Sault Ste Marie District
64 Church Street
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
P6A 3H3
Attn: Erin Nixon
March 26, 2012
Dear Ms. Nixon,
I am writing to express my opposition to the Work proposed and
described by Great Lakes Environmental Services (GLES) in their Class
Environmental Assessment for Access Road Upgrades and Construction of 3
Spur Roads Bow Lake Phase 1 Wind Farm Draft Project Description Report.
This work should not be approved or allowed to go ahead.
The proposed work is only required in order to facilitate the
construction of a Industrial Wind Generating Station and which, given
that it would take place within the boundaries of the managed Algoma
Crown Forest, seems in direct violation of the requirements of the
Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, c. 25:
Principles
The Forest Management Planning Manual
shall provide for determinations of the sustainability of Crown forests
in a manner consistent with the following principles:
Large, healthy, diverse and productive
Crown forests and their associated ecological processes and biological
diversity should be conserved.
The long term health and vigour of
Crown forests should be provided for by using forest practices that,
within the limits of silvicultural requirements, emulate natural
disturbances and landscape patterns while minimizing adverse effects on
plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic
values, including recreational values and heritage values. 1994, c. 25,
s. 2 (3).
In what way does the fragmenting of a healthy forest eco-system by
roads and industrialization promote and respect the principles of the
Crown Forest Sustainability Act? It should be well known to the MNR
that one of the biggest threats to eco-systems is fragmentation and
Islanding. Furthermore Industrial Wind Turbines have other negative
impacts on the environment and ecosystems where they are
constructed1,2,3,4.
There are a number of contradictions between the information provided
by GLES in their Class Environmental Assessment for this work and that
provided last year to the MOE and the public by one of the proponents,
DP Energy, during the mandated public consultations.
It is appreciated that the Class Environmental Assessment for Access
Road Upgrades and Construction of 3 Spur Roads Bow Lake Phase 1 Wind
Farm Draft Project Description Report submitted by GLES is only a Draft
report and it would appear that the application should be denied and
the Proponent and its Consultants should be required to re-submit their
application once they have had time to adequately review it so as to
ensure that all the information contained therein is complete and
correct and is a Final document.
To wit, the information provided by GLES on page 1 of their Class
Environmental Assessment for Access Road Upgrades and Construction of 3
Spur Roads Bow Lake Phase 1 Wind Farm Draft Project Description Report
they state that “The Bow Lake Wind Farm will be completed in two
phases. Phase 1 will include the installation of 12 General Electric
(“GE”) 1.6-100 model turbines representing a total nameplate capacity
of up to 19.44 MW. Phase 2 includes the installation of 24 GE 1.6-100
model turbines representing a total nameplate capacity of up to 38.88
MW.” However in their Draft Wind Turbine Specifications Report, a
document which was submitted to the MOE and was part of the public
consultations DP Energy held as part of the requirements to fulfill
their REA application, DP Energy and M.K. Ince specify that the project
will use 36 Siemens SWT-2.3-101, which are 2.3MW nameplate capacity IWT
(Industrial Wind Turbines) for a total project nameplate capacity of
82.8MW.
Either GLES is not sufficiently familiar with the project, which casts
in doubt the thoroughness and correctness of the work performed for
this Class Environmental Assessment for Access Road Upgrades and
Construction, or the proponent has misinformed the public, or failed to
inform the public of substantive changes to the project, as required
under the REA. This may seem like a minor point, however the
differences and impacts are significant.
Furthermore, in their Bow Lake Wind Farm Phase 1 DRAFT Natural Heritage
Environmental Impact Study Report, December 3, 2010, prepared by M. K.
Ince, DP Energy state that:
“2 IMPACTS TO RARE PLANTS
The Bow Lake Wind Farm Natural Heritage
Evaluation of Significance Report identifies two rare plant species
that occur within 120 m of the Project Location. In four locations,
Oval-leaved Bilberry was found within the Project Location. At
locations H, K, P and R as indicated in the Project Site Plan instances
90 metres, 49 metres, 44 metres and 104 metres from the Project
Location were identified. Braun’s Holly fern was noted at one location
(location S in the Project Site Plan), 120 metres from the Project
Location. At this distance neither species would be near enough to be impacted directly by clearing for access roads or turbine laydown areas.” (bold added)
This statement is in direct contradiction to statements made in the
document Class Environmental Assessment for Access Road Upgrades and
Construction of 3 Spur Roads Bow Lake Phase 1 Wind Farm Draft Project
Description Report, provided by Great Lakes Environmental Services, as
well as a letter dated March 23, 2012 from Angela Keefe, wherein it is
categorically stated that oval-leaved bilberry will be impacted by the
proposed roads and that these impacts will require mitigation.
Furthermore in their Bow Lake Wind Farm Phase 1 DRAFT Natural Heritage
Environmental Impact Study Report, December 3, 2010, prepared by M. K.
Ince, DP Energy acknowledges the existence of Braun's Holly Fern, a
species not mentioned by Great Lakes Environmental Services, is this
because there are none to be found in the areas of proposed road work
or because they were missed during the literature review upon which
GLES seems to have, in part, based their EA?
There is no mention of salamanders in either the M.K Ince or the GLES
documents, yet it is well known that there are 4 species which inhabit
the area, Eastern Newt
Notophthalmus viridescens, Eastern Redback Salamander
Plethodon cinereus, Blue-spotted Salamander
Ambystoma laterale, and the Spotted Salamander
Ambystoma maculatum.
While these species are not necessarily rare or endangered in Ontario,
they are at, or nearing, the extent of their range and are thus
significant populations. The assumption that anything not rooted will
relocate to equally suitable habitat in the area may or may not be
correct and would need to be substantiated with field studies.
Salamanders in particular are vulnerable to habitat disruption and
introduced chemicals. That Salamanders are not considered seems to
imply further deficiencies in this EA.
The mitigation and transplant procedures detailed for the ova-leaved
bilberry do not cite any peer-reviewed studies supporting the
assumption that these procedures are adequate and sufficient to
preserve the plants endangered by the proposed roadwork. The MNR
apparently required similar mitigation and monitoring procedures of
Brookfield Energy in 2007 after it built the Prince Wind Farm. To what
extent was this transplant procedure successful and what percentage of
the transplanted plants still live today? Transplantation of wild
oval-leaved bilberry to achieve long-term survival is difficult. The
maximum two year monitoring is insufficient to determine whether the
MNR-sanctioned procedures result in long term survivability of the
plants.
The mitigation procedures triggered by a survival rate of less than 85%
of the transplanted v. ovalifollium is also problematic in that it
introduces cultivated strains of v. ovalifollium to the area. While it
could be argued that this increases the genetic diversity of the plant
in the area, in reality it decreases the overall depth of the genetic
pool. Furthermore the cultivar, not having evolved in the area is
likely to be less well adapted to the habitat and thus less likely to
survive.
The procedure with respect to nesting Eagles and Raptors appears, at
first glance, reasonable. However it also appears to be in violation of
the Endangered Species Act Clause 10(1)(a) of the ESA states that “No
person shall damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed
on the Species at Risk in Ontario list as an endangered or threatened
species” and Clause 17 which requires a Ministerial permit to kill,
harm or harass for activities where adverse effects to endangered or
threatened species at risk or their protected habitat cannot be avoided.
Nesting sites are defined as habitat and thus the proponent needs to
apply to the Minister for a permit under the ESA before submitting its
application for permission to carry out this work.
While the Northern Goshawk is not on the OSAR list and thus not
protected under the ESA, it and its nests are protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and it is also illegal under this Act to
disturb the nest of any native bird without a permit.
Given the experience with the rock scaling work performed by an MTO
subcontractor last summer, which resulted in the destruction of a
Peregrine nest on Mica Bay, the procedure outlined by GLES to protect
nests is inadequate.
The proponent must be required contract with a qualified biologist to
perform a careful survey of the proposed road works, prior to workmen
or equipment mobilizing on to the site, in order to ensure that no
migratory bird nests are present in the area or within 200 meters of
the area.
This is the only way to ensure that nesting sites are protected,
especially if clearing activities are undertaken during the nesting
season when the alarm of the parents will attract crows, ravens and
other predators to the migratory bird nest. Should migratory bird nests
be found the MNR must be contacted to ensure that adequate mitigation
procedures are implemented.
The GLES procedures lack a requirement for independent surveillance
& quality control to ensure compliance and correct implementation,
without which these procedures are incomplete.
I note that the Legend of the map on page 3 of the GLESS Class EA
document shows all the Industrial Wind Turbine access roads as
approved, except those leading to IWT #7 & #8. Please provide a
copy of the notice as well as the Class EA document for this work and
when it was completed.
As a final general comment the short monitoring time frames required by
the MNR and the lack of long term (>50 years) ecological records
leads to decisions which seem reasonable in the short term, but are not
necessarily so in the longer term5. The Industrialization of the
Eastern Shore of Lake Superior and fragmentation of its watershed by
Industrial Wind Generating Stations is one such example. As pointed out
by the Ontario Auditor General there has been no proper independent
cost/benefit analysis, fiscal or environmental, performed to justify
this policy. All indications are that this will be a very expensive
mistake both economically and environmentally.
While the question of the EA for the Bow Lake Wind Generating Station
is supposedly addressed by the REA process and not in the scope of the
MNR's decision with respect to this Road Work, the enablement of the
project is listed as a high positive in the assessment criteria at the
end of the GLES document and must therefore be addressed. The damage to
the environment, the killing of birds and bats, the destruction of
tourism and our Natural Heritage as well as the impact on surface
waters, not to mention the financial, economic and knock-on costs is
not to be so easily dismissed and must be factored into the MNR's
decision matrix when it considers permitting this work.
The MNR should not permit this project and thus the Road Work to
proceed given the perceived deficiencies in the Class Environmental
Assessment for Access Road Upgrades and Construction of 3 Spur Roads
Bow Lake Phase 1 Wind Farm Draft Project Description Report (they even
have their own postal code wrong in the Public Notice), the
contradictions in the information provided by the Proponents in their
various public documents and the large negative financial and
environmental impacts inherent in this project.
Sincerely
(Your Name)
(Your Address)
1, Stelling, K. & Petrie, S., Threats from industrial wind turbines to Ontario’s wildlife and biodiversity, 2011
http://docs.wind-watch.org/stelling-petrie-policy-guidance-document-final.pdf
2, Niyogi, D., The Impacts of LCLUC Change: Energy Balance and Climate, March 2011.
http://www.iclimate.org/dev/publications/Niyogi-LCLUC-MARCH2011-SHORT.pdf
3, Baidya Roy, S., Simulating impacts of wind farms on local
hydrometeorology. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. (2011),
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2010.12.013
http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~sbroy/publ/jweia2011.pdf
4, http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/?n=windfarm
5, K. J. Willis and S. A. Bhagwat, Questions of importance to the
conservation of biological diversity: answers from the past, Climate of
the Past, doi:10.5194/cp-6-759-2010, November 2010
http://www.clim-past.net/6/759/2010/cp-6-759-2010.pdf
SAMPLE LETTER
Bow Lake Phase 2Wind Farm Ltd.
c/o BluEarth Renewables Inc.
200, 4723 1st Street S.W.
Calgary, Alberta,
T2G 4Y8
Attn: Kelly Matheson
March 30, 2012
Dear Ms. Matheson,
Though the Green Energy Act stripped us of local democracy we still
have, as a basic human right, per principle 10 of the Rio Declaration,
the power and duty to protect our environment despite deliberate
crippling of Provincial mechanisms such as the Environmental
Registry. It is that fundamental right to "environmental
democracy" that I assert in objecting to the enabling road work herein
discussed.
The Renewable Energy Approval consultation process for the Bow Lake
project produced an outpouring of concern over the proposed
construction of industrial-scale wind turbines in what is one of
Canada's most picturesque landscapes, such that all proponents
including government must reasonably be aware that Industrial Wind
Turbines of even the small size of the known and detested Prince Wind
Farm, blight the landscape for 40 km around and are an unacceptable
blemish on the iconic wilderness vistas which reliably enchant both
passing tourists and local residents. Loss of visual amenity was just
one of many objections to a land use change based on an egregious
energy policy which is worse than just ill-advised.
The Auditor General 2011 Report on renewable energy found:
Although the Ministry consulted with stakeholders in developing the
supply-mix directives, the LTEP, and the Green Energy and Green Economy
Act, billions of dollars were committed to renewable energy without
fully evaluating the impact, the trade-offs, and the alternatives
through a comprehensive business-case analysis. Specifically, the OPA,
the OEB, and the IESO acknowledged that:
• no independent, objective, expert investigation had been done to
examine the potential effects of renewable-energy policies on prices,
job creation, and greenhouse gas emissions; and
• no thorough and professional cost/benefit analysis had been conducted
to identify potentially cleaner, more economically productive, and
cost-effective alternatives to renewable energy, such as energy imports
and increased conservation.
2.06 Good decision-making involves, at the very
least, adopting criteria by which a policy, project or programme is
judged to be ‘good’, and then doing an appraisal of how the alternative
options compare. Analysis should begin with a performance matrix (also
known as a criteria-alternatives matrix). This provides the basic
building block of rational decision-making.(1) p20
The rational essential foundation has been show to be lacking so all
that is proposed here must be weighed against the value of a house of
cards..or a crap shoot. Since the European Union is now faced with
repercussions of similar lapses in valuation, here we have a vital
resource being threatened by ideology and industry-generated mass
hysteria. We ALL have a duty to demand the proper foundation be in
place.
3.01 The economic value of something can be regarded
as the extent to which people would be prepared to sacrifice something
else in order to obtain or safeguard a quantity of it. Total economic
value comprises the sum of use and non-use values. Use values may be
direct (e.g. by consuming the good, visiting a site) or indirect (e.g.
by securing some benefit from the good). A forest, for example, serves
both direct and indirect use functions. Visitors to the forest make
direct use of it. The role of the forest in protecting the regional
watershed would be an example of an indirect use, as would the role of
the forest in sequestering carbon dioxide.(1)p23
In the context of 3.01 it should be mentioned that the use of Bow Lake
and area extends to a huge seasonal population (some of whom made
themselves known to DP Energy but many of whom were only aware of the
threat when they were approached on ATV trails during hunting season...
all willingly signed a petition for a moratorium on IWT) which enjoys
free access to Crown land away from urban influences. DP has already
indicated that:
“Throughout construction and decommissioning of the project, workers on
site will monitor for the presence of unauthorized persons along the
new roads, and in particular along roads providing access to MAFAs.
During operation of the wind farm, maintenance workers and personnel
conducting post-construction monitoring (for example rare plants
monitoring, bird and bat mortality searches, etc.) will ensure that no
unauthorized persons are present on the new roads. Additionally,
evidence of unauthorized access in the form of ATV tracks, etc., will
be searched for. If despite the above mitigation measures it is found
that unauthorized public access is occurring on new roads which could
provide access to MAFAs, as a contingency measure the new roads will be
gated to restrict access to the MAFAs and proper closure and locking of
the gates will be ensured during all subsequent visits. Signs and gates
will be checked at each visit by maintenance and post-construction
monitoring personnel for continued visibility and functionality. Access
along existing roads will be unaffected.”
The experience of Prince Wind Farm has shown that promised access is
NOT assured and willingness to report species of interest has declined
because the MNR is seen to be willing to destroy habitat while treating
all citizens as potential criminals.
Great indirect benefits accrue from this intact forest which can serve
to maintain connectivity between protected park areas and provide
important micro refugia particularly here where they reach the
ecologically strategic edge of the Lake Superior migratory barrier.
3.02 In addition to current use values, individuals
may be willing to pay to conserve the option of future use. If the
option relates to their own use, this WillingnessTo Pay (WTP) reflects
option value. If the future use which individuals are willing to pay
for is for others (e.g., children or future generations), it is termed
a bequest value.(1)p23
In the context of 3.02 this area is of particularly high value as the
visual amenity and natural heritage values carry strong cultural bonds
for all peoples as it represents the wilderness we know and which
informs our self-image as Canadians. Some of our area Parks come to us
under the aptly named "Living Legacy" program. The government of
Ontario and First Nations have invested heavily in educating the
population to associate conservation of wilderness and wetland with the
Seventh Generation. Many of us view Lake Superior and her watershed as
our most treasured birthright and are profoundly grateful for the
miracle of its continued wildness.
3.03 Non-use values, also known as passive use
values, arise in contexts where an individual is willing to pay for a
good even though he or she makes no direct use of it, may not benefit
even indirectly from it, and may not plan any future use for themselves
or others. This is also referred to as existence value.(1)p23
To the many individuals who own or admire Group of Seven artwork or who
revere the mystique of Lake Superior the industrialization of this
unique watershed would be felt as a loss.
3.04 In determining the benefits of a given policy,
what matters is the Total Economic Value (TEV) of the benefits which
are secured. Categorising TEV into types of economic value is useful in
that it provides a checklist of impacts and effects that need, in
principle, to be valued. For example, it is easy to overlook non-use
values in decisions that relate to, say, conservation of the
countryside. The economic value of the countryside will be determined
not just by the values placed on it by countryside residents and by
visitors, but also by, for example, urban people who simply want the
countryside to exist. In the same way, the costs of a policy comprise
the TEV of those costs.(1)p23
I point out that in the context of 3.04 the venues for DP Energy public
consultations were held farther and farther away from the Bow Lake area
and yet kept attracting more concerned citizens. Urban residency does
not dispel the special mystique of this Lake and land nor does it
diminish an informed confidence in the natural resilience of an intact
ecosystem.
The shocking revelation by the Auditor General, of less-than-rational
decision-making, dispelled any confidence we might have in this
government to properly administer Crown lands. It confirms suspicions
which had formed as a result of bureaucratic approval of shoddy
environmental work submitted by DP Energy. The priorities of the MNR,
MOE, and other Ministries through the insidious efforts of the
Renewable Energy Facilitation Office have ceased to be protection of
our Natural Resources and environment. REFO is seen to relentlessly
approve projects however poorly designed and executed, knowingly
contradicting and undermining generations of costly conservation
initiatives and public education, effectively reducing the scientific
credibility of the MNR and MOE.
That this ecologically important transition forest between the Boreal
and the Great Lakes St. Lawrence has been targeted is not surprising
given the complete lack of ecological acumen demonstrated by the
highest levels of government. Dalton McGuinty in 2010 visited The
Globe and Mail’s editorial board where Adam Radwanski reported the
Ontario Premier was asked, how could his government be considering
putting wind turbines off the shores of Point Pelee, in Lake Erie’s
Pigeon Bay? As one of the most ecologically sensitive corners of the
province, wasn’t it the sort of place that should be deemed off limits
for energy development? Mr. McGuinty acknowledged that he hadn’t
really given this specific issue much consideration. “You’ve raised
something which I’ve not thought about,” he said. “I’m glad you’re not
in opposition.”
To those of us who ARE in opposition to the obviously ill-considered
industrialization of Lake Superior and her watershed the Premier's
flippant remark was an effective wake-up.
The current plans for the road work and drilling are just as rife with
presumption and inconsistency as the DP project itself has been, yet
the forestry sector, which once pillaged our forests and wreaked great
aesthetic and ecological disturbance is again being used prematurely to
expedite industrialization of a minimally impacted forest wetland
complex. Those who have adamantly objected to the Bow Lake Project have
said, "NO!", emphatically and persistently so a euphemism such as "wind
penetration" is no longer adequate to describe this rape of our land.
The 1987 amendment to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement required
the development of Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) to “restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem”. THAT IS JUST ONE OF MANY COSTLY AND ELABORATE
PROGRAMS INSTITUTED OVER THE YEARS TO PROTECT OUR NATURAL HERITAGE
ENDOWMENT. Many residents of this area have internalized the
conservation ethic and I know forestry workers who are concerned about
nature beyond the sustainability exigencies of the Crown Forestry Act
and are profoundly shocked at the proposed degradation and waste of
this cherished resource made more precious with every tree and acre
protected or restored.
2.1 The role of economic valuation in decision-making:
"Loss of environmental resources is an economic problem because
important values are lost, some perhaps irreversibly, when these
resources are degraded or lost.
The decision as to what use to pursue for a given environmental
resource, and ultimately whether current rates of resource loss are
‘excessive’, can only be made if these gains and losses are properly
analyzed and evaluated. This requires that all the values that are
gained and lost under each resource use option are carefully
considered...the failure to account more fully for the economic costs
of conversion or degradation of environmental resources is a major
factor behind the design of inappropriate development policies. The
result is too much conversion and over-exploitation of environmental
resources.
...not only should the direct costs of conversion be included as part
of the costs of this development option but so must the foregone values
that the converted resource can no longer provide. These may include
the loss of both important environmental functions and, in the case of
complex resource systems such as wetlands, many important biological
resources and amenity values as well.
Many environmental resources are complex and multi-functional, and it
is not obvious how the myriad goods and services provided by these
resources affect human welfare.(2)pp78-79
In considering the losses from massive industrialization to this forest
which is already a multi-use resource, those which affect human welfare
must also include concern for the physical/mental health and emotional
wellbeing of citizens, here this applies across all levels of
socio-economic status...this seems a great deal to ask from a
government which delights in name-calling and mockery of individuals as
well as the principles of good government but again IS our human right.
Until such time as this government produces a proper cost/benefit
analysis for an energy policy which drives the proposed
industrialization of a valuable ecological asset, and we are provided
with the proper economic valuation based on accurate and complete data
for the proposed energy project, NONE of the enabling work, including
roads and drilling, should be permitted to proceed.
(1)Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques Summary Guide
David Pearce and Ece O ̈ Zdemiroglu et al. March 2002 Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: London
(2) Economic Valuation of Wetlands:
a Guide for Policy Makers and Planners
by Edward B Barbier, Mike Acreman and Duncan Knowler
RAMSAR Convention Bureau, Department of Environmental Economics and
Environmental Management, University of York Institute of Hydrology
IUCN- The World Conservation Union 1997
Sincerely,
(Your Name)
(Your Address)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SAMPLE LETTER
Angela Keefe
Class EA Project Representative
Great Lakes Environmental Services
A Division of Tulloch Engineering
1942 Regent St., Unit L
Sudbury, ON P3E 5V5
Dear Ms. Keefe:
We write regarding the notice entitled "Public Notice for a Category B
Project Evaluation" for the proposed Bow Lake Wind Farm that appeared
in the Feb. 29, 2012 editions of the Sault Star and the Sault This Week
newspapers.
We write to you to express our extreme distress at and are strongly
opposed to the plans mentioned in the notice. The notice proposes
road work to allow access for cranes, turbine components and other
related equipment and materials for the Bow Lake Phase 1 Wind
Farm.
The locations outlined on the map are all situated in a part of Canada
that our province and nation should protect because of the area's
unspoiled beauty and spectacular wilderness. The region north of
Sault Ste. Marie is amongst the most beautiful natural areas in Canada,
unique due to its proximity to the magnificent shores of the largest
freshwater lake in the world. As such, it deserves recognition and
protection, not investigative industrial activities that will lead to
the destruction of that which should be protected. The drive along the
trans Canada highway between Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa is one of the
most spectacular in Canada and amongst the best in the world. It's the
abundance of water, trees, hills and an unobstructed horizon that
make it so remarkable. This is the landscape enjoyed by generations of
tourists and locals alike, not only from the highway but also from the
Agawa Tour Train, Lake Superior Provincial Park and from the water
(whether in a canoe, kayak or sail boat). The dark night-time sky is
also a treasure. It was this landscape that inspired the world-renowned
Group of Seven artists to paint here in the early 20th century and it
was their art which formed a Canadian artistic identity. Remarkably,
much of the landscape they painted almost 100 years ago remains intact.
The heritage of this region, however, goes back much further: we only
have to look to the First Nations and the voyageur culture to realize
that this area is the very foundation of what Canada is today.
We believe that Algoma has a unique and unprecedented opportunity to
grow its tourist industries based on this undervalued asset - the
unspoiled beauty of the Algoma Highlands, the clear, cool waters of the
lake, and the surrounding old growth forest. Look to the Lake Tahoe
area for inspiration. The Highway 17 corridor is similar to other
famous coastal routes like the Cabot Trail in Nova Scotia and the
California Coastal Highway in the USA. Marketing the area as a premier
tourist destination would provide real, ongoing employment
opportunities. People come from all over the world to visit this
special part of our country: it has magic; it has great spirit. But the
area can only be sustained if we look after it. This is a landscape we
should treasure, not industrialize Please see:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/5000/10306460.pdf
for additional reasons why this project must not go forward. We are
saddened to think we could be the generation that will allow activities
such as those proposed by Bow Lake Wind Farm; activities that will lead
to a scarring of the landscape to the point of no return. Much like
Humpty Dumpty...we will not be able to put it back together again once
the trees are cut, the rock is blasted and the boreholes drilled. We
urge you to protect this precious and undervalued resource and halt the
further industrialization of Algoma's landscape. Lake Superior's
natural beauty is the envy of the world and a point of pride for this
place we call "home." We all have a special role in protecting it for
this and future generations.
We believe we should do the right thing and halt the Bow Lake Wind Farm
project by abandoning the road work phase of the project. We are
strongly opposed to allowing the road work to go ahead.
Yours truly,
(Your Name)
(Your Address)
SAMPLE LETTER
Angela Keefe
Class EA Project Representative
Great Lakes Environmental Services
A Division of Tulloch Engineering
1942 Regent St., Unit L
Sudbury, ON P3E 5V5
Dear Ms. Keefe:
Regarding: Bow
Lake Phase 1 Wind Farm notice entitled “Public Notice For a Category B
Project Evaluation” that appeared in the Feb. 29/12 editions of the
Sault Star and the Sault This Week newspapers.
I am strongly opposed to the plan mentioned in the notice. The
notice proposes road work to allow access for cranes, turbine
components, and other equipment and materials for the Bow Lake Phase 1
Wind Farm.
The locations outlined on the map included in the notice are all
situated in a part of Canada that our province and/or nation should
protect because of the area’s extreme natural beauty and
uniqueness. The region north of Sault Ste. Marie is amongst the
most beautiful natural areas in Canada, unique due to it’s proximity to
the largest lake in the world and as such deserves recognition and
protection, not road work activities that have a strong potential to
lead to destroying that which we should protect. The drive along
the trans Canada Highway between Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa is one of
the most spectacular in Canada if not the world. It’s the abundance of
water, trees and hills that make it so beautiful. It goes against
the grain to prepare the area for industrialization and subsequent
destruction of the landscape. This is the landscape enjoyed by tourists
and locals alike, not only from the highway but also from the Agawa
Tour Train and Lake Superior Park and so on. If I’m not mistaken
the Group of Seven artists appreciated it also for it’s beautiful
landscape. This is a landscape we should treasure, not
industrialize.
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/5000/10306460.pdf
I am saddened to think we could be the generation that will allow
activities such as those proposed in the notice, activities that likely
will lead to marring to the point of no return the beautiful naturally
gifted region north of Sault Ste. Marie with turbines at a height of
approximately 50 stories (including blades).
I believe we should do the right thing and halt the Bow Lake Wind Farm
project by abandoning the road work phase of the project. I am
strongly opposed to allowing the road work to go ahead.
Yours truly,
(Your Name)
(Your Address)