| Author |
Topic |
South Surrey, BC
Canada
629 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2012 : 12:18 PM
|
For your information from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee:
Stand up for Harrison Lake area creeks
Tretheway, Shovel and Big Silver creeks, east of Harrison Lake, are under threat from a proposed private power project and right now we have an important opportunity to push back against the privatization of these watersheds.
This cluster of projects is going through an Environmental Assessment, which means that the government and company need to hold a public open house to hear from the surrounding community. Big crowds at these kinds of meetings have played a key role in stopping other private power projects including the Upper Pitt, the massive Bute Inlet project, and Glacier Howser in the west Kootenays.
The public open house will be held Thursday, January 19, 5pm to 9pm at Evergreen Hall, Cheam Room at 9291 Corbould Street in Chilliwack. Although the doors open at 5pm, the most important time to be there is a 7pm when there will be a presentation about the project and an opportunity for questions from the audience.
Every year thousands of people visit Harrison Lake to hike the surrounding hills and fish in the creeks that flow in to the lake. And it’s not just tourists and nature lovers who you will find in those hills. They are also home to western screech owl, tailed frog, harlequin duck, northern goshawk, spotted owl, red legged frog, pacific water shrew and grizzly bears, many of which are listed as species at risk.
The surrounding creeks are also home to rainbow trout and dolly varden, steelhead, coho, sockeye, longnose dace and cutthroat trout, including Shovel and Big Silver creeks, which are both fish-bearing streams.
All of this is at risk if we allow Cloudworks Energy Inc. and their new owners Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. to fragment this wilderness with roads and transmission line right of ways.
Both companies have records of being involved in controversial projects. Freedom of Information requests done by the Wilderness Committee showed that Cloudworks’ nearby Upper Harrison project and their Rutherford Creek project in the Sea to Sky region had used poor construction practices, caused destruction of fish habitat, damaged wetland habitat, logged streambanks, illegally built a bridge, and illegally harvested wood and caused numerous landslides.
Innergex, furthermore, is the current owner of the Ashlu project near Squamish, which sparked much of the opposition to private power projects in BC when it was forced through over the objections of the local Regional District when the provincial government passed Bill 30.
Clearly we need to stop these companies from getting their hands on any more of our streams and rivers. That is why it is so important for you to join us at this public Open House. If you can't be there in person please forward this message to your friends and family in the area and take a moment to write a submission to the Environmental Assessment Office here: http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pcp/forms/Big_Silver_form.html
Thank you for standing up for our rivers.
|
|
968 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2012 : 1:12 PM
|
The Ashlu project has resulted in improved recreation access. I'm not speaking for or against the other projects you mention although I'd like to learn more about them.
It's now several years since the Ashlu project completed. I've been up that way several times in that period. I've noticed numerous man-made improvements to or creation of spawning channels for fish. The headpond is above the waterfall at Mile 25 so the visual aspect of the dramatic falls is not impaired although there must be less water flowing over it. Fish obviously cannot migrate up the Ashlu past the waterfall. The headpond itself is obvious but limited in size of about one football field. The pipe is underground and only emerges near the generating station. Due to the natural configuraton at the canyon mouth you're only aware of the plant as you drive by it. I've heard there is some recreational impact to whitewater kayaking but know little about it so can't really comment. The big plus from my point of view is that there is an improved and maintained road to around Mile 26 on both sides of the river that can be used to access the mountains. The road improvement has facilitated the improvement of the access route up Pokosha Creek to Mount Jimmy Jimmy and Sigurd headwaters.
I would summarize my comments as being favorable to the Ashlu project. There is improved recreation access, some enhancement to fisheries values and a moderate environmental footprint. Public access has never been restricted to my knowledge unless it were for avalanche control or construction safety. |
|
|
100 Mile House, BC
Canada
178 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2012 : 1:20 PM
|
These IPPs sell expensive, un-needed power to public-owned BC Hydro. Former BC Hydro CEO Dave Cobb recently said so himself:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=9c7f6e08-e6b0-4374-a763-f1c2b5190ec6
The cost of this un-needed IPP power is higher than what BC Hydro gets when it exports. IPPs receive a massive subsidy from BC Hydro, courtesy of ratepayers, who will see rates going up soon.
BC Hydro is also using Enron-style accounting to hide $billions of its debt in deferral accounts.
To learn about other run-of-river disasters, look up Tyson Creek, Kokish River.
|
Edited by - HT on 01/17/2012 1:22 PM |
|
|
 | Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
 Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2012 : 1:28 PM
|
| There are quite a few inaccuracies in that WCWC email, including basic geographic ones (like the fact that Tretheway Creek is *west* of Harrison Lake and not east). |
|
|
141 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 09:59 AM
|
The call for power conservation during the current cold spell illustrates when power demands in BC are the highest, which coincides with low water levels and therefore little water for power generation.
quote:
The Ashlu project has resulted in improved recreation access.
Improved access for whom? For hikers and mountaineers, yes. Not so much for kayakers with an interest in paddling this section. A gondola to the summit of the Stawamus Chief or Mt Cheam would also improve access for many (people who are not able to get there under their own power) – while others would feel that this diminishes the character of these places.
|
|
|
| Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 10:40 AM
|
Simple calculus would suggest that the OP may be correct. If the plot is redrawn to show an entire year of water flow, the area under the curve (= integrated flow over time = volume) is much greater in the summer. There are significant spikes during the winter, but they they dont last long so they won't contribute as much power to the grid.
 |
Edited by - weedWhacker on 01/19/2012 11:02 AM |
|
|
| Eryne
Intermediate Member
|
Chilliwack, BC
Canada
579 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 11:13 AM
|
It is important to scrutinize each IPP application - that is our environmental impact assessment process. It is also important to look at facts.
IPPs are not privatizing watersheds. The application is for permission to use the water in the stream, not to own the watershed. It's silly to make that connection.
PPs generate electricity for our consumption. I think that is a better alternative than BC IHydro purchasing excess power from coal-burning generation facilities, or flooding huge tracts of land to generate power.
I don't think every IPP is a good idea, but I think it important to evaluate each application on it's own merits instead of pre-determining that all IPPs are bad. Some are bad, most are good.
Plus, if you apply the Rafe Mair hydrologic method to analyze streamflow, you risk sounding like an uninformed 80-year-old blowhard.
|
|
|
| Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 11:22 AM
|
| Microhydro plants are typically designed to operate at between 10% and 90% or 20% to 80% of the time, say from a flow that is a little bit larger than 7Q2 low up to something that is almost bankfull discharge. Do the math. Both of the listed examples would be comfortably operating through the last week. If anything, with these flashy systems, the problem is that the biggest peaks can't be captured rather than that winter flow is too low. However, that doesn't preclude using the additional power generated at design maximum to offset power generation from some other reservoir hooked up to the grid that's on a true winter-low flow interior stream. |
|
|
141 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 11:25 AM
|
Hi Dru, the Chilliwack River is not your typical coastal stream, as it is fed by Chilliwack Lake and therefore doesn’t respond very fast to rapid changes in temperature.
I would argue that the graph for the Coquitlam actually supports my argument – the level dropped considerably with the current cold spell (and will remain low as long as it doesn’t warm up and start to rain again).
 |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 11:31 AM
|
The IPP application also covers roads and transmission lines, both of which are unsightly.
Unfortunately the approval process is hopelessly political and has little to do with facts. For example, if run of the river projects are such a good way to generate power, why isn't BC Hydro allowed to build them? And why did the government guarantee 49.999 MW of power every year for every IPP? And why are we paying international rates for power that we (BC Hydro) could produce for much less?
I think a lot of people are concerned that 20 years from now, the streams and watersheds that we used to own will have passed to a handfull (or maybe only a few) politically connected individuals or corporations. |
Edited by - weedWhacker on 01/19/2012 11:37 AM |
|
|
| Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 11:35 AM
|
The Chilliwack does have a lake, but so do many of the other streams with IPPs, such as the ones up in the Sechelt area or the Henrietta Lake one that used to power Woodfibre. the lake also buffers the highest flows somewhat too. Chilliwack River's hydrograph is actually used as characteristic of many other Coastal streams in introductory hydrology classes because it has rain-dominated peaks.
Coquitlam above the lake may have dropped but if you look at the primary water level parameter at the gauge it's still at nearly 2m right now. If I looked at IPP design flows for upper Coquitlam I have great confidence it would be comfortably generating power right now. It'd probably generate power every month except for the late August through early September period, when we actually need the least power anyway. The peaks on the upper Coquitlam are so extreme (they are even larger than Norrish Creek, from an area that is similar or slightly smaller) that it makes everything else in that stream look small. |
|
|
| Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 11:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by weedWhacker
if run of the river projects are such a good way to generate power, why isn't BC Hydro allowed to build them?
Finding a system that works for IPP is hard, actually. It takes a lot of work from people like me to figure out if a particular stream is feasible or not, and that costs money. Something like 2/3 of the streams that are proposed for IPPs turn out to not be commercially viable, and then all that assessment work and the costs of the application process and so on are wasted in that there is no return on the monrey that's spent.
Because of this high potential for wasted money, the government decided that this was probably a better role for venture capital (which can accept such losses) than public money. Public money is conservative. If three venture capitalists set out to develop IPPs and two of them end up going broke, is that better than BC Hydro spending the same or a greater amount of public money for the same end result? |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 11:51 AM
|
Thanks. That is new information that I had not heard before. I am not sure I agree, but I will have to think about it.
|
|
|
| Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 12:17 PM
|
One thing that it does do that in my opinion is quite bad is force BC Hydro to look for extra capacity at "sure things" which tend to be valley bottom large river systems with the greatest environmental impact, such as Site C.
I would rather see 20 45 MW microhydro projects on steep non-fish creeks than one 900 MW Site C in a productive valley bottom. |
|
|
207 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 12:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dru
I would rather see 20 45 MW microhydro projects on steep non-fish creeks than one 900 MW Site C in a productive valley bottom.
Hallelujah. |
|
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 12:25 PM
|
Thankyou Idealistic74,
this is a subject that concerns me deeply.
Near the Kennedy River system[Van Isle] there are two that I am sorely aware of.
I say say sorely because I don't think there is any recourse from anyone about a complaint of mine.
The unit on Canoe Creek, and another one east of there both release enormous decibels of noise that is heard many kms away and is uncomfortable to be near.
I don't understand the reason behind the noise nor why there is no effective noise abatement.
I doubt there is an appeal for this complaint either, but if there is let me know and consider that aspect when these projects are applied for.
A true public consutation must mediate that aspect of these power projects.
|
|
|
968 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 12:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ClauS
quote:
The Ashlu project has resulted in improved recreation access.
Improved access for whom? For hikers and mountaineers, yes. Not so much for kayakers with an interest in paddling this section. A gondola to the summit of the Stawamus Chief or Mt Cheam would also improve access for many (people who are not able to get there under their own power) – while others would feel that this diminishes the character of these places.
Claus, just a couple of minor quibbles with the above regarding the Ashlu. Improved access would apply to kayakers, too. They are principally affected by the removal of water in the canyon. Their access to the canyon itself is unimpeded.
The access improvement arises from maintenance of the existing logging roads. No one is suggesting building gondolas. If you feel the character is diminished by the presence of access roads then it came about due to logging. Even if the IPP never went in, I think it likely the Ashlu main would still be preserved as an access road, if only for purposes of fire prevention. Just a guess though.
As far as the kayaking situation goes, was there not an accommodation worked out whereby kayakers could notify the power company of plans to use the creek so that adequate water is released? Not a perfect solution, I agree. BTW, I believe it's Grade VI whitewater. That's very difficult paddling.
Have you visited the area? |
|
|
| Eryne
Intermediate Member
|
Chilliwack, BC
Canada
579 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 12:59 PM
|
| Cambium - what's your address? I can send you some earplugs. |
|
|
100 Mile House, BC
Canada
178 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 1:42 PM
|
| Does BC Hydro actually need the power from the Harrison IPPs? I heard it is upgrading and adding new turbines. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 1:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by weedWhacker
Thanks. That is new information that I had not heard before. I am not sure I agree, but I will have to think about it.
Having ruminated, I have a few objections to the government's argument that you summarized above.
1. Stream studies are expensive, but they are part of the cost of doing business if you are BC Hydro. Water flow, water management, and power generation are BC Hydro's reason for existance. Hopefully they have not switched to a faith-based model.
2. There is a risk that micro power projects may not be feasible. But BC Hydro keeps many contingency plans that will probably never see daylight. There are plans to upgrade existing generators and transmission lines, as well as designs for dams on every river in BC. I believe they also have plans for nuclear reactors. All of that is normal business practice to survey opportunities and risks. In fact it would be gross negligence not to keep such plans.
3. BC Hydro can build a power project much cheaper than an independent contractor because it can borrow money at much lower interest rates. For example, the highway 99 Olympic upgrade cost BC taxpayers an additional $220 million because independent contractors had to pay much higher interest rates. Another example is one of the bridges near Vancouver that ballooned from 80$m to > $200m due to the cost of borrowing by the independent contractor to pay the performance bond.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/problem-public-private-partnerships
IMHO, the government explanation is implausible. A more likely explanation is tea-party ideology. The BC Liberals believe that free-enterprise is always superior to government and they have embarked on a plan to degrade BC Hydro. Supporting arguments include the selling off of BC Hydro's gas division for no apparent reason. Also the appointment of BC Hydro's latest CEO who has mused publicly that BC Hydro doesn't need such a high approval rating from the public.
Another explanation is influence peddling and corruption (see for example BC Rail). But I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, at least until even more of Christie Clark's family ends up in court again.
|
Edited by - weedWhacker on 01/19/2012 1:56 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Stand up for Harrison Lake Area
