The proponent’s 2012 Environmental Assessment Addendum provided an outline of their proposed Alternative 1A generating station. As shown below, the area of this footprint is 401 m².
However, the Alternative 1A drawing as provided by proponent with their driveway entrance permit applications in 2014 is shown below, and the area of this footprint is 591 m².
That is, without any notice to the public, the proponent has increased the footprint of their proposed generating station by 48%.
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):
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.
On May 21, 2014 the District Municipality of Muskoka’s Engineering and Public Works Committee meeting addressed the proponent’s Driveway Entrance Permit and Roadway Occupancy Permit applications (detail here).
SaveTheBalaFalls.com’s presentation is here, and some additional letters and drawings included in the meeting’s agenda package is here.
The Gravenhurst Banner article (published May 29, 2014) on this meeting is here (article begins at top-left of page 1).
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):
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:
And looking closely at the information from the proponent shows some surprises:
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.
Margaret Burgess Park would be fenced-off forever
Summary
In a very sad and clear example of how the required public consultation for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls has been a complete failure, after nine years during which the proponent has been pursuing their proposed project, only now do we find that the proponent would fence-off the full width of Margaret Burgess Park forever. So it would no longer be possible to climb down the rocks or touch the water, and there would be an ugly fence across the beautiful and natural Muskoka rock.
Detail
As shown in the photograph below, it is clear that:
But without warning, the remotely- and automatically-controlled proposed generating station would often start at about noon on summer days, so it would suddenly become extremely dangerous to be where these people are.
Did you know that a required part of the process to build a proposed generating station at the Bala falls is that the proponent would get control of:
This is most of the publically-accessible shoreline in Bala, and the private developer would get control of these parcels of public land forever (as the MNR states the land lease can continue “in perpetuity”).
The Ministry of Natural Resources has stated: “it would be the direct responsibility of Swift River Energy Limited to ensure appropriate public safety measures are in place as they relate to flows above and below a waterpower facility and associated MNR Bala North Dam. As has been stated, any in-water activity such as wading within the cascade or discharge area immediately below the Bala North Dam is commonly recognized as an unsafe practice and is not advisable. Although such activities are not prohibited, people recreating in this area do so at their own risk”.
So here’s the problem. The proponent must operate the station safely, but those darn people, those tourists, those people bringing their tourist dollars to Bala would likely be drowned by the treacherously-turbulent water exiting the proposed generating station. What to do.
We initially thought this was an impossible situation. But it is now clear that that the proponent would simply fence-off Margaret Burgess Park forever, just as Bracebridge Falls is fenced off, as shown below. At Bracebridge Falls nobody touches the water, they just look at it while standing on a concrete or steel platform behind a fence.
The provincial government believes there has been “extensive public consultation“, however, in the ten years the proponent has been pursuing their proposed project there has been exactly two public meetings held by the proponent, both for proposals which they have since abandoned. This is a complete lack of public consultation. The proponent has never:
It is apparent that the provincial processes have failed to meet required goals, such as for:
Clearly, this has not happened, so we look forward to the Township of Muskoka Lakes continuing to take strong actions – as they were elected to do – to ensure that the proposed project would:
SaveTheBalaFalls.com