Save the Bala Falls

We had thought the proponent was sly but it now appears they just don’t know what they’re talking about. Some examples (also see Fenelon Falls article here):

1. In response to our on-going request that a vibration study be completed, the proponent states “No vibration is expected to be experienced atop of the powerhouse” and “We do not believe there will be any ground vibrations at the property limits that could be detected by a human observer”.
   
   Well at the Fenelon Falls power station, which has a public observation deck, the vibration is much more than “detectable”. The vibration is very apparent and feels as if one is standing on a humming factory (which is in fact true). And note, the proposed Bala power station would have a capacity 65% greater than that at Fenelon Falls.
   
   
2. The proponent claims the area above the proposed power station would be “a park-like setting”, yet at Fenelon Falls, when standing on the public lookout the drone of the machinery below drowns out the sound of the falls. And this during the heavy water flow over Fenelon Falls and as noted above, the proposed Bala power station would have a capacity 2/3 times greater.
   
   
3. The entire front wall of the Fenelon Falls power station is a ventilation air intake and there are two large air exhausts on the roof (plus the emergency egress hatch and the safety harness cable), plus another at the front of the building. In contrast, the proponent’s rendering for the proposed Bala power station shows the too-small exhaust vents covered by landscaping (again, even though the proposed Bala power station would be 2/3 times larger).
   
   
4. There have been at least three incarnations of Option 1. Initially the proponent claimed they didn’t know they had drawn it to not fit onto just the land owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). So they tried changing its orientation. Then in their environmental screening report the proponent decided they wouldn’t/couldn’t build Option 1 because of the intake restrictions and danger to in-water recreation, so they had to build Option 2. Then they made up some new sketches for Option 1 that fit on just the MNR land, and they decided that by some magic now Option 1 would even have greater capacity than Option 2, and for some reason, now the danger to in-water recreation wouldn’t be a problem. (This reminds me of my pet dog Mozart.)
   
   
5. The view from the proposed Bala power station public look-out would be completely blocked by a 5′-high, 25′-wide hoist mechanism for the tailrace gate hoist. This is ridiculous, why do they release technical drawings known to be unacceptable and contrary to their public statements of a “commanding view westward” and a “grand view down river”.
   
   
6. Their noise calculations only include two of the six noise sources, and assume that the proposed building would have 8″-thick concrete walls, even though there would need to be several openings for ventilation fans and three large roof hatches. The noise calculations are therefore completely inadequate and incomplete.
   
   
7. After a year of negotiations, on December 16, 2010 the proponent signed an agreement with Ontario Power Generation agreeing to cycle the operation of the proposed station.
   
   This has major fish and shoreline habitat and public safety issues. Yet the public was not informed until after March 25, 2011, and these implications have still not been addressed by the proponent.

These are not minor oversights, they show inexperience, a cavalier pattern of withholding information important to the public, and of saying anything to the public that will get their project approved, regardless of fact or science.

The Township of Muskoka Lakes sent this request for the Minster of the Environment to review the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch’s decision to deny the requests for the proposed Bala Falls hydro-electric generating station project to be elevated to require an individual environmental assessment.

In a remarkable development, the proponent has redefined the english word “cycling” to mean “not cycling“.

• Exhibit 1: In the April 22, 2011 edition of the Muskoka Weekender (the article is here), we learn that “The definition of run-of-river can include minor cycling …”. So that rather than a constant output of water from the proposed hydro-electric generating station, it would be turned off and on daily, and this can still be called run-of-river.
• Exhibit 2: Months ago, and without telling the public, the proponent signed an agreement with Ontario Power Generation requiring the proposed station to be cycled when the flow available is less than 26 m³/s. Read it for yourself in point 3 here. This is fully 1/3 of the proposed station’s capacity:
  • Firstly, this is hardly “minor”.
  • This flow is typical for eight weeks during the summer tourist season. So the plant would be turned off and on at least once every day during the core in-water recreation period.
  • So scuba divers upstream, and children portaging their canoes directly adjacent to the station’s tailrace downstream would have no way of knowing whether the station is operating or not. And 26 m³/s of water is 26 tons of water per second, that’s the weight of more than 26 small cars per second, this is major turbulence, and a serious unaddressed public safety issue.
• Exhibit 3: The proponent’s Letter of Intent for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat (provided to Fisheries and Oceans Canada in November 2010) notes on page 6 that the fish habitat would be “subject to relatively constant hydraulic conditions”. This would certainly not be the case. Similarly, the analysis in Section 6.2.5.6 (entitled “Fish Impingement, Entrainment and Turbine Mortality“) of the proponent’s environmental screening report for fish entrainment (that is the term used for fish getting sucked into the proposed plant’s turbines, killing a percentage of them) does not consider this operation and does not cite any studies with this operation. And the environmental screening report has no information on how this unnatural and daily cycling operation would affect the shoreline habitat of nesting birds and other wildlife.
• Exhibit 4: The proponent would be paid 50% more – yes that is correct 50% more – for power produced during the daily periods of peak electrical demand. You can bet this for-profit developer would do almost anything for this bonus (heck, who wouldn’t want this). And in fact, even though they’ve been telling us for years that the proposed station would be run-of-river, the agreement with OPG shows they intend to operate the plant in a cycled mode during other times of the year as well. You do need to read between the lines, in point 1 it is called “optimized”. Sometimes it is called modified peaking, or load cycling, or storage, or peaking. Lately, even the Ministry of Natural Resources has been playing with words and calling this “essentially run-of-river”, or “intermediate”. Apparently the secret phrase to really mean run-of-river is “run flat”. Silly naïve us, we didn’t know that when the proponent says “run-of-river”, we need to also ask if it would be “run flat”. I guess you need to be a hydraulic engineer to be that smart.

The point is, the required operation of the proposed hydro-electric generating station would not be run-of-river (during at least the peak summer in-water recreation times), the public has not been informed, and the proponent’s environmental screening report and information provided to Fisheries and Oceans Canada is incomplete.

This is yet another shameful instance of the proponent trying to withhold information the environmental assessment process requires to be disclosed. This is not a partner to the community, this is a private developer abusing the process.

The Honourable John Wilkinson
Minister of the Environment
77 Wellesley Street West
11^th Floor, Ferguson Block
Toronto, ON  M7A 2T5

April 17, 2011

Request for an appeal of an MOE decision regarding the proposed Bala Falls hydroelectric power plant

Dear Mr. Minister,

As co-owner and curator of Bala’s Museum, a building that will be historically designated this spring, I am understandably concerned about the cultural heritage significance of Bala Falls. I hereby request an appeal of the MOE’s recent decision.

Although the heritage impact assessment prepared by Historica Research Ltd. for Swift River Energy states in their evaluation (page ii) that “The area of the Bala Falls extending from the park on the south shore of the Muskoka River to the park on the north side is a distinct cultural heritage landscape of water management, power generation, tourism and transportation”, I believe a project to re-introduce hydro electricity generation will seriously threaten the cultural heritage landscape of our falls.

I disagree with the statement by Historica Research that power generation is part of the “distinct cultural heritage landscape” of the Bala Falls. There has been no power generation there for 54 years and few residents of Bala can recall when it existed at the North Falls on a very small scale.

The Environmental Screening/Review Report in Section 2.2.2 (First Nations) neglects to tell the full story of the significance of the Bala Falls as a cultural heritage landscape for the Wahta Mohawks. When the Mohawks arrived by steamer at the tiny community known as Bala Falls in 1881 it was necessary for them to portage past the Falls with all their worldly goods to a scow or raft that was taking them to their new life at the Gibson Reserve. This first portage by the Mohawks will be honoured and remembered by a special drumming ceremony on June 25^th, 2011, by the Wahta women drummers as part of DOORS OPEN. It is most appropriate that they will be singing and drumming the Water Song. As a historian, I am concerned that this traditional portage that was used by our First Nations and later by tourists, YMCA campers and cottagers will no longer be accessible because of dangerous waters created by hydro generation.

In the Statement of Environmental Values, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture states “Cultural heritage is critical to a healthy society. It is key to defining identity and ensuring the well-being of Ontarians, both individually and collectively. Our provincial heritage resources are non-renewable and irreplaceable, and government has a role to play as trustee in their protection and preservation. Cultural heritage resources are part of the environment, and recognized as such under the Environmental Assessment Act.” I believe that blasting an intake channel, clearing trees and grubbing goes against the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Statement of Environmental Values in that once rock is blasted it is non-renewable and irreplaceable.

Many of the mature pine trees to be cleared and grubbed were given as a gift to the Town of Bala by the Canadian Pacific Railway a quarter of a century ago.

Bala’s Museum with Memories of Lucy Maud Montgomery is recognized around the world and has had over 100,000 visitors in the last eighteen summers. Many of these visitors are from the Orient where L.M. Montgomery is most revered . As a major tourism draw for Bala, we are well aware that Japanese, Chinese and Korean visitors to our museum, also make a stop at the Bala Falls. In each of their cultures water falls are respected and, in a sense, worshiped. These same visitors are aware that in Lucy Maud Montgomery’s diary she wrote:

One thing I love about Bala is the roar of its falls. When I lie in bed at night it sounds exactly like the old surge roar of the Atlantic on some windy, dark-gray night on the old north shore.

(Vol. III, The Selected Journals of L.M. Montgomery, Bala diary entry on Sunday, July 30, 1922)

If this proposed power plant is allowed to happen, its very presence will deeply impact the economic viability of Bala’s Museum with Memories of Lucy Maud Montgomery.

Further, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture has stated that “Cultural heritage conservation also serves both economic and social needs and involves the interpretation and wise use of cultural heritage resources for educational, commercial, recreational and tourism purposes. These all play important roles in economic and community development, while also contributing to a sense of place.” ( Statement of Environmental Bill of Rights for the Ministry of Tourism and Culture).

Bala’s Falls are a cultural heritage resource and already are used for educational, recreational and tourism purposes. Bala has developed around them and the falls do give us a “sense of place”. It would not be “a wise use of [this] cultural heritage resource” to have a power plant thrust in the midst of Bala creating dangerous, fast water that threatens swimmers, canoeists, scuba divers and picnickers. Chain link fencing surrounding the intake, power plant and viewing deck is hardly welcoming to tourists. It will go against the District of Muskoka’s Official Plan that requires that development in the area of the falls “occur in an aesthetically pleasing manner and in a fashion that will protect the quality of the natural and cultural environment.”

As an executive member of the Muskoka branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, I fear for the protection of the heritage-designated (2002) Burgess Church, also known as the stone church. When this church was built in 1925, members of the congregation collected Muskoka stone for the façade of the church.

The mortar and stone will be at risk when an intake channel will be blasted out of Precambrian rock a mere 32 metres away. Equally frightening is the prospect of a heritage register listed wooden building, Purk’s Place, having blasting done beside it. Built circa 1908, it has been a boat livery for over 100 years. Swift River Energy’s figure 5.2 of the Environmental Screening Review Report shows the blasted channel intake to be some 4 metres from the north west corner of Purk’s Place. May I remind you that the Environmental Bill of Rights states that “The people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment” and that “The people of Ontario have as a common goal the protection, conservation and restoration of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations.”

On November 19^th 2010, at the Architectural Conservancy Annual Awards Dinner, the Save the Bala Falls group received the prestigious Margaret and Nicholas Hill for their outstanding work to preserve a cultural heritage landscape.

The local (Muskoka) Architectural Conservancy has repeatedly asked the Municipal Council for a Heritage Conservation District in Bala that includes Bala Falls in the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. Community petitions with over 1000 signatures have also asked that Bala’s falls be protected as heritage.

If one of the purposes of the Environmental Bill of Rights is “to provide sustainability of the environment”, heritage resource conservation contributes to that sustainability. Conservation of Bala’s cultural landscape with unimpeded access to the shore line is vital and the right of people both living in or visiting Bala under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Yours very truly.

Linda Jackson-Hutton
Curator and Co-Owner
Bala’s Museum with Memories of Lucy Maud Montgomery

c.c.
Mr. Adam Sanzo
Project Evaluator, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, M.O.E.

Mr. Michael Harrison
Supervisor, Project Review Unit, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, M.O.E.

Ms. Agatha Garcia-Wright
Director, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, M.O.E.

Karen McGhee, Swift River Energy Ltd.

Norm Miller, MPP for Muskoka-Parry Sound

Tony Clement, MP for Parry Sound – Muskoka
The Honourable Michael Chan, Minister of Tourism and Culture
Brad Duguid, Minister of Energy and Infrastructure

Linda Jeffrey, Minister of Natural Resources

Some have concluded that SaveTheBalaFalls.com is opposing the proposed generating station at the Bala Falls because we just can’t accept change.

Let’s summarize the proposal:

1. Except for a few weeks in March and April when their proposed power station could not handle any more water, the proposed project would be taking 94% of the water from the falls, leaving only a trickle year-round for scenic flow to attract tourists, which are so fundamental to the area’s economy.
2. The proponent agreed to convene a flow distribution committee to make recommendations on the scenic flow concerns, and they required the following (and we quote) “Therefore, to summarize: SREL, as the proponent, will be finalizing the membership, mandate, agenda, and presentation material for this group and inviting guest speaker(s) over the next couple of weeks”. And yet, after these volunteers met (some of whom drove up for the evening meetings three weeks in a row), the pre-agreed optional fourth meeting was not convened and their work was completely ignored.
3. The project would result in over 500′ of the only publically-accessible shoreline in the area becoming too dangerous for access.
4. Despite our repeated requests to the proponent for something believable about the appearance of the project, they provided drawings that show:
   • A 5′-high, 30′-wide hoist mechanism entirely blocking the view from the proposed look-out.
   • Rocks and dirt blocking the required ventilation.
   • No information on the driveway retaining wall or fencing it would require.
   • … and on and on.
5. That is, they want approval to proceed and we don’t even know how ugly it would be.
6. While the proponent has been telling us for years that their proposed generating station would use a run-of-river operation, several months ago, they agreed with OPG that it would be cycled off and on more than once every day for at least eight weeks in the summer. But they have neglected to inform the public, and even now refer to this as “essentially run-of-river”. As there are implications for scenic flow, public safety, and fish habitat, an update to the environmental screening report should have been provided.
7. As part of the Ministry of Natural Resources site release policy, the proponent would get control of Margaret Burgess Park (the green space north of the north falls) and Diver’s Point FOR 40 YEARS and being owned by the province this land may be exempt from municipal zoning by-laws and the proponent won’t provide written assurance that they would never during the term of their agreement with the MNR attempt to change or develop these properties.
8. The proponent will not provide a completion bond, so if they ran into a technical problem, a cost overrun, or if they damaged the highway bridge or the north dam, they could just abandon the project, and leave the public with the mess of cleaning up their 300′ of rocks dumped into the Moon River as their coffer dam, or to fix the 40′-deep trench they’d have to blast across the highway. The similar mess in Port Carling is still not resolved years later.

This isn’t rejecting change, this is rejecting a bad proposal.