Save the Bala Falls

Quick summary
While the proponent has started some pre-construction work for their proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, they do not have all the approvals they need for construction. As the proponent has still not addressed the serious public safety concerns, now is (again) the time for everyone to send an e-mail to the Premier, details below.
 

It is (again) time to send an e-mail to the Premier
The proponent and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) have never built, operated, or approved a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of a very popular in-water recreational area, yet they both refuse to disclose whatever Safety Plan they may have for the unprecedented danger that would be created.

As noted in our article here, this is completely ridiculous and unacceptable, so now is the time for everyone to send an e-mail to the Premier:

• Send your e-mail to: KWynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org
• Copy: norm.miller@pc.ola.org and info@savethebalafalls.com
• Subject: Bala, Safety Plan before any construction
• Send the e-mail before: Tuesday September 19, 2017.
• Ask that: A Safety Plan prepared by a qualified person be presented to the public as part of an Addendum as is required by the environmental assessment process before any further approvals are issued. Also, ask for a reply to your e-mail.
   

Our new video
We had a fantastic turn-out for the September 1, 2017 show of opposition to the proposed project. Thank you to all who came out. Our new video with a message to Premier Wynne is here.

A longer video showing the area's scenery is here, and a previous video is here.
 

The current situation
The proponent has started pre-construction work, and are apparently first working to install their proposed upstream cofferdam, which would be a large steel structure located between the highway bridge and the Bala north dam.

This proposed cofferdam is shown in this page from a presentation by the the District Municipality of Muskoka's Commissioner of Engineering and Public Works last month. The purpose of the proposed cofferdam is to keep the water away from the proposed intake, for which they would need to excavate more than 20' below the riverbed of the Bala north channel.

While the proponent apparently has approval from the MNRF for this in-water work:

• They do not yet have approval from the MOECC for the settling tanks that would be needed to test and treat this water before they could pump it into the Moon River. So it would appear they will soon need to stop construction until they receive this approval. This is why now is the time to e-mail the Premier.
• They have not addressed a risk that the operation of their proposed generating station could damage the District's highway bridge. We await a response from the District about this.
   

Our interview on CFRB 1010
Last week we had an opportunity to be interviewed on Toronto radio station CFRB 1010. The audio is posted in our article here.
 

Proponent's “Construction Meeting”
The proponent sent a tweet that they will be hosting a Construction Meeting Thursday September 21, 2017 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, at the Bala Community Center, 1008 Maple Avenue. The agenda is here.

We'll be there to try and get answers to the questions the community has.
 

Reporting suspected environmental damage
It is important for the public to be carefully watching for, and responsibly reporting, any suspected environmental damage due to the proposed construction. This would include spills such as gasoline, and anything that gets into the water such as silt or surface runoff which would be seen as a plume of discoloured water runnng downstream into the Moon River.

Such incidents should be reported to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s Spills Action Centre at 1 800 268-6060. Calls are answered 24 hours a day by a centre in Toronto, and a Reference Number will be provided. The actual investigation would be handled by the MOECC's Barrie District Office, who can later be called for updates if you have the Reference Number. Some additional information is here.

It would always be helpful to take photographs of such incidents.

If necessary to prevent the problem from continuing, the MOECC will order that work be stopped. The MOECC can also order the contractors to do or pay for any remediation required.
 

Reporting unsafe work practices
If you see anything that appears dangerous due to the proposed construction work, such as equipment or practices that could harm people, a report can be made to the Ministry of Labour's Health & Safety Contact Centre at 1 877 202-0008, their web page is here. This Ministry can also issue a stop work order until a dangerous situation is resolved.
 

Broad community opposition and concern
We know and appreciate that there are many community groups and individuals that strongly – and rightly – oppose many aspects of this proposed project.

We also know people have been independently picketing near the proposed construction for many days. While everyone can exercise their civil rights, we encourage all to be safe, not impede traffic, and respect all posted signs.

In January 2017 – which was over seven months ago – your office received hundreds of letters such as this one, asking for a reply to the public’s request that the public safety concerns be addressed before any further permits are issued for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls.

Most people that sent a letter never received a reply (and the public safety concerns remain unaddressed), but now your office is sending out this form letter, which makes the following unfulfilled claims:

1. That: “to make sure projects are developed safely and in a way that protects the environment and community health”, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s “process requires companies to assess any environmental impacts, describe mitigation measures and consult with members of the community”. Your letter is spreading fake news:
   • This has not happened. In fact, both the proponent and MNRF refuse to even disclose the draft Public Safety plan.
   • Therefore, the proponent has not described mitigation measures, and they did not consult members of the community.
      
2. That the: “MOECC worked closely with numerous agencies including …” and: “concluded that the Bala Falls project could operate safely and meet the provincial standards that are in place to protect health and the environment”. This makes no sense:
   • None of the listed agencies have experience with public safety for in-water recreation, so whatever they did was inadequate. This has already been proven as the proponent has:
     • Stated they would not warn before increasing flow to the Moon River. This would be dangerous and would not comply with the MNRF’s public safety guidelines.
     • Shown their proposed downstream safety boom would not encompass the water they would make dangerous, so would not comply with the Canadian Dam Association’s public safety guidelines.
   • There are no “provincial standards” for in-water recreational safety, just as there are no standards for how close wind turbines can be to an airport. Properly addressing the danger they would create requires expertise and examining the particular situation.
     • This is confirmed by the recent decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal which reversed the MOECC’s approval that had permitted eight 45-storey-tall wind turbines on the flight path for two airports near Collingwood, Ontario (it required six teams of lawyers and many experts to prove what everyone but the MOECC would say is just common sense).
   • The MOECC has not even seen the draft Safety Plan, so whatever the MOECC concluded was premature.

Ghost writer, the proponent and MNRF have never built or operated a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of a popular in-water recreational area, this would be unprecedented. Developing a Safety Plan for this requires in-water recreational safety expertise – which the MNRF and proponent do not have.

Public Safety is a serious life-and-death issue, and your vague letter only spreads false and unjustified information.

It is unacceptable that both the MNRF and proponent refuse to release the Safety Plan – what are they hiding. Think about it, a public safety plan that isn’t being disclosed to the public, there is something wrong here.

We request that before any further approvals are issued to the proponent, that a Safety Plan be properly developed by those with such expertise, and presented to the public as part of an Addendum as is required by the environmental assessment process.

The community is angry that Ontario’s Liberal government is allowing this dangerous proposed project to proceed.

• It would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of an extremely popular in-water recreational area. For generations, people have been swimming, wading, and canoeing here, and hydro-electric generating stations are too dangerous.
• Hydro-electric generating stations can be a great source of electrical power – if they are in the right location, away from people.
• But it would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station this close to private residences, and this close to private docks – so the required warning signs couldn’t even be installed.
• It would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station this close to public docks, where people have a right to expect the water to be safe as this is a navigable waterway.
• The proposed Bala hydro-electric generating station would be more than ten times bigger than the nearby Wilson’s Falls Generating Station which caused the 2008 drowning of a 16-year-old boy. Hydro-electric generating stations are deadly.

Recent legal decisions have confirmed that public safety is the responsibility of Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, and should be handled as part of the environmental assessment process. But the Bala proponent has made changes to their plans after they received their approval in 2013, and these new plans are dangerous and do not have approval. The MOECC should inform the proponent that while their 2013 environmental approval is still valid, if they wish to proceed with their new plans, they must submit an environmental assessment Addendum, which requires that the public and all stakeholders be informed of negative environmental impacts, the proposed mitigation of these, and allows the public to provide comment.

• The current process is out of control. For example, without approval, the proponent now plans to install a curved wall in the Bala north channel to direct water into the intake for their proposed generating station. When their proposed generating station would be stopped, this water could cause erosion of the bank supporting the highway bridge, which could collapse. This would be a disaster for the area as the detour is 50 km, yet the public has not been informed of these new plans, or how this risk would be handled.
• Another example is that during the proposed construction, the proponent must use large settling tanks to test and treat the contaminated water that would be pumped from their proposed excavation. The proponent now plans on locating these in the Moon River, perhaps on piles of excavated rock, or perhaps on some struture above the Moon River. As these tanks, and the pumps, hoses, and pipes to them can leak, the location of these tanks, and ability to detect leaks is environmentally significant. But these new plans to locate the proposed settling tanks in the Moon River were not disclosed for the proponent’s environmental assessment, have never been disclosed to the public, and therefore do not have environmental approval.
• As it would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of an in-water recreational area, the proponent should be required to present a plan showing how they propose to safely operate such a facility. So far, all we know is the proponent has stated they would not provide warning before increasing flow to the Moon River – which would not conform to the MNRF’s public safety guidelines. And the fast and dangerous water exiting the proposed generating station would extend hundreds of feet outside of their proposed downstream safety boom – which would not conform to the Canadian Dam Association’s public safety guidelines.

The Environmental Assessment Act requires that the MOECC’s decisions are for the: “the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.”

The MOECC’s Statement of Environmental Values; requires: “public engagement”, requires that: “in making decsions, the Ministry will use the best science available”, and notes that the Ministry: “believes that public consultation is vital to sound decision-making” and: “the Ministry will provide opportunities for an open and consultative process when making decisions that might significantly affect the environment.”

We look forward to the MOECC fulfilling its obligations for this proposed project.

The current status – in detail
We haven’t been able to provide detailed updates lately because we’ve been waiting for many responses, but we now have much information to share.

The quick summary is that while the proponent still does not have the approvals they need, the public needs to remind the government of their responsibility to protect the public and public infrastructure, and to comply with the Environmental Assessment Act, as follows:

• District Municipality of Muskoka. The proposed construction could damage both the District’s highway bridge and Muskoka Road 169 adjacent to it. As damage to this crucial infrastructure would require everyone take a 50 km detour, the District agreed to meet with us so we could describe the issues in detail. While the District initially told us they would conduct a transparent process in deciding whether to issue the approvals, they are now apparently planning on issuing the approvals without providing answers or even showing on what basis they would make this important decision.
  One of our concerns is that the District may not know that if there is a heavy rainstorm during the proposed construction, the MNRF will require the proponent to remove their upstream cofferdam on 24 hours notice, with the result that the full flow of the Bala north falls would be directed through the proposed construction site and this could destroy the highway bridge and collapse Muskoka Road 169. This is why we have requested to see the reports the District has apparently received on this issue, but so far they are ignoring our requests.
  The next meeting of the District’s Engineering and Public Works Committee is on Wednesday August 23, 2017, starting at 9:00 am in the Council Chambers at 70 Pine Street, Bracebridge, the Agenda is here. We will be delegating at this meeting, but have not yet been informed when our delegation will be, and when the Commissioner of Engineering and Public Works will present this report. We will send out an update when we know more.  
   
• Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. The proponent is making many environmentally-significant changes to their plans; without environmental assessment, and without even informing the public.
  For example, the proponent is required to utilize several large settling tanks to test and treat the contaminated water they would pump from their proposed excavation. But these could be tipped over by the force of the water if the upstream cofferdam had to be removed, dumping this untreated water and sediment directly into the Moon River.
  We continue to request the MOECC to require that the proponent’s new plans be subject to environmental assessment, but so far they only repeat the indefensible claim: “The ministry remains of the view that the modifications to the project to date are consistent with those that would normally be expected to occur during the detailed design stage of the project, and therefore do not affect previous MOECC EA approvals.”
   
• Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The proponent has apparently submitted a safety plan to the MNRF, but refuses to disclose this to the public. As the government Ministries do not have the in-house expertise to assess such a plan, there is precedent that they must obtain expert input on this issue which is literally about life and death.
  We have requested to meet with the MNRF on this issue, but they have refused.
  Our local MPP Norm Miller has recently been appointed Official Opposition Critic for the MNRF, so he is doubly the right person to strongly present this serious concern to the MNRF. We have met with MPP Miller and asked him to request that the MNRF meet with us, but so far MPP Miller has not responded to this.
   

A detailed article on this issue is posted here.
 

Welcome to the Honourable Chris Ballard, the new Minister of the Environment and Climate Change
The Honourable Chris Ballard, MPP for Newmarket–Aurora has recently been appointed as the new Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

We have posted an open letter to introduce Minister Ballard to the issue of the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, showing there are many serious environmental issues of concern to the MOECC.

Summary

District Municipality of Muskoka
Both the construction and operation of the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls could damage the District’s Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel and the road adjacent to it. The District initially stated they would conduct a transparent process to determine whether to issue the District approvals the proponent needs to begin their proposed construction, but District staff now intend to issue the approvals without answering questions about these risks or showing the information they have received on this issue.

Damage to this crucial public infrastructure would require a 50 km detour for emergency response vehicles, businesses, tourists and everyone else, so a transparent decision-making process is warranted.

We therefore request that the District release the information they have on the impacts to their infrastructure due to the proposed project. One concern is this information may not consider all of the risks, such as that the MNRF requires the proposed upstream cofferdam be removed within 24 hours notice to avoid flooding Lake Muskoka if there was a heavy rainstorm during the proposed construction. The full flow would go through the the proposed construction site, washing away everything along the way, and this could permanently destroy the District’s bridge and collapse the road.
 

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
It would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of a very popular in-water recreational area, and a station one-tenth the size caused the drowning of a 16-year-old boy in 2008 – so the danger is real. We have therefore requested that the proponent be required to provide a safety plan before any further approvals are issued. This is justified as MNRF documents state the MNRF has the authority to govern the design, operation, and safety of dams in Ontario.

Despite this, the MNRF has stated they do not have the authority to require, before any further approvals are issued, the proponent show the proposed generating station could be operated safely.

We understand the proponent has in fact provided safety plan, but this has not been disclosed to the public.

Both the Environmental Assessment Act and the MNRF’s Statement of Environmental Values require meaningful consultation before any decisions are made.

We therefore request that the proponent’s safety plan be disclosed to the public and that the public have an opportunity to provide comment, before the proponent receive approval for construction. This plan requires assessment by someone with in-water recreation safety expertise.
 

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
For years, the proponent has been making environmentally-significant changes to their plans, yet the MOECC’s response continues to be that environmental approval was granted in 2013 based on the information available at that time, and this cannot be withdrawn.

We’ll accept that, however that approval also stated: “Swift River Energy Limited must implement the Project in the manner it was developed and designed, as set out in the Environmental Screening Report …”. We’ll also accept that changes will be required in any planned project and that small changes do not need to be approved or even reviewed by the MOECC.

Clearly, there is some threshold of changes that would require environmental assessment, and it would seem justified to state that this threshold has now been exceeded, as the changes risk:

• Flooding Lake Muskoka.
• Drowning unsuspecting visitors because the public safety measures would deceive the public.
• Dumping contaminants into the Moon River, the changes are environmentally-significant.

For example, the proponent is required to test and treat water pumped from their proposed excavation. This would be done using large settling tanks. The proponent has recently proposed a new plan that these be located within in their proposed construction site, on excavated rock piled in the Moon River.

A problem is that this area would be inundated if the MNRF requires the proposed upstream cofferdam be removed, and this could tip over the settling tanks, resulting in untreated water and sediment to be dumped directly into the Moon River. As this was not presented for the proponent’s 2013 environmental approval, the MOECC’s procedures state that such new plans be subject to the Addendum provisions of the MOECC’s Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects.

We accept that the environmental approval the MOECC issued in 2013 is still valid. However, it would not apply to the environmentally-significant changes the proponent has made to their plans. We request that the MOECC inform the proponent that if they wish to proceed with their new plans, that these changes be submitted in an Addendum.
 

Detail

Before they could construct their proposed generating station, the proponent needs approvals from the following:

The District Municipality of Muskoka
The proponent needs permits from the District, all related to the proponent’s need to cross, access, or utilize Muskoka Road 169 either during or after the proposed construction. To receive these permits the proponent needs to meet several conditions, such as providing a $2,000,000 Letter of Credit which would hopefully be enough to pay for any damage the proponent’s construction may cause, such as to the District’s bridge. There are many ways that the District’s bridge or road could be damaged by the proposed construction or operation and we had an opportunity to meet with the proponent and District to discuss these. The District informed us that we were asking the right questions, and that they were receiving reports from both the proponent and the District’s own consultants on this issue. As follow-up, we detailed our questions in this letter.

While the District had initially stated:

• Their decision process for issuing these permits would be transparent.
• There would be a second meeting to discuss answers to the questions (and this meeting was scheduled, but later cancelled).
• The answers to the questions would be provided in written form.

The District has since issued this report and apparently intends to issue all approvals to the proponent without without informing the public what information the District has received on the risks the proponent’s work would create or how the District has decided that the risks to their public infrastructure is acceptable.

We subsequently sent this letter to the Premier’s Office which was copied to the District’s Commissioner of Engineering and Public Works, to whom we also sent this cover letter.
 

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
So that the risk of flooding Lake Muskoka is not increased, the MNRF has required that the proposed project cannot obstruct any flow through the Bala north channel, either during the proposed construction (upon 24 hours notice) or operation. We have therefore written several letters to the MNRF, such as this. As the responses did not address the questions, we requested to meet with the MNRF, but they have refused.

The contractor selected by the proponent, CRT Construction (web site here, Facebook page here) has proposed a new upstream cofferdam design, which would be at least the fourth from the proponent. As noted in this letter, this design may also have unacceptable risks, such risks and their mitigation are to be disclosed during the environmental assessment process.

This issue was also addressed in the above letter to the Premier’s Office.
 

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
The MNRF claims they only have responsibility for dam safety (that a dam will not fail, flooding all those downstream), and not public safety (the safety of people near a dam). This may be true, but it is clear that human life is part of the environment, so must be considered as part of an environmental assessment. This was confirmed by a recent decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal which found that the MOECC was wrong to approve eight wind turbines, each as taller than a 40-storey building, near two Ontario airports (more detail near the bottom of this e-Newsletter). This decision also confirmed that if the MOECC does not have the required expertise in-house, they must seek external experts.

It is also clear that the proponent has made environmentally-significant changes to their plans, and these should be subject to the same environmental assessment process as the rest of their plans were, as noted in this letter to the MOECC.
 

Ombudsman Ontario
The office of the Ombudsman of Ontario will rarely question a decision made by a government office, but they will investigate if it appears that a decision did not follow the required policy or procedure, or if a decision was made for which the government office did not have authority.

We have therefore sent a copy of the above letter to the Premier’s Office to Ombudsman Ontario along with this cover letter.