Tag Archives: part ii order

Marter Township Generating Station Environmental Report – Blanche River – Part II Order Request

By Linda Heron on Saturday, March 15th, 2014
Posted in Blanche River, Class EA for Waterpower, Dams, Energy, Environmental Reports, Hydroelectric, Marter Township GS, ORA Submissions, Part II Order requests, River Concerns, Rivers at Risk

Krugerdorf Chutes, Blanche River

This proposal has a Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) contract which pays a 50% peaking bonus for all power generated.  FIT Contracts have a 40 year term.   Projects with FIT contracts cannot be told to stop generating if Ontario has a surplus of power – they get paid for all power generated whether it is required or not.  Proposed to produce 2.1 MW Installed Capacity, which with seasonal flows will more realistically produce 50% of that – approximately 1 MW of power.

ORA has made a Part II Order request to the Minister of Environment to elevate this proposal to an Individual Environmental Assessment – a much more rigorous environmental assessment.  Awaiting MOE response.

Published: 14 March 2014

Excerpt:

“It is ORA’s submission that Xeneca’s approach falls far short of their claims in many key aspects of this ER, and does its best to sell the reader on the project, with an approach of convincing the reader to just trust them, let them build it, and then through monitoring and adaptive management during pre and post construction the riverine ecosystem will be just fine. This approach is not acceptable.”  Read more below:

Download (PDF, 593KB)

Autumn at Big Falls – Trout Lake River – Part II Order Request

By Linda Heron on Tuesday, September 24th, 2013
Posted in Big Falls, Class EA for Waterpower, Dams, Energy, Environmental Reports, Hydroelectric, ORA Submissions, Part II Order requests, River Concerns, Rivers at Risk, Trout Lake River

Autumn at Big Falls – Trout Lake River

This is Big Falls – a beautiful stretch of rapids and falls located on Trout Lake River.  This is a sacred place that holds many precious memories for the NamekosipiiwAnishinaapek First Nation community.  They have had no say in whether this site will be destroyed and replaced with a hydroelectric dam – at least if Horizon Hydro Operations has their way.  Horizon is proposing a 3 to 4 MW run-of-river hydroelectric dam, with an 18.8 metre head,  and 1.7 km headpond that will encompass 15.5 hectares.    This would feed hydro to approximately 1500 people – on a good day.

The Experimental Lakes Area has studied the impact of newly inundated headponds and discovered that methylmercury can increase by 10 to 20 times.   Mercury can become elevated in fish tissue, and result in fish consumption restrictions.  That is not good for First Nations when fish is a main staple in their diets.  Does this sound like “Green Energy”?  If you agree that Big Falls should not be developed, then please write the Honourable Kathleen Wynne to let her know this is a bad idea – premier@ontario.ca.

Download (PDF, 126KB)

Download (PDF, 669KB)

Trout Lake River Hydro Proposal – Part II Order Request

By Linda Heron on Saturday, May 18th, 2013
Posted in Big Falls, Class EA for Waterpower, Dams, Environmental Reports, Hydroelectric, ORA Submissions, Part II Order requests, River Concerns, Rivers at Risk, Trout Lake River

Download ORA Part II Order Request

Download Olsen Part II Order Request

After having carefully reviewed the information as presented, and in consideration of the lack of due diligence to properly consult with and resolve the issues of the Trout Lake Community, as well as the potential health and safety risks to First Nation communities, ORA is requesting a Part II Order be issued to elevate this proposal to an Individual Environmental Assessment.

Save Big Falls on the Trout Lake River

By Linda Heron on Saturday, April 27th, 2013
Posted in Big Falls, Dams, Energy, Hydroelectric, Media, River Concerns, Rivers at Risk, Trout Lake River, Video

The Reasons for Opposing the Construction of the Dam at Big Falls:

1. MNR conducted an initial survey (actually, Hatch did it) of the rivers in Ontario that may have areas where water power could be harnessed and developed. Question: What gave MNR that right when they did no consultation with FN’s of this survey? What gave them the right to put up for auction these sites, three of which are on the Trout Lake River? That is not acceptable and MNR has to be held accountable for deviating from normal FN consultation protocol, even if it was before any such “agreements” were made.

2. The view of our cultural heritage is very narrow, keeping it to physical artifacts such as pottery sherds and arrowheads. This is unacceptable. The stories of our ancestors are all along the river, at each falls and rapids, each lake and bend in the river, every camp site.

3. The name of the project is an appropriation of the name of our home place. It is no more a Trout Lake Hydro project than Niagara Falls is.  When will revenue info be available? We are at a disadvantage if we do not have that information.

4. The Trout Lake people are descendants of signatories to Treaty #3. Namekosipiiw-Anishinaapek, of all people, should be consulted and their consent required in order for the dam to be built. The Trout Lake people should be treated as a community, as much as Lac Seul, Wabauskang and Grassy Narrows are. (MNR personnel have common knowledge that the Trout Lake people should have a reserve, but pretend that we don’t.)

5. The woman’s role and responsibility as water-keepers is a moral and ethical authority that has to be recognized and acknowledged by white people in general, by the state in particular, especially Ontario. As keepers of the water, Anishinaape women are stepping up and advocating for the water. This is huge and important responsibility.

6. The Trout Lake Anishinaape people are continually being told that it is the legal authority of the land that is relevant. We hold that moral responsibilities, as identified in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, hold just as much, if not more, authority in all human story.

7. The trees around the river have already been cut down and taken away. Why can’t they leave the water alone?

8. The personal reasons are varied and many, posts will appear as this work progresses.

Enerdu GS, Mississippi River, Almonte – Part II Order Request, by ORA

By Linda Heron on Saturday, February 2nd, 2013
Posted in Class EA for Waterpower, Dams, Enerdu GS, Energy, Environmental Reports, Hydroelectric, Mississippi River, ORA Submissions, Part II Order requests, River Concerns, Rivers at Risk
Almonte, Mississippi River

Almonte, Mississippi River

Summary of Recommendations:

It is ORA’s position that referring to this proposal as a “run-of-river” operation throughout the entire Environmental Report (ER), and not revealing or addressing the fact that this facility is actually a peaking operation that holds water back to produce power during peak demand hours, is a fatal flaw that places the integrity of the entire ER in question. We must then ask, what other important details have been left out.

Recommendation 1:
After having carefully reviewed the ER and the Response from Enerdu, and for all the reasons set out in this letter, ORA is making a formal request to the Minister of the Environment to elevate this proposal to an Individual Environmental Assessment.

Recommendation 2:
Failing the implementation of Recommendation 1, ORA requests that the Minister reject Enerdu’s ER, and the proponent be ordered to provide an ER that addresses all the recommendations and concerns set out in this letter.

Recommendation 3:
The categorization of “Existing Infrastructure” does not define or differentiate the rigor or level of the environmental evaluation required, and therefore the full impacts of the existing and planned operations must all be fully considered and assessed – both upstream and downstream.

Recommendation 4:
If Enerdu’s intent is to continue peaking this facility, then the proponent should be ordered to correct their ER by removing all reference to this project as a run-of-river and to instead make reference to it as a “modified peaking hydroelectric facility”. Continue reading →