Last week the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) posted an update on its website providing a summary of issues raised related to the proposed hydro-electric pumped storage facility that TC Energy hopes to build on our local military base.
More than 400 comments were received by the agency during the 30-day public commenting period which ended on April 6.
The publication of the summary of issues leads to the next step in the process, as TC Energy will now have to provide a response to IAAC.
“The proponent’s response to the Summary of Issues will support decision-making by IAAC on whether an impact assessment is required under section 16 of the Impact Assessment Act. If an impact assessment is required, the key issues outlined below and the proponent’s response will inform the scope of the impact assessment, and the development of the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and plans, as appropriate,” IAAC noted in their introduction to the lengthy list of issues identified.
As you would imagine, IAAC’s summary of issues mirrors the many concerns that residents in this community have been raising at public meetings and letters to the editor for the past half dozen years.
As noted on their website, the summary of issues outline the key issues that IAAC considers relevant for the federal impact assessment process, and so some folks who oppose the proposed project have expressed frustration that some issues important to them aren’t included in the published summary of issues.
“The Summary of Issues outlines the key issues that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) considers relevant for the federal impact assessment process for the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project (the project), as proposed by TC Energy (the Proponent),” IAAC noted on their website. “IAAC was informed by input from federal and provincial authorities, Indigenous groups, and the public received to date on the proponent’s Summary of the Initial Project Description. The proponent is encouraged to review all submissions on the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry Internet site for the project (Reference Number 89803). The proponent is required to submit a response that describes how it intends to address the key issues identified below as part of the development of its project. A high-level description is sufficient. Where relevant, the proponent is encouraged to identify if the key issues will be addressed through existing legislative and regulatory frameworks (i.e. legislation or regulation), by proponent commitments to best practices, policies or standards, or both.”
The IAAC summary of issues includes concerns about fish and fish habitat, environmental changes that could result from the construction of the project, Indigenous Peoples Rights, as well as community well-being. The list of key issues also notes the importance of considering other energy storage alternatives.
IAAC identifies eight federal and provincial agencies that will need to be consulted in order to ensure compliance including Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, the Department of National Defence, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Climate Change and Parks, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
With the long list of identified concerns and the many government agencies to be consulted, TC Energy will be busy in the coming months preparing responses to the summary of issues, including how they plan to avoid or mitigate risks to the environment and the community. It is after these responses are provided that IAAC will determine whether a full-blown, multi-year impact assessment will be required.
So there is a long road ahead of us, and some patience will be required as we await those responses from TC Energy.
This community should feel a sense of pride at this stage of the process, as many, opponents and supporters alike, have been engaged from the outset, when this proposal was first made public more than six years ago. This is a small municipality of just a little more than 12,000 residents who have been facing a mega-project proposal, a multi-billion dollar project proposed by a multi-billion dollar corporation that would forever change this community.
If proven that the project could be undertaken safely, and if it is ultimately permitted to continue, it could be a huge financial boon for this municipality, though many fear that no amount of mitigation measures could avoid eventual disaster.
Over the past half dozen years I have heard and read the many concerns Meaford residents have about this project, but I have also heard from many who support the proposal. I have received and published hundreds of letters to the editor on the subject. In fact, over the past five years I have received more letters to the editor about the pumped storage proposal than about any other topic, so it is clearly seen by many to be the most pressing issue facing this community. It certainly is, as it could re-shape this community forever, but whether that re-shaping would be positive or negative is an entire debate in itself, and one that will continue to be debated in the months to come.
So, this singular issue has been the subject of significant conversation and debate in this community for several years, and it will continue to be until a final decision is made regarding whether it can proceed, and that decision, whatever it might be, will no doubt bring about a whole new round of discussion and debate.
I would suggest that residents of this community take a few minutes to review the full summary of issues that has been published by IAAC as I obviously don’t have enough space in this column to include the full summary. From concern about changes to groundwater flow levels, to worries that the reservoir could fail, to the pressures this community could face with an influx of hundreds of workers and heavy equipment, you will likely find your top concerns included in the summary of issues.
You can find the Summary of Issues by visiting the following link:
https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/166125?culture=en-CA
