Save the Bala Falls

In 2008 the Township of Muskoka Lakes and the District Municipality of Muskoka passed resolutions requiring the proponent to have all approvals necessary and that a Heritage Impact Assessment be completed for all affected lands before considering making any municipal land available to the proponent.

Also, in 2005 the proponent was selected through a competitive process. The proponent’s proposal made commitments which the proponent intends to not honour.

SaveTheBalaFalls.com presented these issues to the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes on June 13, 2014, the presentation is here.

When it suits their purposes, the proponent tries to project an image of engagement and concern for the community.

But this only happens when they need something from the public.

For example, their potential construction contractors have told them the construction process would be very difficult and expensive without use of the three parcels of Township land surrounding the proposed construction site.

So the proponent is pretending to be all friendly and open now (never mind that they’re also sending threatening and lawyer’s letters to the Township and District).

Last week they sent out a “Project Update” which further attempts to get the community to pressure the Township. The proponent’s deal is they want to offer one property to get three. That is, they say they won’t mess up and occupy Margaret Burgess Park if they can mess up and occupy:

1. The south half of the Don’s Bakery parking lot.
2. The Precambrian Shield parking lot.
3. And most importantly, the Township land directly south of the proposed construction site – which they disparagingly call “vacant land”, never mind that it is both now a designated cultural heritage landscape (being part of the site of the historic and traditional Portage through Bala), and they would cut down all the trees and dump it full of blasted rock.

The proponent’s carefully-worded June flyer deceives and omits so much, that we had to respond. You can read our comments here.

As shown in this official survey dated March 29, 1924, the Bala #2 Generating Station had a footprint of 16′ x 16′ – which is an area of 256 ft² (23.78 m²).

The proponent’s most recent drawing (dated November 28, 2013) shows the foot print of their proposed generating station. Overlaying this official survey from August 30, 1924 provides the image below (click on it for a larger view):

• The blue lines have been added to highlight the footprint of the proposed generating station
• The red highlights the survey from 1924. As is labeled, the red square is the Bala #2 Power Station that used to be on the site (from 1924 to 1972). Note how much larger the proposed generating station would be.

Measuring the proponent’s proposed generating station on their 2013 drawing shows the footprint would be 591 m², which is 25 times the area of the station previously there and more than four times the size of a 5-bedroom house.

This is simply Too Big for Bala.

As can be measured from the scaled survey drawings, the station previously there left 16′ clear to the Crown land property line to the south, so the station did not obstruct the Bala portage – and the Portage path can clearly be seen in the photograph below.

Back to the figure above the photograph above, as shown by the red dashed lines leading from the Bala north channel to the Bala #2 generating station, the intake was buried. As can be seen by the rectangle within the intake towards the Bala north channel, there was an inspection cover over the intake, and the July, 1924 photograph below shows people standing over that intake.

The photograph below is from the Archives of Ontario (Container B117491, Reference C 7-3), and was taken by John Boyd. The associated caption is “At Bala Falls, Muskoka [District], a new power plant is under construction. This diver has to work in the swirling waters – a very dangerous job. Great care is taken by the 3 men who get him into his suit to see that everything is safe.”. The detail in the photograph is fantastic (click for a larger view, press “Ctrl +” to zoom-in). Note the diver’s hat and shoes at the right, and a hammer and pliers above those, and his helmet air-line hose above that. Wood planks in the foreground are the inspection cover over the intake. In the background is the two-storey Carr’s Arcadian Ice Cream Parlour, owned by Katherine (sometimes spelled Catherine) Carr (née Burgess), daughter of Thomas and Margaret Burgess. The huge verandah overlooks the Bala north channel and falls.

The photograph below is also from the Archives of Ontario (photographs from Allan Edward Cuthbertson, Reference F 4564-0-0-0-270, likely taken after 1940), and shows the Bala #2 generating station. Note the wooden utility pole in front of the Bala north dam, this supported the transmission line from the generating station, and the concrete footing for this pole is still there today. The Burgess Memorial Presbyterian Church is to the right, and the land closer is a gentle slope, most suitable for the Portage there. The side railings/supports for the highway bridge over the north channel can be seen past the Bala north dam.

The figure below is a current drawing of the area with an overlay (in red) of most of the August 30, 1924 survey (click for a larger view). It shows the alignment of the previous highway bridge over the north channel relative to the current Muskoka Road 169 bridge. Also, the location of Carr’s Arcadian Ice Cream Parlour is shown as being owned by Katherine Wilkinson Carr.

Summary
The proponent has submitted several requests for driveway entrance permits, which they would require for both the construction and operation of their proposed generating station.

In examining these applications to the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Township of Muskoka Lakes, we have found  several errors, omissions, and oversights in the information the proponent provided to support their applications. As detailed in this letter, we also have several concerns about public safety, risk to public infrastructure, traffic delays, and increased costs and liability to the District Municipality of Muskoka.

The District’s staff report responds to these and other concerns, noting that issues raised are either unrelated to this particular decision, the province would not tolerate the municipality over-stepping its authority, or the proponent will address any shortcomings later. We feel that just as complete and correct information must be provided when applying for a building permit, the proponent should be required to provide complete and correct information for these applications. The public deserves to know in advance of approvals what the impacts would be.

The proponent’s permit applications will be considered at the next meeting of the District Municipality of Muskoka’s Engineering and Public Works Committee, which is Wednesday May 21, 2014, at 9:00 am in the Council Chambers at the District’s offices at 70 Pine Street in Bracebridge.

Please come out to show your support that the proponent be required to provide complete and correct information before their applications can be considered by the District’s Enginering and Public Works committee.

Detail
The proponent has requested the following (click on the links below to see the drawings the proponent submitted with their application):

1. Approval from the District Municipality of Muskoka:
   1. To create a driveway off of Muskoka Road 169 during their proposed construction so they could drive construction vehicles into Margaret Burgess Park.
      • The existing parking spaces in front of Margaret Burgess Park and some in front of the Bala United Church could not be used during the proposed construction period (which they claim would be up to two years).
      • The proponent would also need to turn-around construction vehicles in the park, to install a construction bridge so these vehicles could drive over the Bala north falls to the proposed construction site, to install a large steel sediment settling tank in the park, and to remove enough trees from the park so they could do all this.
   2. To create a permanent driveway off of Muskoka Road 169 to their proposed generating station site south of the Bala north falls.
      • They would need to remove the guardrail there, leaving an opening more than 32′-wide, which is more than enough for errant cars coming from Bala Falls Road that don’t stop or turn enough to go over the embankment and into the construction site’s excavation.
      • Also, the view of vehicles using this driveway (all would need to either back-in or back-out of the driveway – rather dangerous at this location) would be obstructed by the west railing of the Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel. This would be dangerous for both pedestrians walking along the west side of the road as well as for vehicles attempting to pass by all this.
   3. To widen the shoulder on the west side of Muskoka Road 169 just south of their proposed generating station site.
      • At the west side of this widened shoulder they would need to build a retaining wall which would have more than a 10′-drop down to the Township’s Portage Landing area south of the proposed construction site.
      • Being at the top of a 10′-high retaining wall would be dangerous for both pedestrians walking by, as well as for vehicles, as the guardrail proposed does not appear to be anchored well enough to be useful.
   4. For a Roadway Occupancy permit to park vehicles, store materials and otherwise use the shaded road shoulder areas on this drawing as they wish.
       
2. Approval from the Township of Muskoka Lakes:
   1. To create a driveway off of Bala Falls Road just west of Purk’s Place so they could transport blasted rock under the Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel, and out beside Purk’s Place.
      • This would require building a cofferdam in the north channel extending from the proposed construction site all the way east to behind Purk’s Place.
      • The proponent does not have the required environmental approval for such a cofferdam: Figure 5.1 from the proponent’s Addendum shows they do not have approval for this area for their proposed Alternative 1A, and Figure 5.2 from the proponent’s 2009 Environmental Assessment shows they do not have approval for this area from their abandoned Option 2 approval either.
   2. To access Diver’s Point, which would be closed to the public for the duration of the proposed construction.
   3. For a roadway occupancy permit to park vehicles, store materials and otherwise use the shaded area beside Purk’s Place as they wish.

Of course, the main purpose of the driveways would be for loaded construction vehicles to enter and exit those sites. What is unknown is how often this would happen and therefore, the impact on traffic as these trucks wait to make left turns and merge into traffic. Traffic would also need to be stopped for the proposed blasting and during the subsequent bridge inspections.

Clearly, this proposed construction has many implications for traffic (for example, would emergency response vehicles be delayed), as well as for pedestrians – and these need to be considered.

There are many other important issues. For example:

• Would there be any risk to the District Municipality of Muskoka’s bridge over the Bala north channel.
• Would the District Municipality of Muskoka have any increased liability given the undesirable location of the requested driveway to the proposed generating station, and if so, how could this be mitigated.

And looking closely at the information from the proponent shows some surprises:

• The proponent’s drawings show that some of their proposed generating station would be built on District Municipality of Muskoka property.
• The blasting and excavation would be within inches of both the support piers for the Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel and the Bala north dam, but there has been no exploratory drilling or analysis of the ground there to know if this could be done without shifting and damaging this important public infrastructure.
• The proponent’s construction techniques could increase the District Municipality of Muskoka’s inspection and maintenance costs for their bridge over the Bala north channel.
• The guardrail at the top of the proposed retaining wall does not meet Ontario Building Code standards.
• The proponent’s construction plans include building a cofferdam in a location for which they do not have environmental approval.

This is a complex request. However the proponent seems to believe their demands should be instantly met without taking the time to consider the implications to the public. The proponent’s lawyers sent a threatening “We demand” letter to the Township of Muskoka Lakes, and the proponent’s Director sent a threatening letter to the District Municipality of Muskoka (copied to the proponent’s lawyer just in case anyone forgets they have one).

We have detailed our concerns to the Commissioner of Engineering and Public Works, and hope this will be of assistance in the Engineering and Public Works Committee’s review of the proponent’s Driveway Entrance and Roadway Occupancy Permit applications.

The District Municipality of Muskoka’s Engineering and Public Works Committee will be considering these Permit applications at their next meeting, which is Wednesday May 21, 2014, at 9:00 am in the Council Chambers at 70 Pine Street, Bracebridge.

Please come out to show your support that these issues be fully considered as part of the District’s review of these applications.

The current status is that proponent has yet to receive many approvals required before construction could begin:

1. At the Federal government level, while Transport Canada has reviewed the information the proponent provided in their Addendum, Transport Canada has not yet received the proponent’s Application for approval, and Transport Canada apparently not considered that:
   1. The proposed generating station would operate at full capacity an average of 21 days each summer.
   2. That the resulting treacherously turbulent water exiting the proposed station would be just as dangerous outside of the proposed downstream safety boom as within it, and that this fast water would be directed close to the Town Docks on the Moon River and other private docks.
   3. And that children and visitors not familiar with the area would need to navigate through this churning water on their way to dock their boats.
       
2. At the Provincial government level, the proponent has not yet applied for Plans and Specifications approval, as is required under the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. Given the need for blasting and excavation directly adjacent to the Bala north dam and the restriction of the north channel during the construction (creating the risk of flooding Lake Muskoka), there would be many challenges to meeting the requirements.
    
3. At the Municipal government District level, the proponent would need to provide assurance that:
   1. The blasting and excavation would not damage the highway bridge over the north channel.
   2. The traffic delays due to blasting and dump truck movements and speed limit reductions through the proposed construction site would be acceptable for emergency response vehicles, commercial vehicles, and everybody else.
       
4. At the Municipal government Township level:
   1. The proponent needs a building permit.
   2. While the province seems to think that dealing with emergencies is as easy as dialling 911, the proponent has not approached the local emergency responders to discuss what training, budget, and resources would be required to handle the many types of emergency situations that could occur during both construction and operation.
       
5. We were shocked to learn that Margaret Burgess Park would be fenced-off, this is the type of major news that the proponent should be telling the public. Obviously the public consultation has been inadequate, as such crucial information should not be a surprise after years of attempting to get our questions answered by the proponent.
    
6. In addition to the above;
   1. The proponent is no doubt trying to raise contruction financing, which they may never get, as investors may consider the construction to be too difficult and risky.
   2. The Township of Muskoka Lakes has requested an appeal of the Judicial Review decision of last summer.

We will continue to insist the public knows:

• Would it be safe.
• Would it be beautiful, as the area is.
• Would there be enough water over the falls to continue to draw people to Bala.