Save the Bala Falls

On March 21, 2011, we met with the Muskoka Lakes Assocation’s Political and Environmental Portfolio commmittee, and provided this presentation.

Summary
If you submitted an elevation request, you should have received notice that this was denied.

1. There is an appeal process and you must send your e-mail before April 18, 2011, details below.
2. If you are a member of the Muskoka Lakes Association, send them an e-mail (Info@mla.on.ca) to let them know you are concerned.
3. Please contact your home MPP (details here), letting them know your concerns.
4. Put up a Stop the Hydro Plant lawn sign on your property (signs for a $3 or $5 donation, available at Gidley Real Estate, and in Toronto, e-mail us at info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com to arrange).
5. Follow us on Twitter, @SaveBalaFalls

Detail
In response to the proponent’s environmental screening report for their proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls, over a year ago most of you submitted requests to have this elevated to require an individual environmental assessment, as this is the only way the province’s process could stop this proposal.

As you may have read, the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch of the Ministry of the Environment has denied all the requests.

We continue to spend a huge amount of time on this, and we need everyone to participate in the appeal procedure, in which those who requested an elevation ask the Minister of the Environment to review the Director’s decision.

If you feel the Director’s response (more here) did not address your concerns:

1. Address your concerns in writing (e-mail is best) to the Minister of the Environment, with a copy to the proponent (contact information below, you could also copy the Ministers of Energy, Tourism, Natural Resources, and your local MPP).
2. Your letter should follow this format:
   1. The background and reason for this request (such as significant issues have still not been addressed).
   2. Detail of the specific environmental concerns (concentrate on the scientific, economic, and public safety aspects).
   3. Describe how the Director’s decision fails to address your concern.
   4. Provide any additional information that would be helpful in reviewing the Director’s decision.
   5. Other points you may wish to note.
3. Your letter must be received by the Minister by April 18, 2011.
4. This process is described in Section B.4.1.2 of the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects.
5. If you have any questions, please e-mail us at Info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com

Contact Information
Send your completed appeal e-mail letters to all of the following:

• The Honourable John Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment, JWilkinson.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
• Karen McGhee, Project Manager, Swift River Energy Limited, KMcGhee@m-k-e.ca
• Anthony Zwig, President, Swift River Energy Limited, AZwig@horizonlegacy.com
• Please send us a copy too, at info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com

Background
The proponent still has not addressed any of our concerns, for example:

• Their economic impact study did not consider any of the negative effects on local businesses, tourism, and the local economy.
• We still don’t know anything about the appearance or noise.
• Over 97% of the water would be diverted through the proposed plant, leaving only a trickle for the falls, year-round.
• They still have not provided any assurance they would never, during the 40 years of the proposed project, apply to change (who knows, the proponent could try to build condominiums) Diver’s Point or Margaret Burgess Park (north of the north falls), as they would be given control of both.
• Hundreds of feet of the only publically-accessible shoreline in the area would become too dangerous for access.
• They refuse to provide a completion bond to ensure the project would be completed properly, which is a concern, given the proponent has no assets, no employees, and no operations.
• How a hydro-electric power station could possibly be safe in the middle of an established recreational area, especially given the OPP/OPG “Stay Clear, Stay Safe” campaign which specifically notes the dangers of such remotely-controlled facilities.
• Would there ever be barbed-wire fencing required, which is a concern given that the three power stations (which are operated by the same proposed company) at and north of Bracebridge have barbed-wire fencing.
• Would there ever be strobe lights and sirens, as is required to be used at other remotely-operated power stations every time the flow is changed.
• Given that Transport Canada only has an interest in marine navigation, there has not been a consideration of the in-water recreational safety issues which would be created.

And now there are new concerns:

• The proponent has not done a risk assessment of the north dam, such as possible effects of their blasting and excavation nearby (which is a concern, given that the water level of Lake Muskoka is 20’ above the Moon River and the dam is more than 50 years old, so dam failure needs to be considered).
• We recently learned that the proponent plans to cycle the plant off and on, even though the resulting and greatly increased public safety and wildlife habitat concerns are not addressed in the proponent’s environmental screening report as they have always claimed it would be a run-of-river operation.

Note that it is important to detail how the Director’s response did not respond to your specific concerns.

——————————————————————————————
SaveTheBalaFalls.com

The following letter was sent to the Ministry of the Environment on March 14, 2011.

Hello Mr. Sanzo,

Dam Failure
It has come to our attention that the work required to construct the proposed hydro-electric power station at the Bala falls should trigger a public safety assessment. Such requirements are in draft documents from the Canadian Dam Association and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

This would be prudent, given that the proposed project would involve rock blasting down 60′ within 65′ of the north dam – which is over 50 years old.

Given that the water level of Lake Muskoka is 20′ higher than the Moon River, and given the huge 120 km² area of Lake Muskoka, a Bala dam failure would be catastrophic; to people and structures downstream, to boats and marine life upstream, and to the proponent’s finances.

According to the draft “Technical Guidelines and Requirements for Approval Under The Lakes & Rivers Improvement Act, Volume Three – Life Cycle Management of Dams“, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3, this situation would be classified as “High Hazard Potential”.

Therefore, information is required from the proponent concerning:

• A risk assessment of what could happen, what areas would be affected, how these risks would be controlled, and what level of risk is acceptable.
• What steps would or could be taken to ensure the dam structure is not damaged.
• How the dam’s integrity would be monitored during and after blasting.
• The roles and responsibilities of each involved party, in the event of an emergency. This would be especially important, given the complex arrangement of the dam owner, the developer, the contractor, the dam operator, and the various levels of government.
• Insurance requirements and liability of each involved party.

Control System Failure
Furthermore, given the large flow capacity of the proposed power station (of perhaps 79 m³/s), as the plant’s control system could fail, the following should be documented:

• How the operator would be alerted of a failure (what failures would be automatically alterted, how would the public be able to contract the operator).
• The capability, steps, and time required to manually shut down the flow given a failure of one or more of each component (such as the control electronics, the control valves, or their actuators).

Conclusion
While Section 2.1.6.1 of the proponent’s environmental screening report notes that a Dam Safety Assessment was performed in 2000, this only considered flooding due to high flow events, not dam failure – and this Assessment certainly did not consider the possiblity of failure due to the proposed nearby rock blasting.

These are fundamental science-based, technical, public property, and public safety issues which need to be considered as part of evaluating this proposed project.

As this information has not been provided by the proponent, we therefore request that this project be elevated to an individual environmental assessment so that these serious issues can be properly addressed.

Thank you.

—————————————————————————————-
Mitchell Shnier, on behalf of SaveTheBalaFalls.com
25 Lower Links Road
Toronto, ON M2P 1H5

Telephone: 416 222-1430
E-mail: Mitchell@Shnier.com

The following letter was sent to the Ministers of Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment.

March 9, 2011

Linda Jeffrey
Minister of Natural Resources
Whitney Block, 6^th Floor, Room 6630
99 Wellesley Street West
Toronto, ON  M7A 1W3
416 314-2301
LJeffrey.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Brad Duguid
Minister of Energy and Infrastructure
Hearst Block, 4^th Floor
900 Bay Street
Toronto, ON  M7A 2E1
416 327-6758
BDuguid.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

The Honourable John Wilkinson
Minister of the Environment
77 Wellesley Street West
11^th Floor, Ferguson Block
Toronto, ON  M7A 2T5
416 314-6790
minister.moe@ontario.ca

Dear Ministers,

Summary
The proposed Bala Falls hydro-electric generating station has significant outstanding water flow and water level issues which have not been addressed by the proponent. Furthermore, the proponent’s recent agreement with Ontario Power Generation requiring the proposed station not use the previously stated “run-of-river” operation has not been communicated to the public, and this is especially a concern due to the resulting public safety issues.

We applaud the Ministry of the Environment’s science-based decision and policy-making procedures, but in this case, the proponent has not addressed the science, as described below.

Detail
As you may know, there is currently a proposal to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls, in Bala, Ontario.

For over five years, the proponent has stated this proposed station would implement a “run-of-river” operation, as this:

• Would be more acceptable to land owners on Lake Muskoka and the Moon River.
• May be required by the Muskoka River Water Management Plan (MRWMP).
• Is better for shoreline animal habitats and vegetative buffers.

However, we recently learned that the proponent would be required by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to operate this proposed station in a peaking mode (also called a cycling, ponding, or storage mode) to accommodate the interaction with a downstream OPG facility and their other requirements.

This highlights several concerns we have, including the following:

1. Why has the public not been consulted, nor even informed of this significant change. Changes to the Muskoka River Water Management plan require such public involvement.
2. The control of the water level of Lake Muskoka, which has many, many shoreline structures which are very sensitive to water levels, would be by a private company that would not be subject to any penalties for unacceptable water levels even if due to their own negligence or for-profit motivations. The proponent has stated the only recourse would be for private individuals to each initiate legal action for each occurrence of damages.
3. This is a concern, as the proponent would have significant financial motiviation to operate the Lake Muskoka water levels at the high end of the allowed range – or even to regularly exceed the allowed range – as this would maximize their revenue from the proposed power station (this is because for a given flow of water, a greater “head” results in more power produced). However this would leave less margin of safety before flooding would occur due to an unexpected significant storm.
4. The proponent has requested that the MRWMP be modified to allow a “Best Management Zone”. However, rather than explaining the rationale for this major amendment (as defined and required according to Section 17.2 of the MRWMP), the proponent only explains this was requested by the Ministry of Natural Resources, and no rationale has been forthcoming from either party.
5. This peaking/cycling mode of operation would be mainly required during the low-flow summer months, exactly when there is the most in-water recreation at this very popular tourist destination. This unannounced and remotely-controlled change in water flow is exactly the concern of the OPG/OPP “Stay Clear, Stay Safe” campaign as this would be a major public safety issue, and was not addressed by the proponent’s environmental screening report. Transport Canada apparently only has jurisdiction for marine navigation, so there is no stakeholder agency taking responsibility for this public safety issue (other than informal comments by the OPP that this project should not proceed).

In conclusion, there are significant and unaddressed water-related issues for this proposed project.

We therefore request that this project be elevated to require an individual environmental assessment, so that the public can have input to the information which needs to be provided by the proponent.

—————————————————————————————-
Mitchell Shnier, on behalf of SaveTheBalaFalls.com
25 Lower Links Road
Toronto, ON  M2P 1H5

Telephone: 416 222-1430
E-mail: Mitchell@Shnier.com

cc: Mr. Adam Sanzo, Project Evaluator, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

The following letter was sent to the Ministry of the Environment on February 25, 2011.

Hello Mr. Sanzo,

On February 22, 2011 SaveTheBalaFalls.com presented this to the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council, on the topic of land ownership near the north Bala Falls.

In summary, our presentation was as follows:

1. At the previous Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting (January 18, 2011) the proponent provided significant and new information that Margaret Burgess Park, which is on the north side of the north Bala Falls, is owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources and would therefore be included with the four other parcels of Crown-owned shoreline property to be under control of the proponent for the 40-year term of the land leases to be included in the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the north Bala Falls.
2. As shown on page 8 of the attached presentation, these Crown lands are basically all the publically-accessible land around the Bala Falls and Bala’s tourism and economy depends on the continued accessibility of these lands by the public.
3. It is not known what the municipal zoning is for these lands, whether this zoning applies given that the lands are provincially-owned, and especially it is not known what plans the proponent may have for these lands – who knows, this private for-profit developer may choose to construct high-rise condominium towers on the Park or Diver’s point.
   One would have expected the proponent to take advantage of their presence in front of Township Council to provide an immediate verbal assurance that the lands would be maintained as they are currently and that they would not change the public’s access to these lands.
   Surprisingly, the proponent only stated that they have no plans for the properties “at this time”, and any future changes would require an environmental assessment. This is all part of the same project, and omitting this information and their plans for this land from their environmental screening report is a serious problem.
4. As shown on the last page of the attached presentation, we have requested that the Township of Muskoka Lakes prepare a Staff report which includes the following information:
   • The ownership of all shoreline property adjacent to and near the proposed project.
   • The zoning for each property and whether this zoning would apply to Crown lands.
   • How the riparian rights would be affected for each property.
   • The lands and rights and responsibilities which would be transferred to the proponent.
   • Whether the proponent will provide written assurance that they would maintain the public’s access to Diver’s Point and Margaret Burgess Park and not apply to or construct any type of structure or make any physical changes to these lands.

Firstly, we would like to note that while the proponent complains of delays they encounter, the proponent is the actual cause of the delays as they have not been open about the impacts on the local community – for example, by documenting their expected control of Margaret Burgess Park in their envrionmental screening report or by providing written confirmation that they would not change it or its accessibility by the public.

Secondly, as this is an example of yet more information which is required from, but has not been forthcoming from, the proponent, we repeat our request that this project require an individual environmental assessment.

Thank you.

—————————————————————————————-
Mitchell Shnier, on behalf of SaveTheBalaFalls.com