The Feb. 29th forum was a huge success, with over 116 people in attendance.

You can now download the entire PowerPoint presentation here:

Tar sands PP

Also, the presentation is now available as a YouTube video! Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EBAdFe8198

For those of you who missed it, but are interested in the topic There are links below to help you learn more.  Also below – is the excellent info sheet prepared for the forum by Ann Morris.

There are many brochures and much good information available.
here are some links:

http://friendsofwildsalmon.ca/images/uploads/resources/LOS_tankersfullwithtrouble.pdf
http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands
http://wildernesscommittee.org/publication/oil_tanker_ban_lets_keep_canadas_west_coast_oil_spill_free

Oil Sands Truth

Friends of Wild Salmon

A Comprehensive Guide to the Alberta Oil Sands (100 pages long!)
http://www.greenparty.ca/issues/alberta-oil-sands

The federal government’s Joint Review Panel is currently considering the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. You can make a written submission to the Review. To find out how:
http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/prtcptngprcss/lttrfcmmnt-eng.html
You can submit a letter to the panel through this website – deadline is August
Videos:

these were shown at the forum:
From Tar Sands to Tankers: the battle to stop Enbridge  – about 15 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqQV596Qp-c

Greenpeace Petropolis “webisodes” (3 minutes each):

Marie Adam, Northern Alberta First Nation Elder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIQkFmKjgEU

Dr. John O’Conner, Fort McMurray Physician
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLHgUmNtj9g&feature=relmfu

Dr. Kevin Timony, Alberta water expert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nReBw5IzaCM

This one is good for a younger audience who have short attention spans:
The Tar Sands Blow (3 minutes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KokiUgvlwc4

Info sheet:
The Alberta Tar Sands

The Alberta Tar Sands, also called Oil Sands, are the world’s last large remaining oil field, containing 173 billion barrels of recoverable oil (bitumen). Its operations cover 54,000 square miles of boreal forest equal to the size of England. It is the world’s largest energy project, the world’s largest construction project, and with over $200 billion invested, it is the world’s largest capital project. The Tar Sands produces about 1.9 million barrels of bitumen a day, most of it exported to the USA. Each barrel produced requires between 3 and 7 barrels of fresh water, which ends up in gigantic toxic tailings ponds that leak or seep into groundwater and the Athabasca River, negatively impacting the health of downstream communities, such as Fort Chipewyan.

Tar sands oil is extracted in two ways: open pit or ‘strip mining’, in which the entire ecosystem including boreal forest and peat marsh is removed, and ‘in situ’ mining, where the oil is melted out of the ground by injecting pressurized steam at high temperatures. Both extraction methods use vast amounts of natural gas, but ‘in situ’ uses about twice the energy and water that strip mining does. Canadian taxpayers subsidize the cost of this natural gas with $1.7 billion annually. The tar sands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and the reason that Canada has not met its binding commitments to GHG reductions under the international Kyoto Protocol. Canada has now withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, the only country of the 184 that ratified the treaty to do so.

The Pembina Institute: ‘Alberta’s Oil Sands 101’ – http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101

The Polaris Institute – ‘Tar Sands Watch -Fact Sheets’: http://www.tarsandswatch.org/tar-sands-watch-issue-factsheets

‘Weaver & Swart study shows oilsands emissions still a problem’ (Pembina Institute, Feb. 27/12) http://www.pembina.org/blog/612

Taxpayers Subsidize the Tar Sands industry with $1.7 Billion annually:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/11/09/GasBillForOilSands/

‘World Headed for Irreversible Climate Change in Five Years, International Energy Agency Warns’ Any fossil fuel infrastructure built in the next five years will mean the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change says the IEA, a branch of the UN Energy Program

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change

………….

The Proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline

The proposed Enbridge Pipeline is a $6.6 billion twin pipeline that would carry 525,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands bitumen daily from Bruderheim, AB to a marine terminal near Kitimat, BC, where it would be loaded onto supertankers as long as the Empire State Building is high, and shipped to Asian markets. The pipeline would cross 1,177 kilometres, most of it mountainous terrain, and more than 1000 streams and rivers. Because the bitumen has to be diluted with condensate for it to flow, a second pipeline is needed to return the condensate to Alberta for reuse.

The pipeline would require a 30 per cent increase in the production of tar sands oil. Over a year, this would produce greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to the annual emissions of 1.6 million cars; consume the amount of natural gas used by 1.3 million households in Canada each year; disturb 11.5 square kilometers of forest; use the amount of water consumed annually by a city of 250,000; and result in enough tailings leakage to fill 182 Olympic-size swimming pools. It would also require a further 74 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year, equivalent to 34 per cent of British Columbia’s annual natural gas consumption. (Source: ‘Opening the Door for Oil Sands Expansion – The Enbridge Oil Sands Pipeline’ (Pembina Institute): http://www.pembina.org/pub/1950

Indigenous Nations who inhabit the interior and coastal regions of Northern British Columbia strongly oppose this project, which they say threatens their rights and livelihoods through enormous ecological devastation in the event of an oil spill. Enbridge pipelines underwent 67 spills in 2006 and 65 more in 2007. 130 First Nations chiefs have now signed the ‘Save the Fraser Declaration,’ stating: “We will not allow the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, or similar Tar Sands projects, to cross our lands, territories and watersheds, or the ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon.”

Save the Fraser Declaration: http://savethefraser.ca

Fundamental Justice Issues at Stake in Gateway Pipeline Debate (KAIROS Canada info)

http://www.kairoscanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SUS_RE_KAIROSGatewayAnalysis.pdf

Does anyone in government really care about Canadian jobs? The Northern Gateway Pipeline and Canadian jobs – a look at Harper’s ‘diversification’ agenda. (Trevor Harrison, Canadian Dimension, Feb. 17, 2012)   http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4512/

‘The Expert’s Report that Damns the Northern Gateway Pipeline’ – veteran energy analyst David Hughes calculates three reasons the project is bad for Canada. The Tyee, Jan. 12, 2012. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/01/12/HughesReport/

‘Eleven Oily Questions for Every MP’, Andrew Nikiforuk in The Tyee Feb. 1, 2012 http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/02/01/Eleven-Oily-Questions/

Let the Harper government and Opposition Party critics know your views on the proposed Enbridge Gateway Pipeline and expansion of the Tar Sands:

Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment – E-mail: minister@ec.gc.ca

NDP Environment Critic – Megan Leslie – E-mail: megan.leslie@parl.gc.ca

Liberal Party Environment Critic – Kirsty Duncan – E-mail: kirsty.duncan@parl.gc.ca

Colin Mayes, MP for Okanagan-Shuswap – colin.mayes@parl.gc.ca

Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources: joe.oliver@parl.gc.ca

NDP Natural Resources Critic, Western Canada – Nathan Cullen – nathan.cullen@parl.gc.ca

Liberal Party Natural Resources Critic – David McGuinty – david.mcguinty@parl.gc.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper – E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca

Letters can also be sent by post to all the above at: House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6 (free postage!)

This leaflet was prepared by Anne Morris, e-mail: willae@uleth.ca

There will be a Judicial Review coming up in the BC Supreme Court in March. involving Smart Centres and the City of Salmon Arm, from March 19th to 23rd. The Judicial Review has been brought forward by the Neskonlith Indian Band (NIB) because of a lack of consultation over the development of the SmartCentres shopping centre.

In a Judicial Review, a judge is asked to set aside a decision made by a government body – in this case, the City’s decision to grant SmartCentres a Development Permit. The NIB has stated repeatedly that they were not adequately consulted about the impact of this development on their adjacent land, most particularly with respect to flooding. No penalty or money is sought – simply a reconsideration, and a turning back, of the City’s decision.

A copy of the Neskonlith petition is available here that provides and in-depth understanding of the issues – Supreme Court Petition (#10285)

For a history of the issue visit: wa-ter.ca

Neglect – The latest crisis in B.C.’s forests

Forthcoming in the March-April 2012 Watershed Sentinel

by Jim Cooperman

In 1985, the rapidly growing amount of not-satisfactorily-restocked (NSR) land in BC forests became a crisis. This resulted in a joint provincial and federal $300-million funding plan, the Forest Resource Development Agreement (FRDA) that restocked many thousands of hectares.

A similar crisis is again occurring in BC’s forests, but this time the cause is not logging by irresponsible forest companies. Instead, the massive amount of NSR land is a result of climate-change fueled fires, diseases and beetle kill. Government policies that have stripped the ministry of employees, ended adequate inventory efforts, and handed forest management over to the corporations have exacerbated the problems.

Red flags about the status of BC’s non-stocked forestlands were first raised in 2010 only to be countered by assurances by the government that everything was under control. In an editorial, a retired forester and former senior professional with the forest ministry, Anthony Britneff, declared that, due to the lack of treatments of beetle and fire ravaged forests, the not stocked land (gross NSR) could well total some nine million hectares of which two million would be economic and feasible to plant. Since then, the government and its critics have countered and re-countered with different numbers representing different types of NSR, anywhere from the government’s initial claim of 240,000 hectares to the nine million.

The issue is complicated by the fact that there are two types of NSR land: a total not stocked area (gross NSR) and a netted-down NSR (net NSR). Net NSR includes all areas harvested by the forest industry with the exception of some small-scale salvage operations plus the area of forestland disturbed by fire and pests that the ministry deems feasible and economic to plant.  In June 2010, the Forest Practices Board (FPB) entered the fray and published a backgrounder that provided some insight into the controversy. Such as how the provincial government in 2002 removed the legal obligation for the crown to replant areas denuded by natural disturbances. Government also removed the statutory requirement for the ministry to conduct and maintain a forest inventory.

Fast-forward to early February 2012 and the debate over the NSR numbers continued at the Western Silviculture Conference. Marvin Eng, a former Ministry research ecologist who is now with the FPB, provided a report about his project on the issue. Although he conceded that the amount of net NSR might be approximately 2-million hectares, he insisted the real issue is not the actual number, but what the public expects from its forests.

BC Auditor General

On February 16, the BC Auditor General released a bombshell report that sharply criticized the government’s forest policies, lack of direction, and inability to adequately manage the forests.  The report concluded that the ministry has not clearly defined its timber objectives, management practices are insufficient to offset a reduction in timber supply and species diversity, and the ministry is not appropriately monitoring and reporting results in relation to its objectives.

Within the report are some key observations, along with more critical analysis and six persuasive recommendations. The primary focus is on the part of the land base that the government is responsible for, which totals 89 percent of the 22-million hectare timber land base. While industry remains responsible to return logged areas to “free growing” status, the government is under no obligation to ensure that areas denuded by fires and pests are reforested, including the growing number of plantations also denuded by disturbances.

The report notes that the ministry’s own evaluations indicate a decline in forest diversity resulting from industry’s reforestation efforts and a growing not stocked area being left to regenerate naturally.  Thus, the report recommends the ministry develop an effective forest stewardship plan to guide decision-making with time frames and proper assessments.

Out of the 17.5 million hectares impacted by the beetles, some 10 million hectares are within the 22-million hectare timber land base along with a sizable percentage of the 760,000 hectares of forests burned by wildfire during the last five years. The report identifies as much as 1.1 million hectares of forest that has the potential for planting and yet the government silviculture efforts have averaged only 8,730 hectares per year, despite a plan to plant 22,000 hectares. Consequently, the report recommends the ministry ensure its investments are sufficient to achieve long-term objectives.

While the report credits industry for meeting its silvicultural obligations, unlike the government, it finds fault in its practice of planting lower-value species (predominately lodgepole pine) that results in monocultures and the loss of forest diversity.  Perhaps the greatest problem identified by the Auditor General is that the ministry lacks the information it needs to properly manage the forests. The inventory is woefully inadequate and what research does exist shows a high rate of damage in the plantations. There is a growing disparity between forest cover information and actual forest conditions, growth rate, and density.

Forest Practices Board

Among the many problems identified in the report is information from the Forest Practices Board that shows weaknesses in the industry’s forest stewardship plans including vague and non-measurable commitments. As well, the ministry’s compliance and enforcement efforts show a large decline in inspections, with the number dropping by half within the last decade. And these inspections are deemed by the report to be insufficient to ensure that industry is actually complying with the few rules that still exist.

As the problems multiply, the public is increasing left in the dark as to what is happening in its forests. The report notes how the latest “State of B.C.’s Forests” report and the annual service plan reports lack sufficient assessment or interpretation to effectively assess the results or make them meaningful.  As a result the public has no way of even knowing if the forests are increasing or decreasing in terms of volume, value, or species diversity. Obviously, the report recommends that the ministry develop and implement appropriate performance measures and report these publicly.

Included within the Auditor General’s report is the response from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource to each of the six recommendations. Typically, the ministry responded with assurances that its policies and activities sufficiently address the long list of concerns and the recommendations, and it promised to continue with efforts it sees as adequate. For some of the glaring deficiencies, such as the inadequate stocking standards and public reporting, the ministry promised to review these issues.

In response to the concern about the inadequate amount of re-planting, needed for growing number of beetle and fire denuded hectares, the ministry responded with a promise to plant a large number of seedlings, as if readers might be persuaded that it was looking after the land base. In reality the proposed 20-million seedlings per year only amounts to nearly 12,000 hectares and at that rate it would take close to 100 years to reforest just the lower estimate of net NSR arising from fire and pests.

Association of BC Forestry Professionals

On February 20, the Association of BC Forestry Professionals added more fuel to the growing crisis fire by releasing a report about grossly out-of-date forest inventories. The foresters, normally a very cautious group as most of them either work for industry or government, point out that the budget staffing for inventory has been nearly cut in half, while the need has increased on an “unprecedented scale” due to the impacts from wildfire, disease and insect pests.

The report was reluctant to determine whether or not the inventory is sufficient “for the Chief Forester’s mandate of sustainable forest management (SFM) at the provincial level.” Curiously both the Association and the Auditor General provide no definition of what SFM means. Instead, the foresters believe a more comprehensive review is needed.

While the focus of this current crisis is on timber values with the rapidly growing amount of NSR land and inadequate inventory, it is important to understand that the solution should not always be to mow down what is left in the beetle-killed forests with huge machines and replant with single species. Many areas now denuded are indeed recovering naturally and sometimes replanting can cause more problems than if the land was just left to recover on its own. And if maximizing timber requires the spraying of herbicides, the solution is definitely worse than what nature can do. The key is to maintain a continuous inventory that keeps track of the ratio between growth and depletion, which should be greater than one, and to make decisions about restoration that best protect all forest values.

Secondary Stand Structure

In a 2009 study, four government ecologists point out that in 31 to 68 per cent of damaged pine forests, the secondary stand structure is equivalent or better than a 20-year old pine plantation. Yet, some of these areas are being logged for minimal volumes of lumber and to produce wood pellets. Leaving these areas to recover naturally not only makes sense from a timber perspective, but would also help with the hydrological recovery.

All this troubling news certainly comes as no surprise for the environmental community. When the last decade began, many of us believed that the previous forest practices code was inadequate, that biodiversity was increasingly at risk, that old growth forests and watersheds were not adequately protected and that overcutting was threatening all key non-timber values. So when the Liberal government took over and handed management over to industry, while continuing to reduce staffing levels and public input; most of us basically gave up trying to improve forestry or protect forest values. And despite the government’s half-baked promises, the gutting continues as the latest budget includes a $20-million cut for forest health.

Now the truth is coming out about how ten years of mismanagement and sympathetic administration when combined with the impacts of climate change are taking their toll. While we could smugly say, “we told you so,” a more appropriate response would be to help, get involved in finding solutions, and work to ensure that forestry becomes an election issue. We need to elect a government that is once again willing to work with the environmental community.

[Many thanks to Anthony Britneff and Ray Travers for their assistance with this article.]

Jim Cooperman was Editor of the B.C. Environmental Report from 1990 to 2000 and coordinated the BCEN Forest Caucus. He now serves as president of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society and writes a bi-monthly column on geography. Learn more from his blog site, www.shuswappassion.ca.

Resources

FPB NSR Backgrounder. (Access this by google: “A backgrounder on NSR”)

Clarifying the Status and Implications of Not Satisfactorily Re-stocked Forest in BC, September 2011. 

Auditor General’s Report 11: An Audit of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources’ Management of Timber, February 2012

 Association of BC Forest Professionals Inventory Report: Assessment of the Status of Forest Inventories in British Columbia: An Update to the 2006 ABCFP Review, December 2011

 Abundance of secondary structure in lodgepole pine stands affected by the mountain pine beetle in the Cariboo–Chilcotin, Coates et al, Natural Resources Canada, 2009.  Also: www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/stewardship/report.pdf, 2006)

Defining the NSR in BC, Anthony Britneff, 

Media Release

The Tar Sands and Gateway Pipeline – A Public Forum – Feb. 29th

One of the most controversial issues currently facing British Columbia is the proposed ll77 kilometre long Enbridge Gateway pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to the west coast port of Kitimat, which poses threats to our pristine salmon streams, forest ecosystems, spirit bears, and fragile coastline. As well, many experts are pointing out that the pipeline does not make good economic sense, as it takes three to six times the amount of energy to produce a barrel of bitumen oil than it does to produce a barrel of conventional oil.

In order to raise awareness of the tar pipeline issue in our community, three local organizations, KAIROS Salmon Arm, the  Okanagan Shuswap NDP, and the Shuswap Environmental Action Society (SEAS) are sponsoring a public forum at 7 pm on February 29^th at the First United Church Hall, 450 Okanagan Ave. in Salmon Arm.

“The tar sands are a monumental environmental disaster that are spewing massive amounts of pollution into the air and water and are rapidly increasing Canada’s CO2 emissions. Expanding this development will only exacerbate the problems,” said Jim Cooperman, SEAS president and one of the event organizers. “We will be showing a number of videos about the pipelines and the tar sands. Plus there will be a power point presentation and time for discussion,” added Cooperman.

“The pipeline poses major threats to northern First Nations communities, as well as to the livelihoods of all those who depend on clean water and healthy ecosystems. It is no wonder that every B.C. First Nation is opposed to the pipeline,” said Anne Morris of KAIROS Salmon Arm, a church-based organization that works on environmental and social justice issues.

“In fact, 130 First Nations chiefs recently signed the Fraser Declaration opposing the pipeline. As well, the Union of BC Municipalities passed two resolutions at its 2011 convention opposing tanker traffic on the West Coast and the proposed pipeline. There is a growing awareness that B.C. would have to absorb all the environmental risks of this project, including jeopardizing its fishery and tourism industries,” added Morris.

“The project does not meet the criteria for sustainable development,“ declared Nick Hodge, president of the Okanagan Shuswap NDP Riding Association. “Subsidies which now support oil sands development should be redirected.”  Hodge added that the Alberta Federation of Labour opposes the pipeline project and told the review panel, “The Northern Gateway Pipeline is not in the public interest because it would result in the loss of tens of thousands of potential jobs in upgrading, refining and petro-chemical production.”  And former ICBC CEO, Robyn Allen warned in a recent report that completion of the pipeline would result in higher fuel costs to Canadians and that “it represents a windfall of economic benefit to oil producers without addressing the costs to Canadians.”

“The recent attempt by the Harper government to label those opposed to the pipeline as American-funded, radical traitors has backfired, as many people see this misguided effort as a devious way to hide the fact that the proposed project is being funded through hundreds of millions of dollars by foreign oil companies, including the massive Chinese Sinopec oil company,” added Cooperman.

Organizers of the forum are pleased to bring this information to the residents of the Shuswap. Everyone is welcome to attend this free event.

For more information, contact:

Anne Morris, KAIROS Salmon Arm, 833-5773

Jim Cooperman, SEAS, 679-3693

Nick Hodge, Okanagan Shuswap NDP, 542-4048

Suncor Syncrude Refinery adjacent to the Alberta Tar Sands – a source of massive pollution that uses huge amounts of fresh water

Bitumen is very corrosive and the pipelines are very susceptible to leaks and leak often

Just say no to huge oil tankers like this in the treacherous waters of B.C.’s coast, where it would not be a question of if, but a only a question of when there would be a massive spill

Mark your calendars for Sunday, April 15th. Joel Plaskett Emergency will
play at the Salmar Classic at 7:30 pm (doors open at 6:30) as a benefit
concert for the Shuswap Environmental Action Society.

Joel is one of Canada’s foremost Indie folk-rock Super Stars and he is on
the Scrappy Happiness tour across Canada. This will be Joel’s first
concert with his band in the southern interior of British Columbia. Joel
Plaskett has won many awards, including a Juno and he is the first
musicians to be heard over one million times on the CBC 3 website.

Please help by spreading the word to all of your friends.

By filling the theatre, SEAS can raise thousands of dollars and the goal
for much of this money will be to promote the acquisition of the former Cottonwoods Campground, near the Adams River, where there is now a failed, controversial RV development.

You can also go to this Facebook event site and register your plans:
http://www.facebook.com/events/224239234330965/

Advance tickets are $25 and are available at Acorn Music, 122 Lakeshore Dr
NE  Salmon Arm, (250) 832-8669 Tickets at the door will be $30

Tickets also available online from Ticket Break at this link:
www.ticketbreak.com/event_details/4905

The best place to listen to Joel’s music is here:
http://radio3.cbc.ca/#/artists/Joel-Plaskett

Learn more about the Joel Plaskett Emergency from his website:
http://www.joelplaskett.com/

This concert would not be possible without the generous support from these
local sponsors: Askews, Salmon Arm Observer, Travelodge Salmon Arm, Barley
Station Brew Pub, Mediability, Acorn Music, and Earthtone Studios. If any
of you are interested in joining this list, please let us know!

Great news regarding this controversial development!!

Contractors will likely lose thousands of dollars and investors may also lose substantial funds and it is not just the developer that is at fault for this debacle. The Superintendent of Real Estate did not enforce the legislation that requires developments to have all the approvals in place before any marketing is allowed. In addition, the loophole that the developer tried to use to market the RV lot leases needs to be closed through an amendment to the legislation.

SEAS is very appreciative of the legal efforts that the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District made to result in this decision. We now look forward to working with all interested parties to see this property purchased and added to Roderick Haig-Brown Park.

West Beach receivership confirmed

By Barb Brouwer – Salmon Arm Observer

http://www.saobserver.net/news/138087048.html
(use this link to see the illustration of the proposed RV development)

Published: January 26, 2012

Developer Mike Rink’s dream of a $30-million resort at West Beach Village on Shuswap Lake has come to an end.

The chance several Shuswap trades will be able to recoup losses in the neighbourhood of $750,000 has also waned. Instead, the receiver will take control and the lender will try to sell the property.

Protected by the courts until the end of this month, Rink’s company New Recreations Ltd. has chosen not to ask for an extension.

But Rink’s lawyer Andrew Prior, said this morning that it’s too early to speculate what might happen in the upcoming months.

Earlier this month, a Supreme Court judge ruled that storage sheds used to market the sale of RV sites are not consistent with previous use when the site was known as the Cottonwoods Campground.

“What that meant in a nutshell was they could not sell RV lots on this project, so the entire basis for their project collapses,” says David McMillan, a Kamloops lawyer representing the local trades. “They have now notified all parties they are not gonna play for another stay.”

McMillan says, in turn, the primary lender, Mission Creek Mortgages, has taken over the project, having applied for the appointment of a receiver.  “New Recreations is out; they’ve lost the project,” says McMillan. “Mission Creek will foreclose.”  McMillan says Mission Creek gave notice of foreclosure in the fall of 2010, but New Recreations sought and received court protection under the Company Creditor Arrangement Act.

“What will happen this year, is the receiver will attempt to operate the property in much the way it was operated previously,” says McMillan of the popular Cottonwoods Campground. “It will revert to a summer campground-RV type of operation, but the receiver and the lender will try to sell the entire thing and recoup what will turn out to be pennies on the dollar for them.”

McMillan says Mission Creek loaned New Recreations about $20 million, all based on the selling of the RV lots to make the operation worth $30 million. “New Recreations paid about $5 million and they paid too much because they paid for it in the belief this grandiose project would be a success,” he says.

McMillan says typically the mortgage company gets priority and all other liens are wiped out. “They never believed there would be anything, but they had to keep their foot in the door and monitor how the process worked out,” says McMillan of his clients. “I gave them that dose of bitter medicine a long time ago. Their prospects remain very slim, probably non-existent. Those trades could ask the question, where was the CSRD when they were talked into this place.”

While he agrees with the regional district’s determination the sheds were non-conforming, and believe his clients have little legal recourse with the CSRD, he wonders why the position wasn’t taken four years ago, when the project began.

Columbia Shuswap Regional District CAO Charles Hamilton disagrees with McMillan’s take on responsibility. “I simply dismiss those observations out of hand – that’s quite a reach to try to assign culpability to the CSRD…  Even if they had come to us, do you think it would have prevented the trades from taking these jobs?” he asks. “Is there some kind of obligation on the part of the CSRD to provide some warranty and guarantee to the ability of a developer to meet his obligations? I think not.”

In terms of the demise of the West Beach Village project, Hamilton says CSRD’s reaction is more muted than some. “We certainly don’t like to see failed development, it doesn’t send the right signals,” he says. “On the other hand, we felt we were put in a precarious situation where we felt development permits were required and our bylaws were simply being ignored.”

As a result, Hamilton says the regional district was left with no other option than to seek clarity through the courts.

In the meantime, McMillan says selling the property will be further complicated by the fact about $1 million worth of infrastructure has gone into the site he believes was bought at an inflated price. “Environmentalist can get back up on their hind legs and continue their lobbying efforts – that’s a good thing,” he says, noting his belief that the probability of the province taking over is not good. “It’s conceivable but not very likely; it’s not a good fit in terms of government priorities and objectives. Maybe the environmentalists could run it as an eco-friendly operation.”

West Beach falls into receiver’s hands

January 27, 2012

By Cam Fortems
Daily News Staff Reporter
Court protection from creditors has been lifted from the controversial West Beach development on Shuswap Lake and the project is in receivership.

But lawyers on opposite sides, acting for Mike Rink’s New Future Group and the first secured creditor, acknowledged Thursday uncertainties about what comes next.

New Future lawyer Andrew Prior, with Fraser Milner Casgrain in Vancouver, confirmed that protection from the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act, granted more than a year ago, has been lifted.

It was otherwise set to expire at the end of the month but New Future Group indicated it would not apply for another extension.

That allowed first creditor Mission Creek Mortgage Co. — owed more than $21 million — to have a court-ordered receiver appointed to take over West Beach. KPMG is now acting as receiver-manager of the popular campground and struggling development project beside Adams River.

Kenneth Ihas, a lawyer acting for Mission Creek, said the first mortgage holder now is in a position to foreclose.

“It is in a position to do that and it likely will,” he said.

That’s what happened at New Future Group’s half-completed Mission Hill project in Kamloops, where first creditor Harbour Mortgage foreclosed in December and is now the sole owner.

But the West Beach project is more complex, including the legal position of other creditors on title. It is not in bankruptcy and owner New Future Group retains the ability to pay off loans and gain back control.

Bankruptcy entails a declaration that assets are to be liquidated and turned over to creditors. Receivership, however, entails the business being given over to an appointed third-party firm to operate and pay back creditors.

New Future’s lawyer, Prior, said the development company remains in the picture.

“The next stage is underway. We have no idea what will come after that…. It’s not over, ‘till it’s over — and it’s not over. Anything else  is impossible to speculate about.”

Ihas called it “early days” and said Mission Creek is now preparing to rent the property for the traditional campground use in the summer.

“It will depend on how the (other) borrowers and stakeholders react,” he said of the foreclosure process.

The receivership comes about after a B.C. Supreme Court judge last week rejected a development plan based on selling 199-year leases on storage sheds, with associated rights to parking an RV at the waterfront property.

The Kamloops developer’s $100-million real estate holdings were granted protection under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act in November 2010, in an effort to restructure.

Projects were broken down individually in a bid to make them economically viable and pay back creditors. The latest lifting of the CCAA order brings the process near to a close. Three of the largest projects failed and have been taken over by creditors.

West Beach garnered national attention in 2007 when New Future applied to rezone the former Cottonwoods Campground for a resort project beside the Adams River and its famed salmon run.

After it was turned down, Rink revamped the project to focus on the 199-year leases.

Kamloops lawyer David McMillan, who represents trades and suppliers claiming $750,000 in unpaid debts, said his clients never held out much hope for payback.

“It just means an end to the waiting and wondering. My clients were aware from the beginning that projections of the receiver relied on a house of cards and a grand vision coming true…. We were sceptical from the beginning.”

Rink could not be reached for comment.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 Glacier Media Inc.

Good news, but the fight is not yet over. See the development lawyer’s response below this article. The next big court report is due at the end of the month, when the same judge will decide whether or not to extend the development’s bankruptcy protection.

Shuswap lease plan rejected, says lawyer
January 10, 2012
By Cam Fortems
Kamloops Daily News

A proposal by Kamloops developer Mike Rink to market leased lots and storage sheds for 165 RVs on Shuswap Lake is contrary to zoning, according to a lawyer who listened to a B.C. Supreme Court decision Tuesday.

David McMillan, who represents suppliers and trades at West Beach, said the ruling appears to scuttle the proposal to offer 199-year leases, along with associated storage sheds for each site. “If it means what I think it means, it means the storage shed plan goes down.”

According to the West Beach website, about 20 units were pre-sold. McMillan listened Tuesday to an oral ruling by B.C. Supreme Court justice Jon Sigurdson. A written decision is expected by later this week. The ruling comes as part of the drawn-out and complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for the New Future Group of companies.

Rink could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

A court-ordered monitor deemed the proposed West Beach project as one of only two, along with an undeveloped parcel in Nelson, in a position to make money to pay creditors. Together, the seven New Future projects that were originally granted protection had debts well in excess of $100 million.

A court-appointed appraiser estimated last year that West Beach is worth $38 million, based on selling the RV lots for an average $140,000. A key legal part of the project was storage sheds associated with the RV pads, allowing sites to be registered at the Land Title Office.

But McMillan said Sigurdson ruled storage sheds don’t conform with the original campground zoning at the former Cottonwoods Campground. The provincial Land Title Office also refused to certify a test lease submitted to the office. “The Columbia-Shuswap Regional District will be relieved,” McMillan predicted. “Its position is vindicated.”

CSRD raised its concerns about the RV and storage shed plan with the court-ordered monitor last year. New Future Group’s lawyers asked the B.C. Supreme Court for a declaration that the plan was valid in law. It argued the project fit within a pre-existing, non-conforming use at the historical Cottonwoods Campground.

The developer moved to the RV proposal after its plan for a larger condominium resort and marina at the premier beachfront property was defeated at public hearing in 2007. But McMillan said Sigurdson ruled the storage sheds are not consistent with uses at the former campground. Nor can they be considered an accessory.

“To me it’s a huge blow to the very concept of this development,” said McMillan, whose clients, like other creditors, were relying on it to turn a profit and pay back creditors. Sigurdson did allow, however, for use of park-model trailers that would be occupied seasonally. McMillan said the Supreme Court justice determined they are in keeping with traditional uses at the former campground.

New Recreations remains under CCAA protection until at least the end of January. It had been given a recent extension in order to reach a deal with creditors based on the RV development. An appeal of Sigurdson’s decision is possible.

Shuswap conservationist Jim Cooperman believes the decision marks the end of the project. “Of course, we’re elated by the news,” said Cooperman who heads a local environmental group and has fought development at West Beach.

If Rink’s companies are not granted continued protection, the property is likely to end up in the hands of Mission Creek Mortgage, the  first creditor. Cooperman said he holds out hope the province can eventually buy the property and add it to the adjacent Roderick Haig-Brown Park. “It could easily be run as a campground.”

West Beach project still has options, developer’s lawyer insists

January 11, 2012
By Cam Fortems
Kamloops Daily News
A B.C. Supreme Court judgment that rules out storage sheds as the basis for a proposed 165-unit RV park on Shuswap Lake “is not the end of the development,” a lawyer said Wednesday. Andrew Prior, a lawyer representing developer Mike Rink’s New Future Group, said questions remain on B.C. Supreme Court justice Jon Sigurdson’s oral decision Tuesday. Written reasons will be released this week or early next week.

Lawyers will pore over those written reasons when they are released to get a better understanding of what can be developed on the parcel beside Roderick Haig-Brown park, he said. “Although we lost on the lease structures, in our view it’s not the end of the development,” Prior said. “We want to get a handle on what can go in there.”

The court decision is the latest in the saga of West Beach. Rink originally proposed a large condominium project for the former Cottonwoods Campground site at the North Shuswap. But that was turned down by the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District four years ago. The public hearing drew national attention because of the proposed resort’s location near Adams River and its famed salmon run.

Undaunted, Rink came back with a plan to develop an RV resort, based on offering 199-year leases, with an associated storage shed that could be registered at the provincial Land Title Office. While the proposal for storage sheds was rejected by both the courts and Land Title Office, Prior said Sigurdson also affirmed some rights to development.

Sigurdson ruled park-model trailers are permitted because they conform to historical and seasonal campground use at the Cottonwoods Campground site. “It’s important to know we can put 165 park-model trailers there, something the regional district was disputing,” Prior said.

Prior said Sigurdson also ruled that the seasonal period for their use is longer than the 182 days in a CSRD bylaw. In 2010, New Future Group entered protection of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act when it could no longer pay bills on debts of more than $100 million on seven B.C. projects, including Mission Hill condominium complex in Kamloops.

That half-completed project off Summit Drive is now owned by a mortgage company after it foreclosed on the property. West Beach was identified early on by a court-appointed monitor as one of two projects — the other an undeveloped parcel in the Kootenays — with the best chance to pay back creditors.

The development remains under CCAA protection until at least the end of this month, when lawyers may ask for an extension in order to rethink the project and repay creditors.It has more than $20 million worth of mortgage debt and money owed to trades and suppliers.

Copyright 2012 Glacier Media Inc.

Great news:

SLIPP continues monitoring lake
By Barb Brouwer – Salmon Arm Observer
January 11, 2012
http://www.saobserver.net/news/137099583.html
SLIPP successes continue to add up, thanks in-part to funding for a comprehensive three-year water-quality monitoring program.
Early last year, four Columbia Shuswap Regional District electoral areas, the Thompson Nicola Regional District and District of Sicamous agreed to contribute funds to the Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process for a three-year water-quality monitoring program. The City of Salmon Arm contributed $20,000 for one year and have made a commitment to contribute another $20,000 in 2012. The District of Sicamous contributed $2,500.

“The process was a little late getting full endorsement, we had a bit of a problem getting agreement,” says CSRD Electoral Area C South Shuswap director Ted Bacigalupo. “That’s been finalized and we have $1 million in place over three years.”
The program is well on its way with a total of 18 agencies, First Nations, stakeholders and non-governmental organizations taking part in watershed-wide monitoring.

Initiatives include monthly sampling of drinking water intakes in developed areas, regular testing of swimming beaches and work to determine the influence of last year’s large salmon run on the nutrient balance, algae growth, and sockeye salmon reproduction.
No algae blooms have been observed on Shuswap or Mara Lake this year; however, any minor changes that may influence algae growth in the lake are being monitored carefully, says Sarah Evanetz, SLIPP Program manager.
The program also assesses nutrient and contaminant loadings from all tributaries into Mara and Shuswap Lakes on a bi-weekly basis.

Samples are taken in several areas of the the Shuswap River watershed to determine which area and activity delivers the bulk of nutrients or contaminants that may contribute to algae growth. This is another step to finding the causes for previous blooms.
A web-based interactive map with water quality data results and analysis will be made available to the public on the SLIPP website in early 2012.

The website, launched earlier in the year, was a key element of SLIPP’s education campaign on public safety, shoreline health and water quality. This involved more than150 people days of lake patrols on Shuswap and Mara lakes, three open public meetings in August, three Shoreline Care workshops in November with contractors, developers, real estate agents, property managers and others involved in the real estate industry.

SLIPP also initiated a Foreshore Restoration Project in co-operation with landowners whose lakefront properties were near sensitive fish habitat areas, to restore healthy shorelines by removing concrete boat launches, docks and jetties. The first phase of voluntary restorations will take place in spring 2012.

A “one-window” approach to agency reviews through FrontCounter BC has improved the development application process, and shoreline management guidelines help clarify and streamline land use decision-making. The streamlined process also helps expedite applications in areas where fish habitat is not a concern.

Also on the slate for 2012 is a recreation management survey and public outreach initiative that will contribute to a comprehensive recreation vision for the Shuswap watershed, says Evanetz. “More SLIPP activities have been delivered in 2011 than ever before and a solid foundation has been established for advancing SLIPP’s goals in years to come,” she says.

Meanwhile, Bacigalupo, who was recently re-elected to the CSRD board and is chair for a one-year term, says the SLIPP program has made progress in dealing with another major issue – greywater.

“Waterway Houseboat Co. has already stepped on-board with that issue. All their new houseboats will contain greywater from all washers and hot tubs,” he says, noting greywater in the company’s new houseboats will be fully contained. “Showers and kitchen sinks are not yet contained, but hot tubs and washers were the issues of biggest concern.”
Overall, Bacigalupo says he is pleased with the collaboration between all the inter-government agencies and local governments that have stepped on board.

“We’ve got to make the commitment, verbally, morally and financially,” he says, noting SLIPP has removed the burden of protecting and enhancing the watershed from local government. “In my opinion, the SLIPP process has become the envy of a lot of other local governments.”

SmartCentres drops legal challenge

By Martha Wickett – Salmon Arm Observer

January 04, 2012

Salmon Arm Shopping Centres Ltd. has stopped its federal court case aimed at preventing information in the possession of Fisheries and Oceans Canada from being made public.

In August 2010, Warren Bell, president of Wa:ter (Wetland Alliance: The Ecological Response), submitted an Access to Information request for information from 1997 to 2009 related to the depositing of fill on properties at the site of the planned SmartCentres development at the west end of Salmon Arm.

He told the Observer that fill had been placed by previous owners on what was once an oxbow of the Salmon River, and so he and his group were curious what discussions took place with Fisheries and Oceans Canada prior to and following the fill replacement.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada was prepared to release the files, but Salmon Arm Shopping Centres consented to the release of only some of them. The company subsequently launched the court action versus the Attorney General of Canada and the Information Commissioner to block the release. It stated in court documents that the balance should not be disclosed because they do not relate to the request and could do probable harm to the company’s interests.

Part of the reason given was that they “would prejudice the applicant’s competitive position for a municipal land use rezoning process concerning the property.”

On Nov. 18, after months of legal dealings that included more than 60 letters, applications, affidavits, certificates, motions and orders filed with the Federal Court of Canada​, Salmon Arm Shopping Centres gave notice that it was discontinuing its case.

Bell finds the date significant.

“On the exact day that the (municipal) election campaign ended, SmartCentres withdrew their application for a judicial review… The timing of their withdrawal of the application is quite significant in my mind,” he said, noting it would have been the last time information would have been brought forth involving SmartCentres and Fisheries and Oceans Canada prior to the vote.

One possibility, he surmised, was “to keep any potentially damaging information out of the public view until the municipal election was over.”

“SmartCentres played a very active role in the election in Salmon Arm,” he added, by suggesting who people vote for and by posting entries on Facebook during the campaign promoting the development.

Nathan Hildebrand, SmartCentre’s land development manager, told the Observer in an email that legal processes, not the municipal election, were the driving reason behind the date the case was discontinued.

“Salmon Arm Shopping Centres Ltd decided to discontinue the federal court case involving the FOI (freedom of information) request after discussions with and advice from our lawyers. Although we still do not agree with the position of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the release of information that was not relevant to the original FOI request, we have weighed the costs associated with the next steps of the application and have made a business decision not to proceed. The timing of our decision was driven by the appropriate legal processes surrounding the FOI application.”

Salmon Arm Shopping Centres Limited, Inc. is one of the owners of property at the site of the planned shopping centre and is one of a group of affiliated entities operating under the trade name SmartCentres.

Bell has not yet received the information requested, which he is expecting will be about a 1000-page digital file.

Here is the most recent news story on the proposed controversial Adams River mouth development. On January 9th, we should learn more about the fate of this development when Justice Sigurdson releases his judgement regarding the zoning issue and whether or not West Beach continues to receive court protection from bankruptcy.

Land title office rejects test lease for West Beach project

November 29, 2011

By Cam Fortems
Daily News Staff Reporter

The provincial land title office has rejected a test lease submitted by Kamloops developer Mike Rink for the proposed West Beach project.
But Rink said Tuesday he is in discussion with lawyers and expects to resolve any problems with the proposed RV titles. Discussions are also ongoing with the provincial land title office.
“I don’t view it as a setback. I view it as a bump in the road.”
Dave McMillan, a Kamloops lawyer representing suppliers at West Beach owed $750,000 for unpaid services and supplies, said Tuesday the notice is a blow to the project.
“If the lease can’t be registered, the structure of this development collapses.”
The ruling from the land title office may be appealed to B.C. Supreme Court.
Some of Rink’s real estate holdings, including West Beach, remain under court-ordered protection of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
An earlier proposal to develop a resort at the former Cottonwoods Campground beside Adams River was turned down in a public hearing that received national attention.
Undaunted, Rink came back with a new proposal for 165 RV sites. When the legal status of proposed 199-year leases for one-metre by 2.5-metre garden sheds — along with the right to occupy an RV pad beside it — came under question, lawyers for Rink submitted a test property title to the provincial land titles office.
But the office based in Kamloops replied with a notice declining to register, ruling the proposed title is not valid in B.C.
In coming weeks the court is expected to rule on an application to extend the CCAA process.
It will also rule whether West Beach meets zoning set out by Columbia-Shuswap Regional District.
McMillan said that decision, along the land title question, are crucial to Rink’s ability to continue marketing and development at West Beach.
Rink’s companies went into protection last year. West Beach was the principal project forecasted by an outside evaluator to make money for creditors.
Rink also continues to develop the partially completed Mission Hill project in Kamloops.

Copyright 2011 Glacier Media Inc.