Ventego Creek - the site of a proposed run-of-river project. Photo: courtesy of Rachel Darvill, Wildsight's Columbia Headwaters Program Manager
This week, as Nelson-based company Selkirk Power announced in the newspaper that its IPP project on Ventego, Alder and Cupola Creeks is receiving public comment, MLA Norm Macdonald presented a petition in the B.C. legislature on behalf of 500 residents opposing it.
It was Wednesday, Feb. 16 that The Golden Star newspaper was released carrying the announcement that Selkirk Power’s development plan is available for viewing at the Service B.C offices in Golden and Revelstoke. On the very same day, MLA Macdonald submitted the petition to the highest governing office in the province.
A press release from Macdonald’s office quotes the petition submitted by the Council of Canadians, Golden chapter, at length.
The petition states, “Selkirk Power’s IPP proposals on Ventego and Cupola Creeks have not undergone provincial or federal environmental assessments and the cumulative impacts of the transmission lines, logging, road building, road improvements, along with significant creek diversion have not been evaluated by the provincial government.”
The petition goes on to request from the government a moratorium on the project, and all IPP proposals in British Columbia, until “they are regional planned, environmentally appropriate, acceptable to First Nations and publicly owned.”
Macdonald says, “The residents of Golden have been pretty clear on this issue. They do not support these projects. They do not want our rivers to be given away to private interests without our consent.”
Meanwhile, another press release on the issue has just been issued today by the environmental group Wildsight. The group supports the Council of Canadians’ position in opposing the project and lists a number of additional environmental concerns surrounding several animal species that could be negatively affected.
Wildsight does not support run-of-river hydro development in watersheds such as Ventego and Alder Creek,” said Rachel Darvill, Wildsight’s Columbia Headwaters program manager. “Such pristine drainages are rare. They are home to at-risk species and high wilderness values that, once removed or displaced, will likely never come back.”
Ventego Creek - Photo: Rachel Darvill
Unnamed forestry officials have said that the Ventego and Alder Creek drainages are both pristine. The drainages were never logged because most of the wood is old growth Hemlock and a lot of it is rotten. The entrance to Ventego creek was logged in the mid-1980′s. The entrance to Alder Creek was logged in the mid-1970′s, while Cupola was partially logged in 1996.
Selkirk Power’s recently released development plan describes the combine potential of the project as 44 MW. 1 MW is sufficient to heat 800-1000 homes.
The project is located 2-10 km east of Glacier National park, 50 km west of Golden. It will involve 17 km of penstock, and 52 km of new transmission lines to hook into the substation at Donald, B.C.
The project is expected to cost $130 million.
If you care about these pristine drainage’s and the species at risk in them, then make your voice heard about Selkirk Power’s hyrdo-development proposals on Alder, Cupola and Ventego Creeks, send an email to: AuthorizingAgency.Cranbrook@gov.bc.ca
It would also be valuable to give a quick call into the regional decision making office for these files, Ministry of Natural Resource Operations Regional Executive Director, Tony Wideski, 250.426.1741 or Tony.Wideski@gov.bc.ca
The damage done by this project will be irreversible to the environment. How can this project possibly be considered in an area with so many identified species at risk? Selkirk Power has shown blatant disregard for the people of this valley, the pristine rivers and the wildlife. You cannot place a dollar value on the things that will be lost, possibly forever. This project is ethically wrong in so many ways.
Once again, a complete absence of community and stakeholder support, plus the myriad negative impacts to the environment from most of these projects and specifically this one. It is especially troubling when local and regional governments have no ability to influence which, if any, IPPs go forward even as they negatively impact the communities and the people they represent. Regardless, of forest policy, a private entity can push a road into this wilderness and harness a wild river that has hardly seen a canoe or kayak let alone a power plant.
In the future, those traveling into this area or any of the many other places hosting private power projects may very well be met with a fence and signs warning, “Danger” and “No Trespassing” and security guards. Beyond the fence will be a huge excavator, ripping up the creek and riparian vegetation. and that used to be public land and water, now….private.
What does Selkirk Power want to do exactly?
- Build at least 9 kms (likely about 11kms) of new roads into pristine old-growth drainages. Upgrade 10kms of foresty roads from the mid-90′s.
- Three diversion weirs/intakes (or dams) on three creeks, 2 of which are pristine watersheds.
- Head ponds behind each dam, to be dug out with heavy machinery on each creek.
- 17 kms of buried penstock (large pipes), requiring a “significant” amount of blasting/explosives.
- 19 kms of stream reaches to be diverted into pipes (of which 13km are fish bearing with at-risk species).
- Cofferdams to be constructed to allow a dry environment for the construction project. Construction period is 2 years.
- Permanent and temporary “spoil sites” created for waste materials, such as bedrock from blasting.
- Up to 90% of water flow to be diverted.
- 2 powerhouses to be built.
- 52 kms of transmission lines.
- Only 2 permanent jobs would be created.
Thank you RD for explaining the extent of the ‘damage’ that will be done if Selkirk gets the go ahead – OMG!!. We over here in Revelstoke are also extremely concerned about protecting our rivers and waterways. As back country tourism, our pristine high alpine, and the lure of old growth forests are such powerful magnets to people from other crowded countries, and large urban centres, it doesn’t take much brain power to figure out that tourism, eco-adventure companies, more protected parks and conservation areas etc will create more income and jobs (way more that 2!) than destroying valleys and damming rivers will.
Never mind that after all the waste, deaths, wars, and back room politics worldwide over the oil and gas industry, water – the ownership and husbanding of it – will soon be what world powers will be scrapping over next. We need to own our water and protect it – it will prove to be one of our most precious commodities.
These projects have minimal impact on the environment and go a long way to resolve Golden’s long term power shortage. It is likely that almost no one has visited Ventego creek in the last 40 years other than to investigate this project and to do timber cruising in the last 40 years. Rachel Darvill commented that this area was once part of Hamber provincial park. She needs a geography lesson, as at its geographical extent Hamber park was on the other side of the Rocky Mountain Trench.
It is green power and a hell of alot better than the Mica project in terms of environmental impact. You bunch of new comers to the valley ought to chill out or go home.
DCB.. before you call me out on things, you should check YOUR facts. I actually have taken several university-level geography courses, and I have asked the editor of this online news source to publish a copy of a photo that I have, which is of an old historic map of Hamber Provincial Park from 1941. Please observe the boundary lines.
Just because a project is called “green”, it does not mean that it is. These ecologically intact drainage’s of Alder and Ventego, that now border Glacier National Park (and yes, used to be part of Hamber Provincial Park system) are rare. They are home to sensitive species at risk; bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, grizzly bears, wolverine and olive-sided flycatchers. I, amongst numerous other British Colombians would like to keep such rare places unroaded and undammed, for the wildlife that needs these areas for survival and recovery. I am far from alone on this one.
Also, you may not be aware, but recently the Columbia Valley Transmission (CVT) Line will soon be running from Invermere to Golden, and as BC Hydro stated on Feb 21st, 2011, “Selkirk Power’s Beaver River Hydro project will provide power to the BC power grid, but only for a part of the year due to low water flows during the winter months. BC Hydro’s CVT Project will provide reliable and dependable power to the upper Columbia Valley, year-round for the next 30 years.”
As you likely will know, we do not have a shortage of energy in the summer months when Selkirk Power would be producing their energy. Our larger energy needs occur in the winter, when water is frozen and flows are low and when, according to BC Hydro, Selkirk Power will not be providing energy to the grid.
I’ve posted the information provided by Rachel Darvill at the link below:
http://golden.inthekoots.com/2011/02/25/hamber-provincial-park-map-of-historic-boundary/
I strongly oppose these Selkirk Power IPPs on the grounds that they will produce power when we don’t need it, destroy our natural environment, and profit only Selkirk Power. Enough is enough…these rivers belong to our kids, not profit mongers out to destroy them.
I too was geography major Ms.Darvill, and know as well as you I that the Hamber Park you tout as two million acres never existed as park in today’s terms. The final boundary in the 1940′s was all contained on the western slopes of the Rockies. And yes it was considerably larger than today’s park. Hamber park was a class three provincial park and as such virtually no activies were restricted including logging. The remains of the old logging camps in the upper Blaeberry valley can still be found and perhaps suprising to you, do do not detract from the views of the Mummery glacier.
I am not sure what you really know about Bull trout or what we called Dolly Varden in our ignorance or Cutthroat, but I am certain that you will wish to me you have degree in biology as well.
It is too bad that common sense wasn’t part of your education as well. It is precisely these kinds of low impact projects that people do support. Your kind want to stop the world. Please don’t tell me about the petition MacDonald took to Victoria as evidence of the people’s will because that is laughable.
Most interesting in this story is how the NDP have re-branded a grassroots campaign in their own image.
Do people really want public ownership of Independent Power Projects?
Where is the capital to come from to fund such projects? Taxpayer Debt? Will the project then entirely depend on the politics of the day? Sure, insist on regional planning AND direct benefits, but there are so many small towns in rural BC where the tax base is only residential.
There are benefits to public/private partnerships. But, somehow now, any energy project suggested for the Kootenays, of any size or configuration, is impossible.
Couldn’t a determined public have their interests best served involving themselves in a more positive ways?
Radio story yesterday was about huge increases coming from BC Hydro. Why? To replace aging infrastructure. The story went on to explain that many power networks had been installed in the 50′s and many in the 60′s and 70′s. Everything is old and has to be replaced.
Only user fees or taxes could pay for any of this.
During the heavy snows earlier this year, the Slocan Lake area had a tree-on-power-line outage with huge damage to many appliances; surge protectors were burned through; older wires burned.
Are we really so ready to chase business investment away always?
Every one has lost touch with the right way to Harvest Timber, such as (Single Tree Selective Harvesting), this method using small trucks (short logs) on small roads, as well as small Crawler Tractors, such as 450 John Deers will thin the the forest as well as remove dead timber that is a fire hazard.
Small Water Generators can work very well, this minimises any impact on the environment.
DCB shows how ignorant of these projects he is when he claims “these projects have a minimal impact on the environment”. What does DCB thinks supports the local ecosystem if not free flowing, clean water. Chemicals, blasting, heavy equipment…the list goes on. Maybe DCB could tell us what he considers a serious impact.
This project has a great PR team, but is going through the regulatory process as a vague plan, not a detailed and accountable proposal. I have asked Selkirk Power for answers to several questions regarding their environmental management plan. They have been unable to get back to me, and the “public consultation” is nearly over. Here is a list of the questions:
How much explosives will be used
What kinds of explosives will be used
How long will the blasting last
How frequently will blasting occur during this period?
What are the qualifications of the biologists and engineers who have done your research?
What projects have they worked on before?
Can they demonstrate that they successfully mitigated environmental impacts on those projects?
What chemicals will be present at the site?
Have other projects of similar nature resulted in accidental spills and contamination before?
What was done to mitigate the impact?
How much compensation would you be able to pay if a worst case scenario occurred?
Please describe the worst case scenario?
How much water will be diverted (the actual amount/stream please)?
What is the minimum level that will be maintained in each stream?
How is this number determined?
How is it monitored and is it subject to change?
How much traffic disruption will result from your construction of new power lines?
How do we know that local contractors and workers will be used on the project?
Do you have any local workers on the project currently?
If the project is environmentally sound, why not extend the public consultation until you have firmly decided on the plan and the public has had time to review the actual, precise plan?
Why will you not submit to a regional referendum or vote to decide if the project is in our best interest?
How much money has been spent lobbying for this project. This number should include a list of who bought what lunches, dinners and trips for who, when, especially relating to all elected officials and government representatives?
In reference to First Nations, how many bands have refused to give you letters of support?
How much money has been paid to first nations so far for consultation?
How much money has been promised to first nations for support of the projects?
Will you agree to hold public meetings in Golden once your plan has been further developed, allowing the public to have real dialogue and compromise on meaningful issues?
If not, why not?
What alternate public consultation do you offer?
How will you respond to direct action opposing your construction plans?
Are you committed to sustainability to a sufficient degree that if your project was found environmentally harmful you would withdraw the project proposal? If Selkirk Power has not got these answers ready, are they ready to assume responsibility for this technically challenging project.
How can we trust the environmental mitigation measures proposed by this development? DCB says that “your kind wants to stop the world”. This is a divisive, shortsighted way to understand opposition to this project. Whether we are new to the valley or have lived here for generations, it is in all our interest to see that these projects are held to the highest possible standards. It is not a decisive no to development, it is a desire for a higher standard that respects generations to come. I think DCB is behind the times and on the wrong side of history.