Klinaklini will not breach conservancies, will not get EPA: Penner

Claire Trevena and Barry Penner, Hansard, May 6, 2010

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that answer. I'd like to move on to my last topic with the minister, and that is the issue of independent power projects and, particularly, the Klinaklini project that is being developed. It's a very specific question: whether, when these projects are being developed, land conservancies will be respected in the development of those projects. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1500]

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will be aware, there was a long and complex set of negotiations that went on for about 10 years for a land use plan involving the mid- and north coast of British Columbia. That area has become known as the Great Bear rain forest. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As a result of agreements that were reached between the provincial government, local First Nations, industry and environmental groups, those 10 years of negotiations concluded. That agreement was announced in February 2006 by the Premier and a number of other people on the stage with him. Following that, the provincial government moved to complete those agreements by enacting legislation to establish conservancies in the areas that had been identified as a result of the many years of sometimes arduous negotiations. I believe now that all of the conservancies that had been agreed to in concept in terms of location have now been enacted through protected areas legislation and the establishment of conservancies — more than 100. I'm advised that there are about 111 for the central and north coast as a result of that land use plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Other conservancies have since been established in some other locations as a result of other land and resource management plan processes, but for now we're just talking about the ones on the mid-coast. From time to time, people, organizations, local governments or, sometimes, governments themselves seek to amend existing boundaries for protected areas. The provincial government since 2004 has tried to codify that process by establishing a policy that people can see, a policy framework for assessing these types of requests. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Previously there wasn't much of a process, at least externally known. It was a bit random. I know that there was some criticism in the late 1990s when a number of park boundaries were adjusted without public consultation to facilitate a variety of purposes that the government of the day deemed to be important from a public policy perspective — a corridor for a pipeline, highways or a logging road to get through to a forest on the other side of a protected area. So we felt that it was appropriate to come up with this policy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You can find that updated policy — known as the "Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines" on the B.C. Parks website. It's there for people to peruse, and you can see the number of factors and steps that we would take in assessing potential application to amend existing boundaries. As noted, the Upper Klinaklini conservancy is now an established boundary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Clearly, not all applications get approved. I reference the Upper Pitt River issue that came to light a number of years ago, also involving a potential independent power project where the proponent was seeking to have the boundary adjusted for Pinecone Burke Provincial Park to allow the construction of a transmission line corridor. Following public consultation on that process, I concluded that that was not a proposal that I was prepared to support [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In this case, I can advise the member that the government has given careful consideration to this request. There has been an expression of interest and support from the local First Nations, who have told the government very clearly that they would support this amendment for this proposed power project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have carefully considered the benefits and potential impacts from this proposal and can note that the anticipated benefits include a $2.5 billion investment in British Columbia, mostly in capital costs; 3,904 person-years of direct employment; 4,372 person-years of indirect employment; 1,718 person-years of induced employment — I guess that's better known as spinoff employment; and total wages during peak construction years of between $120 million and $200 million. Those are some of the positive benefits, including a new source of renewable electricity for British Columbia without emitting carbon or other forms of air pollution. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On the other hand, there are also potential negative impacts from this project. I've also taken those into consideration. These include, depending on exactly what the proponent was communicating, an increase in the water elevation of that portion of the river in the Upper Klinaklini conservancy from 1.5 kilometres to 2.5 kilometres or possibly six kilometres upstream, and expanding the wetted area of the Klinaklini River from about 50 hectares to perhaps a hundred hectares. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

From that, there flow a number of other potential consequences. There are, apparently, perhaps 20 fish-bearing tributaries that would be backwatered to some extent by the proposed construction of the intake structure, which would back up the water so that you could fill an intake pipe — a penstock, as it's known in the industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are, apparently up to 57 hectares of riparian habitat that could be affected — 65 percent of which, we've been told would be old-growth forest that would be submerged or inundated or affected by the increase in water levels as a result of the project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are, within that area, a number of conservation data centre red- and blue-listed species in the old-growth plant communities. There's a grizzly bear corridor that exists in the area, which serves an important function of connecting the coast to the interior. In fact, reports that we have seen indicate that there are several bear mark trees that would be within the area of the project and within the conservancy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There's also evidence that moose use this corridor. For example, I'm told that moose tracks were observed during a 2009 field assessment and that moose activity has been observed in the wetland on the east side of the river, which would also be within the proposed headpond area, so behind the intake structure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There were other concerns about whether or not the impacts to fish habitat could be mitigated, and there's concern that perhaps it could not be. Then there's a related issue that the project's proposed transmission line was proposed or is proposed to go through the Stafford Estuary conservancy. The transmission line would also be adjacent to —although not through — the Wahkash Point conservancy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Those are some factors that I took into account. It's always difficult to weigh competing interests and, certainly, our government is very committed to a strong working relationship with First Nations and those First Nations in particular. We've enjoyed a good working relationship. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We want to continue to work with them, but after carefully considering all of the factors that I've enumerated and probably some that I haven't, I have decided that I will not be recommending that the boundaries of the Upper Klinaklini conservancy be amended in order to facilitate this project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for going through this and for his confirmation that the boundaries won't be amended — he won't be recommending the amendment. For the project to continue.... If the project wants to continue and find some different routing, would that mean another look at it, or is it only because of the impact on the conservancies that we're talking about not changing the boundaries of the conservancies? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The minister has spoken quite clearly about the impact of the project itself on the river and on much of the habitat. The habitat.... Some of it is in conservancy and some isn't, and so I'm just wondering if the minister is taking it to the next step and saying that this is a project that really is not suitable for the area because of the environmental impacts, even whether that impact is outside the conservancy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: The reason that the decision came to me at this point in the process, unlike other run-of-the-river projects or other major industrial proposals — whether they be pipelines or coal mines or other forms of activity — is that the proponent had concluded that the project could not go ahead without an amendment to the conservancy boundary. Otherwise, the proponent's trajectory would have been through an environmental assessment process dealing with the federal government and so forth — the routine process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What's different about this one is that the project requires a legislative change to make it happen — to be clear about that. For other types of projects that still require permitting, detailed analysis and review by a multitude of federal and provincial agencies, that's a rigorous process. You have to submit lots of information. There's scrutiny, and you may or may not obtain your permits, but legislative changes are not required. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What was required in this instance was a change to the conservancy boundary and that could only be done through a legislative change. I've indicated, as I noted in my previous answer, that I'm not going to recommend that to my cabinet colleagues or to yourselves as fellow members of the Legislative Assembly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So now it will be up to the proponent to decide what their course of action is and whether or not they have a project that they still wish to pursue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Source