Comment
Run of River: Not all IPPs are created equal
Rafe Mair’s recent article in The Tyee about run-of-river independent power projects, reprinted in Northword’s April/May issue (How Green Was My River: BC’s streams risked for private profit), has spawned many concerns and comments from people across the province.
The politics and provisions under which these independent power production (IPP) opportunities have been opened up to private enterprise are certainly questionable. And considering the volume of applications for over 500 BC streams and rivers, there is serious cause for public concern.
As Mr. Mair has so ably expressed, these concerns range from environmental damage along currently pristine waterways, loss of wilderness through construction of roads and transmission lines, and the provincial government’s abolishment of local control over such projects. For more information on the politics and provincial scope of IPPs I recommend a visit to thetyee.ca for a number of excellent articles and comments on the issue from various perspectives.
But are they all bad?
While there is much to be concerned about, my experience with a project proposal in our area has shown me that there are circumstances where a run-of-river project may be an excellent, environmentally sound choice. I’m speaking specifically here of Boulder Creek East, which flows into the Bulkley River between Moricetown and New Hazelton.
Boulder Creek is the subject of a proposed hydroelectric generating project being developed by the Northwest Green Power Corporation, and is one of many proposed projects in the Northwest currently in the preliminary assessment stage.
But there is a key difference between this project and many others. The developer, a partnership between the Hagwilget Village Council and a local engineering firm, has a long-term vision to help make our local communities self-reliant, and a philosophy that small-scale power generation results in the smallest environmental footprint. In the belief that the project must be built for the benefit of local communities rather than with the sole focus of private profit, local governments have been invited to participate.
Before reaching construction stage, all of these projects go through an Environmental Impact Assessment process required by the federal and provincial governments. My company, Nortec Consulting, became involved in the environmental assessment for this project, and I had to take a pragmatic approach when examining what the real environmental impacts would be.
As an individual who cherishes our rivers and streams and the resources they provide, as well as being a fishing guide and fisheries consultant, I was hesitant, to say the least, to be part of a stream-changing regime that could have serious impacts to Boulder Creek and downstream rivers. On the other hand, if this technology proves to be feasible and actually “green,” it could go a long way towards providing sustainable power without coal-fired generators, or creating another inland sea with a mega-dam project—as we have done in BC’s past.
A skeptic’s revelation
As it turns out, the more time I spent on the stream and in the project area, the more I realized that not all IPP projects are created equal.
Boulder Creek is a fast-flowing and very cold creek that tumbles down from two high alpine basins in the Rocher Deboule Range. The part of the creek subject to reduced flows is confined in a steep-walled canyon for most of the distance, including a number of waterfalls that prevent fish migration upstream. In fact, the creek’s population of blue-listed bull trout appears to migrate downstream from the stock residing in the section of water above the canyon, which will not be affected by the project.
Diversion of some water from the natural stream flow and channel has probably the greatest potential impact to the creek’s ecology. In this case, it is my opinion that a reduction in flows through the canyon section during summer would not significantly reduce fish habitat, and may actually enhance it by providing more and slower pool and edgewater habitat for the canyon’s resident fish. We have also recommended mimicking natural flow fluctuations by varying the amount of water that is diverted at different times.
Due to its cold temperatures, water velocity and channel configuration, Boulder Creek has only marginal values for salmon and steelhead—and even then only in its lower-most reaches, most of which lie below the proposed power-house location.
An assessment of potential and observed bird life in the project area concluded that, given the small size of this project and the relatively minor changes it would bring about, there would little to no effect to birds there—especially when compared to the effects already realized by changes from clearcut logging and existing access roads in the area. The same applies to mammals, amphibians and other life assessed. This conclusion is quite different from Mr. Mair’s dire warnings.
The construction of road right-of-way and transmission lines, and the loss of wilderness wildlife and recreation values—and just knowing that it is there as part of “Super Natural BC”—are concerns that certainly apply to many IPP projects that have been proposed around the province. Transmission lines and access roads already have a serious impact on our landscape and environment throughout the Skeena watershed: our highways, roads, railroads and hydro transmission lines are often located in the most sensitive ecological areas. Adding more to this existing disturbance must be carefully considered in any project.
Location, location…
Many of the 500-plus IPP proposals in BC will require extensive access road and pipeline construction, as well as transmission lines and rights-of-way to hook up with the Hydro grid. Many of these are located in high, steep, rugged country with heavy snowpacks and will require careful planning and engineering to construct.
The proposed Boulder Creek project, however, is located in an enviable location in that an existing logging road already runs to within approximately two kilometres of the proposed intake site. The powerhouse at the downstream end is located very close to Highway 16, and within 350 metres of existing hydro transmission lines. It’s also proposed that the three-kilometre-long water diversion pipeline be buried below the road grade over much of its route, minimizing its impact even further.
Boulder Creek Park, established in 1999 to protect 53 hectares of old-growth western hemlock and amabilis fir, is located upstream of the proposed project area. There will be no impact on the park other than increased public access if this project goes forward, as there is already an old mining exploration road, used sparingly to reach the alpine, which passes through the park.
Recreational use of this area of Boulder Creek watershed includes kayaking, hiking, hunting, and fishing. It appears that the kayakers will be most affected by this proposal, as there will be some flow reduction in the canyon during spring and fall periods. It is however anticipated that reduced flow during peak summer water levels would actually make kayaking possible when the stream would otherwise be too high to run. Kayakers will also have access to information on flow conditions that is not presently available via Internet. Consultation on the kayaking issue is ongoing.
In summary, the sheer number of IPPs proposed, their auction to private corporations inside and outside of BC, and their serious potential environmental impacts should prompt concern and a response from the BC public. But it should not result in a knee-jerk reaction to all potential run-of-river projects, or a “NIMBY” approach—especially from residents in northern BC. We have already modified the regional landscape faster and on a larger scale than any civilization has in the history of man, through so-called “sustainable” industrial logging and resource extraction.
This project alone would generate three megawatts of electric power—enough to supply 400 homes during peak power usage. Can we in good conscience reject what is and could continue to be a green source of energy to supply our region and communities’ power needs? What are our options, really, if we want sustainable power locally? Fire up the coal plants at Telkwa, maybe, or burn the remaining fiber from our once mature forests as bio-fuel? I don’t think so. Do we develop a few viable, small-footprint IPP projects in partnership with our communities, or create a “Site Sea” dam with another 600 km transmission line and associated impacts?
Opportunity knocks, and if the local communities don’t answer, the opportunity for full local ownership and community control could be lost forever. It is time to take a more pragmatic view of resource use issues locally.
Your Comments on Comment
No one has commented yet on this article.