Proponent’s big lie #4: “saving” Margaret Burgess Park

 No Responses »
Nov 072015
 

The proponent sent this letter to Township Councillors attempting to pressure them into signing the lease the proponent desperately needs to facilitate their proposed construction.

The proponent attempted to add to this pressure by both sending the letter to the local media and also publicizing it through Twitter.

What the proponent didn’t tell the public or press is:

  • This lease would only be to the proponent’s benefit and would be to the detriment of the area businesses, due to the loss of half of the parking in Bala, as summarized below (click on it for a larger view).
  • The proponent has not committed that for as long as the proposed generating station operates, Margaret Burgess Park will remain open to the public, and that it will not be fenced-off.

The proponent:

  1. Would occupy the north half of the Precambrian Shield parking lot throughout the years of proposed construction, and would occupy the south half of the Don’s Bakery parking lot for more than half of each year throughout the years of proposed construction. The area’s economy depends on visitors, who arrive by car and need to park. Losing this parking is favouring the proponent instead of the municipality’s taxpayers.
     
  2. Would cut down over 100 trees instead of just three. They aren’t “saving” anything, just being more destructive than need be.
     
  3. Has not committed to “saving” Margaret Burgess Park after their proposed construction is completed. So they would not save anything.

Proponent’s big lie #3: in-water recreation could continue safely

 No Responses »
Nov 052015
 

Section 6.2.4 of the proponent’s 2012 Addendum states: “Public access to some areas around the proposed facility will be restricted, as shown in Figure 6.4, due to safety concerns.” As shown by the yellow-shaded areas of the section of the proponent’s Figure 6.4 below (click on it for a larger view), the restricted areas are only those within the upstream and downstream safety booms.

Also, the proponent acknowledges that in the vicinity of the proposed project site there are: “a range of recreational activities such as aquatic sports (boating, fishing, swimming) and snowmobiling” and “Lake Muskoka (upstream of North Bala Dam) and Moon River (downstream of North Bala Dam) are popular boating, swimming, scuba diving and recreational fishing areas” (Environmental Screening/Review report Sections 2.2.4.1 and 2.2.5.10). The proponent is therefore claiming that these activities can safely continue outside of the yellow-shaded areas.

However, as the proponent’s own upstream and downstream flow simulations (overlaid on a satellite photograph) below show, the water velocities would be just as fast (and dangerous) outside of the safety boom areas as within.

Further, as detailed here, Transport Canada’s method of calculation shows that the construction of the proposed generating station would require that the upstream safety boom be relocated farther upstream.

Indeed, as detailed here, hydro-electric generating stations are never built in the middle of an in-water recreational area.

It is clear that in-water recreational activities would not be safe even outside of the safety booms.

Proponent’s big lie #2: building footprint

 2 Responses »
Nov 042015
 

In their 2012 Environmental Assessment Addendum, the proponent:

  • Provided a scale drawing of the outline of their proposed Alternative 1A generating station. A section of this Figure 2.1 is below, and using the proponent’s scale shows the area of the footprint (highlighted in blue) as 401 m².
  • Stated in Section 2.1: “The footprint and elevation of the Alternative 1A plan presented in this Addendum illustrates the largest building size required for both configurations. Therefore, this size may indeed be reduced following detailed design prior to construction.”

However, at the October 16, 2015 Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting, the proponent provided the current drawings for their proposed generating station. A section of one of these drawings is shown below, the area of the footprint is 600 m². This would be a 50% increase from what they had said was already “the largest building size”.

Therefore the proponent has not honoured their written commitment to the public and to the Ministry of the Environment.

Proponent’s big lie #1: building height

 1 Response »
Nov 042015
 

Summary
The proponent’s building would be three storeys above Muskoka Road 169 (even though they previously stated it would not be above the road), and it would be six storeys above the Moon River – almost double what they received approval for.

Detail
In their 2012 Addendum, in which they presented their current Alternative 1A plan to the Ministry of the Environment for environmental approval, the proponent provided the following drawing (click on it for a larger view). In it we see:

  • The proponent’s own dimensions show that the roof of their proposed building would be 30′ above the Moon River.
  • The width of the proposed building would be 40′.
  • Also important is that the proponent stated this 30′-tall building is already as high as required for a vertical turbine. More detail is in our earlier article here.

Alternative 1A, as proponent presented in their 2012 Addendum

However, at the October 16, 2015 Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting, the proponent presented the drawing below (dimensions have been added). This is a view of their proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, as viewed from Margaret Burgess Park. It shows:

  • The roof of their building would be much higher than the 30′ they presented in 2012 – we now see their building would actually be 55′ above the Moon River (this is the height of a 6-storey building). We also see their building would be 25′ above Muskoka Road 169, even though they previously said their building would not be above road level.
  • The 34′-high structure that looks like  a hanging gallows at the Moon River would be six huge steel posts topped by a 12″-high steel cross-beam that people would need to look through to look down the Moon River from the proposed building’s look-out. This would not be a scenic view.
  • While not shown on the drawing below, at and above the water the proponent’s proposed building would be 62′ wide, not the 40′ the proponent showed above in their 2012 Addendum.
  • As shown below, the proposed building would have a depth of 97′ from Muskoka Road 169, this would be as deep as three houses back-to-back.

Alternative 1A, as proponent presented in their 2012 Addendum

That is, for their environmental approval, the proponent provided grossly incorrect information.

Congratulations Thunder Bay

 No Responses »
Nov 032015
 

For many years the majority of the people of Thunder Bay and the surrounding area, and the Fort William First Nation, have opposed the development of a proposed large wind turbine installation there, called the Big Thunder Wind Park. These turbines would be installed by Horizon Wind Inc., which is owned by the same Tony Zwig as controls the proponent for the proposed Bala hydro-electric generating station.

Many dedicated volunteers, spending countless hours, presented solid facts, studies, and reports to the provincial Ministries showing that the proposed Thunder Bay project should not proceed as planned.

Last summer, the Ontario Power Authority determined that the proponent was not making adequate progress and therefore did not meet the requirements of their Feed-In Tariff contract with the Ontario Power Authority, who then cancelled this contract. As you see from this listing from Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator, it is quite rare for a proposed wind turbine project to be cancelled.

Then late last month the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change issued a formal Notice of Refusal cancelling this proposed Thunder Bay project, stating:

Horizon Wind Inc. has not provided the ministry with certain specific information in response to the ministry’s detailed inquiries on the potential impacts of the project on moose and moose habitat. The additional explanation and detail requested from Horizon Wind Inc. was determined to be necessary to the ministry’s review, and in particular, was requested for the ministry to be satisfied that the potential impacts of the project on moose, moose habitat and the traditional moose hunting practices of members of the Fort William First Nation had been adequately assessed and mitigated.

Congratulations to the Ministry of the Environment for requiring that the Crown’s Duty to Consult be fulfilled, and congratulations to the many publically-minded people who worked to protect their community.

Proponent received crucial municipal permits while negotiating in bad faith

 1 Response »
Oct 192015
 

The Mayor and some Councillors justify their support for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls by saying they cannot stop it, claiming only the province could. The fact is, the municipality can stop this proposed project, as explained here. One of the reasons is the recently-learned news that the District Municipality of Muskoka owns the riverbed under their Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel.

As we noted in our October 19, 2015 presentation to the Township’s Planning Committee of the Whole, on October 21, 2014 (a full year ago) the Ministry of Natural Resources informed the proponent that the MNR does not own the land below the District’s bridge, and that the municipality does, and that the proponent therefore is to so notify the District. The proponent did not do this. In fact, over the following months, the proponent requested and after some negotiation was granted both Driveway Entrance permits and approval to widen the shoulder of Muskoka Road 169 – both of which the proponent desperately needs for their proposed construction. As the proponent did not inform either Township or District Councillors of this unexpected riverbed ownership even though the MNR had requested they do so, the proponent was negotiating in bad faith.

A few days before this meeting, we provided our October 16, 2015 presentation to the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, requesting they vote to enact the resolution passed at the earlier Committee of the Whole meeting. This requested that the District not permit blasting or excavation below the District’s bridge, as this could damage the bridge, which would result in a 50 km detour and huge inconvenience to the area businesses and public. Many thanks to Councillors Linda Barrick-Spearn, Sandy Currie, Allen Edwards, Phil Harding, Donelda Kruckel, and Ruth-Ellen Nishikawa for passing this resolution.

e-Newsletter – September 30, 2015

 No Responses »
Sep 302015
 

Summary
Some very good news – we now have confirmation that the District Municipality of Muskoka owns the riverbed under their Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel.

In combination with several other developments, this gives our Township and District Councillors the means, the motive, and the opportunity to stop the construction of the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls. This is big, as municipal elected officials that have always justified their position of facilitating the proponent with the reasoning that they can’t stop the proposed project, now have to decide if they are really trying to get the best outcome for Bala or not.

Already, we are extremely happy that Township of Muskoka Lakes Councillors Linda Barrick-Spearn, Allen Edwards, and Gault McTaggart supported Councillor Phil Harding’s Resolution requesting the District not permit the proponent’s need to blast and excavate below the District’s bridge. But there will be many more meetings and votes, so your continued support and communication to elected officials remains important.

Read on, for all the details …

What we learned in the Wizard of Oz, from Glinda, the Good Witch of the South …

Dorothy: Oh, will you help me? Can you help me?
Glinda: You don’t need to be helped any longer. You’ve always had the power to go back to Kansas.
Dorothy: I have?
Scarecrow: Then why didn’t you tell her before?
Glinda: She wouldn’t have believed me. She had to learn it for herself.

Similarly, we have recently learned that the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Township of Muskoka Lakes do have the power to stop construction of the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, with these three no-cost steps …

  1. Township does not lease their Portage Landing or parking lots to the proponent
  2. District does not permit excavation or construction trucks under their bridge
  3. District does not permit the Muskoka Road 169 shoulder widening

And no need for ruby slippers or to “tap your heels together three times”!

So those three steps would be the means. The motive would be:

  • For the Township, reducing their liability …
    • People would reach the extremely dangerous and unpredictable water from the proposed generating station from Township-owned or -maintained land, so the Township would have liability. The Township is therefore obligated to reduce their liability by taking actions to reduce the risk. The most effective action would be the Township not facilitating the proposed construction, for example, by not leasing their Portage Landing land to the proponent.
       
  • For the District, eliminating the risk to their bridge …
    • The construction of the proposed generating station would create a significant risk of damage to the District’s 50 year old Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel. The District can completely eliminate this risk by not permitting excavation of, or construction trucks on, the District’s riverbed below this bridge.
       

And the next opportunity would be the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting on October 16, 2015, where the Mayor and Councillors will decide next steps. Let them know your thoughts, for example:

E-mail Township of Muskoka Lakes Councillors Linda Barrick-Spearn, Allen Edwards, and Gault McTaggart and congratulate them for standing up for Bala last week by voting to request the District not permit the proponent’s blasting and excavation below the District’s bridge.

E-mail the Township of Muskoka Lakes Mayor and all the Councillors and let them know that for the first time in the ten year history of this proposed project, the municipality has the power; to stop the proposed project, to prevent drownings, to protect the Heritage Attributes and to save the 100 trees on Portage Landing, to avoid years of construction mess, to ensure the District’s bridge is not damaged, to stop spending money on a facilitator for the Bala Hydro Working Committee and a lawyer for the Portage Landing Lease negotiation and professionals for the OMB hearing for the Heritage Conservation District, and to keep Bala’s parking lots available for visitors.
 

Detail
Here is a summary of the current situation, with links for more detail.

  1. The generating station proposed would be unacceptably dangerous
    1. As detailed here, visiting 32 nearby and similarly-sized hydro-electric generating stations shows that they are never built as close to public and private docks and never built as close to in-water recreational areas as the proponent plans for Bala.
    2. As detailed here, a third-party organization with expertise in in-water recreation has confirmed this proposed generating station would be extremely dangerous and the proponent has not presented any plans on how it could be operated safely.
    3. As detailed here, the proponent has changed their plans so the operation of their proposed generating station would be even more dangerous than when they received some approvals a few years ago.
    4. As detailed here, the proposed Bala generating station would have more than TEN TIMES the flow of a nearby generating station which caused a drowning in 2008.
    5. As detailed here, Transport Canada’s calculations show that the construction of the proposed generating station would require the upstream safety boom to be relocated farther upstream, which would, obstruct the Bala Portage, bankrupt a local business, and depending on the safety factor used, also prevent use of both Diver’s Point and the Town Docks on Bala Bay.
       
  2. The municipality would have liability
    As detailed here, people would reach the water made extremely dangerous and unpredictable through Township-owned or -maintained property, so it would be argued that the Township has some liability for injuries or fatalities. The Courts would then look to the Township’s acts of omission or commission which resulted in the accident.
     
  3. The proposed construction would threaten crucial infrastructure
    As detailed here, the proponent’s construction plans would risk damage to the District’s Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel. This is crucial infrastructure as the detour is 50 km, which would be a huge problem for emergency response vehicles, school buses, local business deliveries, and the general public.
     
  4. The municipality can eliminate this liability and risk
    As detailed here, the Township of Muskoka Lakes and District Municipality of Muskoka can take three no-cost steps to eliminate this liability and risk:

    1. The Township not lease Portage Landing or their parking lots to the proponent. This would have the added benefits of; not impacting the heritage designations, not permitting clear-cutting 100 trees, and not impacting local businesses by removing the parking their customers need.
    2. The District not permit blasting and excavation trucks on their riverbed below their bridge. This would ensure this crucial infrastructure is not damaged.
    3. The District not permit widening the shoulder of Muskoka Road 169. This would have the added benefit that pedestrians could continue to walk on the west side of Muskoka Road 169, and there would not be a dangerous 10′-high retaining wall built there.
       
  5. What you can do to save the Bala falls
    … and prevent drownings
    … and ensure the District’s bridge is not damaged
    … and save over 100 trees from being clear-cut from Portage Landing

    1. E-mail Township of Muskoka Lakes Councillors Linda Barrick-Spearn, Allen Edwards, and Gault McTaggart and congratulate them for standing up for Bala last week by voting to request the District not permit the proponent’s blasting and excavation below the District’s bridge.
    2. Write Letters to the Editor of Muskoka and other newspapers.
    3. E-mail the Township of Muskoka Lakes Mayor and all the Councillors and let them know that for the first time in the ten year history of this proposed project, the municipality has the power; to stop the proposed project, to prevent drownings, to protect the Heritage Attributes and to save the 100 trees on Portage Landing, to avoid years of construction mess, to ensure the District’s bridge is not damaged, to stop spending money on a faciltator for the Bala Hydro Working Committee and a lawyer for the Portage Landing Lease negotiation and professionals for the OMB hearing for the Hertiage Conservation District, and to keep Bala’s parking lots available for visitors.
    4. Contact your Councillors (Township of Muskoka Lakes here, District Municipality of Muskoka here), asking what they will do.
       
  6. Now is the time to make sure our municipal politicians know that they do have a choice. Talk to them. And contact newspapers and radio stations to let them know. And discuss the situation with your friends and family.

Congratulations Councillors Edwards, Barrick-Spearn, and McTaggart

 2 Responses »
Sep 282015
 

Summary
Please congratulate Councillors Allen Edwards, Linda Barrick-Spearn, and Gault McTaggart for standing up for Bala (e-mail them here). It was their votes that allowed a Resolution to pass which requested the District not permit the proponent to blast and excavate below the District’s bridge. The Resolution passed 7 to 2, as they joined long-time and strong Bala supporters Councillors Ruth-Ellen Nishikawa, Sandy Currie, Donelda Kruckel, and Phil Harding.
 

Detail
As published in the Bracebridge Examiner on October 2, 2014, at an All-Candidates meeting during the October 2014 municipal election campaign, Don Furniss made the following statement about the proposed construction of a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls:

“There are candidates in this audience who would have you believe I am a supporter of the development of the falls, and it is important that I clarify today my position once and for all. Given a choice, not I, not anyone on my team, not anyone in Bala would choose to [build] a hydro plant at the Bala Falls. It is a beautiful jewel in the crown of our township, and we would choose to have nothing about it changed.”

One would then expect that now-Mayor of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Furniss would vote to stop the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, as:

At the September 22, 2015 Township of Muskoka Lakes Committee of the Whole meeting, Councillor Harding put forward a Resolution requesting that the District not permit the proponent to blast or excavate below the District’s bridge, but Mayor Furniss voted against this. When asked why, his full response is here, you be the judge of his logic …

Mayor Furniss says … But the facts are …
“The resolution is in very bad faith, considering the District has already passed a resolution to allow SREL to widen the shoulder of Hwy 169 near the bridge, which involves excavation and potentially blasting on District owned property near the bridge. SREL has also agreed to post a $ 2 million letter of credit, $5 million liability insurance, plus a performance bond to the benefit of the District, should any damage be inflicted on District Assets.”

The “bad faith” is from the proponent, who has known for over a year that the District owns the riverbed below the bridge, yet the proponent did not tell anyone so the District believed the only way to protect their bridge was with a $2,000,000 Letter of Credit.

The shoulder widening would not require any blasting, as it would simply be building a long and 10′-high retaining wall and building fence.

Councillor Edwards noted the Township recently paid $735,000 just to replace two culverts elsewhere in the municipality, so the $2,000,000 Letter of Credit may not be enough to repair damage to the bridge caused by the proponent. Also, the $2,000,000 Letter of Credit would not compensate area businesses for the increased expenses and lost business due to damage to the District’s bridge. Finally, the costs of delaying emergency response vehicles, school buses, and the public cannot even be calculated – or compensated.
“SREL will be blasting and excavating on their own property in close proximity to the bridge. These aforementioned indemnifications also cover the District should damage occur to District property”

SREL does not have any property, they have a License of Occupation from the Ministry of Natural Resources for certain construction activities.

As above, the indemnifications may be inadequate, and certainly would not cover costs that would be incurred by area businesses and the public.
“I believe this inconsistency between what has been agreed to and the resolution exposes the District and perhaps the Township to litigation and potentially significant damages.” There is no inconsistency. Councillor Harding’s Resolution noted the $2,000,000 Letter of Credit as a fact, as in January 2015 this was required from the proponent because the District thought the MNR owned the land under the bridge so the District could not prevent the proponent’s planned blasting and excavation under the bridge. It is important to note that in January 2015 the proponent knew the MNR did not own this land, but did not tell the District. So there would be no exposure to litagation from the proponent as it was the proponent that withheld relevant information from the District.
“In addition the District has stated they will be rehabilitating this 50 year old bridge in the next 3 or 4 years. This will probably require blasting and excavating, in the same areas this resolution is prohibiting SREL to perform the same activities. Districts contractor can do it, but SREL’s can’t because of concern for public safety and public inconvenience – seems hypocritical to me.”

Any rehabilitation of the bridge would be done by experts who understand bridges and how to prevent damage to them. It makes no sense that blasting would be required to rehabilitate a bridge.

But we do know that the self-centred proponent would only be planning for themselves, they have never shown any concern for the community or inconveniencing the public.
“Also, if safety is the real issue, it might be better to have SREL do some excavation under the bridge to reduce the risk of damage to the bridge support structures, due to obstacles or insufficient clearances for construction equipment movements.”

The proponent hopes to blast the District’s riverbed under the Muskoka Road 169 bridge not only to excavate for their proposed generating station’s intake, but also to deepen the path between the bridge support piers through which they would drive their heavy construction vehicles to remove blasted rock from the proposed station excavation.

The best way to improve safety would be to not permit the proponent to blast, excavate, or drive dump trucks under the District’s bridge. We suggest the District issue a Notice of Trespass to the proponent to ensure this.

 
The very good news is despite the Mayor voting against it, Councillor Harding’s Resolution requesting the District not permit the proponent’s excavation under the bridge was passed the the Township of Muskoka Lakes Committee of the Whole, on September 22, 2015.

Please congratulate Councillors Allen Edwards, Linda Barrick-Spearn, and Gault McTaggart for standing up for Bala. It was their votes that allowed this resolution to pass 7 to 2, as they joined long-time and strong Bala supporters Councillors Ruth-Ellen Nishikawa, Sandy Currie, Donelda Kruckel, and Phil Harding.

Township should require proponent provide $1,000,000 Letter of Credit to protect its all our interests

 No Responses »
Sep 282015
 

Background
To facilitate the construction of their proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala north falls, the proponent has requested to lease three properties from the Township of Muskoka Lakes, as follows:

  • Portage Landing.
  • South half of the Don’s Bakery parking lot.
  • North half of the Precambrian Shield parking lot (for which the Township has a License of Occupation from the Ministry of Natural Resources).

As the proposed construction would likely take more than two years, these would be long-term leases. These property locations are shown here.

There are many issues which may not be adequately addressed by the lease negotiations, as were presented in this delegation by the Moon River Property Owners’ Association at the September 18, 2015 Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting, for example:

  1. The proponent still has a $3,000,000 lawsuit from 2013 outstanding against both the Township of Muskoka Lakes and Ministry of Natural Resources – a concern as the proponent still needs crucial construction approvals from both.
    As good faith negotiations may not be possible with this lawsuit outstanding, the Township should first require the proponent withdraw and cancel all legal action against the Township before any lease negotiations continue.
     
  2. As noted on the Township’s web site here, the Township’s Portage Landing land is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and the protected Heritage Attributes include:
    1. “The Unobstructed views…across the north and south channels of the Bala Falls, and towards Margaret Burgess Park.”
    2. “The presence of trees”.
    3. “The Scenic views…including unobstructed views to the historic split trunk maple tree (Native Marker Tree), the North Bala Falls and the north rocky shore”.
    4. “the absence of artificial lighting and buildings.”
       

    So there needs to be a way to ensure these protected heritage attributes are either not affected or would be adequately restored (even if the proponent went bankrupt).

  3. The proponent has stated that if they are allowed to use the Township’s Portage Landing to facilitate the proposed construction, then the proponent would not impact Margaret Burgess Park. As we’ve already seen from the proponent not permitting the MRPOA’s free Canada Day celebration this past summer, there needs to be a way to enforce this commitment from the proponent. Unfortunately this could not be enforced through a lease since the Township does not own Margaret Burgess Park.

As the District Municipality of Muskoka determined before they learned that the MNR did not own the land under the District’s bridge, the only way to provide the protection needed is to require the proponent provide a Letter of Credit. Given the potential impacts and costs to the Township, this Letter of Credit should be for at least $1,000,000.
 

Summary
The only way to ensure that the proponent would:

  • Restore Portage Landing adequately (or that the Township has the funds to do this if the proponent goes bankrupt and abandons the site in an unsafe condition).
  • Make all lease payments as required.
  • Not impact Margaret Burgess Park.

Is to require they provide a $1,000,000 Letter of Credit to the Township of Muskoka Lakes.
 

Request to the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council
As part of the lease negotiations with the proponent, the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council should therefore require that the proponent:

  1. Be required to cancel all legal action against the Township before any lease negotiations continue.
  2. Inform the Township how the Heritage Attributes of Portage Landing would be protected.
  3. Provide a $1,000,000 Letter of Credit to the Township of Muskoka Lakes as part of any lease agreement.

Required upstream safety boom location proves station would be too dangerous

 No Responses »
Sep 282015
 

Summary
So that its location would meet Transport Canada’s safety standards, a few years ago the Ministry of Natural Resources relocated their safety boom upstream of the Bala north dam 15 m farther upstream.

However, if the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls was constructed, this safety boom would need to be relocated even farther upstream to meet Transport Canada’s requirements, and this would:

  1. Bankrupt a local business.
  2. Obstruct the Bala Portage.
  3. Prevent water access from both Diver’s Point and the Town Docks on Bala Bay (depending on how the danger of the proposed generating station is assessed).

This shows yet again, that the proposed generating station is too dangerous for this location. A generating station cannot be located in a recreational area.
 

Detail
In 2013, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry relocated their safety boom for the Bala north dam from approximately 35 m upstream to its current location approximately 50 m upstream of the dam. This change was due to a recommendation in their report Public Safety Measures Plan, Bala Falls Dams. This report was completed in March 2011, and a link to it is here (it is an 8 Mbyte file, so will take some time to download).

As you can see in the photograph below (click on it for a larger view), the current location of the upstream safety boom (as you can see, the MNR’s current standard is that these are orange) allows Lake Muskoka water access to both:

  • The Bala Portage put-in / take-out, which is on the Crown land beside Purk’s Place (just upstream of the safety boom, at the right of this photograph).
  • Purk’s Place docks (a major part of this business is renting canoes, kayaks, and motor boats, so water access to Lake Muskoka is required).

As shown on the last page of the report, Transport Canada’s Point of No Return calculations were used to determine that the upstream safety boom had to be relocated to be at least 50 m upstream of the Bala north dam. The factors used to determine this upstream distance include the hazards from which people need to be protected. Reviewing the input to those calculations shows that the construction of the proposed generating station at the Bala falls would require the upstream safety boom to be relocated even further upstream, due to these three factors:

  1. The proposed generating station’s intake would be approximately 12 m upstream of the Bala north dam, so the safety boom would need to be relocated 12 m farther upstream.
  2. The proposed generating station would be remotely operated.
  3. Rescues would be delayed as the proposed station’s remote operators would first need to be contacted and they would need to stop the station’s operation.

Based on these changed factors, the Transport Canada calculations require the upstream safety boom to be 60 m upstream of the hazard rather than the current 50 m from the dam. The updated calculation is here, and the location 60 m upstream of the proposed generating station’s intake is marked-up on the proponent’s Figure below (click on it for a larger view).

As shown in the Figure above, the construction of the proposed generating station would require the upstream safety boom to be at least at the CP Rail bridge. The required upstream safety boom would then both:

  • Prevent water access for the Bala Portage put-in / take-out.
  • Eliminate water access between Lake Muskoka and Purk’s Place docks − which would have a significant negative impact on this business.
     

But it gets worse
One of the factors of the Transport Canada calculation accounts for the danger of the hazard, according to the height of the dam. This makes sense, for example, being thrown over a higher dam would be more dangerous.

However, being drawn to a generating station’s intake trash-rack and held under water by the tons of water entering the generating station every second would be even more dangerous. One way of accounting for this increased danger of a generating station would be instead of the 1.67 m height of the Bala north dam used for the calculations above, to instead use the 5.2 m net height of water between Bala Bay to the Moon River.

As shown in this calculation, the upstream safety boom would then need to be 187 m upstream of the proposed generating station’s intake. So in addition to bankrupting a local business and preventing use of the historic Bala Portage, locating the upstream safety boom as required would:

  • Prevent water access for Diver’s Point, which would have negative economic impacts as this is one of the most popular and unique locations for Scuba diving in all of Muskoka, and currently draws visitors and Scuba diving schools to Bala.
  • Stop all water access for the Town Docks on Bala Bay. This would have even greater negative impacts, as it is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act due to its historic use as the Steamship Wharf, it continues to be the site of the Bala Aquatic Association’s Annual Regatta as it has been for over 100 years, and it is very important to the area’s economy as boats continue to use the docks all summer for visits to Bala.
  • Prevent barge access to the CP Rail bridge pier and abutments, as is currently required for repairs to these.
     

Conclusion
These calculations confirm why hydro-electric generating stations are never built in recreational areas, and that this proposed generating station would be unacceptably dangerous.

As stated in the Aquatic Safety Audit report for the Bala North Falls, before any construction starts, the proponent must be required to show how they could operate their proposed generating station safely.

We have therefore sent this letter to the Ministry of the Environment, and we await their reply.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries