FLOAT PLANES AT THE WHARF

FLOAT PLANES AT THE WHARF

What we have done on your behalf.

LETTER TO TRANSPORT CANADA

T0: Keith Reilly at Transport Canada

By Fax: #416-952-0050

Telephone: 416-952-7254

E-mail: <reillyk@tc.gc.ca>

From: Diane Yeates

Good Morning Keith I hope you can help the people on Muskoka Bay have a better understanding of aerodromes and the operation of float planes. We are interested in any or all information as it would pertain to the bay. I am sending you a map with dimensions I recently received from Town of Gravenhurst. I do believe these figures are high water measures as I have always known The Narrows to be 100 feet.

That is not likely of any relevance to you as I have never seen and cannot imagine a float plane using The Narrows. I will try to give you information about the Bay for your consideration.

The Bay south of the Narrows is 410 hectares.
Thirty feet of logs (we have heard from reliable sources) lie on the floor of the Bay and occasionally pop to the surface.
Bay is over threshold for phosphorous by the definition of District of Muskoka.
Residents of the Bay are entering into a Remediation Plan spear headed by our big brother Muskoka Lakes Association. This is a responsible project when you consider the cost to Province of Quebec now to clean it’s lakes at Eastern and other Townships.
There are 350 lots, most inhabited on the Bay, with tall evergreens and rock cliff in parts.
The Segwun (steam ship), and the Winona, operate from the wharf, carrying 100 and 200 passengers respectively. In addition the Wanda a smaller steamship carries approximately 25 guests.
The Wharf recently developed is surrounded by commercial businesses, an historic museum and restaurants, parking area, and a hotel with more development proposed.
Within the Wharf there are 155 boat slips, plus 85 tin boathouses. These figures are well within that which has been proposed.
People water ski, wake-board, tube, and fish at the wharf site where the float plane slips would be designated.
The float plane business would be the busiest at a time when the Bay would be the busiest with tourists and vacationers.
The area that would be designated for float planes behind the museum is also beside a newly created and very expensive fish habitat.

So you see our questions are with safety, environment (especially noise) and look to Ministry of Transport for safe guards to preserve the Muskoka nature of the Bay.

Questions:

We have, I understand 2 aerodromes on Lake Muskoka. How many water aerodromes are allowed in any particular area?
We have an airport within the Gravenhurst boundaries on highway 11. It may prudent to locate sight tours from that airport.
Do noise studies have to be done for an aerodrome in consideration of inhabitants in a populated area as well as fish and deer habitat?
Are there studies to determine the pollution effect of float planes on the water from exhaust or any means?
How many float plane accidents have there been in Canada during the last 2 years and where were they?
What were any accidents that have occurred been caused by?
Once an area has been declared an aerodrome, can it be used as a flight school with repeated takeoff and landing?
Please note map; could distance from within the harbour be used as distance needed to take –off and land?
What distance is needed to take off safely on float plane ?
What side distance is needed from shoreline?
What vertical distance is required for safe landing of a float plane?

We are very grateful for your service to us in answering these questions. I know there are more to come. Could you possibly advise us of the site on the web were we can follow this very important information and understand. In pursuing the web site I was not certain if all the amendments were in place and indeed regulations and procedure for Transport Canada.

Diane Yeates, President & Directors Muskoka Bay Property Owners Association

Greater Gravenhurst Residents Association

This arose to public consciousness when the economic development officer brought before council a proposal to have a float plane operation and seaplane base at the wharf. The idea – a company which owns 4 such planes would offer trips from the wharf to visitors. The company would pay $1800 per year to the wharf for rental of the set of docks beside the museum.

No further details were supplied.

Part of the rationale for the EDO and councillors is that last summer an unregulated (by the town) float plane operation was being conducted at the wharf. To approve this proposal could give the town some control of the nature of the operation.

Many unanswered questions have risen – how many planes, how frequent flights, what safety precautions are being put in place, does this represent differential fees for wharf users, why does COIP approve this summer long mooring at the docks when they refused such rentals 2 years ago? Would approving this operation stop others like the company who operated last summer? What happens if the Bay is declared a seaplane base? What further air traffic can result.

The MBPOA has opposed the proposal. They sent a letter to this effect to the mayor and council.

We encourage members to write to the council expressing their views pro or con.

The Greater Gravenhurst Residents' Association is sending this letter to support the Muskoka Bay Property Owners opposition of the float plane tour business at the Wharf.

If the Bay becomes an Aerodrome we are in great danger of having more than four planes landing in and out of the bay. This would certainly exacerbate a dangerous situation. Boat traffic is at a maximum on long weekends or for special events. Can we also accommodate float planes taxiing in and out of the bay?

Dock leases for the public are not allowed at the Wharf - COIP stipulations. How does this commercial business qualify for dock space, and why at the regular rate, when the business at the wharf pay high fees for their "footprints". Dock space has been quoted as "for day use only". Isn't this for longer term than for day use? If one commercial business is allowed, why not more? Is commercial what those docks are soon to be used for?

Also, environmentally, is this a sound decision? Noise pollution, and air pollution must be a factor here. We are seeing many residents on the bay complaining of the noise and the danger. The wharf needs the citizens support. Many do NOT support Gravenhurst Bay being turned into an aerodrome with one or more float planes flying in and out during the day when activities on the water are at their peak.

The GGRA supports the Wharf activities. We want the wharf to succeed. But not at the cost of the environment., the citizens peace of mind, or of their safety. Our waterfront needs to be treated with respect, not as a business proposition. We urge Council to reconsider leasing the docks to this Air Charter Tour business, and to reconsider allowing their business to operate in Gravenhurst Bay.