Warning – Landscape Advisory Committee

 3 Responses »
May 202009
 

SREL would like to convene a landscape advisory committee, which would include representation from cottagers, a municipal Councillor, and local full-time residents and businesses. This would be a good thing – at the right time.

However, there are several aspects of their currently-proposed Option 2 which simply don’t have a good answer and foisting the responsibility of the resulting controversial decisions onto the community appears to be the purpose of this committee.

For example:

  1. The height of the fence around the look-out 18′ above the Moon River and over the turbulent water exiting the power station:
    • If the fence is waist-height (similar to a bridge over a highway or the railing of an apartment balcony), then there will be the new danger of little kids climbing the fence or bigger kids trying to jump into the river (as already happens from the railway bridge over the North Channel). This is a recreational area, and just as nobody lets their little children play along a highway, such a low fence (no matter how “unclimbable”) would not be in keeping with the current children- and family-friendly nature of the area.
    • If the fence is higher, then it would be an isolating, unrecreational safety fence, completely changing the look and feel to both people near the falls, and viewing the site from the Moon River.
  2. The driveway. As shown here, SREL initially proposed the driveway be at the same grade as the top of the power station (with a 75′-long retaining wall along the Moon River, as shown here). More recently, SREL has provided this drawing which appears to show that instead the driveway leads to the side of the power station. This would reduce the height of the retaining wall and eliminate the need for their initial plan for a concrete stairwell 15′ down into the power station, but would result in the Power Station rising above the driveway, just as your garage does at home. The Power Station will already loom 18′ over the Moon River. With the driveway approaching the side of the Power Station, the project certainly should not be described as “buried in a park”, as SREL continues to maintain.
  3. “Grassed Driveway” – now there’s an oxymoron. Who in Muskoka has a grassed driveway, it just won’t happen, certainly not with a truck driving over it a few times per week.
  4. The Gate. As currently designed, the Power Station requires an 18′-high, 33′-wide steel gate above the Moon River (this can be lowered to block off the water from the Power Station when the turbine requires servicing). The plan is to have a false wall in front of this gate, and to put boards or something else onto this false wall to make it look less imposing. This would be like trying to hide a 33′-wide highway billboard at water level, facing all the boaters on the Moon River (it would also be a prime graffiti target). There just isn’t a way to make this look natural.

In summary, there are no good solutions to the above and other landscaping questions, because it is wrong to put the power station adjacent to a recreational area. The landscape advisory committee is a great idea whose time has not yet come, let’s agree on where the power station should go first.

Response to SREL February 10, 2009 Letter to District

 No Responses »
May 192009
 

In response to our Option 3 suggestion of locating the power station (as shown here) SREL provided this February 10, 2009 letter to the District Municipality of Muskoka.

Summary

What is missing from this response letter is; information showing that a serious evaluation of the alternatives has been done, comparisons of costs between the Options including any off-setting factor, and an opportunity to interactively work with the proponent to refine the alternatives given feedback and further information.

Detail

We have the following comments on this letter:

  1. Page 1: SREL refers to their Option 2 as a “buried option”. While their Option 2 power station is shown to be below highway 169, given that it would rise 18′ above the Moon River (plus the height of any railing / safety fencing), we feel it should not be described as “buried”.
  2. Page 2, point 1a: The letter notes that the capacity of the south dam may need to be reduced during construction of a South Channel option and this capacity may be needed during flood flow conditions. We note that the construction plans for SREL’s Option 2 requires a coffer dam to be built in the North Channel while the rock plug is removed, and this coffer dam would also reduce the flood handling capacity. We understand the restrictions needed during construction in the South Channel may be lengthier and would welcome information how many months this would be, and whether this work could be done over two low-flow periods.
  3. Page 2, point 1b: We agree that a South Channel option may require it to be deepened, and this would involve significant work. We note that for Option 2, excavation/blasting is required 50′ below the highway and this too would involve significant work. We would welcome receiving detail of why SREL feels these two situations are different.
  4. Page 2, point 1c: It may well be necessary to upgrade or modify the south dam as part of a South Channel solution – offsetting this may be that the costs for the temporary bridge required for Option 2 could be avoided for a South Channel option. We understand the construction costs for SREL’s Option 2 may be $24M, and would welcome receiving detail of expected costs for a South Channel option.
  5. Page 3, points 2a-c: We would propose fully investigating locating the intake integrated with, or slightly downstream of, the south dam so that it remains somewhat hidden from Bala Bay, has less impact on Diver’s Point, and would require a smaller safety boom.
  6. Page 3, point 2d: Constructing the power station on the south side of the South Channel, at the north end of the Canadian Shield parking lot (shown here as Option 4) could keep it hidden from the Moon River, especially if the plant could rise no higher than the existing parking lot and use a method such as stop-logs for dewatering, rather than a solid steel gate.
  7. Page 3, point 2e: I agree that construction near/under a railway line will require coordination with the railway, but this is required for SREL’s Option 2, as well as for a South Channel Option. Also, Option 3 would only require closing Bala Falls Road, which wouldn’t be a problem since the highway would remain unaffected, so this would have significantly less traffic impact. For Option 4 it may be possible to re-route traffic highway through the Canadian Shield parking lot and also leave Bala Falls Road open, so again, there could be less traffic disruption and expense than for Option 2. All this would need to be further discussed, but the point is the proposed Options could be less traffic disruption.
  8. Page 4, point 3: We agree that the Option 3 we suggested could have substantially lower power output depending on how the discharge is handled, however, the Option 4 we have suggested would have a comparable power output as Option 2. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss this further.
  9. Page 4: We note that SREL continues to state that many questions will be answered by the Environmental Screening Report, and also that the Ministry of the Environment’s Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirementsor Electricity Projects (page 33) states “Proponents are encouraged to circulate a draft of the Screening Report, or relevant sections of the report, to the appropriate agencies and key stakeholders for comment prior to the formal review periods.” Yet, SREL has refused to provide any such information both the the District Municipality of Muskoka (certainly a key stakeholder) and to us.

Muskoka River Water Management Plan

 No Responses »
Feb 132009
 

SREL has kindly posted the Muskoka River Watermangement Plan on their web site.

The document is hundreds of pages, but some pages of particular interest are:

  • A schematic diagram of all the dams in the entire Lake Muskoka watershed is here. This shows the complexity of coordinating the flows through all the dams.
  • Acres International authored the report, and they set up a computer simulation of the water flows, and a summary diagram of the information input to this simulation is shown here.
  • A map showing the Lower Muskoka Sub-watershed is here.
  • Among other things, the water management plan defines Normal Operating Zone for the water levels, for all lakes and rivers, throughout the year. A summary of the terms used is here.
  • Maintaining the water levels is complex because the flow rates vary widely throughout the year. A summary is presented here.
  • A description of the situation is here. During the summer, it allows a normal range variation of 18.5 inches.

Meeting Reports from the Muskoka Lakes Association

 No Responses »
Feb 132009
 

The Muskoka Lakes Association has formed a sub-committee to gather information on the control of the water levels in Lake Muskoka, as a result of the proposed power station.

  • On January 9, 2009 a meeting was held with representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and some notes are here.
  • On January 12, 2009 a meeting was held with representatives of Swift River Energy Limited and some notes are here.

Some comments are as follows:

  • Some details of Ontario’s Standing Offer Program are here. It notes that while it pays 11.08¢ per kilowatt-hour for electricity (with increases due to inflation), it also pays a premium of 3.52¢ per kW•h (that is a 32% premium) for electricity reliably produced (that is, at least 80% of the time) during peak hours (which are 11:00 am to 7:00 pm). So while SREL make a big point that they will be staying within the requirements of the water management plan, they neglect to note that the plan allows a huge variation in water levels (18.5") and that SREL would receive a huge bonus for operating the plant in a “peaking operation”, where they will store the water every night and run the plant at full capacity every afternoon – using Lake Muskoka as a water reservoir.
  • SREL notes that they will “ask for public consultation” on the scenic flow over the north dam. Of course, the public will want more, and SREL will want less. Water over the dam is lost money to them. The important point is that they will only begin this public consultation AFTER the Environmental Screening Report public comment period is completed, which doesn’t leave the public any negotiating strength for this.
  • A related point is that the Township of Muskoka Lakes is planning on asking SREL for incentives for allowing this project to proceed, but only doing this after the project is approved. Again, this is too late to be asking for anything.
 Older Entries  Newer Entries