Save the Bala Falls

The proponent offers that instead of using Margaret Burgess Park for construction purposes, they would rather:

1. Cut down all the trees on the Township land south of the proposed construction site, dump blast rock into it, store construction materials in it, and drive construction vehicles all over it.
2. Occupy the south half of the Don’s Bakery parking lot so it could not be used for public parking, these would be the people that are important to the area’s economy as such visitors are what brings money into the area’s stores and restaurants.
3. Occupy the Precambrian Shield parking lot so it could not be used by the Farmers’ Market, Cranberry Festival, or for public parking – again, all important to the area’s economy.
4. Widen the Muskoka Road 169 shoulder at and south of the proposed construction site. This would require a retaining wall to be built and this would have a 10′ drop, so there would need to be a high fence. So people driving by on Muskoka Road 169 would just see a fence, not the view down the Moon River which encourages people to stop.

And in addition to these four construction locations, the proponent would also be using both the area beside Purk’s Place and Diver’s Point (in addition to the proposed actual construction site) for construction purposes. They want to occupy seven important Bala sites for up to two years!

So, yes of course Margaret Burgess Park is very beautiful. But better the proponent occupy the one site rather than sprawl all over Bala (occupying a total seven sites within 150 m of the Bala falls). Mayoralty candidate Furniss and his slate’s idea of having Margaret Burgess Park open is meaningless if visitors have nowhere to park, or they don’t even visit because Bala is a noisy and muddy construction zone for two years.

Exhibit 1: In 2010, the proponent convened a “Flow Distribution Committee”, with complete control over the members, agenda, number of meetings, and mandate. The presentations made, information discussed, and minutes of these meetings have never been made public.

Exhibit 2: As shown here (it is a large file, may take a minute to download), as part of the proponent’s environmental approval, in 2011 the Ministry of the Environment stated the proponent “has committed to forming a Public Advisory Committee during the detailed design phase to allow the public to provide input for the final appearance of the landscaping and other aesthetic elements of the Project.”

However, as noted in this September 17, 2014 issue of What’s Up Muskoka about this Public Advisory Committee, the proponent is keeping the meetings, members, agenda, mandate, and everything else secret. This is not fulfilling the Ministry of the Environment’s requirements.

Exhibit 3: As shown in this video below (click to start it, or click here to see it on Youtube) of photographs taken September 16, 2014, the proponent meets privately with elected officials.

The proponent for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls rudely demonstrates a lack of professionalism and respect for the community (that would be the third photograph in this video). It is also wrong that these elected officials – that have, and would continue to make official decisions on this developer’s proposed project – are socializing with and meeting informally with the developer.

Exhibit 4: The proponent continues to avoid the public and privately meet, listen to the proponent’s architect in this segment of MooseFM interview of October 16, 2014 (click on the triangle at the left end of the player below).

then we met with some potential new Council members

Observations
This is a proponent that would receive a $100,000,000 subsidy from the taxpayers of Ontario, this is a proposed project that would be on public land, and use public water.

It is unacceptable that there be secret meetings which claim to represent the public.

It is known that Councillors Don Furniss and Gault McTaggart and candidate Greg Knight have met privately with the proponent. This is wrong, instead we must work to keep government open and transparent, we don’t want elected officials holding secret meetings, and we don’t want to deal with proponents that work this way either.

Click at the right to view the video, or you can see it at http://youtu.be/7F9xrLgW6LE

Thanks to John Wright of North 45 Communications, here is a flying drone’s view of the Bala falls. We’re over the Moon River, looking east over Burgess Island and upstream towards Bala Bay on Lake Muskoka. In front of us to the left is the Bala north falls and upstream of that, the Bala north channel. To the south, that is, to the right of the Bala north falls, is Burgess Island, and to right of that, is the Bala south channel, and upstream of that is the Bala south dam.

All the water from Lake Muskoka and the 5000 km² watershed upstream, which extends to Algonquin Park, flows through the Bala falls, to the Moon River, which is below us. From here the water flows west to Georgian Bay and to Lake Huron. The traditional and historic Bala Portage is directly in the centre in front of us, on Burgess Island, just south of the Bala north falls. Before railroads and highways, travel by water was essential for trade and for the First Nations that lived here first. And the Bala Portage connected people in the area to the horizon and beyond to the Great Lakes and to the rest of the world.

People are drawn to the Bala falls. The Bala falls are accessible, beautiful, natural, and unique. The Bala falls drive the area’s economy. But a proponent and the provincial government wish to build a hydro-electric generating station right on the Bala Portage. This would both obstruct the Bala Portage and take 94% of the water from the falls, leaving only a trickle for what is called Scenic Flow. People won’t come to Bala to see the dry rocks where the falls used to be.

We’re now farther east, over Bala Bay, looking south over the upstream safety boom for the Bala south dam and downstream of that is the Bala south dam and then the Bala south channel and the Moon River. To the right is the Canadian Pacific Railway, and past that is Muskoka Road 169.

We’re farther north, still over Bala Bay and looking south. Here we can see the Bala south dam ahead of us, then to the right is Diver’s Point, and to the right of that is the Bala north channel. In the distance ahead of us is the Kee to Bala.

We’re farther south now, to our right is the Kee to Bala. And ahead of us, courtesy of the hard-working and early-rising staff at PaddleShack, are 38 of their Kayaks, carefully arranged by size, Save Bala Falls.

For more information, please visit us at SaveTheBalaFalls.com

Summary

1. After years of the proponent and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources referring to the Bala Portage as the “alleged portage” or the “purported portage”, we find that the proponent’s own study confirms that the traditional and historic Bala Portage has always been south of the Bala north falls.
2. However, the study’s authors conclude an incorrect route for the original Bala Portage.
3. But the important point is that the Bala Portage has always been south of what is now called the Bala north falls, and that due to the provincial government’s actions (their construction of the highway bypass in 1965), the only available route for the Bala Portage now is over the Crown land, which would be obstructed by the proponent’s current Alternative 1A plans.

Detail
For the Township of Muskoka Lakes’ 2013 Judicial Review hearing, the proponent commissioned a study to determine the location of the original Bala Portage. The study found that the exact route of the Bala Portage would have changed over time, for example, due to the construction of the railway in 1907 and of the highway bypass in 1965.

This 98-page study was written by two well-respected Ph.D.s, and can be viewed by clicking on the image below (it is a 6 Mbyte file, so will take some time to download).

After years of the proponent and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources referring to the Bala Portage as the “alleged portage” or the “purported portage” and denying its existence, we find in this study that the proponent themselves confirm that the Bala Portage has always been south of the Bala north falls.

The study concludes that over time, there were three different portage routes south of the Bala north falls, as shown by the green linies in their Map B (reproduced below, click on it for a larger view, which includes added comments).

As summarized in our commented version of their Map B, the study’s authors erred in their determining the exact route of the original Bala Portage, as follows:

1. The Bala dams were first built in 1873. Before this, the full length of the Bala north channel would have been a fast-flowing rapids, definately not suitable for canoeing. So the original Bala Portage would not have ended in the Bala north channel, instead it would have ended at what is now called Diver’s Point. This is confirmed by cartographer and explorer David Thompson’s own 1837 map, the relevant section is here.
2. The proponent’s study carefully recites the relevant sections of Thompson’s journal as included in Mitchell Shnier’s letter to the Ministy of the Environment (bottom of page 8) and in his Affidavit (paragraphs 28 to 30). But inexplicably, the proponent’s study ignores Thompson’s subsequent sentence where after camping the night, Thompson finds that the Bala Portage is actually not the Bala south channel, but is between the Bala north falls and the Bala south channel.

Therefore, rather than the proponent’s study’s conclusion that the original Bala Portage’s route was the green line with the ➀, the original Bala Portage was more likely the red line as shown in the marked-up Map B. This is confirmed by the photographs in this article, which all show canoes at and on the shore, directly south of the Bala north falls.

In any case, it is clear that the Bala Portage has always been south of the Bala north falls.

Conclusion

1. The proponent’s own study confirms that the traditional and historic Bala Portage has always been south of the Bala north falls.
2. The study authors failed to use all the information available to them and as a result erred in the exact route of the original Bala Portage.
3. Due to the provincial government’s actions (their construction of the highway bypass in 1965), the only available route for the Bala Portage now is over the Crown land, which would be obstructed by the proponent’s current Alternative 1A plans.

The proponent has released their August communication, which continues their tradition of errors, and misleading and incomplete information.

Click on the image below for a readable version of the two pages of our comments.

Our comments on their July communication is here, and on their June communication is here.