Geology and Landforms of the Eastern Peace River Region of British Columbia by N.R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Peace River Regional District REPORT To: Chair and Directors Date: October 17, 2013 From: Jo-Anne Frank, Corporate Officer Subject: Notice of Motion from Director Hadland – Site C / BCUC RECOMMENDATION: That the Board consider Director Hadland’s Notice of Motion. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: At its October 10, 2013 meeting, the Board resolved: “That the Notice of Motion from Director Hadland, Electoral Area ‘C’, regarding Strategic Priorities Chart Advocacy Item: Site C Oversight – BCUC, be referred to the October 24, 2013 Board meeting.” STRATEGIC PLAN RELEVANCE: None FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION(S): None COMMUNICATIONS CONSIDERATION(S): None OTHER CONSIDERATION(S): None ATTACHMENT: – Proposed Site C Topics For Discussion at Board Meeting October 24th, 2013. Staff Initials: Dept. Head: CAO: Page 1 of 1 PROPOSED SITE C TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION @ BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 24TH, 2013 REGIONAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION and STRATEGIES 1. Residents of Area C (Old Fort/Grandhaven). A total disruption of homes, businesses & lifestyles. Please refer to an earlier submission by the Directors from Area B and C, noise and dust will be a severe issue. (see Attachment) 2. Land Use issues such as proposed fill pit on the Shaman property. What do we expect if excavation proceeds? Is BCHPA subject to the Land Use By-Law of PRRD? If not, why not? We need to control our own land use destiny. 3. Road system: Where & who will they impinge upon? Plus the proposed fill conveyor route. 4. Worker Camps: The one proposed by the Old Fort would be very negative for the surrounding community. Are there alternative locations removed for our community? 5. Ambulance and health services for Areas B and C would be maxed out. These systems are already stretched to the limit. What course of action do we need to recommend? 6. The North Peace Solid Waste Site lies in a potential slumpage zone, adjacent to the proposed reservoir. It has the potential to negatively impact the proposed reservoir. Please refer to Weisgerber Report: Quaternary Geology and Landforms of the Eastern Peace River Region of British Columbia by N.R. Catto (Attached) http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/PublicationsCatalogue/OpenFiles/1991/Documents/OF1991-11.pdf Possible mitigation may be the closure of the landfill and replacement of a new site in a remote area (i.e. Del Rio) utilizing a cogeneration facility producing electricity for the grid in conjunction with recycling initiatives. 7. Expropriation threats and procedures: Some residents inside and outside the proposed pondage have been or will be subject to expropriation threats and procedures. These forces have been in place since 1957. It is suggested that this has stymied growth and development in the valley and surrounding area. This is an ugly vehicle of convenience used by Government authorities over people who through no fault of their own are very negatively impacted by this power. It is all of the people of the valley who have lived this threat for the past 50 years with no recognition or compensation for this silent but omnipresent cloud over their lives. This needs to be addressed in a meaningful manner. 8. Access to air transport for the Regional Community would be taxed to the max. This issue needs to be addressed to ensure that local community members have priority access to aircraft transportation. 9. Recreational access would be hazardous. According to the Thurber Report, it is noted that the valley in its natural state has superior recreational opportunities compared to post- reservoir construction. 10. Safety – refer to the Weisgerber Report and the writer’s observations. 11. Municipal boundary expansion in the rural area is predicated on the proposed construction has not recognized the people and lands who would be most impacted by proposed Site C. ……2 12. Stewardship of our Valley and its complex range of resources and land use should be addressed regionally. Please refer to the attached opinion by the editor of the Vancouver Business Magazine and the writer’s response to the editorial. 13. The destruction of Prehistoric and early pioneer sites are being ignored or marginalized. i.e. Rocky Mountain Fort (1794) and Rocky Mtn. Portage Fort (1806) 14. First Nations Proclamation (Attached ) 15. The Legacy Term Paper has not recognized the people and lands who would be most impacted by proposed Site C. Areas B and C and the District of Hudson’s Hope are not signatories to the document. It is suggested that there is no meaningful agreement recognizing the people and lands most negatively permanently disrupted by the proposed Site C. It is the writer’s contention that there many more items that need to be addressed on a regional basis, both for mitigation and for critical analysis of the need for the project i.e. Scrutiny by BCUC. In summary, this is a regional issue of significant long term consequences for the people of Area B, Area C, Hudson’s Hope and Fort St. John. Other people in the peripheral jurisdictions would experience a lesser impact. Arthur A Hadland Director of Area C PEACE RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Offices of:Arthur Hadland, Director Area “C” Karen Goodings, Director Area “B” March 20, 2013 Linda Jones, Panel Manager Brian Murphy, Executive Project Director Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency B.C. Environmental Assessment Office 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street PO Box 9426 StnProvGovt Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Victoria, B.C. V8W 9V1 [email protected] Fax: 250-356-7477 Dear Ms. Jones and Mr. Murphy: RE: The proposed Site C As Directors of electoral Areas B and C of the Peace River Regional District, we are asking that the Environmental Review Panel examine the following factors in detail: Peace Region People's Impacts It will be the 250 people at Grandhaven and the Old Fort (south of 85th Avenue); residents and food producers within Area B of the proposed reservoir impact lines; and community of Hudson’s Hope who will feel the negative aspects of the actual dam construction. The project is touted to be of seven years duration. The obvious impacts are concentrated within the nearby communities of Old Fort and Grandhaven. There will be constant light and heavyduty traffic, new roads, noise and dust on a continuous daily basisfor all of the construction period. The network of construction access roads, conveyor running on a continuous daily basis, and the actual excavation at the quarry on 85th Avenue will be intrusive and overwhelming for all the surrounding citizens. … 2 PLEASE REPLY TO: BOX 810, DAWSON CREEK, BC VIG 4H8 TELEPHONE: (250) 784-3200 or (800) 670-7773 FAX: (250) 784-3201 EMAIL: [email protected] X 9505 100 STREET, FORT ST. JOHN, BC V1J 4N4 TELEPHONE: (250) 785-8084 Fax: (250) 785-1125EMAIL: [email protected] Firstly the most identifiable and constant impact will be the noiseon a on a continuous daily basis . “Noise is more than just a nuisance. It constitutes a real and present danger to people's health. Day and night, at work and at play, noise can produce serious physical and psychological stress. No one is immune to this stress. People appear to adjust to noise by ignoring but the ear in fact, never closes. The body at times still responds with extreme tension, such as to a strange sound at night. The most outward symptom of stress building up in humans, when faced with noise is annoyance. Exposure to excessive noise can also induce or aggravate stress related health outcomes, including those on the cardiovascular system, immune system, sleep, task performance, behavior, and mental health”. (Health and Welfare Canada 1989) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165178189900474 This information and the significant noise, light and disturbance factors need to be fully satisfied prior to any future decision-making. We feel it is of importance that the proponent, BCHydrorecognize the interests of these impacted citizens A second impact that the proponent BC Hydro needs to recognize, is that the noise and disturbance will cause the impacted residents to lose a significant and measurable loss of the rural lifestyle including actual depreciation of the real property. It is doubtful that the surrounding properties could be sold at fair market value due to the previously mentioned negative impacts. In real property terms the owners of these lands will lose a portion of their Bundle of Rights described as quiet enjoyment. It is doubtful that this loss and the peoples’ lifestyle losses can be meaningfully compensated. The residents of the valley and surrounding uplands will suffer these same effects plus the cumulative loss of quiet enjoyment going back to the granting of Wenner-Gren’s charter over the Valley in 1957. Hudson’s Hope has not benefited from the accumulated development of two previous dams. The town has lost economic opportunities. i.e. wood supply for a local wood industry. Again the business community and the infrastructure of the town has languished after the construction periods of WAC Bennett and the Peace Canyon Dams. The town site itself hasn’t been displaced (not yet – Site C would do that.)The effects of the project will isolate the area and create a less desirable place to reside. Again these issues are not recognized and probably are immitigable. SOCIAL LICENCE The Crown BC Hydro does have the power of expropriation. At the same time it is doubtful that they have the social license to devastate the homes and lifestyles of the people living along and within the Peace Valley. The proponent BC Hydro is focused on mitigation. It is our belief, speaking for the constituents noted; that there are insurmountable issues that will not be mitigatable. These factors include issues such as the reservoirs obvious instability issues, people displaced, destroying irreplaceable historic sites, permanent loss of precious food producing lands, marginalizing First Nations’ interest, loss of wildlife habitat and the superb recreational River and islands.