Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank

Comment Search Mobile

Comment Search

Passer aux filtres

2616 résultats

Attachment Stoney Nakoda Nations to IAAC - PCP Comments on Project Change

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Stoney Nakoda Nations
  • Numéro de référence : 1411
  • Présenté : 2024-12-13 18 h 23
  • Mis à jour : 2025-02-04 16 h 18
  • Raison : Commentaire mis à jour pour cause administrative
  • Phase du projet : Postdécision
  • Avis de participation : Avis public - Période de consultation publique sur les modifications proposées à la déclaration de décision
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe  
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • Stoney Nakoda Nations – Comments on the Proposed Changes to the Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project Page | 1 December 13, 2024 Submitted via Email Veronica Mossop Analyst, Decision Statements Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H3 Veronica.Mossop@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Dear Ms. Mossop, RE: Stoney Nakoda Nations – Review of Proposed Changes to the Springbank Off- Stream Reservoir Project This letter is submitted to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) by the Stoney Consultation Office. The Stoney Consultation Office works with Stoney Tribal Administration which represents the Stoney Nakoda Nations (“Stoney”), comprising the Bearspaw First Nation, Goodstoney First Nation, and Chiniki First Nation. The Chiefs and Councils of these three Nations have the authority to protect the collective rights and interests of their members as recognized by Treaty No. 7 and the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, 1930, and ...

Signaler

Attachment Siksika Nation to IAAC - PCP Comments on Project Change

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Siksika Nation
  • Numéro de référence : 1412
  • Présenté : 2024-12-13 16 h 38
  • Mis à jour : 2025-02-04 16 h 17
  • Raison : Commentaire mis à jour pour cause administrative
  • Phase du projet : Postdécision
  • Avis de participation : Avis public - Période de consultation publique sur les modifications proposées à la déclaration de décision
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe  
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • December 13, 2024 Via email (Veronica.Mossop@iaac-aeic.gc.ca) Attn: Veronica Mossop Analyst, Decision Statements Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Dear Ms. Mossop, Re: Siksika’s response to IAAC’s draft Analysis Report: Analysis of TEC's Proposed Change to the Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project I write as Consultation Coordinator for the Siksika Nation (“Siksika”) regarding the Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project (the “Project”). I write to respond to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s (“IAAC”) draft Analysis Report titled Analysis of TEC's Proposed Change to the Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project. Background A main feature of the Project is that the proposed reservoir will be dry for long periods of time and has the potential to provide consistent, protected, and prioritized access to Siksika and other Indigenous groups to carry out traditional activities such as hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Project was approved by the IAAC in 2021 ...

Signaler

Attachment NRCB Hearing Outcomes & SCA Comments: SR1 Project

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Springbank Community Association
  • Numéro de référence : 1376
  • Présenté : 2021-04-29
  • Phase du projet : S.O.
  • Avis de participation : S.O.
  • Please see the attached submission
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Delivered by email to iaac.springbank.aeic@canada.ca Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) Attention: Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) April 26, 2021 Re: Biodiversity and Fish Summary of Findings: • Offsetting plans and costs for wetlands and fish offsets are missing from the Proponent’s submissions. • Fish impacts are negative and rescue operations, as discussed by the Proponent at the NRCB hearing are costly and unrealistic. • SR1 contravenes the SSRP’s statements on intact native grasslands. • Wetland Policy • Desktop analysis for Elk mapping is inconsistent with observed elk in the area. • SR1 is at odds with Alberta Wetland Policy. • Cumulative impacts have not been adequately considered and the regional assessment area is not consistent with the Terms of Reference. Offsetting Plans: The Stoney Nakoda raised omissions in the offsetting plans for fish, which they have apparently been told will include offsetting ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Delivered by email to iaac.springbank.aeic@canada.ca Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) Attention: Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) April 26, 2021 Re: SR1 Benefits, Costs and the Impact of the Bow River Reservoir Summary of Findings: SR1 flood-only design is dependent on new drought management capabilities on the Bow River. SR1 benefits are lower than MC1 benefits. SR1 capital costs continue to increase while operating costs are not disclosed. SR1 operating costs estimates are insufficient. SR1 benefit/cost ratio does not appear to include the worst case for operating costs in a design flood, but assumes worst case scenario is avoided in the “benefits” calculations. Drought on the Bow and Flood Mitigation on the Elbow Beginning on page 102 of Ex 349, Mr Rae asks a series of questions about drought and the scope of the SR1 analysis. This is a crucial line of questioning that we hope regulators are taking seriously. In Ex 325, ...

Signaler

Attachment Required NRCB Hearing Outcomes & SCA Comments: SR1 Project

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Springbank Community Association
  • Numéro de référence : 1364
  • Présenté : 2021-04-28
  • Phase du projet : S.O.
  • Avis de participation : S.O.
  • Hello Ms Howe,   The Springbank Community Association submits the attached comments to IAAC following the SR1 NRCB hearing.   We may have additional comments as we are still working through a review of the hearing transcripts.      Regards,     -- Karin Hunter President   https://springbankcommunity.com/  https://www.facebook.com/springbankcommunityassociation
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Delivered by email to iaac.springbank.aeic@canada.ca Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) Attention: Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) April 26, 2021 Re: Sediment & Air Quality Summary of Findings: The Proponent released new information on sediment and air quality on March 12, 2021. This new information has drastic implications for the Project and that impact the conclusions reached by IAAC on human health and on the environmental impact of the Project. Sedimentation is a serious environmental and health outcome that affects IAAC’s report and conditions. Sediment: In our view, sediment is the most problematic operational and environmental outcome of SR1. New sediment maps released by the Proponent in Exhibit 327 pdf page 190 show that sediments over 10cm in depth have increased 3x since the EIA in 2018, from 260 acres to 790 (early release) and 832 acres (late release) for a design flood! This change, dated March 12, is so material ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Delivered by email to iaac.springbank.aeic@canada.ca Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) Attention: Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) April 26, 2021 Re: SR1 Flood Effectiveness Summary of Findings: The MC1 project is superior to SR1 for flood mitigation for all communities and at flood events far larger than the 2013 event. This is demonstrated through a comparison of flow rates. This information was available in March 2016, at the latest, and was reaffirmed in 2017 reports for MC1. Why weren’t SR1 and MC1 compared using flow rates? Why was the basis of the comparison between the two projects total storage volume? Were flow rates accidentally overlooked or was this comparison intentionally avoided? Storage Volumes vs River Flow Rates: An unacceptable oversight At the NRCB hearing for SR1, Alberta Transportation (AT) stated clearly that floods are caused by flow rates, not volumes. NRCB Exhibit 350 Transcript page 156: Matt ...

Signaler

Attachment SR1 and NRCB Hearing

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Lee Drewry
  • Numéro de référence : 1363
  • Présenté : 2021-04-22
  • Phase du projet : S.O.
  • Avis de participation : S.O.
  • It is my understanding that, although a Joint Review Panel was not agreed to by the IAAC, the IAAC would be monitoring and considering the information raised during the NRCB Hearing on the SR1 Project in its final determination of the approval or rejection of this project.   The attached document outlines some of the many concerns raised at the recent NRCB Hearing regarding the SR1 project.  The evidence provided during the NRCB Hearing differs in many significant ways from the overly positive views outlined in the Proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the IAAC in 2018.  It is my belief that this information should cause the IAAC to revisit its Draft Environmental Assessment Report.  The environmental consequences of the SR1 project are much worse than was reported in 2018.  Further, the consultation record provided by the Proponent, with regard to both First Nations and the Public, seems to ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • Springbank Reservoir (SR1) - Summary of Relevant Information from NRCB Hearing The following is a summary of some of the information provided at the NRCB Hearing into the SR1 project that is relevant to the decision made by IAAC regarding the environmental impacts of the project. Project Benefits It is clear from the evidence presented at the Hearing that the benefits provided to Albertans from the SR1 project are uneven. The project provides 1 in 200 year flood protection to residents downstream from the Glenmore Reservoir in Calgary and significantly less than that to residents upstream of the Glenmore Reservoir in Calgary and residents in Rocky View County downstream from SR1. Residents in the towns of Redwood Meadows (on the Tsuut’ina Nation) and Bragg Creek also receive less than 1 in 200 year flood protection from berms to be built in those towns. Interestingly, in a 2015 presentation to the Calgary River Communities Action Group, the Proponent ...

Signaler

Attachment Letter of Non-Objection from Blood Tribe/Kainai

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Blood Tribe/Kainai First Nation
  • Numéro de référence : 1357
  • Présenté : 2021-03-23
  • Phase du projet : S.O.
  • Avis de participation : S.O.
  • Hello,   Please see Letter of Non-Objection from Chief Roy Fox with regard to the Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project.   Thank you, Blair   Blair Feltmate (he/his/him) Associate JFK Law Corporation 340 – 1122 Mainland Street Vancouver  BC V6B 5L1
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • KAINAIWA Chief and Counci l Box 60 Standoff, Alberta T0L 1Y0 SCHEDULE "D" Non-Objection to the Federal Regulators March 15, 2021 Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1028 Parsons Rd SW Edmonton AB T6E 0J4 VIA EMAIL: kyle.antonchuk@dfo-mpo.gc.ca / neil.fisher@dfo-mpo.gc.ca Attention: Kyle Antonchuk and Neil Fisher Impact Assessment Agency Prairie and Northern Region #1145, 9700 Jasper Avenue, Canada Place Edmonton, AB T5J 4C3 VIA EMAIL: jennifer.howe@canada.ca / barbara.pullishy@canada.ca Attention: Jennifer Howe and Barb Pullishy Dear Madams and Sirs: Re: Proponent: Alberta Transportation Project: Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project ("Project") The BLOOD TRIBE/KAINAI FIRST NATION hereby withdraws all of its objections in relation to the Project proceeding forward in the regulatory process. Further, BLOOD TRIBE/KAINAI FIRST NATION will not participate any further in the current or future regulatory review processes in relation to the Project. Should you ...

Signaler

Attachment Serious risks with the SR1 project have not been addressed before the hearing

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Flood & Water Management Council (FWMC)
  • Numéro de référence : 1355
  • Présenté : 2021-03-13
  • Phase du projet : S.O.
  • Avis de participation : S.O.
  • Dear Laura, Jennifer, and respectable members of the hearing panel, In our submission of Thursday, February 25, 2021, we presented three main concerns and questions have to do with the Springbank dry reservoir (SR1); dam safety, water quality and Environment protection. We urged the NRCB not to ignore any of these serious and high risk issues. A reply from the proponent posted on the NRCB’s site did not address these three issues, providing unsatisfactory reply on one of the issues stating in P. 72, “AT notes that SR1’s capacity accommodates a design flood based on the largest flood on record for the Elbow River, which is the 2013 flood…”. This statement blatantly contradicts a previous acknowledgment of the fact that records show there have been two floods in Alberta 30% larger than the 2013. The attachment includes the three main issues of concern: 1-      ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Table of Contents 1.1 Serious Issues with the Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project ...........................3 1.1.1 Back-to-back floods/a semi-filled reservoir ......................................................3 1.2 More alarming issues with Springbank Off-Stream Storage Project .........................4 1.3 December 18, 2020 report DID NOT address the main safety concerns ..................6 1.4 History of failing projects and financial blunders in our province ............................8 1.5 TsuuT’ina Nation Clean Water Immediate Challenges .............................................8 1.6 STUDYING THE ALTERNATIVES, AND THE NEED FOR AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH ..........................................................................................................11 1.6.1 Critical relevant facts .......................................................................................12 1.7 blatant conflict of interest ...

Signaler

Attachment Langlois (JFK) to Howe (IAAC) Comments on Draft EA Report and Potential Conditions

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Ermineskin Cree Nation
  • Numéro de référence : 1353
  • Présenté : 2021-03-04
  • Phase du projet : S.O.
  • Avis de participation : S.O.
  • Good Afternoon Jennifer,   Our firm is legal counsel to Ermineskin Cree Nation in relation to the Springbank Offstream Reservoir Project.  Please find attached the following documents:   1.       Comments on Draft EA Report and Potential Conditions (attached); and 2.       Enclosures (found at this link (https://jfklawcorp-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/jwasyluk_jfklaw_ca/ESlIc_xE7VVDg3nD0UhwuToBtXCiMNsZMyM5H_wHHdMgUw?e=nKFxYX)).   Will you please confirm receipt of this email?   Kind regards,   Jackie Wasyluk to Blair Feltmate (she/her/hers) Legal Assistant   JFK ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • March 4, 2021 Delivered by Email: (IAAC. Springbank.AEIC@canada.ca; jennifer.howe@canada.ca) Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Prairie and Northern Region #1145, 9700 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, AB T5J 4C3 340-1122 Mainland Street Vancouver BC V6B 5L1 T 604 687 0549 F 604 687 2696 www.jfklaw.ca Jeff Langlois he/him/his Principal Direct Line: C E File No. 1184-009 Attention: Jennifer Howe, Project Manager, Prairie and Northern Region Re: Comments on draft EA Report and potential conditions Our firm is legal counsel to Ermineskin Cree Nation (“Ermineskin”) for the proposed Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project (the “Project”). We write to provide comments on the draft Environmental Assessment Report (the “draft EA Report”) and potential conditions published by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the “Agency”) on January 4, 2021. Ermineskin appreciates the Agency extending the timeline to provide these comments. Prior to ...

Signaler

Attachment Langlois (JFK) to Howe (IAAC) - Blood Tribe Kainai - Comments on draft EA Report and Potential Conditions

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Blood Tribe/Kainai
  • Numéro de référence : 1354
  • Présenté : 2021-03-04
  • Phase du projet : S.O.
  • Avis de participation : S.O.
  • Good Afternoon Jennifer,   Our firm is legal counsel to Blood Tribe/Kainai in relation to the Springbank Offstream Reservoir Project.  Please find attached the following documents:   1.       Comments on draft EA Report and Potential Conditions (attached); and 2.       Enclosures found at this link:  TLU - Traditional Knowledge_ Land_ and Resource use Study - By Dermot O Connor - June 2018(107639.1) (https://jfklawcorp-my.sharepoint.com:443/:b:/g/personal/jwasyluk_jfklaw_ca/EfNafp54yQdMnrY09yV1vFIBu6fEkznAt2U42UBxWDm4mg?e=4:C51TIv&at=9)   Will you please confirm receipt of this email?   Kind regards, Jackie Wasyluk Legal Assistant to Blair ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • March 4, 2021 Delivered by Email: (IAAC. Springbank.AEIC@canada.ca; jennifer.howe@canada.ca) Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Prairie and Northern Region #1145, 9700 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, AB T5J 4C3 340-1122 Mainland Street Vancouver BC V6B 5L1 T 604 687 0549 F 604 687 2696 www.jfklaw.ca Jeff Langlois he/him/his Principal Direct Line: C E File No. 1184-009 Attention: Jennifer Howe, Project Manager, Prairie and Northern Region Re: Comments on draft EA Report and potential conditions Our firm is legal counsel to Blood Tribe/Kainai (“Kainai”) for the proposed Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project (the “Project”). We write to provide comments on the draft Environmental Assessment Report (the “draft EA Report”) and potential conditions published by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the “Agency”) on January 4, 2021. Kainai appreciates the Agency extending the timeline to provide these comments. Prior to engaging ...

Signaler

Attachment SR1 Comments on CEAA Report and Conditions

  • Projet de réservoir hors cours d'eau de Springbank
  • Auteur : Administrateur de la part de Springbank Community Association
  • Numéro de référence : 1350
  • Présenté : 2021-02-18
  • Phase du projet : S.O.
  • Avis de participation : S.O.
  • Please see the attached submission.
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) National Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) Delivered by email Attention: Laura Friend (NRCB) Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) February 13, 2021 Re: Air and Human Health (CEAA Sections 6 and 7) Our comments address CEAA’s draft conditions of January 4, 2021 along with Package 4-Technical Review Round 2, March 23, 2020 and July 2020, and the Proponent’s land-use plan from October 2020 (Question 4-05) among other items from the Proponent’s prior submissions. We have not had the opportunity to adequately review the most recent December 18, 2020 Project Design given the holidays and requirement to comment on CEAA draft conditions by February 3, 2021. We remind regulators that we are community volunteers who spend inordinate amounts of time keeping up to date with submissions. We also express dismay that the NRCB Pre-hearing took place before the latest design was released. We did not have any ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) National Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) Delivered by email Attention: Laura Friend (NRCB) Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) February 17, 2021 Re: SR1 Risk Comments Our comments address CEAA’s draft conditions of January 4, 2021 along with Package 4-Technical Review Round 2, March 23, 2020 and July 2020, and the Proponent’s land-use plan from October 2020 (Question 4-05) among other items from the Proponent’s prior submissions. We have not had the opportunity to adequately review the most recent December 18, 2020 Project Design given the holidays and requirement to comment on CEAA draft conditions by February 3, 2021. We remind regulators that we are community volunteers who spend inordinate amounts of time keeping up to date with submissions. We also express dismay that the NRCB Pre-hearing took place before the latest design was released. We did not have any indication that this updated ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) National Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) Delivered by email Attention: Laura Friend (NRCB) Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) February 14, 2021 Re: SR1 Project General Comments Our comments address CEAA’s draft conditions of January 4, 2021 along with Package 4-Technical Review Round 2, March 23, 2020 and July 2020, and the Proponent’s land-use plan from October 2020 (Question 4-05) among other items from the Proponent’s prior submissions. We have not had the opportunity to adequately review the most recent December 18, 2020 Project Design given the holidays and requirement to comment on CEAA draft conditions by February 3, 2021. We remind regulators that we are community volunteers who spend inordinate amounts of time keeping up to date with submissions. We also express dismay that the NRCB Pre-hearing took place before the latest design was released. We did not have any indication that ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) National Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) Delivered by email Attention: Laura Friend (NRCB) Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) Re: SR1 Land Use (CEAA Sections 6 & 9) Our comments address CEAA’s draft conditions of January 4, 2021 along with Package 4-Technical Review Round 2, March 23, 2020 and July 2020, and the Proponent’s land-use plan from October 2020 (Question 4-05) among other items from the Proponent’s prior submissions. We have not had the opportunity to adequately review the most recent December 18, 2020 Project Design given the holidays and requirement to comment on CEAA draft conditions by February 3, 2021. We remind regulators that we are community volunteers who spend inordinate amounts of time keeping up to date with submissions. We also express dismay that the NRCB Pre-hearing took place before the latest design was released. We did not have any indication that this ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) National Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) Delivered by email Attention: Laura Friend (NRCB) Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) February 15, 2021 Re: SR1 Project and Migratory Birds (CEAA Conditions Section 4) Our comments address CEAA’s draft conditions of January 4, 2021 along with Package 4-Technical Review Round 2, March 23, 2020 and July 2020, and the Proponent’s land-use plan from October 2020 (Question 4-05) among other items from the Proponent’s prior submissions. We have not had the opportunity to adequately review the most recent December 18, 2020 Project Design given the holidays and requirement to comment on CEAA draft conditions by February 3, 2021. We remind regulators that we are community volunteers who spend inordinate amounts of time keeping up to date with submissions. We also express dismay that the NRCB Pre-hearing took place before the latest design was released. We ...
  • Inclus pièce jointe
  • 1 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC/CEAA) National Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) Delivered by email Attention: Laura Friend (NRCB) Jennifer Howe (IAAC / CEAA) February 14, 2021 Re: SR1 Project and Wildlife / Biodiversity (CEAA Conditions Section 5) Our comments address CEAA’s draft conditions of January 4, 2021 along with Package 4-Technical Review Round 2, March 23, 2020 and July 2020, and the Proponent’s land-use plan from October 2020 (Question 4-05) among other items from the Proponent’s prior submissions. We have not had the opportunity to adequately review the most recent December 18, 2020 Project Design given the holidays and requirement to comment on CEAA draft conditions by February 3, 2021. We remind regulators that we are community volunteers who spend inordinate amounts of time keeping up to date with submissions. We also express dismay that the NRCB Pre-hearing took place before the latest design was ...

Signaler
Date de modification :