Save the Bala Falls

The marked-up aerial photograph above (click for a larger view) shows the:

• Land which the Ministry of Natural Resources would leave to the control – for about 40 years – of the proponent for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls.
• Land which the proponent seeks to lease from the District Municipality of Muskoka so they can build their proposed power station.
• Land which the developer seeks from the Township of Muskoka Lakes, which they would also require.

As shown, this for-profit developer would therefore control virtually all the shoreline around the Bala Falls. And we only learn of this more than a year after the proponent claims to have dealt with all the environmental issues for this proposed project in their environmental screening report.

The “site release” from the MNR is for the entire area. For example, as part of this proposed project, the proponent would need to maintain and control the south dam as well. The proponent should have stated their control of, and future plans for, both Margaret Burgess Park (north of the north falls) as well as Diver’s Point (west of the south dam). The proponent’s response that “they have no plans at this time” for these lands leaves the possibility that the Township and community would end up in an expensive Ontario Municipal Board hearing to determine the fate of these lands.

The proponent should be providing written, and irrevocable, assurance that these lands would be maintained as public parks for the entire duration that any proposed generating station operates, and that the lands would not be changed, would remain freely- and publically-accessible, and that the proponent would never build, or apply to build any structures on these lands.

Your input is needed – before August 31
As part of the Township of Muskoka Lakes gathering public input on the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls, several months ago questions were solicited from the public and as a result the Township forwarded a total of 156 questions to the proponent. The proponent has recently provided responses.

Our fight to Save The Bala Falls is a team effort, and now is one of those times when we need everyone to respond, as the Township is now requesting the public’s input on whether you feel these questions have been adequately answered.

We need everybody to:

1. Look through the questions and proponent’s responses here.
   • Note that many of their responses reference letters which are here (that is, rather than providing new information, they just redirect us to their previous responses – which we already know do not answer our questions).
   • We have carefully reviewed all the proponent’s responses and have not found any new information. That is, for too many important issues, the proponent continues to not answer the questions asked – and in fact makes many incorrect statements.
   • Our letter to the Township is here.
2. Note that the Township asks “Have the 156 questions to SREL been adequately answered?”
3. Respond by sending an e-mail to the Township at SRELquestions@muskokalakes.ca
   • If you can, provide one or two examples of how the proponent’s responses do not answer the questions.
   • But, the most important thing is to send an e-mail.

Our article with more detail is here.

We need to ensure visitors know about the proposed project
This remains an important time in the process to Save The Bala Falls.

• Show your support so that visitors to the area know about the issue – get your lawn signs (or car window decal) at Gidley’s Real Estate or Purk’s Place.
• National Geographic magazine has listed Muskoka as the world-wide top best summer trip of 2011, we need to fight to protect our treasure, the area’s beauty and economy depends on it. People won’t come to see where the falls used to be. This proposed project would make over 500′ of the only publically-accessible shoreline in the area too dangerous for the public. Fishing, portaging, and swimming would not be as safe. We still don’t know what the thing would look like. We still don’t know if there would be barbed-wire fencing and sirens sounding daily throughout the summer. The Ministry of Natural Resources is already going to install fences along the shoreline upstream of both the north and south dams. This is a real and present danger.
• If anyone has questions, please have them contact us at info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com

Would it be safe, would it be beautiful, and would there be adequate Scenic Flow
Some people not familiar with the many issues may see our Stop the Hydro Plant signs and wonder why we don’t want a hydro-electric generating station. A brief answer is that as noted here, the proponent has not been able to show the following:

1. The project would be be safe
   • Transport Canada says yes, but their mandate and expertise is marine navigation, not in‐water recreation such as swimming and diving
2. The project would be beautiful, having a positive impact
   • All we’ve seen is an ugly concrete cube with blasted rocks piled up the side
   • Even this information is wrong as it does not allow for cooling, and the view down river from public lookout is obstructed
3. There would be enough scenic flow
   • The falls are crucial to Bala’s economy
   • The proponent’s flow distribution committee was not permitted to finish its work, there has been no agreement on the scenic flow needed

Update
The current status is that the Minister of the Environment is still reviewing our many requests that this project require an individual environmental assessment. Some of you have received this letter from the Ministry of the Environment.

An overall summary of the process is here.

One of our major recent concerns is the surprise announcement from the Ministry of the Environment that the proposed project would use a cycling operation, we have detailed the shamefully late and inadequate response from the proponent here.

Twitter
We have been using Twitter to present our concerns, you can see our postings here.

The proponent has also been using Twitter. As you can see from their postings, they only answer what they choose to, not what the public asks.

Our many recent updates to SaveTheBalaFalls.com are under “Recent Articles”.

Self sign-up
Please encourage other members of your family to sign themselves up for our e-Newsletters, using the Subscribe link at the top-right at SaveTheBalaFalls.com. And for any questions, contact us at info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com. If you need to change the e-mail address to which we send these e-Newsletters, use the link below.

SaveTheBalaFalls.com

An August 6, 2011 we sent this letter to the Minister of the Environment and others, concerning the proponent actually answering less than 30% of the 156 fair and relevant questions asked by the Township of Muskoka Lakes and the public.

Summary
The written proposal for the economic impact study received by the Township of Muskoka Lakes and the Ministry of the Environment stated that:

• The negative economic impacts of the proposed project would be included in the study.
• They would have an opportunity to comment on the study before it was finalized.

Neither of these occured, we can only assume this was due to direction from the proponent. That is, the economic impact study did not deliver what the proponent said it would – the negative impacts.

Detail
In this letter dated May 14, 2010, the Ministry of the Environment requested that the proponent conduct further study on the economic impacts of the proposed generating station at the Bala Falls.

This August 3, 2010 proposal from the Centre for Spatial Economics, who were later selected to do this work, they note:

1. That the study would assess the “positive and negative economic impacts of the construction phase of the project” as well as the “positive and negative impacts of the operating phase of the project” (page 3).
2. That the “preliminary report will be circulated to the Township … for comment prior to finalizing” (page 5).

Since this proposal was provided to the Township of Muskoka Lakes and the Ministry of the Environment, this what the proponent was claiming would happen.

But in fact, in the proponent’s economic impact study the negative impacts were not assessed and the Township was not provided with a preliminary report (our evaluation of the study is here, and a peer review is here). The study did not ask area businesses what negative impacts the proposed project would have (for example, due to traffic disruptions due to blasting and hauling more than 1,000 dump-trucks of rocks). And the study did not interview tourists to determine if reducing the falls to a trickle would affect their desire to visit Bala.

The proponent justifies the the work done by their study by stating that “Note that the scope of the study, and the selection of the firm (Centre for Spatial Economics) to complete it were agreed on by the Township in August 2010”. This may be true, but the study did not deliver what the proponent told the Township it would receive.

Given that the study’s authors had proposed items 1. and 2. above, we can only assume these did not happen due to direction from the proponent.

Summary
Transport Canada appears to be providing approvals for which they are not qualified.

Marine navigation approval from Transport Canada is being erroneously accepted as confirmation that in-water recreational activities, such as swimming, can continue upstream of the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls. 
 

Detail
For this proposed project, we understand Transport Canada’s mandate is marine navigation. For example, approving the design and location of the safety booms.

However, we understand that Transport Canada has no expertise or mandate for in-water recreational safety. This is confirmed in the second page of this e-mail from Transport Canada, where they state “Transport Canada does not have authority over swimming safety”.

Yet, we see in the second page of this letter concerning the Bala Regatta, Transport Canada states: “I have corresponded directly with the Bala Aquatic Association concerning their historic regatta and you have addressed their concerns in the ESR (2.2.5.7) and with the surface water velocity and plant flow figures (6.1, 6.2c). Their activities should be able to continue as they have planned.”

Concerning this remarkable statement from Transport Canada we note the following:

1. First, Section 2.2.5.7 of the proponent’s environmental screening report simply notes what the Regatta is, that some activities take place from the town dock, and that it includes swimming activities. Figures 6.1 and 6.2c show the flows throughout the year and at different locations, but have no information on whether swimming and other recreational activities would be safe. And certainly, there is no mention of the currently-required cycling operation which would periodically increase the flow above historical the historical values, further increasing the danger to in-water recreational activities both upstream and downstream of the proposed generating station. We therefore do not understand what information or justification Transport Canada has to state of the Bala Regatta that “Their activities should be able to continue as planned”. 
    
2. Second, both the proponent’s environmental screening report and our response to the proponent’s environmental screening report noted that the Bala Regatta includes swimming activities (as well as fun boating activities where participants often end up in the water). We do not understand how Transport Canada can be providing any advice on the safety of in-water recreational activities given that they do not have, and have confirmed they do not have any “authority over swimming safety”. 
    
3. This letter from Transport Canada was written to Hatch Ltd., the environmental consultant used by the proponent, and as a result the proponent’s response to our swimming safety concerns (as e-mailed to SaveTheBalaFalls.com, and dated April 1, 2010 – no joke!) stated “Transport Canada has reviewed completed study reports and noted that the upstream Town Docks will be able to be used during the project operation in the same way as it presently is. Transport Canada has also noted that the Regatta activities may be conducted in their present form following the building of the project. Transport Canada has communicated this directly to the regatta organizers.” That is, the proponent believes they now have confirmation that swimming in the area would be safe. 
    
4. And the Ministry of the Environment has also accepted this misinterpreted and erroneous information, as they have replied to us (in their March 25, 2011 letter denying the elevation request) “The Town Docks located upstream of the Project, will be unaffected by construction and operation with regards to access or navigation and will have no impact to the annual boat regatta …”. The boat regatta includes swimming activities, there is no such confirmation that there will be no impact.

We have detailed this concern in our request to the Minister of the Environment to review the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch’s decision to deny the requests that this project be elevated to require an individual environmental assessment (see pages 2, 5, and 15 to 18).