e-Newsletter – March 21, 2015

Mar 222015

Bala Falls Hydro Project Working Committee
At the request of the proponent, the Township of Muskoka Lakes has established a Working Committee with the mandate to: “Identify and recommend ways to mitigate concerns raised by Council and the community.” This Committee is to vote on resolutions to bring forward to Township’s Committee of the Whole. It appears these are to be concessions from the Township which the proponent desperately wants to facilitate their proposed construction, the first one being to widen the shoulder of Muskoka Road 169, which would:

Require two long rows of concrete “Jersey Barriers”.
Require blocking-off the pedestrian sidewalk on the west side of Muskoka Road 169.
Create a 10′-high retaining wall, and to keep people from falling off this, a fence would also be needed (and this would block people’s view of Portage Landing and the Moon River).
Have the result that for two years the proponent would be parking trucks and construction vehicles in front of Portage Landing, to off-load construction materials.

The proponent has not disclosed how this ugliness and inconvenience to Bala would “mitigate concerns raised by Council and the community”. The proponent has not provided any information about the appearance of this retaining wall or fence, nor have they disclosed what they will be asking for next. They still haven’t provided any credible information on the appearance of their entire proposed generating station.

We think that Township Council should require a full plan from the proponent of what they want, rather than putting up with a series of requests without knowing where this is all going. We therefore presented this to Township Council’s Committee of the Whole on March 12, 2015. Unfortunately, the Township did not accept any of our concerns and passed the Working Committee’s resolution to support widening the shoulder of Muskoka Road 169 even though it wasn’t clear what the benefit of this would be or what it would even require.

Strangely:

The community is not allowed to observe or attend the Working Committee meetings and the community is not allowed to directly e-mail input to the Committee either – even though community concerns are the Committee’s mandate.
Two of the six voting members of the Committee are the proponent, so they get to vote for themselves and to out-vote the only local Councillor – and this for a Committee whose mandate is community input. Where have you ever heard of a government committee where a developer gets to vote for themselves and out-vote the local Councillor. Last I checked, government was supposed to be for the people, not private developers.
It isn’t clear how the proponent can possibly be contributing “concerns raised by Council and the community” (as is the Committee’s mandate). Also, another voting member of the Committee is the Township’s Chief Administrative Officer – it also isn’t clear how a Township employee can possibly be contributing “concerns raised by Council and the community”.
According to its mandate then, this Committee would be telling Council what Council’s concerns are – one would think Council would know what its own concerns are without having to ask the proponent’s Committee what to think. Maybe we’re just too cynical, but it seems that this Committee is a way to avoid public input and for the proponent to feed their desires directly to Township Council.

Mayor Furniss assures us that public input is allowed, as the Committee’s recommendations are made to the Township’s Committee of the Whole, to which the public can request to “delegate” (this means that at least seven business days before the Committee of the Whole meeting, a member of the public can request to present to Council for five minutes, perhaps at 10:00 am on a Tuesday, whether that is convenient for you or not).

The problem is that for the March 12, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting the deadline to delegate was several days before the minutes from the first three Working Committee meetings were available and before the Council agenda was published. So there was no way for the public to know whether the Working Committee would be making any recommendations, whether any of the issues discussed by the Working Committee were of concern, or whether the entire proposed project was even on that Committee of the Whole’s meeting Agenda. Also, a document from the proponent which was referred to in those minutes is still not available to the public. In summary, it appears that the Township’s Committee of the Whole is not interested in public input either.

An observer of all these goings-on might think that the Township’s Working Committee is a Kangaroo Court, of predetermined purpose and output. We do, and our presentation to Township Council is here, and a more detailed article is here. Mayor Furniss’ explanation of why he did not like what he was hearing is here (archive copy here).

Community Input to Working Committee
Councillor Sandy Currie understands the importance of community input to the Township’s Working Committee and he is eager to receive this. Please e-mail Councillor Currie at SandyCurrie-tml@bell.net with your concerns about the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, as this will be your best opportunity to provide input to the Working Committee. Send as much input and be as detailed as you can, and try to organize it according to the following categories:

Design
Safety / Water Levels
Use of Township lands
Community improvements
Construction activity
Economic impact
Traffic flow and pedestrian safety
Visual impacts
Heritage impacts

So far, there have been three Working Committee meetings, and there are two more scheduled, the next being on Thursday March 26, 2015, so send Sandy your e-mail in the next day or two.

Councillor Phil Harding
Township of Muskoka Lakes District Councillor Phil Harding is passionate about saving the Bala falls and ensuring the proper process is followed. At the Township’s Committee of the Whole meeting March 12, 2015 he had this to say. Thanks to Troy Cockriell for the video.

Drone video from Scott Miller
Scott Miller has shared some video with us here.

SaveTheBalaFalls.com

Proponent’s greedy choice: bigger and uglier

2 Responses »

Mar 212015

Over the years, the proponent has made several statements about the maximum output of their proposed generating station:

The proponent’s 2005 proposal stated the capacity of their “Option 1” generating station as follows: “The project is feasible for installed capacities in the range of 3 to 4 MW. Swift River Energy Limited has decided that the preferred installed capacity is 4 MW.”
When the proponent submitted their 2009 Envirionmental Screening/Review report, which described their “Option 2” plan, they stated: “Swift River Energy Limited Partnership (SREL) is proposing to construct a 4.3-MW hydroelectric power facility”.
When the proponent submitted their 2012 Addendum, which described their “Alternative 1A” plan, they stated: “The energy output will remain between 4 and 5 MW.”
In information presented to the MNR in March 2014, they stated the capacity would be 4.45 MW.

That is, since the proponent’s commitments about their proposed station’s size and appearance in their 2005 proposal (for which they were selected through a competitive process), it has been the proponent’s choice to twice increase the capacity of their proposed station. This not only would increase the size of the required turbine, but everything else would also need to be larger: the generator, transformer, intake, tailrace, gates, ventilation openings, and so on. The flow through the generating station would be greater, so it would be more dangerous, and it would leave less water to go over the falls.

The proponent has decided to do this for the same reason any developer decides to build larger, because they hope to make more money. Except in this case, it would mean a larger concrete building at the Bala falls, and less water over the Bala falls. That is, the greedy developer wants more for themselves and less for Bala.

As shown here, the proponent’s 2005 proposal stated the roof of their proposed building would be below the level of Muskoka Road 169, but their current plans show it would actually tower three storeys above the road.

So the proponent’s own self-serving choices have resulted in their breaking important committments. This should be the proponent’s problem, not Bala’s.

Don’s Working Committee: a Kangaroo Court to blindly give the proponent whatever they ask for

1 Response »

Mar 152015

The Working Committee Mandate and Recommendations

At their December 16, 2014 meeting, the Township of Muskoka Lakes Committee of the Whole heard delegations concerning the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls. The Committee felt that it wasn’t clear what each delegation was asking from the Committee, so they asked each to later send their request by e-mail.

The proponent apparently requested (this letter was not made public) that a committee be formed, though this does not follow from their presentation. The committee that Council decided to create is called the Bala Falls Hydro Project Working Committee and this undated document issued before the Working Committee’s first meeting on February 26, 2015 describes this committee.

Some observations:

The mandate is to: “Identify and recommend ways to mitigate concerns raised by Council and the community.”
The first recommendation of the Working Committee came before the March 12, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting and was to advise the District Municipality of Muskoka that the Township supports widening the shoulder of Muskoka Road 169 at Portage Landing (a report and the Working Committee meeting minutes are here).
The problem is that the proponent:
- Has not explained what traffic impacts there would be if there was no road widening (the only example they gave was a two-week single-lane restriction later in the proposed project).
- Has a long history of providing incorrect information.
- Plans on asking for much more from the Township (such as cutting down all the trees on Portage Landing and making a driveway entrance there, requiring an opening in the guardrail).

We feel the proponent should be required to document what they want and what they would do. So on March 12, 2015 we provided this presentation to the Township of Muskoka Lakes Committee of the Whole, asking that before they recommend the District allow the shoulder widening, the Township require the proponent to explain all of what they plan on asking from the Township; the use of which lands for what periods of time, what fence would be required to protect pedestrians, what would happen to the sidewalk, the guardrail design required as the current proposal is not safe, and so on. We also find it dishonourable conduct that the proponent is not telling the public how high and how wide their proposed building would be. They appear to be trying to get as much as possible before upsetting everyone further when they need to confirm that this thing would be too big and too ugly.

Remarkably, Council refused to require the proponent to provide any of these details, and passed the proponent’s requested resolution without knowing much about what the proponent would actually do or why they need it.

The Working Committee Itself

We also have many concerns about the functioning of the Working Committee itself. For example, two of the voting members on the Working Committee are the proponent themselves. Where have you ever heard of a government committee where the developer gets to vote for their own project. On March 13, 2015 we therefore provided this presentation to the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council. We felt it was most appropriate to equate this to a Kangaroo Court (“A tribunal before which a fair trial is impossible”), as Mayor Don Furniss established the Working Committee knowing that the input of the sole local Ward Councillor would be ignored and out-voted every time.

We are most disappointed that the Working Committee cannot fulfill its mandate (“Identify and recommend ways to mitigate concerns raised by Council and the community”) as public input is not allowed to the Working Committee and the public input to Council is so restricted. The proponent voting further makes no sense as they have no input to provide about “concerns raised by Council and the community”.

The Mayor didn’t like what he was hearing so much that he did not allow the presentation to be completed.

Welcome members of the Muskoka Lakes Association

2 Responses »

Mar 102015

Hello, and welcome to the SaveTheBalaFalls.com web site.

Save the Bala Falls is a conduit for information about the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls. For years we have been trying to find out:

Would the proposed station be safe?
Would it be as beautiful as the area is?
Would there be enough water over the falls to continue to draw people to Bala?

We are delighted that the Muskoka Lakes Association has passed a resolution (letter to Township of Muskoka Lakes here, newsletter article on page 5 here) in opposition to the project as currently proposed. The Bala falls need your help, It would be great if you, and your family and friends could:

Sign yourself up for our e-Newsletters here. We send a brief factual e-mail every month or so. We promise not to share your e-mail address or use it for any other purpose. Let others know they can sign themselves up using the link at the top-right at SaveTheBalaFalls.com
If you’d like to volunteer please contact us at info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com. We’d especially like to hear from any lawyers who wish to help, or anyone who knows senior politicians who can make a difference.
You can make a donation to this effort here.
If you have any questions, contact us here.

Our web site has articles posted at the right, with the newest at the top. We’re also on Facebook and Twitter.

Our current e-Newsletter is here – please read it as there’s an e-mail you can send right now to help save the Bala falls.

Thank you for your support!

e-Newsletter – March 9, 2015

No Responses »

Mar 092015

The Bala Falls Needs Your Help Now

A condition of the proponent’s environmental approval, which they received over two years ago, was: “Any lands not currently owned by the Crown will NOT be used for construction purposes, as confirmed by Swift River Energy Limited in the Environmental Screening Report Addendum” (emphasis added, quote is from page 5 here, proponent’s specific committment not to use Township’s Portage Landing is on page 23 here).

Shockingly, not only is the proponent reneging on their formal promise to the public and the Ministry, but the Township is helping the proponent do it by playing Let’s Make a Deal with them.

What is the DEAL??? Part of the deal would be that the proponent would “reduce” their use of Margaret Burgess Park (so, how much do you trust them) and in return the Township would let them take over the heritage-designated Portage Landing, which owned by the Township, for the construction of the proposed Bala Falls hydro station. The proponent would clear-cut all the trees, they would pile it 15′-high with blasted rock, they would be driving dump trucks through it for two years. And they would take over the Precambrian Shield parking lot, and more.

The Council discussion and likely the VOTE for this will be this Thursday and Friday, March 12 and 13, 2015.

We don’t know what this deal would be; the proponent has still not let the public know what their proposed building would look like, the public doesn’t yet even have the minutes from the secret meetings the Township has been holding with the proponent, we don’t even know if the proponent has withdrawn their $3 million lawsuit against the Township from 2013 – what kind of a negotiation would that create.

Why is this hurtling so fast down the runway? Why does Council appear to be just pushing things through? What is the DEAL???

Tell the Mayor and Councillors that we deserve to know what the deal with this private developer would be before agreeing to give them anything. Send them all an e-mail today – if clicking here doesn’t get all their addresses, they are …

Mayor	don.furniss@muskokalakes.ca
Councillors	allen.edwards@muskokalakes.ca donelda.kruckel@muskokalakes.ca gault.mctaggart@muskokalakes.ca jean-ann.baranik@muskokalakes.ca linda.barrick-spearn@muskokalakes.ca phil.harding@muskokalakes.ca ruth.nishikawa@muskokalakes.ca sandy.currie@muskokalakes.ca terry.ledger@muskokalakes.ca
Chief Administrative Officer	charris@muskokalakes.ca

The proponent’s proposal versus what we now know: justifies, nay, requires cancellation

No Responses »

Mar 082015

Summary
The proponent’s plans do not meet too many important commitments they made in their original 2005 proposal, for which they were awarded this opportunity through a competitive process. The proposal process required the proponent to agree to bear their own costs and not make claims for reimbursement if the Ministry of Natural Resources determined that the proponent provided “inaccurate, misleading or incomplete information”, which the proponent certainly has, as summarized below. We believe the Ministry of Natural Resources is therefore obligated to follow through on their requirements and act in the public interest by cancelling this proposed project.

Background
The Ministry of Natural Resources initiated a proposed project to construct a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls through a formal Competitive Site Release process. The MNR issued a Request for Proposals in 2005 and Swift River Energy Limited submitted a proposal later that year.

The MNR’s 2005 Request for Proposals
The land the MNR was contemplating releasing for this development was a 70’x100′ Crown land site directly south of the Bala north falls. The MNR was well aware that any development of the site had to be compatible with existing uses, as Section 3.3.2 of the RFP required that responses (emphasis added): “Demonstrate consideration for scenic flows, public access for traditional uses and continuity of business in the local area.” As the RFP was actually for two different sites, it continued with special requirements specific to Bala: “For the North Bala Dam, demonstrate consideration of the extensive aesthetic, recreational, social and economic (i.e. tourism) values in the area of the proposed development.”

Clearly, the MNR knew that any development in Bala had to be compatible with the very public nature and unique uses of the location.

To be sure that the proposals also described the proposed development, Section 3.3.2 of the RFP also stated: “Proponents are requested to set out, in a concise manner, their proposed development of the MNR dam site. The description should include conceptual information regarding the type of development being proposed at the dam site, the operating strategy and the feasibility of site development.”

That is, the MNR:

Required proposals present the appearance of the proposed powerhouse.
Required proposals describe the operating strategy (that is, when would the station’s operation be stopped and re-started, for example when the flow of water available from Lake Muskoka was less than required to run the turbine).
Knew that it may not even be feasible to develop the site.

The MNR was clear about the costs associated with pursuing this opportunity, as Section 2.2 of the RFP stated: “The successful proponent(s) will be responsible for … Complying with all federal and provincial legislation and completing all necessary environmental studies.” and “The selected proponent for each dam will need to complete or meet the applicable environmental assessment requirements set out in the Environmental Assessment Act.”.

The MNR was also very clear the proponent would be responsible for these costs, as Section 4.1.6 of the RFP stated (and Section 4.6 (iv) repeated): “The parties will bear their own costs associated with or incurred through this RFP process, including … other activities related to complying with the requirements of the RFP;”

The RFP was well-written, protecting the government from proponents that don’t provide what they proposed as:

Section 4.3.3 of the RFP stated: “Proponent should note that the Ministry … reserves the right to rescind any contract awarded to a proponent in the event that the Ministry determines that the proponent made a misrepresentation or provided any inaccurate, misleading or incomplete information in its proposal or during contract negotiations.”

Section 1.3 stated: “The Ministry makes no guarantee of the value or volume of work to be assigned to the successful proponent.”

Section 4.4.1 stated: “The Ministry may revoke its selection of the proponent if the proponent fails to satisfy any applicable conditions, including the terms in the RFP.”

Section 4.6 (ii) stated: “… neither party shall have the right to make claims against the other with respect to the award of a contract, failure to award a contract or failure to honour a proposal;”

The proponent’s 2005 proposal versus what we now know

Direct quotes from the proponent’s proposal, dated July 5, 2005 (described what is now referred to as “Option 1”)	What we now know
The entire development would be on Crown land.	Yes, this is still true for the proponent’s current “Alternative 1A” proposal, so it is fair to compare the proponent’s 2005 proposal with their current plans.
Swift River is aware that the Bala site has substantial beauty for the local population, both permanent and summer residents, and is a tourist gem for the people of Ontario. This is clearly recognized in our proposal.	Good, they claim to understand the area, let’s see what they would actually do.
Our proposal incorporates the safe public use and enjoyment of the site, attractive landscaping …	No, there would be no attractive landscaping. As shown in the bottom diagram here, the entire site would be concrete.
We have thoroughly reviewed the Request for Proposals (RFP) and are confident that our proposal reflects the aesthetic concerns and values, local sensitivities and historic nature of this site.	No, this is the site of the historic Bala Portage, and the proponent would permanently eliminate and obstruct it.
We have also worked to optimize the project to maximize generating potential while providing sufficient compensation flow for tourists and to maintain a fish habitat.	No, the proponent’s construction plans would completely block off the Bala north channel for ten months. This would be bad for the fish habitat at the bottom of the Bala north falls, would not comply with the Muskoka River Water Management Plan, and not comply with their environmental approvals. During the proposed operation, as shown by the red area at the bottom figure here, a miniscule 6% of the flow would be shared by the Bala north and south falls. By international agreement, 50% of the flow of the Niagara River must flow over the Niagara Falls, why any less for Bala.
A viewing platform on top of the below ground plant provides scenic views of the lower river …	No, the drawings and renderings provided so far show the plant would not be “below ground”. Instead the 56′-wide poured-concrete building would block the view down the Moon River, as would the fence required for the long retaining wall they want to build.
The power facility would be operated as a ‘run-of-river’ power plant … Obviously for reasons of public safety, there will be some safety restrictions placed on public access near specific areas at the intake, powerhouse and dam. However, these restrictions will not generally diminish the public’s enjoyment of the area for swimming, boating, fishing, picnicking and hiking.	No, instead of stopping operation when there was insufficient flow for the turbine, the proposed station would operate in a cycling mode and without warning, the treacherously turbulent water from the proposed generating station would automatically begin at about noon on more than ⅓ of summer days, just when people would see it was safe to be wading in the usually-serene water at the base of the Bala north falls, which would be just a few feet away. No, the proposed generating station would also make boating dangerous, as the fast water from the tailrace would be directed towards the only public docks on the Moon River.
Swift River’s philosophy with respect to the socioeconomic values of the Bala site is represented graphically in the preceding fold-out page [which includes the text]: Preserving our scenic legacy Creating opportunities for recreation Respecting our cultural heritage A natural approach to landscaping When completed, the North Bala Dam and power plant will be a landmark of technological modernity, natural beauty and cultural preservation.	If this “legacy” is the 16′ x 16′ generating station that used to be on the Crown land site (and was small enough that it did not obstruct the Bala Portage), the proposed generating station would instead be 70′ x 100′, filling the entire Crown land site with concrete. This doesn’t preserve anything. No, the proposed generating station would obstruct the Bala Portage, and make the long-time and very popular wading at the base of the Bala north falls too dangerous. It would make hundreds of feet of the only public shoreline in Bala too dangerous to access. It would make boating at the Town Docks on the Moon River (which are the only public docks on the Moon River) dangerous. This would destroy, not create opportunities for recreation. No, The proponent would like to cut down 100 trees on the adjacent Portage Landing site and fill it 15′ high with blasted rock to facilitate their proposed construction. This is the location used for the Bala Portage, so destroying it insults, not respects cultural heritage. No, there would be no landscaping, the proposed station would be all concrete, to within inches of the north and south Crown land property boundaries, and within a few feet of the side property boundaries.
We will employ today’s most advanced engineering and design technologies to create a much more discreet facility than the original Bala Power House, (built in 1917 and demolished in the 1960’s).	No, the proposed generating station would have a footprint over 6,900 ft², compared to 256 ft² for the generating station previously on the site – this is over 25 times larger. This is as much larger as a house is compared to a garden shed. This would not be discreet, it would be a monstrous industrial building.
Our intention is to harmonize the architecture of the new facility with the natural environment of the site by installing a low-profile power house built mostly underground (bunker-type). Its roof will be below road level and only some 5 ft above ground level …	Figure 2.4 of the proponent’s 2005 proposal included the rendering below, showing that their proposed building’s roof would be below the level of Muskoka Road 169. But the drawings recently produced by the proponent’s engineering design company show the roof would actually be 28′ above Muskoka Road 169 – that is, three storeys above the road. And the building would tower 55′ above the Moon River – that’s six storeys. So, no, this wouldn’t harmonize anything, this would be completely insensitive to the area.
Our commitment extends beyond minimizing the visual impact of the facility. Swift River is keenly aware of the importance of this site as an outdoor recreation area for tourists and local residents. A key element in our development of the site therefore will be to enhance the natural landscape. Through tree plantings, improved maintenance of public green spaces and the addition of floral gardens, walking trails and rest areas furnished with benches and waste receptacles, we will create an appealing, park-like environment that people will enjoy visiting.	No, there would be no tree plantings, floral gardens, or walking trails, as the site would be all concrete. No, there wouldn’t be anything “park-like”.
Consideration of Continuity of Business: In summary, new technology, sensitive development of the site, proper and full consultation in the community will contribute much needed green power and community economic and social benefits. It is expected to be a win/win situation for all involved.	No, the proponent has not consulted the business community for negative impacts. In fact, when gathering input for their Economic Impact Study, the proponent did not even ask area businesses about negative impacts. Certainly the two businesses directly adjacent to the proposed construction entrance off Bala Falls Road (Purk’s Place and Lilybird / Simpler Times) would be destroyed, as the area would be a construction site for two years.

Rendering of proposed generating station, from Figure 2.4 of the proponent’s 2005 proposal, in which they claimed it would be only as high as the deck of the Bala north dam, so would actually be below the level of Muskoka Road 169.
But instead of anything like this, the proponent’s recent drawings show it would actually tower three storeys above Muskoka Road 169.

Conclusion
It is now ten years after the proponent submitted their proposal and the proponent has still not released the information needed to determine how far their plans would fall short of meeting the requirements the MNR stated and the commitments the proponent made. But it is now clear that the proponent:

Would not meet important public safety, area business continuity, aesthetic, and public recreation requirements.
Has made these changes because they think they can get away with being greedy, they want it all, and the government is just handing it all to them, saying it is a “proponent-driven process”, and apparently the area’s and public’s needs don’t need to be considered.

We are very impressed that the MNR’s 2005 RFP was well-written and clear, and that they committed to “work with Swift River Energy to help ensure they … meet their commitments to the public as identified in their North Bala Dam Proposal released on July 5, 2005”. As this has not happened, as a result of the proponent not meeting their commitments:

The Ministry of Natural Resources can and should cancel this proposed project.
The proponent would have no claim for their costs incurred, as it was the proponent’s decision to withhold (and they are still withholding) the information needed to show that their own proposal (and information provided since then) has been “inaccurate, misleading or incomplete”. And by submitting their proposal, the proponent agreed that they have no “right to make claims against the other”.

Proponent provided incorrect information to the MNR and the public

1 Response »

Mar 082015

Summary
In 2005, when the Ministry of Natural Resources made the opportunity available to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, a requirement of the MNR’s Request for Proposals was that proponent’s “demonstrate consideration of the extensive aesthetic, recreational, social and economic (i.e. tourism) values in the area”. As part of the competitive selection process, the proponent’s 2005 proposal showed compliance with this by stating and showing that the roof of their building would be below the level Muskoka Road 169. They continued to show this in 2007, and again in 2012. However, their current information shows that instead their proposed building would tower three storeys above Muskoka Road 169, blocking the view down the river.

What the proponent showed in the past
The proponent was awarded the opportunity to pursue construction of a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls through a competitive process, for which the proponent submitted a proposal in 2005 which included this rendering of its appearance (click on it for a larger view).

Proponent’s Option 1 rendering from their 2005 proposal

As you can see, the roof of their proposed building is shown to be level with the deck of the Bala north dam, and so it would be below the level of Muskoka Road 169. This description and rendering are from their 2005 proposal, selected pages are here. This 2005 proposal described what is now referred to as their Option 1, and as you can see at the added highlighting on the second of those selected pages, Option 1 was to be built solely on the Crown land directly south of the Bala north falls. The proponent provided further information on their Option 1 at the Public Information Centre they held at the Bala Community Centre on Wednesday, August 29, 2007. Note that on page 9 of the materials presented is a scale drawing, with dimensions, showing a vertical cross-section of the proposed building, from which we can see the following:

The roof would be level with Muskoka Road 169 (even allowing for the internal overhead bridge crane and hoist).
The intake stop-logs and tailrace gate and hoist mechanism would all be contained within the proposed building.

So the proponent’s plan to build solely on Crown land certainly appeared well-researched and credible.

In June 2012 the proponent released an Addendum to their 2009 Environmental Screening/Review report. This Addendum described the proponent’s current Alternative 1A proposal, and as detailed in Section 2.1 (that will take some time to download), Alternative 1A could also apparently be built solely on the Crown land. On pdf page 72 of the Addendum, the proponent provided a rendering of their Alternative 1A proposal, which is reproduced below (click on it for a larger view). They describe this rendering on pdf page 58: “The proposed Alternative 1A powerhouse is higher than the powerhouse needed for Alternative 2D [option 2] in order to house the vertical turbine. This turbine configuration is required to remain within the smaller site footprint.” As can be seen, this is indeed a few feet higher than the deck of the Bala north dam.

Proponent’s Alternative 1A rendering from their 2012 Addendum

On pdf page 29 of the Appendices to the Addendum, the proponent provides dimensions for their Alternative 1A proposal, as reproduced below. This shows the roof of the proposed building would be 30′ above the Moon River.

Proponent’s Alternative 1A rendering from their 2012 Addendum Appendix C

So, from 2005 to 2012 the proponent provided several dimensioned drawings showing the entire structure would not be higher than Muskoka Road 169, and would be about 30′ above the Moon River.

What the proponent is now claiming
In a presentation to the Township of Muskoka Lakes Committee of the Whole on December 16, 2014, the proponent showed some preliminary scale drawings of their proposed Alternative 1A building, two of these drawings are reproduced below, with added dimensions.

This drawing (click on it for a larger view) shows a vertical cross-section, looking south. On the left is Muskoka Road 169 and on the right is the Moon River:

The red outline shows the technical equipment which would be required.
The highest roof is what the proponent’s engineering design consultants suggested the building outline be.
The peaked heavy black line below that is what the proponent’s architect Karl Stevens speculated a building outline could be.
We have added the horizonal red line below that, as the proponent claims this would actually be the height of their proposed building, 6.2 m (20.3′) above Muskoka Road 169.

The blue lines are apparently sight lines of the person (highlighted with the green arrow) attempting to look through the building to see down the Moon River.

So the heights would be:

The proposed building would be 6.2 m (20.3′) above Muskoka Road 169 (this is the about the height of a two-storey building) and 15 m (49′) above the Moon River (this is the height of a five-storey building).
The tailrace gate hoist mechanism would be 10 m (32′) above the Moon River.

Proponent’s Alternative 1A north cross-section from their December 16, 2014 presentation to the Township of Muskoka Lakes, height dimensions added

The proponent also provided a vertical cross-section looking east. As shown below, the intake would be on the north side, which is to the left, and the driveway would be on the south side, to the right. Even if the height of the building could be reduced, the intake gate hoist mechanism would be 7.41 m (over 24′) above Muskoka Road 169.

Proponent’s Alternative 1A west cross-section from their December 16, 2014 presentation to the Township of Muskoka Lakes, height dimension added

Conclusion
We see that while for years the proponent provided statements, drawings, and renderings showing they would honour their 2005 proposal commitment that the roof of their building would not be above the level of Muskoka Road 169, their more recent information shows that it would tower over 20′ (about two storeys) above Muskoka Road 169, blocking the view down the river.

The proposed building would also be 100′ long, completely ruining the view from Margaret Burgess Park, and there would be no landscaping on the site, as the entire 70′ x 100′ Crown land site would be concrete.

The proponent choosing to provide such incorrect information as part of the competitive process through which the proponent was selected justifies the Ministry of Natural Resources to cancel this proposed project, without risk of having to pay whatever costs the proponent may incurred.

A March 2015 summary

No Responses »

Mar 062015

For over ten years, a proponent has been pursuing building a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls (Bala is 25 km north-west of Gravenhurst). And for these ten years, a very strong community effort has been asking; would it be safe, would it be beautiful as the area is, and would there be enough water over the falls to continue to draw people to the area as tourism is very important to the economy.

But instead of answers …

The proponent continues to avoid answering the public’s questions.
The Ministry of Natural Resources delays responding to Freedom of Information requests.
Transport Canada won’t respond to questions of public safety and land ownership resulting from their not checking the incorrect and incomplete information from the proponent. Transport Canada won’t even clarify whether their approval included assessing boating safety on the Moon River and Mill Stream, as the MNR assumes.
The local provincial and federal politicians won’t help. We are very disappointed in Tony Clement’s refusal to advocate for his Muskoka constituents.
The proponent’s plans include work for which they do not have environmental approval, but the Ministry of the Environment won’t respond to our questions about this.
The environmental assessment process has been a farce. For example while the legislation has provision to require a proposed project provide further study or even be cancelled, neither of these have ever happened. That is, for all the staff at the Ministry of the Environment, they’ve never found a project they didn’t like.
The proponent is reneging on important commitments they made in their orginal proposal, and the Ministry of Natural Resource is allowing this.

Proponent expects Township Mayor and Councillors to let them cut down 100 trees instead of just two

6 Responses »

Feb 252015

At the December 16, 2014 Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting, the proponent’s presentation included the drawing below (click on it for a larger view). This shows the proponent would like to “preserve” Margaret Burgess Park by being allowed to instead use the following Township lands for their proposed construction (which would be at least two years):

Portage Landing (the land south of the proposed construction site, labelled “staging area” below)
Precambrian Shield parking lot
Don’s Bakery parking Lot

We’ve heard this before from the “Probity” group (who even had green “Save Margaret Burgess Park” buttons made for the municipal elections last October). Let’s look at what the proponent’s “deal” would really mean for Bala.

As shown by the southbound red truck turning from Muskoka Road 169 into the “staging area”, the proponent desperately wants to fill Portage Landing with 15′ of blasted rock, so they could drive dump trucks into it to reach their proposed construction site (shaded red below).

But it is fact that Portage Landing is all trees. So to dump their blasted rock and to get their dump trucks into it, the proponent would first need to cut down all the trees in at least the north 95′ of Portage Landing. We’ve counted, this means the proponent would cut down more than 100 trees in Portage Landing to “Save Margaret Burgess Park”.

So let’s look at Margaret Burgess Park. Below is an overlay of two drawings from the proponent; one shows the trees in Margaret Burgess Park and the other shows the path of the gravel the proponent would dump into Margaret Burgess Park to make a ramp up to their proposed temporary bridge over the Bala north falls (they would use this bridge so their dump trucks could reach their proposed construction site).

As highlighted by the red arrows we’ve added to the overlay drawing below (click on it for a larger view), the proponent would need to cut down two trees, maybe three in Margaret Burgess Park.

So which is the better deal, the proponent’s current plan to cut down two or three trees, or what they’re now asking for, to cut down over 100 trees from Portage Landing.

It is obvious, the Township should not “make a deal” with the proponent. The proponent’s current plan to cut down only two or three trees in Margaret Burgess Park would be far better for Bala than their “deal” of instead cutting down over 100 trees on Portage Landing. But this is even more clear if we look at the bigger picture of the two “choices”:

Proponent’s current plan:
1. Cut down two or three trees from Margaret Burgess Park.
2. Dump some gravel in Margaret Burgess Park to make a ramp (they would later remove the gravel).
  
  OR, proponent’s “deal” …
Proponent is asking Mayor Furniss and the Councillors of the Township of Muskoka Lakes to agree to “Save Margaret Burgess Park”, so the proponent would instead:
1. Cut down over 100 trees in Portage Landing
2. Fill Portage Landing with 15′ of blasted rock
3. Occupy the Precambrian Shield parking lot for at least two years
4. Occupy the south half of the Don’s Bakery Parking lot for years

We think the proponent would already be making enough of a mess of Bala (in both cases they’d also be; occupying all of Diver’s Point, driving dump trucks into the Bala north channel beside Purk’s Place, and of course, blasting the Crown land south of the Bala north falls down 60′ and filling the entire site with a 70′-wide x 100′-long poured concrete powerhouse that would rise 30′ above Muskoka Road 169).

Let the Mayor and Councillors know that the Proponent’s current plan is mess enough. We don’t want them cutting down 100 trees at Portage Landing to save a few trees in Margaret Burgess Park.

A Call to Action from Martin Ford

2 Responses »

Feb 252015

[Martin Ford is the owner and operator of Sun and Ski Marine. He has shared the following (you can download it here) …]

I know this is a long email but it is important as it relates to the development of the Bala Falls Hydro Project. Please help if you are interested!

Hello Fellow Muskoka Lakefront Property Owners;

I know that many of you enjoy and love the town of Bala and all it has to offer. Whether it’s the beauty of the falls, the boat trips to the dock for ice cream or baked goods, jumping off the railway bridge, fishing in the Moon River, swimming at the base of the north falls, participating in the Regatta at the public docks, buying bait from Purk’s Place, or the convenience of shopping locally. I know you enjoy your waterfront and the beauty of the Muskoka Lakes.

I am writing this email to alert you without prejudice to the fact that the political landscape to fight the Bala Falls Hydro Plant has aggressively changed since Don Furniss became Mayor last fall. The momentum that was in favour of stopping this project from being built in Bala has turned and with lightning speed. We believe that if the Lakefront property owners do not get engaged right now, construction will begin this spring, which will forever change this town!

This email is being sent with a specific request to assist the town of Bala and the “Save the Bala Falls” group to fund a war chest to stop this project and to move the momentum back to stopping the hydro plant. Glenn and Chris Zavitz, lakefront property owners in Bala, are collecting the funds.

The latest rendering of this plant shows the construction of a concrete bunker, which will tower over the highway height by 30 feet and 55 feet in width. The intake for this hydro plant will be a massive new hole blasted to the right of Purk’s Place. The majority of the trees that are in this area, including the side of the United Church that surrounds the waterfalls, will be removed. Upon completion, the falls on the north and the south side will be nothing but a dribble as they draw most of the water underground to drive the turbines. The beauty of the falls and the view down the Moon will be gone forever.

What many of you are probably not aware of is that the management of the water levels will be transferred from the Ministry of Natural Resources to that of a privately owned power generating company, a profit hydro developer. That company is Swift River (SREL). Their contract to build and manage this project is a lucrative one. The Ontario Government will fund them $80,000,000 over a forty-year period for a $20,000,000 dollar investment. They will receive 17 cents per kilowatt for every click that this hydroelectric plant generates. The worst part of this scenario is that this power is going to be sold to NY State at a loss. This is a minimal output electrical project due to the small size of the falls. There are far better locations for a hydro plant across Ontario that will not destroy the local economy of Bala and wreak havoc that can never be changed. Plus there are many other advanced green technologies that would not have the same impact as a Hydro Generation Plant.

The management of the water levels is of great concern and should be understood by the lakefront property owners. The water levels during construction may cause flooding. The ongoing water levels have the potential of swinging dramatically to the point where the shallow waters will become less navigable and the risk of flooding continuously will be in the hands of a private company that generates cents per click. Do any of you on this distribution believe that a private company who generates revenue per click will care if they swing the water levels so that your boathouse becomes un-useable? Will they care that you can’t navigate from a shallow area or shallow bay like Dark Bay into Bala Bay to the main lake? I know which properties that will be most affected as I have been to many of your lakefront summer homes.

The camp kids who currently canoe or kayak to Margaret Burgess Park to portage will no longer have access to this area. The strong currents created by the turbines will ensure that navigation to the public docks in Bala by Don’s Bakery is exceptionally difficult with very fast moving water.

FROM THE ONTARIO POWER GENERATION WEBSITE

“STAY CLEAR, STAY SAFE”

“WATER NEAR DAMS AND HYDROELECTRIC STATIONS IS DANGEROUS”

http://www.opg.com/Pages/home.aspx

Canadian Safe Boating Course

Hydroelectric dams and stations, and the areas around them are:

NOT parks
NOT fishing holes
NOT boating areas
NOT swimming areas
NOT camping sites or picnic areas
NOT safe places for recreation

http://www.boaterexam.com/canada/education/hydroelectricdams-en.aspx

For your own safety near a hydroelectric dam or station, make sure that you:

Obey all warning signs, fences, buoys, booms and barriers. They are put there to protect you. The areas inside are dangerous, stay clear of them.
Stay a safe distance outside of warning signs, buoys, booms and barriers when fishing, boating or swimming.
Stay well back from the edge of waters above and below hydroelectric dams and stations
Never stand below a dam, or anchor or tie your boat there. Rapidly changing water levels and flows can take you by surprise and could swamp your boat or put you in the grip of an undertow.
Stay off hydroelectric dams or station structures, unless OPG has clearly indicated walkways, or observation points.
Stay well back of dry riverbeds below dams. They can quickly change into rapidly flowing waterways.
Stay well back from the edge of a waterway where footing may be slippery.
Don’t wade into moving water.
When swimming, fishing, boating or paddling in a river, be aware of the water level and check upstream frequently for any sign of increasing currents or rising water levels. If the water level is rising or the flow is speeding up, get out of the water or move your boat downstream. Even when the hydroelectric dam or station is out of sight, changing water levels and flows can take you by surprise, pulling you into an undertow, leaving you stranded away from shore or swamping your boat.
Set an example for children, who may not be aware of the dangers, even if they can read. State explicitly where they can and cannot go and make sure you are close to them and can see them at all times.

THERE IS A REAL DANGER TO CHILDREN AND ADULTS

It will be located on the main street of Bala.

WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

The Muskoka Lakes Association, the Moon River Cottagers Association, and the majority of the voting public in Ward A of this township are against the project! Additionally, the Wahta First Nations are outraged that their sacred portage will be closed down forever. There are many questions about environmental impact, noise pollution, economic devastation, and proper consultation going unanswered by Ontario and the developer. Did you know that SREL, while negotiating with the ‘new’ council, still have an on-going lawsuit against our previous mayor who was trying to stop the project?

The fight to stop the Bala Falls Hydro Plant has been valiantly fought by the local people who have organized and provided tremendous information on their web site www.savethebalafalls.com. This group has primarily been locally funded and they do not have the resources to fight the deep pockets of Swift River and their lobby groups. It has come to light that Swift River has no assets, no people, and will hand off the operation of the plant to the Towns of Bracebridge and Hunstville who will financially benefit from Bala’s local demise through Lakeland Energy. The Ontario government does not care about the town of Bala. They see this project as green energy that must move forward regardless of the fact that it does not make economic sense. What Premier Wynne does not understand is that this hydroelectric plant is being built in Bala’s front yard and that it will change the heritage falls and the historic nature and beauty of this town forever! NO ONE is listening.

Rob Stewart, an award winning film creator, has generously offered his support and he is currently developing a new film to help fight this project with an expected release the middle of March. Like many of us, Rob is a cottager who grew up enjoying the Muskoka Lakes and the town of Bala. Our aim is to distribute the film traditionally and through social media to get the exposure that this project needs to help turn the tide and to create political attention that it needs. The trailer for this project can be viewed here: https://vimeo.com/113814268

Funds are being requested to build the war chest to assist in this video production, distribution, as well as other marketing and legal means. We need your support TODAY! Glenn and Chris Zavitz, lakefront property owners, are collecting your donations on behalf of this project and the Save the Bala Falls group! Please help — we need it now! To assist with the funding, please send email money transfers with your donation to chris.zavitz@rogers.com . Glenn Zavitz’s phone number for further information is 519-591-8878.

To the lawyers in the group, please help. There are conflict of interest, water access rights and lack of public consultation issues that have plagued this project from the start. Both high and low water levels could be significant. Could this be stopped if the Lakefront Cottage owners threatened legal action to the mayor and the council members as Swift River has done?

To those of you on this list that may have political connections with the current Liberal government, we need your help! Premier Kathleen Wynne has never been to Bala and decisions are being made in a vacuum without understanding the beauty of this landscape. Perhaps if the Premier actually travelled to Bala and understood this impact the Ontario government would change directions.

It has been suggested that if evidence of climate change in the past five years and the impact to our natural environment was identified that the Ontario government may change it’s direction. This cancellation would be at a cost but not as significant as the overall development of the project. There is an individual who is working to provide this information and it will be provided to the Save the Bala Falls team.

To all of us that own lakefront property on the Muskoka Lakes YOU need to be engaged. Don Furniss, the Mayor of Muskoka Lakes, the majority of the council members and the Fire Chief Hayes are not Lakefront Property Owner friendly. They are jealous of your wealth and they view you as tourists! They are happy to take your taxes but you have no voice! THAT needs to change.

The Muskoka Lakes Mayor, and the Council members who have publicly stated their support for a hydro-dam in Bala are as follows. The YES side has six votes the NO side has four votes. The following individuals will vote for the project unless we can change their direction and vote!

The Mayor – Donald Furniss
1208 Beaumaris Rd.
Beaumaris, ON, P1L 1W8
(705) 764-1757 home
don.furniss@muskokalakes.ca

Ward B

Allen Edwards
District and Township Councillor
Box 128
Windermere, ON P0B 1P0
(705) 769-2214 home
allen.edwards@muskokalakes.ca

Linda Barrick-Spearn
Township Councillor
1670 Windermere Road
Utterson, ON POB 1M0
(705) 706-4296 home
linda.barrick-spearn@muskokalakes.ca

Gault McTaggart
Township Councillor
Box 173
Windermere, ON, P0B 1P0
(705) 783-3182 home
gault.mctaggart@muskokalakes.ca

WARD C

Jean-Ann Baranik
Deputy Mayor
Township Concillor
P.O. Box Box 445
Port Carling, ON P0B 1J0
705-765-1162 Home
jean-ann.baranik@muskokalakes.ca

Terry Ledger
Township Councillor
167 Medora Street
Port Carling, ON, P0B 1J0
(705) 765-5428 business
terry.ledger@muskokalakes.ca

PLEASE personally contact the Mayor and the Council members in Ward B and Ward C to express your outrage that they are supporting this project and demand they stop. They need to be called personally on the telephone. (Emails can be easily deleted). They need to be badgered day and night, and on weekends to ensure they understand your opposition to this project. You need to ask them what possesses them to support a project that is this devastating to the town of Bala and the Township of Muskoka Lakes? Ask them if they would support a project like this in the front yards of Windermere, Beaumaris, Utterson, or Port Carling? Why are they choosing to inflict pain on others in Muskoka Lakes? Perhaps with pressure, the tides will turn back and that is what we need to do collectively as lakefront property owners.

Suggested script:

“Hello Councillor XXXXXX , my name is XXXXXXX and I have a property in the Township of Muskoka Lakes. I know it is late, but just as the water levels in Muskoka will be affected at all hours of the day and night, I wanted you to know about my grave concerns regarding the building of a power plant in Bala. Many have said it is Green Energy and out of the Townships hands – I disagree. Give this developer nothing, continue to lobby the Provincial Government, Stand firm that Muskoka is NOT a WILLING HOST and despite the developer’s threats to use parks during construction – don’t give in. These are tactics to threaten us (and you) into getting exactly what they want. These are idle threats, and all their permits from the Province are still not complete. Please stand firm and protect Muskoka. Protect Bala. Protect our hydro rates. Your vote matters, You can be on the side that protects Muskoka for the next 100 years – or you can be on the side that “sold Muskoka” giving it away to a private company without a vested interested. “

Please also contact Fire Chief Richard Hayes and inform him that you are concerned that emergency services in Muskoka Lakes could not handle a major catastrophe in the Township of Muskoka Lakes caused by issues at the hydro plant. His direct email is here rhayes@muskokalakes.ca and his phone number is 705-765-3156, extension 261. Fire Chief Hayes needs to hear your concerns directly and forcefully!

We are asking you to distribute this email to other local lakefront property owners whom you know and that you believe would care and be willing to help. Although some believe it is only about Bala, the reality is that this will affect Lake Rosseau, Lake Joseph, Lake Muskoka, and the Moon River! Our lakes are connected and what happens in Bala will impact all.

Please help this town protect the Bala falls! We want the historic nature of this town and its waterfalls to be enjoyed forever and by all! Without the lakefront property owner’s support this project will move full steam ahead and the beauty of this town will be gone forever.

Sincerely,

Martin Ford

Older Entries Newer Entries