Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture, et du Sport Culture Division Division de culture Culture Services Unit Unité des services culturels Programs and Services Branch Direction des programmes et des services 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 401, rue Bay, Bureau 1700 Toronto, ON, M7A 0A7 Toronto, ON, M7A 0A7 Telephone: 416 314 7137 Téléphone: 416 314 7137 Facsimile: 416 314 7175 Télécopieur: 416 314 7175 Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected] February 24, 2012 Kelly Matheson Bow Lake Phase 1 Wind Farm Limited & Bow Lake Phase 2 Wind Farm Limited c/o Bluearth Renewables Inc. Suite 200, 4723-1st Street SW Calgary, AB T2G 4Y8 RE: Colloquial Name of Project: Bow Lake Wind Farm Phase 1 and Phase 2 Location: District of Algoma OPA Reference Numbers: FIT-FVXCPUV, FIT-F7JOC51, FIT-FYPJVV MTCS DPR file no.: PLAN-57EA031 Dear Ms. Matheson: This letter constitutes the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s written comments as required by s. 23(3)(a) of O. Reg. 359/09 under the Environmental Protection Act regarding heritage assessments undertaken for the above projects. Based on the information contained in the revised report submitted for these projects, the Ministry is satisfied with the heritage assessment. Please note that the Ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of the heritage assessment report. * The revised Heritage and Tourism Impact Assessment for Bow Lake Wind Farm Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Feb. 22, 2012) recommends the following: 4.2 Mitigation Aboriginal Mitigation: 1. (With regard to Batchewana First Nation of the Ojibways). The author of this report will not make recommendations regarding the significance of or need for mitigation of potential effects on BFN cultural heritage. As participants in the project, the BFN have recommended that all Bow Lake Project development activities recognize and respect the spirituality of the Bow Lake Site, and the developers follow the spiritual lessons of the ancestors before commencing any of the work contemplated by this project. It is recommended that the proponent continue to engage with the BFN to identify and address any concerns they have with respect to potential impacts of the project on their cultural and spiritual heritage. 1 2. (With regard to the Métis Community). It is understood discussions are ongoing in respect of potential mitigation measures and it is recommended that the proponent continue to consult and work with the Métis to identify and address any concerns they have with respect to potential impacts of the project on their cultural heritage. Great Lakes Heritage Coast Mitigation: 1. The proponents have set back the wind turbines from the coast by approximately 8 km, with the closest turbine being around 5 km from the coastline. This distance coupled with the clustered (as opposed to linear) siting of the turbines will help to minimize the visibility of the wind turbines from the coast. No further mitigation is recommended. Lake Superior Provincial Park Mitigation: 1. The distance of the wind turbines from the coast (as described above) as well as the grouping of the turbines will help to reduce the visibility of the wind turbines from this area. No further mitigation is recommended. Highway 17 Scenic Drive Mitigation: 1. There is no mitigation recommended. 2. Consideration could be given to an interpretive initiative dealing with alternative energy, orchestrated by the proponent with such organizations as the Algoma Kinniabi Travel Association (and the Agawa Canyon Rail/CN). This could be an outdoor interpretive presentation using all weather panels located at pull-off areas which have a view of the turbines. Such an approach supports the Sault Ste. Marie –Think Green – The alternative energy capital of North America –marketing campaign. Potentially hydro electric power as well as the search for uranium could be incorporated into the story of the Wind Farms as a part of the Region’s clean energy heritage. Voyageur Trails Mitigation: 1. There is no mitigation recommended. Landscapes Associated with the Group of Seven Mitigation: 1. There is no mitigation recommended. 2. The eventual publication of the Waddington research and the McGuffin/Burtch20 research tracking actual sites of the Group of Seven will provide a tangible link between artists and the landscape, regardless of the development of the Bow Lake Wind Project or other industrial activities which have altered the landscape since the paintings were produced. 4.3 Conclusion Regarding the Heritage Resources Impact of Bow Lake Wind Farm The examination leads to the conclusion that the construction of the planned Wind Farm will have no negative impact on the heritage resources on the Project location as there are no significant heritage resources located on the site that could be affected in any event. The Batchewana First Nation of Ojibways know that spirits are present throughout their territory, including the project area, and it is their belief that the addition of the wind turbines will not impact (positively or negatively) these spirits. 2 Further, the project will have only limited impact on the resources located in the larger study area (Zone of Visual Impact) as there are very few heritage sites that will be directly affected in any way by towers. One of the better known sites is the site of the Aboriginal pictographs in Lake Superior Provincial Park, where, at a certain angle from the site, wind towers might be seen in the far distance on a clear day. Given the existing visual context (there are also a number of cottages on the island immediately opposite the pictographs which detract from the wilderness setting), and the distance between the pictographs and the wind turbines limiting their visibility, this does not constitute an impact that requires mitigation. The only other heritage sites identified in the Zone of Visual Impact that have been noted as being of potential interest are painting sites (i.e. sites where original scene of paintings are still recognizable) of the Group of Seven. However, to date, no Group of Seven painting sites have been identified that would be affected by the visibility of the wind turbines, with the exception of the J.E.H. MacDonald painting of the Falls on the Montreal River, however this site has already been significantly altered by industrial (hydroelectric) development since the painting was done. Wind turbines would just be the latest addition of change on the site. The Ministry is satisfied with these recommendations. The Section 4.2 Mitigation of report also includes a second recommendation related to Lake Superior Provincial Park. While the authors of the report acknowledge that this second recommendation is beyond the scope of the study and is not the responsibility of the proponent, they included it as a consideration for the Park’s administration. Therefore, it was not included in the above recommendations. This letter does not waive any requirements which you may have under the Ontario Heritage Act. Also, this letter does not constitute approval of the renewable energy project. Approvals of the project may be required under other statutes and regulations. It is your responsibility to obtain any necessary approvals or licences. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Paula Kulpa Team Lead – Land Use Planning (A) cc. John Stewart Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Ltd. Bruce Fountain TCI Management Consultants Chris Schiller, Manager Culture Services Unit, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport ___________________________________________________________ * In no way will the Ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent. 3 Heritage Impact and Tourism Assessment for Bow Lake Wind Farm, Phase 1 & Phase 2 Cover Photos: Figure 1. Agawa Point Pictographs. Misshepezhieu, the great horned lynx. Source: Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Limited. Figure 2. The view southwest from the first viewpoint on the Awausee Trail. Source: Lars Jensen, http://www-personal.umich. edu/~jensenl/visuals/album/2008/superior/ Heritage Impact and Tourism Assessment for Bow Lake Wind Farm, Phase 1 & Phase 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 Introduction to the Development Site 1.1 Overview . .3 1.2 Background .............................................................3 1.3 Assumptions and Caveats . .7 1.4 Definitions. .8 Chapter 2 Study Approach and Methodology 2.1 Approach and Methodology ...........................................11 2.2 Information Gathering and Consultation. 11 2.3 Field Work .............................................................13 2.4 Process of Determining Impact . 13 2.5 Project Location .......................................................14 2.6 Zone of Visual Impact ..................................................15 2.7 Zone of Economic Impact ..............................................16 Chapter 3 Heritage Resources 3.1 First Nations ...........................................................20 3.2 The Great Lakes Heritage Coast – Lake Superior