The Ministry of the Environment has apparently decided to not protect the environment

Updated April 27, 2018

Below are 16 letters of the letters we have sent to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (click on each date to see the letter) over the past months detailing environmental concerns and risks to public safety.

Our main concern is that unsuspecting tourists would be drowned, as they could not be adequately warned. A recent decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal confirmed that the MOECC does have responsibility; for human life, and to obtain the required expert input even if it is not available from their usual sources (which include Transport Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry).

As you can see below, the MOECC; carefully avoids answering the actual questions asked, repeats unsubstantiated claims from the proponent, and bases their decisions on deficient and erroneous reports from the proponent.

1. August 22, 2017, to Minister of MOECC. Notes unaddressed public safety issues and proponent’s unapproved changes. Requests to meet with the Minister.
   • No response received.
    
2. September 1, 2017, to Minister of MOECC. Requests to meet with the Minister.
   • No response received.
    
3. September 18, 2017,  to Premier Wynne. Requests the proponent’s safety plan be disclosed to the public before any further approvals are issued to the proponent.
   • No response received.
    
4. September 28, 2017, to Premier Wynne. Proponent has not addressed public safety, requests no further approvals be issued.
   • No response received.
    
5. October 10, 2017, to Minister of MOECC. Recent decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal has confirmed that the MOECC does have responsibility for public safety, and that MOECC needs to see external expertise in situations, such as for the proposed Bala project. Requests to meet.
   • No response received.
    
6. November 12, 2017, to MOECC. Concerns include that proponent’s water treatment does not conform to approval, and does not allow discharged water to be sampled for testing.
   • November 15, 2017 response does not address these concerns.
    
7. November 23, 2017, to MOECC. Proponent’s water treatment system does not conform to Environmental Compliance Approval, has inadequate capacity, has caused an unauthorized spill, proponent did not report this spill, previous use of this land results in Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) being expected but the proponent’s Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was deficient so PCBs could be present and directly released to the Moon River. 
   • December 1, 2017 response received claims non-compliant water treatment system has been informally accepted by the MOECC (this makes no sense since this non-complaint system was clearly inadequate as it caused an unauthorized spill. Response claims if PCBs are released the proponent will clean it up (this makes no sense as PCBs released to the Moon River could not be cleaned up).
    
8. December 5, 2017, to MOECC. Proponent’s water treatment system does not provide access to discharged water for testing, and the water treatment system has inadequate capacity as proven by the unauthorized spill that occurred.
   • MOECC’s response just repeats the nonsense answer provided by the proponent (therefore, these issues remain unaddressed).
    
9. December 6, 2017, to Minister of MOECC responding to the MOECC’s December 1, 2017 letter above. The MOECC did not follow proper procedure in informally accepting the proponent’s non-compliant water treatment system, which subsequently caused an unauthorized spill of untreated water which was not contained on-site. The proponent should have, but did not report this. Such erroneous and informal acceptance of a water treatment system does not comply with the MOECC’s Statement of Environmental Values. The proponent’s Environmental Site Assessment was deficient and non-compliant, and therefore the proponent risks releasing PCBs to the Moon River. 
   • February 22, 2018 claims the water treatment system is acceptable (even though it has been shown to be inadequate). Claims the water sampling is acceptable, even though this is not of the actual discharge water. Accepts proponent’s ESA even though I have shown how and why it is deficient. Claims PCBs could be cleaned up even though this would be impossible, and does not even require testing for them.
    
10. December 11, 2017, to MOECC. In addition to concerns about insecticides in the used overseas shipping contains, putting these directly into the Moon River was never disclosed to the public and the proponent never received approval for this from the MOECC. Risks include introducing contaminants and invasive species directly to the Moon River. This is an environmentally-significant change, and the proponent should be required to follow the proper process for such a change.
    • December 21, 2017 states the MOECC has no interest in these used shipping containers (which is ridiculous since they create risks to the environment). Does not provide any detail of how a sample was taken due to the toxicity concern. Assumes age of used shipping containers would preclude any possibility of environmental damage.
     
11. January 9, 2018, to MOECC. Details new evidence which was not considered by the MOECC in their December 22, 2017 Decision as part of the October 25, 2017 Review requested of the ECA.  This includes that the MOECC has not acknowledged that the proponent’s testing for Polychlorinated Biphynels (PCBs) was deficient.
    • January 16, 2018 Interim response received stated a follow-up would be sent “in the near future”, but nothing has been received despite a reminder e-mail sent February 20, 2018.
    • April 12, 2018 Response received April 16, 2018 does not respond to the fact that the proponent’s exploratory boreholes were upstream of the likely source of PCB contamination, so the proponent’s Environmental Site Assessment is deficient. Perhaps the most ridiculous statement in the MOECC’s letter is that the proponent’s silt fence would protect the environment, apparently even from the release of PCBs. The MOECC’s response also accepts the proponent’s sewage treatment system even though it does not include the components required by the MOECC’s Environmental Compliance Approval and does not provide any evidence that the proponent’s system is adequately treating the water even though the proponent’s system does not permit drawing water samples from the actual discharged water.
     
12. January 23, 2018, to MOECC. Notes that if someone tipped out a a canoe at the upstream boat rental, they would be drowned just 45 seconds later. Asks why the MOECC isn’t fulfilling its responsibility for human life by requiring the proponent to show the public how, or if, they could operate their proposed project safely.
    • No response received, despite reminder e-mails sent to the MOECC on February 20, 2018 and March 13, 2018.
    • Note that the Ontario government service standard is that e-mails will be answered within 15 business days.
     
13. March 6, 2018, to MOECC. Notes that for their environmental approval the proponent stated they would close Muskoka Road 169 only two times, both overnight. But that the proponent now states they would close Muskoka Road 169 approximately 100 times, all during daylight hours. Asks what authority the proponent therefore has to request the OPP to enforce these road closures.
    • March 22, 2018, the MOECC allows the proponent to cause environmental harm which the proponent did not disclose, or describe any mitigation, for their environmental approval.
    1. Even worse, the MOECC justifies this by claiming the proponent made statements in their Environmental Screening/Review report which the proponent never made. For example, the MOECC claims the proponent stated: “periodic traffic disruption on MR-169 will still be required”. The dictionary definition of “periodic” is: “happening or recurring at regular intervals”, whereas the ES/R only refers to “activities that require temporary disruption to traffic flow on Muskoka Road 169 including the delivery of large equipment to the site” and that “municipal and local emergency services, Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), ambulance, etc will be notified well in advance of the planned road closures. This will allow emergency services to plan emergency response contingencies and travel routes”. Clearly emergency services are not making any contingency plans for these closures.
    2. The proponent’s ES/R stated that as: “There are no feasible detours … It is therefore imperative to ensure that any road closures be kept to a minimum and occur at times of least impact to the surrounding community.”, so in their ES/R the proponent stated the two road closures would be overnight. They subsequently added for their Addendum that due to their change from their abandoned Alternative 2D design to their current Alternative 1A design for their current design: “Therefore, the lane and road closures anticipated for Alternative 2D will not be required for Alternative 1A.”
    3. Yet without environmental approval or explanation of how the negative impacts would be mitigated, the proponent announced there would be over 100 road closures, and these would be from 9:00 am to 9:30 am and 6:00 pm to 6:30 pm.
    4. Even worse, the proponent is now blasting outside of those times, without any notification to the public. Such complete greediness and selfishness shows complete disregard and disrespect for the community. That the MOECC refuses to enforce the commitments the proponent made for their environmental approval shows the farce of the environmental assessment process and will encourage others to ignore the MOECC, who apparently have no logic or consistency in what they do.
    5. The MOECC’s response also claims that if an emergency vehicle needs to pass that blasting operations could be suspended at any time. This is impossible, as there will always be unknown delays; to notify the Blaster, and for required post-blast inspections and clearing of debris.
        
14. March 14, 2018, to MOECC. Notes proponent’s Archaeological Assessment for their 2009 Environmental Screening/Review report was deficient as the investigations did not look in the right places to locate remnants of the Bala #2 Generating Station or other industrial heritage resources or artifacts. Also notes that upon finding such materials, work is to be stopped and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport be notified. As these materials could be contaminated with PCBs, testing should be performed before these materials are moved.
    • No response received.
     
15. March 20, 2018, to MOECC. Notes that the proponent is directly dumping blasted rock into the Moon River, without a silt fence. This would destroy fish habitat, and would introduce both fine particulate matter and chemical residues from the blasting directly into the Moon River – all of which are not permitted by the proponent’s 2013 environmental approval.
    • April 25, 2018 Bizarrely, rather than taking responsibility for the environment and for ensuring that the proponent complies with the statements made for their environmental approval, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change replies that the MNRF can allow destruction of the environment by allowing non-compliant dumping of fine particulate matter into the Moon River.
     
16. March 28, 2018, to MOECC. Notes that the proponent is not allowed to do in-water work between at least April 1 and May 31, including installing a cofferdam or dumping rock into the Moon River, asking whether this will be enforced.
    • No response received.

It is of great concern that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is not fulfilling its mandate of protecting the environment, protecting human life, and for the past months is not even responding to these serious concerns.

The biggest concern is that the MOECC seems to consider this a game where all they have to do is to come up with some jumble of english words to respond to the environmental problems brought to their attention. The problem is these concerns include public safety and risks to human life, which are part of the MOECC’s responsibility, and avoiding responsibility to protect human life is not a game.