Editor:
Re: “New Burnco comment period set,” Nov. 3.
I have been following this project proposal and its environmental assessment process closely since the start. Simplifying conclusions of a complex EA process is difficult, especially when it is a broken.
The BC Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) has opened up a comment period on the Draft Assessment Report before it goes to the B.C. Minister of Environment and Minister of Energy and Mines for decision Dec. 8. Sometime in December, the federal assessment report will be sent to the federal Minister of Environment and another 50-day comment period on that report will be open to the public. These public comment periods, we are told, are used to inform the ministers about the public’s sentiments. It is not clear what influence the public comments make, since the hundreds of comments and sentiments to date have been dismissed by the proponent, which has satisfied the BCEAO.
On the specific statement about number of barge crossings and hours of operation in your article, when the project was introduced, Burnco stated this would be a 24/7 operation. This was never realistic since the SCRD noise bylaws restrict noise to the hours between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. daily except 9 and 6 p.m. on holidays. Burnco’s operations after construction include: digging, loading, transporting, processing, crushing, conveying and loading onto barges for the next 16 years minimum. During the summer months, the operation could be going a full 14 hours a day.
Burnco adjusted the volumes and life of the project after the pre-application stage, but there is no doubt they will apply for expansion in the future without needing to go through another environmental assessment. The business case is to extract as much as possible from this valley at McNab Creek in Howe Sound as demand requires.
There are contradictions throughout the assessment regarding the number of vessel movements, which reinforces the doubt that studies were based on the worst-case scenario. One tug and two barges would transport materials from the marine loading facility to Burnco’s existing operations in Burnaby and Langley approximately 180 times per year. There are higher numbers quoted, but this would mean 360 crossings. There is also a water taxi twice a day to take crew back and forth to the site. There are no conditions placed on the assessment restricting the frequency or speed of vessels, which is why we are skeptical about the EAO’s conclusions on the significance of adverse impacts resulting from wake, noise and air quality.
There is a lack of trust in this EA process and Burnco’s interest in managing adverse impacts. So far Burnco has allowed the existing fish compensation channel on their property to degrade, which of course helps the baseline data for fish for a channel they are going to remove and replace. There is no confidence the SCRD can enforce bylaws in this area and no confidence with monitoring and enforcement of environmental impacts. If any of the promises Burnco has made about noise levels, dust, wake, etc., are a problem, the EA downloads the responsibility of conflict to a Community Advisory Group as a condition.
It is easy to boycott this process, but if we want best practices for sustainable development, the public needs to let the decision-makers know the EA process is flawed and this project does not have social licence.
Ruth Simons, Executive Director, Future of Howe Sound Society
