Summary
The Director of the Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch appears to be bypassing the environmental assessment process for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls, as follows:
- By presenting to the public a major change in the proposed operation (environmental assessments are a proponent-driven process so this should only be done by the proponent).
- Without providing any analysis of the many negative environmental effects this change would cause (and apparently without the Ministry of the Environment even having any such analysis from the proponent).
- Without providing an opportunity for public comment (such consultation is a key aspect of the environmental assessment process).
Background
In a letter dated March 25, 2011 from the Ministry of the Environment’s Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, the public was informed that their requests that the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls be elevated to require an individual environmental assessment had been denied.
In another letter sent by the Director on the same date, the Director informed the public that over three months earlier the proponent had signed an agreement with Ontario Power Generation which would commit the proposed generating station to operate in a cycling mode during most of the summer (that is, when the proposed generating station operates up to at least ⅓ of its capacity).
We wrote a letter to Fisheries and Oceans Canada enquiring about the effects of the proposed cycling operation on the fish and shoreline habitat.
The proponent subsequently provided a 3½-page letter, dated May 17, 2011 attempting to address the public’s concerns. This letter had only speculation and conjecture, did not cite any scientific information, and raised even more public safety, environmental, and fish habitat concerns (for example, the proponent proposed using infrasonic sound generators to repel fish away from getting sucked into the turbine, however we cited reports indicating these would not work in the proposed situation). As a result, on June 6, 2011 we sent this letter to the Ministry of the Environment.
We note that as stated in the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects:
- The environmental screening process is “a proponent driven, self-assessment process” (Section A.6.1).
- The environmental screening report shall include “information, analysis and discussion of mitigation and impact management measures for any potential negative effects identified through application of the screening criteria, including an assessment of the significance of any net effects” (Section B.2.3).
The Concern
As this is a proponent-driven process, why did the Director – and not the proponent – inform the public of this major change to the proposed project. It is the proponent’s responsibility to describe the proposed project and its operation to the public.
And given the huge number of environmental concerns, of this proposed cycling operation, how could this be presented to the public without any evaluation of the negative environmental impacts, or an opportunity for the public to comment as is required by the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects.
The Director therefore appears to be bypassing the environmental assessment process on behalf of this particular proponent.
Due to this continued demonstration that the environmental screening process has not been successful in showing that the negative environmental impacts of this proposed project have been adequately mitigated, we request that this project be elevated to require an individual environmental assessment.