Option 1, Revision 4 – Still Not Viable

Summary
The fast water exiting the proposed Option 1 power station would make water access to the downstream docks dangerous. This is yet another reason why the proponent would not, and could not build Option 1. Option 1 remains an idle threat.

The Four Versions of Option 1

1. The proponent first proposed what is now called Option 1 in 2005, with this plan view.
   
   
2. Then to the District Municipality of Muskoka Council meeting on October 14, 2008, they presented this drawing.
   
   
3. As part of their 2009 Environmental Screening Report and the process leading up to it, they provided this different plan view for Option 1. Note that throughout these years, the proponent stated that all these versions of Option 1 required only land owned by the province, but as you see here, these require land from the District Municipality of Muskoka (which was transferred to the Township of Muskoka Lakes in 2011).
   
   
4. Then about September 20, 2010 to try to scare us into thinking they really could and really would build Option 1, the proponent posted the following sketches for yet another incarnation of Option 1 (they removed these drawings from their web site in mid-2011):
   • Option 1, General Arrangement – 4.36 MW Vertical Axis Unit Powerhouse. This is a view looking down at the entire site, with the Moon River on the left. Note:
     • The two 90° bends in the intake water path (this restricts the flow, and therefore constrains the power output).
     • That the intake excavation (which slopes down to 38′ below the bedrock) is directly adjacent to at least three piers of the north dam and to the highway bridge supports.
     • That the water discharges perpendicular to the north dam, directly down the Moon River.
   • Option 1, Plan at Generator Floor Level. This is a plan view (looking down) at a cross-section of the powerhouse (as if the top was sliced off) at the bottom of the level the water enters. The water enters from the top-right, and exits at the left.
   • Option 1, Plan at Centreline of Turbine Runner. This is also a view looking down at a cross-section of the powerhouse, but at the level of the turbine runner (this is the technical name for the propeller that is turned by the falling water). Again, the water enters from the top-right (the intake excavation is shown with the invert – the bottom of the intake channel – sloping down into the intake, 1 m for every 3 m horizontally), and exits at the left (sloping up, into the Moon River, 1 m for every 4 m horizontally).
   • Option 1, Section at Intake Centreline. This is an elevation (side view) showing a vertical section looking upstream from the Moon River (as if the side towards the Moon River was removed). The water enters from the left (with the intake sloping down towards the turbine), and exits towards the viewer. The generator is above the turbine runner. The District land to the south of the powerhouse is on the right. Note that the transformer is shown both in this drawing and others as on the top of the structure. Note also that directly below the transformer is an electrical room. For Option 2 the proponent has shown that they can locate the transformer in the electrical room. This is yet another indication that the purpose of these sketches is only to scare the public into wanting Option 2, by presenting Option 1 as being as ugly as possible, and as feasible.
   • Option 1, Section at Unit Centreline. This is also an elevation looking south, in the direction the water would flow into the turbine. The highway is on the left, and the water exits to the right, with the invert of the tailrace sloping up as it goes downstream into the Moon River. The excavation for the power station requires that most of the MNR land adjacent to the north dam would be excavated to be a 67′-deep hole directly adjacent to the highway. Imagine the logistical problems:
     • The blasting would be adjacent to the highway, and this would require many traffic disruptions.
     • Removing the blasted rock would be difficult, as the dump trucks required would also disrupt traffic flow.
     • At least half the north channel would need to be blocked off for months of construction, and would not be available for flood control during this time.
   • Option 1 General Arrangement_colour, annotated was posted about September 26, 2010. This top view of the site highlights a 9′-wide driveway (this leaves 1′ clearance from the powerhouse one one side, and 1′ for a curb and fence on the other side) along the south side of the top of the proposed power station.
     • You’d want to be careful jumping out of your truck, as the driveway would be an average of 18′ above the District land to the south (but that might not be a problem as there isn’t enough room to open the door to your truck anyways).
     • As there is no room for a truck turn-around, trucks would need to back down this 55′-long driveway which has a curve at one end, and at the highway end, the view of the oncoming traffic is blocked by the powerhouse.

As can be seen in this drawing, the flow of water discharged from the most-recently proposed Option 1 power station would be generally downstream along the north shore of the Moon River, and would spread slightly, as shown by the red arrows.

Note that there are both residences with docks, and the town docks on the Moon River all of which would become too dangerous to use as a result of the fast water from the proposed Option 1 power station. The rights to continued use of shoreline water are called riparian rights, and would be infringed. This is yet another reason why the proposed Option 1 could not be built.

Conclusion
One additional identified problem with the proposed Option 1 is that it would make docks, both private, and the town docks on the Moon River too dangerous to use. Also, the excavation for the powerhouse itself would be very difficult and disruptive.