Brent Richter/Staff Writer
Wednesday night's open house meeting on Plutonic Power Corporation's proposal to construct a series of run-of-river power generators around the Bute Inlet drew critical questions and comments from attendees.
Plutonic's plan is to construct 17 weirs [mini-dams] on rivers flowing into the inlet. The weirs would temporarily divert a portion of the flowing water to harness it for power. The power would flow through newly constructed power lines to a sub-station at Malaspina. The project is planned to produce 1,027 mw of electricity annually, enough to power about 300,000 homes per year.
The diverse and vocal crowd of about 150 sought to have questions answered and voices heard by representatives from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) as well as Plutonic chief executive officer Donald McInnis.
The two agencies are working in tandem on the complex approval process Plutonic must go through to get the go-ahead for the project. The meeting, held at the Sechelt Indian Band Hall, featured short presentations on the roles both agencies would play and the approval process as well as a presentation on the project from McInnis and two lively question-and-answer periods.
The most common remark among attendees was that they would like to see Plutonic face a full panel review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
"I think this is a very bad situation. It's not that run-of-river power generation is necessarily a bad thing, but there are a number of environmental values in the area and these are just not being addressed," said Dan Bouman, executive director of Sunshine Coast Conservation Association (SCCA) in an interview before the meeting. "We want to see the federal environmental assessment act triggered and we want to see the full panel review. It's not necessarily a solution either, but it does offer the possibility that all the environmental issues and impacts of all these projects can be looked at."
Bouman reiterated his comments at the meeting, saying there was entirely too little known about the cumulative effects of large-scale independent power projects, an issue raised several times Wednesday night.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has recommended Plutonic go through the full panel review, stating the project did have potential for large scale environmental effects.
Elisha McCallum, director of communications for Plutonic, said the company welcomes that review.
"We agree. With the size and the scope of this project, it makes sense," McCallum said. "We agree 100 per cent that the impacts need to be studied, evaluated and potentially mitigated from the project. We need to get a full idea of what is happening for this to be a good project."
Sechelt Indian Band Chief Garry Feschuk questioned CEAA representative Jennifer Clark on the agency's consultation process with First Nations. Feschuk said all the documents he has seen have failed to elaborate on the rights and title issues mentioned.
"You are talking about the rightful owners of the land you want to build this project on," he said.
André Sobolewski, a Gibsons resident and environmental consultant, took great concern with Plutonic's lack of detail in their draft terms of reference.
"Presently, it is premature to submit a terms of reference. We don't have a complete project description yet," Sobolewski said.
Sobolewski challenged Plutonic's draft terms of reference document for using ambiguous language that said nothing substantive about the effects road construction would have on the environment.
"In my 20 years as an environmental consultant in the mining industry, if we had received a terms of reference this lacking in detail, we would have laughed them out of the room," he said.
Sobolewski said he was not for or against the project, but repeated his concern the application thus far was lacking important details. McInnis sought to assure attendees that he and Plutonic shared their concerns about environmental impacts, saying they were "still doing their homework" on the effects their operation would have on water and wildlife.
The meeting was set by the two agencies to inform the public on the assessment process, but many of the evening's questions were about broader issues.
Several visitors from Vancouver and elsewhere in the Lower Mainland asked for more open house meetings on the topic to be held in Vancouver, as they believed the Bute Inlet project was not just a Sunshine Coast issue, but a provincial one.
Both Clark and Kathy Eichenberger, BCEAO representative, said there were no plans to add further public open houses in this stage of the process. A third open house was scheduled for Thursday night in Campbell River.
Other groups including the Western Wilderness Committee made the trip over to make their presence known.
One Vancouver resident said he regularly uses Bute Inlet for recreation including bear watching. He said the area around the Orford river is one the healthiest environments for grizzly bears to breed and survive in, and Plutonic planned to put a widened road through the area to move construction materials through.
Eichenberger assured the crowd that the province's top grizzly expert is part of the assessment team and that local wildlife concerns were a major consideration in the approval process.
Several speakers asked whether electricity produced from the project was truly needed in the province and whether it was possible the electricity would be sold in the United States.
McInnis said the purchasing agreement is with BC Hydro and there are no plans to sell the electricity south of the border.
Eichenberger stressed to attendees that everyone was able to submit questions and comments to the BCEAO and CEAA, all of which would be entered into the public record on the assessment and be taken into consideration by both agencies when either approving or rejecting Plutonic's application.
The first public consultation period is scheduled to end on Feb. 18.
