So What’s Wrong with Option 1

While the proponent is trying to get us to believe they have proposed Option 2 to quell the public outcry they orchestrated against Option 1, in fact, they proposed Option 2 for their own benefit.

Here are some reasons why the proponent would prefer to build Option 2 rather than Option 1 (the $25,000,000 question is whether these are significant enough that the proponent would give up and go away if Option 1 was their only choice):

1. The water intake to the proposed power station would be restricted by the support for the highway bridge (this limits the power which could be generated), excavating the bedrock down 38′ directly adjacent to the north dam and the supports for the highway bridge for the water intake “would be difficult and could threaten the bridge or dam”, and the fast water exiting the power station would be very close to the base of the north falls “and this could cause safety issues and public concern”. Note that all these points were noted by the proponent in (and the quotes are from) Section 1.5.1.1 of their Environmental Screening Report.
2. The excavation for the proposed power plant would need to be all of the MNR land directly south of the north dam, to a depth of 67′ deep. This would need to be a hole, with vertical sides, straight down, directly adjacent to the highway. That would be really difficult.
3. There wouldn’t be anywhere for the dump trucks to queue up waiting for the more than 1,000 truck-loads of blasted rock to be hauled away.
4. The fast water exiting the tailrace would make it difficult or dangerous to use the town docks on the Moon River as well as the private docks which are even closer.
5. The coffer dam required during construction of the intake would obstruct approximately 85% of the north channel (it is more than the expected 66% due to blocking four of the six north dam sluices because the north channel is very shallow north of the north support pier of the highway).
   • This is much more than the 40% obstruction needed for Option 2, and this would need to be in place for much longer than for Option 2 (especially the construction crane could not be located on the District land to the south), creating a significant risk of flooding at least the Lake Muskoka watershed if this capacity was needed due to a high-flow event.
   • Because of the construction equipment (such as a crane with a 150′ boom), and the highway bridge support and Bala Falls north dam sections within the coffer dam not yet being ready to handle water flow, the coffer dam could not simply be quickly removed if necessary.
   • The MNR would therefore not approve Option 1.
6. While the proponent has shown a driveway for the site, it would be extremely difficult to use (it is narrow, and with their powerhouse on one side and an 18′ drop on the other side). Maintenance access to the structure would be difficult (truck access to the equipment hatches, crane access blocking the highway …). If the entire power station was difficult enough to operate, then the proponent would have difficulty raising construction financing.
7. The water path would have three 90° bends (at the intake, at the turbine, and exiting the turbine), and this reduces the power which could be generated, and therefore the profitability, and therefore the difficulty of getting construction financing.
8. They would need permission from the District/Township for a coffer dam in the Moon River during construction, and to anchor the required downstream safety boom for operation.
9. The environmental screening report would require re-writing, review by government agencies, public comment, and evaluation by the Ministry of the Environment because the following would be significantly changed so new study and analysis would be required:
   • The water flow patterns in the north channel and in the Moon River (since both the intake and tailrace would be different sizes and angled differently).
   • Noise analysis (since a different turbine design and generator location is proposed).
   • Shadow study (since the powerhouse would be closer to the falls and could be taller).
   • Construction impacts on traffic (since blasting would need to be directly adjacent to the highway).
   • Restricted areas where it would be too dangerous for the public to be at the shore (since the water flow patterns and building location would be changed), and location and design of the upstream and downstream safety booms (since the locations of the intake and tailrace would be different).
   • Coffer dam locations and flood risk (since the north channel would need much more of its width to be blocked, and for much longer). And if the construction crane is located within the coffer dam area, then it would be even more unlikely the coffer dam could be quickly removed due to a high-flow event.
   • Risk of damage to the north dam and highway bridge (since the bedrock on which the north dam and highway bridge supports are built would need to be excavated to a depth of 38′ directly adjacent to the footings).
   • Portage alternatives (since the locations of the intake and powerhouse would change).
   • Upstream and downstream effect on fish habitat (since the locations of the intake and tailrace would be different).
   • Fish entrainment and mortality (since the size of the intake and type of turbine would be different).
   • Construction vehicle requirements (where would dump trucks queue) and materials staging locations (this would be extremely difficult if the District land was not available) and effect on traffic and pedestrians (since the locations are different).