Notice of approval

Proponent: Ontario Hydro
Environmental assessment file number: OH-GE-02

Take notice that the period for making submissions and requiring a hearing with respect to approval of the above-noted undertaking, as provided for in the Notice of Acceptance of the Environmental Assessment for the undertaking, expired on October 4, 1994. I received submissions from 22 groups and individuals during that period. Of these groups and individuals, six had secured the right to require a hearing by having previously made a submission to me under subsection 7(2) of Environmental Assessment Act (the Act), during one or both of the Notice of Completion of Review periods for this undertaking (each of these six submitters had required hearing at the Notice of Completion stage).

The six submitters have now required a hearing with respect to the approval of the undertaking, under section 13 of the Act. They include: MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation; Moose Cree First Nation; New Post First Nation; Energy Probe Research Foundation; Independent Power Producers Society of Ontario; and Northwatch.

Having considered the purpose of the Act, the Environmental Assessment as accepted and the submissions received, I have determined that a hearing is unnecessary I hereby give approval to proceed with the undertaking, subject to the appended terms and conditions.

Reasons

My reasons for determining that a hearing is unnecessary are presented as responses to the main arguments advanced by those requiring a hearing, as follows:

  1. Failure of the proponent to consult adequately with Aboriginal people and to observe the spirit and intent of the Statement of Political Relationship – In Belleville on June 9, 1994, I initiated a negotiating process involving First Nations, Ontario and Federal Governments and the proponent, Ontario Hydro. Although the negotiating process was not without its difficult moments, the facilitator reported a consensus among the parties on most of the terms and conditions that should be included in any subsequent approval of this project. Those proposed terms and conditions were modified somewhat by further discussion with the parties, as a result of my consideration of the input of other stakeholders; and by editing and legal review. But the negotiated package remains the core of the attached terms and conditions. Especially noteworthy, in my opinion, are the provisions for the establishment of the Mattagami Extensions Coordinating Council, the Lower Moose River Basin Aboriginal Employment Strategy, and the requirement to negotiate community impact agreements prior to the commencement of construction.
  2. Changing circumstances limit the shelf life of approvals which should require that construction commence within five years of approval – A specific condition of approval has been developed to address this point.
  3. Project’s effects on the natural environment, including the effect of related transmission lines, impacts on land uses and values, river transportation and fish habitat – The negotiated terms and conditions address a wide spectrum of environmental impacts. Some specifically address water level fluctuations and the project’s operating regimen. Others address the maintenance of fish habitats, erosion and sedimentology and mercury. Still others will be addressed as part of the community impact agreements that the proponent is mandated to negotiate prior to commencement of construction.
  4. Lack of a cumulative impact assessment – A specific condition has been included to address this concern. The recent creation of the Environmental Information Partnership also addresses this concern.
  5. Ontario Hydro does not need the additional electric power capacity, and when it does, there will be cheaper ways to obtain it – Ontario Hydro asserts in the EA Amendment that the project repre sents an important and unique opportunity to secure an economic, renewable, reliable, flexible and environmentally sustainable energy resource beyond the year 2000. No evidence was presented by the reviewers or submitters to challenge this assertion.
  6. Purpose statement is unduly restrictive, alternatives considered are inadequate – It is not inconsistent with the principles of EA to define the purpose of an undertaking in terms of taking advantage of a unique opportunity to maximize the efficient use of available water resources. In defining the purpose in a site specific fashion, it necessarily follows that the scope for consideration of alternatives to the undertaking will be restricted.
  7. The EA failed to include an integrated resource plan review of transmission impacts and alternative configurations – Desirable as this might have been, the transmission component of this undertaking is very minor, consisting mostly of a new 230 kV transmission line from Smoky Falls GS seven km to the Little Long GS switchyard. Of greater relevance to Ontario Hydro’s transmission capacities in the region is my conditional approval in October 1994 of the undertaking described in the environmental assessment entitled Transmission Reinforcement in Northeastern Ontario. In that approval, I required Ontario Hydro to submit a report on the need for and alternatives to subsequent phases of the undertaking. In preparing that report, I required Ontario Hydro to consult with stakeholders. Such stakeholders, in my opinion, could include those making the above argument for a public hearing with respect to the approval of the Mattagami undertaking.

My reasons for granting this approval are that having taken account of the environmental assessment, the review, and all of the submissions from First Nations and the public, I am of the opinion that approval to proceed with the undertaking, subject to the extensive list of terms and conditions attached, is consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act (section 2).

Dated the 15th day of December 1994 at Toronto

Original signed by:
Minister of the Environment and Energy
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 12th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5