studies, U of T

“ABSTRACT

Methylation is accepted to be a major process controlling the biological availability of mercury, and a number of recent articles and reviews have addressed this process.  Recently, the occurrence of elevated mercury in fish tissues from systems in regions considered to be remote from point or local sources of mercury have been documented.

These appear to be related to acidification of surface waters and to recent impoundments, usually in connection with hydroelectric dam construction. The present chapter addresses this second phenomenon, which is being investigated for Canadian Reservoirs by Environmental and Social Systems Analysts (ESSA) Ltd, LGL Associated and the University of Toronto in an ongoing study funded by the Canadian Electrical Association.

Elevated mercury levels have been detected in fish from a number of Canadian reservoirs. A preliminary study in 1976 of approximately 6000 fish throughout Labrador revealed that the highest mercury levels were found in fish from the Smallwood Reservoir and waters of the Churchill River downstream of the Control Structure. The maximum mercury levels in burbot (1.93 Jlwgm) and in lake trout (3.9 Jlwgm) were in fish from the reservoir.”  Continue reading


ORA Response to Xeneca – Ivanhoe River, The Chute Proposed Hydroelectric Generating Station

September 12, 2011:

“Ontario Rivers Alliance (ORA) thanks Xeneca Power Development Inc. for its letter, dated September 9, 2011, in which you answer some of our questions set out in our letter to you, dated August 11, 2011, in response to your Notice of Completion, and Waterpower Class Environmental Assessment, for the Proposed Ivanhoe River, The Chute Generating Station.

On Friday, September 9, 2011, at 2:34 pm, with the deadline for a Part II Order request nearing, and having had no response from Xeneca to our questions of August 11, 2011, ORA submitted a Part II Order Request to the Minister of Environment.   At 4:39 pm, within 2 hours of ORA’s letter being received by you, your response to our August 11, 2011 letter was received.   As a matter of fact, several ORA members received your response to their questions late that same afternoon, and even into the evening, leaving inadequate time to respond before our requests for a Part II Order.  This was unacceptable to ORA and should be unacceptable to the government and citizens of Ontario.

You mentioned you have visited the ORA website, but have obviously misread or missed ORA’s Mission and Vision.   You will note on every page of our website, our Vision, “a world of healthy river ecosystems” and Mission “to protect, conserve and restore healthy river ecosystems” appears; and the words “protect natural river environments for recreational canoeing and kayaking uses” does not.     The words “canoe” and “kayak” do not even appear in the main information pages of our website.  Just as throughout Xeneca’s response, you change and generalize ORA’s questions, and grossly generalize your answers to our detailed questions, you have interpreted ORA’s purpose to suit your own needs.  This is not surprising as it only reflects the generalized style and detail of the information contained in your Environmental Report for The Chute.  You might also note that ORA’s values are “truth, sensibility and wisdom in all matters pertaining to our rivers and their ecosystems.”

The reason Xeneca’s name appears more often on ORA’s website is because Xeneca has 33 waterpower proposals across Ontario, which is by far the most of any other developer, and therefore the frequent mention of Xeneca in our correspondence can in no way be construed as being biased against it.  If you look on our “Links” page under “Proponents”, you will see there are four waterpower developers listed on that page.   If Xeneca staff had taken the time to look at ORA’s website carefully they would see ORA has also commented on OPG, Domtar Inc., Energy Ottawa Inc., and Swift Energy agreements and proposals.   Xeneca’s unfounded accusations of bias, as well as misrepresenting the wording of our correspondence, makes it difficult for ORA to trust in Xeneca’s desire to find a way to develop a cordial dialogue and develop a working relationship with the ORA.

Consequently, ORA’s request to the Minister of Environment to issue a Part II Order to elevate the Class Environmental Assessment to an Individual Environmental Assessment stands, as written in our letter dated, September 9, 2011.

Please be assured that ORA fully understands the EA process.” Continue reading


William A. Allen – Xeneca Response – Ivanhoe River, The Chute

William A. Allen

9 First Ave., Box 85

Burk’s Falls, ON P0A 1C0

September 11, 2011

 

Vanesa Enskaitis

Public Affairs and Stakeholder Relations

Xeneca Power Development

5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1200

North York, ON  M2N 6P4

Ref: (416) 590-9362 X104; E-mail venskaitis@xeneca.com

Dear Ms. Enskaitis (Letter #2 of 2 dated Sept. 11, 2011),

Thank you for your September 9, 2011 response to my letter of September 4, the second of two letters which I received from Xeneca on Friday evening, September 9. I have responded separately to Xeneca’s two September 9, 2011 letters to me which you sent at 5:51 P.M. and 7:20 P.M. Friday evening, September 9 and I am copying to Minister Wilkinson and others.

I note that you did not send Xeneca’s second September 9 letter of response to me until 7:20 P.M. on September 9. That timing was after the close of business hours including the close of the Post Office so Xeneca denied me the opportunity to include my reaction to its response before I sent my September 9, 2011 XpressPost letter to Minister Wilkinson and copied to you previously. As I explained in that letter to Minister Wilkinson, Friday afternoon, September 9 was the last possible time that Xpress Post mail leaving my home community would arrive at the Minister’s desk by Monday, September 12, the deadline for a request for a Part II Order. I find the timing of Xeneca’s response to my September 9 letter unhelpful for resolving identified issues by September 12 since I specifically asked to have such response from Xeneca in my hands by September 8. Continue reading


William A. Allen – Response to Xeneca – Ivanhoe River, The Chute

William A. Allen

Burk’s Falls, ON P0A 1C0

September 11, 2011

 

Vanesa Enskaitis

Public Affairs and Stakeholder Relations

Xeneca Power Development

5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1200

North York, ON  M2N 6P4

Ref: (416) 590-9362 X104; E-mail venskaitis@xeneca.com

Dear Ms. Enskaitis (Letter #1 of 2 dated Sept. 11, 2011),

Thank you for your September 9, 2011 response to my letter of August 12, 2011, the first of two letters which I received from Xeneca on Friday evening, September 9. I note that you did not send Xeneca’s September 9 letter of response to me until 5:51 P.M. on September 9. That timing was after the close of business hours including the close of the Post Office so Xeneca denied me the opportunity to include my reaction to its response before I sent my September 9, 2011 XpressPost letter to Minister Wilkinson and copied to you (copy attached). As I explained in that letter to Minister Wilkinson, Friday afternoon, September 9 was the last possible time that Xpress Post mail leaving my home community would arrive at the Minister’s desk by Monday, September 12, the deadline for a request for a Part II Order. I find the timing of Xeneca’s response to my Aug. 12 letter unhelpful for resolving identified issues by September 12. Continue reading


Robichaud – Part II Order Request – Ivanhoe River, The Chute Proposed Generating Station

Laurent Robichaud

Timmins, ON

September 11th 2011

 

The Honourable John Wilkinson

Minister of the Environment

12th Floor,

135 St Clair Ave W.

Toronto ON

4 M4V 1P5

Minister.moe@ontario.ca

Re: – The proposed Generating Station at “The Chute” on the Ivanhoe River.

Dear Minister,

The purpose of this letter is to request a Part II Order under the Environmental Assessment Act.

This project is to establish a hydro generating station at “The Chute” on the Ivanhoe River. The project is being developed by Xeneca Power Development Incorporated. The Notice of Completion under Class EA has reached its deadline of September 12th for public and stakeholder participation.

Xeneca has attempted to appease my concerns about the aquatic environment present at “The Chute” but even Mr. Gillette’s last communication had not answered my questions. The only positive note was the possibility of making contact with members of Natural Resources Solution Inc. responsible for the aquatic research part of the EA process. The fact still remains that since the 19th of July until the 9th of September, I was not able to acquire any aquatic field reports relating the actual physical work done on the site. Continue reading


Xeneca Response to ORA Comments – Ivanhoe River, The Chute Hydroelectric Dam Proposal

Xeneca’s response to ORA Comments, dated 11 August 2011.

September 9, 2011:

Excerpt:

Request to Xeneca: ORA requests that The Chute, Third Falls proposals, and the Ivanhoe Lake dam, be addressed under one Environmental Assessment, as these three dams would be operated as one unit, and would have a very significant negative cumulative impact on the Ivanhoe River, Groundhog River, and all downstream riverine ecosystems.

Xeneca’s Response: Cumulative effects will be addressed in the Third Falls Class EA Report. Xeneca is not currently preparing the Environmental Report for Third Falls GS. Continue reading