Addtional Comments for EA Review Received Dec. 23, 2016Submitted By: Ken & Arlene Boon December 30, 2016
I did participate with a written submission and an oral submission in Fort St John on December 5th.
I just have a couple more comments to make:
- The effects of a project under review on climate change should play a larger role. That should also include the need to look at available alternatives to the project that would lessen the effect on climate change when weighed against other issues.
- Regional considerations should carry a somewhat larger role in the process as long as they do not totally counter the greater public good when viewed from “30,000 feet” in favour of a local and perhaps narrow short sighted view. During the Site C process, it was tiresome to hear some levels of local governments saying they had no say on the process. I do not believe that to be totally true, but perhaps that should be made more clear and established in the process.
- In regards to a permitted project that has conditions attached to be followed. There should be some method to automatically red flag when conditions are not being followed. For example, in the case of Site C, condition 56 of the certificate states that all water source wells within 1 km of the future reservoir will be tested twice a year upon start of project construction. Not only did BC Hydro neglect to do this, but it seemed like they just forgot or missed this condition. We had to notify the BC EAO to report this, and they eventually got BCH starting to comply after almost 1 ½ years of construction. The BC EAO told us that they likely would have caught that themselves at some point, but who knows when? That is why I say we need a method to automatically red flag such cases and make necessary notifications for follow-up.
Ken & Arlene Boon
- Date modified: