SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
TO:
Planning and Development Committee – February 18, 2016
AUTHOR:
David Rafael, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: BYLAW 310.165 (NARROWS INLET POWER PROJECT) RECEIPT OF PUBLIC
HEARING REPORT AND CONSIDERATION OF THIRD READING AND ADOPTION –
AREA B
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THAT the report titled “Bylaw 310.165 (Narrows Inlet Power Project) Receipt of
Public Hearing Report and Consideration of Third Reading and Adoption – Area
B” be received;
2. AND THAT The Report of the Public Hearing for Sunshine Coast Regional District
Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015 be received;
3. AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No.
310.165, 2015 be read a third time;
4. AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No.
310.165, 2015 be read adopted.
5. AND FURTHER THAT the SCRD Board send a letter to the Ministry of Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations requesting that concerns raised about
surveys and the boundary between the project and private properties be
investigated and resolved.
BACKGROUND
The SCRD received an application to rezone the sites for the three powerhouses and related
laydown area for the Narrows Inlet Hydro Project (NIHP). The project is located north of
Narrows Inlet within the Tzoonie River valley, in Halfmoon Bay. The current zoning is RU2
(Rural Two) and the proposed zoning is I9 (Independent Power Project). An area is also
proposed for designation as a Temporary Use Permit Area.
The project received an energy purchasing agreement from BC Hydro and an environmental
certificate from the province. BluEarth has applied to the province to amend the environmental
certificate and to date no decision has been reached.
A public hearing was held on January 19, 2016. It was attended by 22 members of the public,
including representatives of the applicant. Also in attendance were SCRD Director Mark Lebbell,
shíshálh Nation Chief Calvin Craigan and two shíshálh Nation councilors, Gary Feschuk and
Randy Joe. A report of the public hearing is included in Attachment A. The submissions that
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee February 18, 2016
Bylaw 310.165 (Narrows Inlet Power Project) Receipt of Public Hearing Report and
Consideration of Third Reading and Adoption – Area B
Page 2 of 3
were received for the public hearing and are noted in the report as Appendices A to J. One
submission included as substantial document that was previously received by the SCRD as part
of the December 10, 2015 staff report. It is not attached to this report but will be made available
to Directors and added to the SCRD website that considers the project:
http://www.scrd.ca/Hydro-Power-Projects
A copy of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015 is
included in Attachment B.
DISCUSSION
Options and Analysis
Options
Option One –
Bylaw 310.165 receives Third Reading and Adoption
Most of the objections raised at the public hearing were considered during the environmental
assessment (EA) process and taken into account by the province in issuing the
environmental certificate. The locations for the power houses were known at the time of the
environmental assessment.
There are no new issues that were raised at the public hearing that staff consider would lead
to rejecting the proposed rezoning and designation of a temporary use permit area.
Staff support this option.
Option Two –
Bylaw 310.165 be abandoned
There were a number of objections raised by property owners in the area that they
considered were not adequately addressed during the environmental assessment. While
most of these were considered during the EA review or are outside of SCRD land use
jurisdiction, the proposed rezoning could be abandoned if the SCRD Board wished to object
to the project as a whole. The SCRD Board did not take this position during the EA review.
SCRD staff consider that there are no new grounds to make such a statement and do not
support this option.
Analysis
A representative from BluEarth Renewables provided a background to the project and the
experience of the company’s team. The partnership with the shíshálh Nation was noted. It was
also noted that the proposed amendment to the road access alignment, currently under
consideration by the BC Environmental Assessment Office, was proposed in response to
environmental concerns about the approved alignment. In addition matters that are outside of
the rezoning are before other regulators for consideration.
Support for the project was offered in six form letters which were from five residents and one
business on the Sunshine Coast (Appendices B to G).
2016-Feb-18 Bylaw 310.165 report of public hearing and consideration for 3rd reading and adoption
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee February 18, 2016
Bylaw 310.165 (Narrows Inlet Power Project) Receipt of Public Hearing Report and
Consideration of Third Reading and Adoption – Area B
Page 3 of 3
Chief Craigan of the shíshálh Nation spoke in support of the project noting it supports the
Nation’s commitment to sustainable energy development and provided a submission in support
from the shíshálh Nation (Appendix A). Councilor Feschuk, shíshálh Nation, spoke about the
history of the area and the rights of the shíshálh Nation and that the community has supported
the project as expressed in a community referendum.
Four written submissions that raised objections were received from, or on behalf of, owners of
property in the area: Appendices H to K). Each of these were supplemented by verbal
representations at the hearing. Objections were raised in a verbal submission by the Policy
Director of the Wilderness Committee.
Two of the submissions (Appendices I and K) included copies of submissions made to the BC
Environmental Assessment Office for consideration during the environmental assessment and
for the application to amend the certificate.
A number of the objections relate to matters that are outside of direct SCRD land use planning
consideration (such as the need for the electricity to supply BC, cost of electricity to BC
residents arising from this and other similar projects) or were considered during the
environmental assessment (such as impact on fish habitat). Other issues considered impact on
water for the Ramona Creek properties, impact of noise and introduction of industrial activity in
a natural area. These were also considered during the environmental assessment process.
Concerns regarding technical matters such as potential impact of failure of lake storage/
drainage equipment were also raised. Concern was raised about the impact of noise from the
proposed Lower Ramona Creek power house located near the property line of one of the
Ramona Creek properties.
Concern was raised regarding the location of the Lower Ramona Creek powerhouse and
associated surveys. It was requested that an independent survey be conducted to ensure the
project’s works does not intrude onto private land. SCRD staff consider that this is a matter for
the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to resolve and that the SCRD
Board could refer this concern to the ministry staff.
STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES
Not applicable.
CONCLUSION
Staff consider that Bylaw 310.165 could be forwarded to the SCRD Board for consideration of
Third Reading and adoption. The SCRD Board could write a letter to the Ministry of Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operation’s regarding concerns about accuracy of surveys and
project boundary and that this matter be investigated and resolved .
Reviewed by:
Manager
GM
X – SO
CAO
X - JL
Finance
Legislative
Other
X - TP
X - AL
2016-Feb-18 Bylaw 310.165 report of public hearing and consideration for 3rd reading and adoption
ATTACHMENT A
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
David Rafael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Narrows Inlet
January-17-16 9:36 PM
David Rafael
Fwd: Narrow Inlet Water licence correspondence
Smith Water Management.pdf; Water management 2002919.docx; Water management
2003015.docx
Hello David,
My submission for the Public Hearing on Tuesday will consist of exactly the same group of documents I
submitted for the Dec 10 meeting.......except I wish to add the 3 attachments in the below email to James
Davies.....they are very old but the points raised still have not been addressed.
Do I need to email you in a new email all of the documents as I did before or is it proper if you just add these to
that file in chronological order?
I will bring a hard copy with me to the hearing and submit it in time.
To confirm protocol......I submit my hard copy to the clerk before the hearing begins......anyone can
speak.....there is no need to pre-register to speak......the vote will be held immediately following presentations
from the public......correct?
Thank-you again for the polite and meaningful assistance you are providing to your residents as they try to
protect Narrows Inlet by way of valid arguments against this project.
Yes, I fully understand the ramifications of Provincial Bill 30.....and I fully realize how the proponent has
proceeded as though all approvals will be given without doubt......but.....the board members of the SCRD can
use this vote as a platform to illustrate what they truly believe the majority of the electorate wishes to see
happen. It is unfortunate the majority of the electorate is not aware of the scope of this project, nor how it will
permanently and negatively impact the visuals of our last pristine fjord on the Sunshine Coast . Nor are they
fully aware of how it will deplete cash in the pockets of our upcoming generation by way of increased long
term debt for BC Hydro. The board members are well aware.
Ken Holowanky
Forwarded message ---------From: Narrows Inlet
Date: Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Subject: Narrow Inlet Water licence correspondence
To: "Davies, James W ENV:EX" <[email protected]>
Hello again Mr. Davies,
I refer here to my previous request for a schedule of upcoming hearings and/or requests for stakeholder input
before the final water licence is issued to BluEarth.......all that I know of to date is your request for comments
1
from 2012 and your recent one regarding bridge building. I have attached 2012 comments that are already on
file with you for ease of reference.
I feel all of the points I raised in 2012 are valid to this day. Please advise if you would be responding to these in
any way, or if any of the regulatory bodies responsible for each area of concern will be.
Thank-you again,
Ken Holowanky
2
November 22, 2012-11-22
Stephen J Richards et al
2127 Lyons Crt
Coquitlam, BC
V3J6R4
James Davies
Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations
Water Management
200-10428 153st
Surrey, BC
V3R 1E1
Re: Water Licence Application WLA0Z122790-0001 on Ramona Creek
File: 2002919
This letter serves as notice of our extreme opposition to your potential approval of the above
mentioned Water Licence Application. A multitude of issues will without doubt adversely affect the
quality of our domestic water supply, adversely impact river bank stability of Ramona Creek as it flows
through our property, adversely affect fish and marine life habitat and present a quantifiable risk to
human safety in the event of failure of project components either during construction or operational
phases.
1) In Part 2 “Place of Use” the proponent states they do not hold another water license. This is false.
The principals of NI Hydro Holding Corp are the same as Renewable Power Corp, Tyson Creek Hydro
Power and Altaqua Renewable Power. They have licences and/or cleared applications on Tyson Lake,
Tzoonie River, Wasp Creek, Petersen Creek, Ryan River, Salal Creek, McParlon Creek, ZZ Creek, Ashlu
Creek, Taquat Creek, Vancouver River, Red Tusk Creek, Clowhom River, Phantom Lake, Misery Creek,
Misery Lake and several others. The Tyson Lake licences are integral to the application on Ramona.
Infrastructure for was designed to be shared from the concept stage. The negative cumulative effects
are substantial when the proponent’s nearby Tyson Creek licence is coupled with applications for
Chickwat, CC, SS and Ramona.
2) In Part 4 “Source of Water” the proponent states Ramona Creek. This is false. There will be no
more naturally flowing Ramona Creek. All water will be artificially supplied by pumping out of Ramona
Lake via penstock, including the IFR component. The Upper Ramona powerhouse is supplied directly
from Ramona Lake via penstock. The proponent states in 2.3.5 “Since the upper and lower
components are directly linked and flow is partially supplied by Ramona Lake, both components are
subject to the operating regime adopted by the Ramona Creek Upper component”
3) In Part 5 “ Works” the proponent states gravity feed. This is false. Pumps are required to supply
the Upper Ramona powerhouse which in turn supplies the Lower Ramona powerhouse. Without
pumps in Ramona Lake to force water up and over the elevation of the former natural outflow, there
would be no gravitational flow through either Upper or Lower Ramona. Ramona Lake level is below
the natural outflow for a large percentage of the time.
4) In Part 5 the proponent states they do not require storage. This is inconsistent with the whole
premise of damming Ramona Lake and pumping out the required volume of water for power
generation and IFR’s. The Lower Ramona component would not be viable if storage in Ramona Lake
was not part of the application.
5) In Part 5 the proponent states no part of the works will be shared with another licence. Power
transmission lines are an integral part of the works. Interconnection with the Tyson Lake Hydro Power
transmission line is part of the design, as is interconnection with the rest of the cluster.
6) In Part 6 the proponent states the works will not occupy or flood another person’s land. This is
absolutely false. Our land will be subject to flooding and bank erosion due to unnaturally high water
levels year round. There will be no times of low water. Lower Ramona consists of a multitude of
channels through the delta. This will create a dangerous situation with undercutting of tree roots.
Normally dry tributaries will now always have flow and new channels will form where there were none.
Sedimentation in Lower Ramona will be increased greatly not only from lake sources, but from
increased flows causing bank erosion and greater disturbance of riverbottom. This is unacceptable for
our domestic water supply. This is unacceptable for fish spawning behaviours. The proponent
acknowledges 1 or 2 degree temperature differences from natural. The colder temperature combined
with higher fresh water composition at the rivermouth will create more of an issue than already exists
with freezeup around our dock structures. The year-round higher than natural flows are required
solely to make the project profitable for the proponent.
7) In Part 6 no Landowner’s Consent Form has been produced for us to sign.
8) In Schedule 3 “Proposed Works” “Intake” the proponent states there are no fish in stream. This is
false and has been documented by correspondence to Dave Bates.
9) 100% of the flow of Ramona Creek would be dependent on operation of electric pumps on a
floating barge in Ramona Lake. This includes all water used for power generation as well as all water
supplied to maintain IFR’s. Failure of pumps means no water can exit the lake over the 3m dam. This
would be a particularly high risk in alpine winter conditions. Ramona Creek and Falls would run dry
until the problem was rectified. This is an unacceptable risk.
10) All domestic drinking water is first passed through electric pumps, into a steel accumulator tank
and then down steel penstock pipes. There has been no evaluation of hazardous effect of anticorrosion protections applied to the inside diameter of the penstocks and related equipment, nor of
the hazardous effect of rust or corrosion by means of contact with unprotected components. There
has been no study of the effects of aeration or lack thereof due to transport of all drinking water in
pipes at high pressures and through turbines. The source of water is no longer natural. This is
unacceptable in a coastal rainforest setting where water historically flows naturally.
11) Per 10 above, the source of water for aquatic life in Lower Ramona is equally unnatural with
respect to nutrients and chemical composition due to high pressure transport of water in penstocks .
12) Typical urban or community water supply piping is not subject to the pressures to be expected in
the Ramona component. The BC Safety Authority states they did not inspect penstock pipe welds for
the Tyson Creek project. Though pressures in the Ramona component are half of Tyson, it is more of a
problem. A head of 371 metres between intake and powerhouse results in potential for 550psi
pressures. In the event of equipment malfunction or water hammer, this could rise exponentially. The
piping is adjacent to normally travelled hiking trails and picnic areas. In addition to potential for
physical injury , welding of pipes will affect the adherence of corrosion resistant coatings...
unacceptable for drinking water. Abnormally high sediment levels in high pressure flows will add to
the issue of adherence for anti-corrosion and/or wear coatings.
12) The exposed shoreline around Ramona Lake upon exceedingly large 45m drawdowns has been
acknowledged by the proponent as a significant source of sedimentation. The proponent states both
rainstorm events and natural incision of creek deltas are issues. This sedimentation in itself is
unacceptable for both domestic use and for fish spawning streams. The known increased risk for
biological contamination in high sediment situations adds to our concerns.
13) Our properties are in an area zoned Rural 2, the proposed works do not conform to permitted use.
November 22, 2012-11-22
Stephen J Richards et al
2127 Lyons Crt
Coquitlam, BC
V3J6R4
James Davies
Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations
Water Management
200-10428 153st
Surrey, BC
V3R 1E1
Re: Water Licence Application WLA0Z123472-0001 on Ramona Creek
File: 2003015
This letter serves as notice of our extreme opposition to your potential approval of the above
mentioned Water Licence Application. A multitude of issues will without doubt adversely affect the
quality of our domestic water supply, adversely impact river bank stability of Ramona Creek as it flows
through our property, adversely affect fish and marine life habitat and present a quantifiable risk to
human safety in the event of failure of project components either during construction or operational
phases.
1) In Part 2 “Place of Use” the proponent states they do not hold another water license. This is false.
The principals of NI Hydro Holding Corp are the same as Renewable Power Corp, Tyson Creek Hydro
Power and Altaqua Renewable Power. They have licences and/or cleared applications on Tyson Lake,
Tzoonie River, Wasp Creek, Petersen Creek, Ryan River, Salal Creek, McParlon Creek, ZZ Creek, Ashlu
Creek, Taquat Creek, Vancouver River, Red Tusk Creek, Clowhom River, Phantom Lake, Misery Creek,
Misery Lake and several others. The Tyson Lake licences are integral to the application on Ramona.
Infrastructure for was designed to be shared from the concept stage. The negative cumulative effects
are substantial when the proponent’s nearby Tyson Creek licence is coupled with applications for
Chickwat, CC, SS and Ramona.
2) In Part 5 “ Works” the proponent states works are partially constructed. Please advise under what
authorization works have already been started when the project is still at the EAO review stage.
3) In Part 6 the proponent states the works will not occupy or flood another person’s land. This is
absolutely false. Our land will be subject to flooding and bank erosion due to unnaturally high water
levels year round. There will be no times of low water. Lower Ramona consists of a multitude of
channels through the delta. This will create a dangerous situation with undercutting of tree roots.
Normally dry tributaries will now always have flow and new channels will form where there were none.
Sedimentation in Lower Ramona will be increased greatly not only from lake sources, but from
increased flows causing bank erosion and greater disturbance of riverbottom. This is unacceptable for
our domestic water supply. This is unacceptable for fish spawning behaviours. The proponent
acknowledges 1 or 2 degree temperature differences from natural. The colder temperature combined
with higher fresh water composition at the rivermouth will create more of an issue than already exists
with freezeup around our dock structures. The year-round higher than natural flows are required
solely to make the project profitable for the proponent.
4) In Part 6 no Landowner’s Consent Form has been produced for us to sign.
5) In Schedule 3 “Proposed Works” “Intake” the proponent states there are no fish in the lake. There
is a high likelihood this is false as fish have been noted above the defined barrier in Lower Ramona.
The fish found above the barrier have been documented by correspondence with Dave Bates.
6) In Schedule 3 the tailrace discharges into Ramona Creek. There will be no natural Ramona Creek as
all flow is via pump out of Ramona Lake. Ramona Lake will be below the natural outflow.
7) 100% of the flow of Ramona Creek would be dependent on operation of electric pumps on a
floating barge in Ramona Lake. This includes all water used for power generation as well as all water
supplied to maintain IFR’s. Failure of pumps means no water can exit the lake over the 3m dam. This
would be a particularly high risk in alpine winter conditions. Ramona Creek and Falls would run dry
until the problem was rectified. This is an unacceptable risk.
8) All domestic drinking water is first passed through electric pumps, into a steel accumulator tank
and then down steel penstock pipes. There has been no evaluation of hazardous effect of anticorrosion protections applied to the inside diameter of the penstocks and related equipment, nor of
the hazardous effect of rust or corrosion by means of contact with unprotected components. There
has been no study of the effects of aeration or lack thereof due to transport of all drinking water in
pipes at high pressures and through turbines. The source of water is no longer natural. This is
unacceptable in a coastal rainforest setting where water historically flows naturally.
9) Per 10 above, the source of water for aquatic life in Lower Ramona is equally unnatural with respect
to nutrients and chemical composition due to high pressure transport of water in penstocks .
10) Typical urban or community water supply piping is not subject to the pressures to be expected in
the Ramona component. The BC Safety Authority states they did not inspect penstock pipe welds for
the Tyson Creek project. Pressures in the Upper Ramona are similar to Tyson. With a community
directly below, this is more of a problem. A head of 896 metres between intake and powerhouse
results in potential for 1300psi pressures. In the event of equipment malfunction or water hammer,
this could rise exponentially. The piping is on a watercourse that leads directly to residential property.
In addition to potential for physical injury , welding of pipes will affect the adherence of corrosion
resistant coatings... unacceptable for drinking water. Abnormally high sediment levels in high pressure
flows will add to the issue of adherence for anti-corrosion and/or wear coatings.
11) The exposed shoreline around Ramona Lake upon exceedingly large 45m drawdowns has been
acknowledged by the proponent as a significant source of sedimentation. The proponent states both
rainstorm events and natural incision of creek deltas are issues. This sedimentation in itself is
unacceptable for both domestic use and for fish spawning streams. The known increased risk for
biological contamination in high sediment situations adds to our concerns.
12) Our properties are in an area zoned Rural 2, the proposed works do not conform to permitted use.
13) The proposed dam structure presents an unacceptable safety risk to the community directly
below.
14) Construction of the works on slopes between 50% and vertical directly above and adjacent to a
community presents unacceptable risks.
APPENDIX K
ATTACHMENT B
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 310.165
A bylaw to amend the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987".
The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled,
enacts as follows:
PART A - CITATION
1.
This bylaw may be cited as the “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment
Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015".
PART B – AMENDMENT
2.
Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended
by rezoning unsurveyed Crown land from RU2 (Rural Two) to I9 (Independent Power
Project), as depicted on Appendix ‘A’ to this Bylaw.
3.
Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended
by rezoning unsurveyed Crown land from RU2 (Rural Two) to I9 (Independent Power
Project), as depicted on Appendix ‘B’ to this Bylaw.
4.
Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended
by rezoning unsurveyed Crown land from RU2 (Rural Two) to I9 (Independent Power
Project), as depicted on Appendix ‘C’ to this Bylaw.
5.
Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended by designating
unsurveyed Crown land as a Temporary Use Permit area, as depicted on Appendix ‘D’ to
this Bylaw.
PART C - ADOPTION
READ A FIRST TIME this
10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015
READ A SECOND TIME AS AMENDED this
17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this
19th DAY OF JANUARY
2016
READ A THIRD TIME this
DAY OF
MONTH
YEAR
ADOPTED this
DAY OF
MONTH
YEAR
Corporate Officer
Chair
APPENDIX A
to
Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015
Chickwat Creek
Legal Description: Unsurveyed Crown Land
Existing Zoning: RU2 (Rural Two)
Proposed Zoning: I9 (Independent Power Project)
Corporate Officer
Chair
APPENDIX B
to
Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015
Upper Ramona Creek
Legal Description: Unsurveyed Crown Land
Existing Zoning: RU2 (Rural Two)
Proposed Zoning: I9 (Independent Power Project)
Corporate Officer
Chair
APPENDIX C
to
Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015
Lower Ramona Creek
Legal Description: Unsurveyed Crown Land
Existing Zoning: RU2 (Rural Two)
Proposed Zoning: I9 (Independent Power Project)
Corporate Officer
Chair
APPENDIX D
to
Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015
Construction Camp and Laydown Area
Legal Description: Unsurveyed Crown Land
Proposal: Designation as a Temporary Use Permit area
Corporate Officer
Chair