Shuswap Environmental Action Society

Media Release

May 7, 2012

Old Town Bay Marina plan should be rejected

The Shuswap Environmental Action Society is opposed to the plans to allow a massive marina for Old Town Bay near Sicamous. Our concerns include the potential impact on fisheries, as well as the impact on recreational values.

Government agencies have promoted the removal of the houseboat operation from the Sicamous channel for a number of years, due to the impact on fish habitat. While moving the houseboats may seem like a positive change, the reality is likely the opposite. If the houseboat docks were removed and the foreshore returned to a natural state, then the move could be beneficial. However, the plans call for the houseboat docks to simply be replaced with docks for speedboats and thus many impacts would remain. Even if the new docks in the channel were built using the best practices, there would still be impacts.

The mapping of fish habitat shows that the channel contains high value habitat on the east side and very high habitat on the west side. The same mapping shows both high and very high habitat along the foreshore of Old Town Bay. If the docks were allowed to move to Old Town Bay, there would be impacts to an area that is now nearly pristine and some of the impacts would remain in the channel, with the result being an increase in impacts.

As well, the channel has been filled with docks for many decades, and any impacts to salmon have already occurred. Salmon continue to swim through the channel in the fall to spawn up the Shuswap River and the fry continue to spread throughout the lake during the year. The main difference between the channel and the bay is that the bay is located in the freshwater estuary of the Eagle River and thus provides critical habitat to the salmon fry exiting the Eagle River in the spring up until high water. Locating a massive marina and breakwater in this area could be pose significant problems to these salmon fry, even though it is proposed for deep water.

According to Craig Orr, a fisheries biologist with The Watershed Watch Salmon Society, fresh water estuaries are “ecologically sensitive areas that are important to the ecosystem and are very vulnerable to disturbances.” Craig added, “These areas tend to have the highest fish biomass and biodiversity by providing a place for fish to spawn, feed and rear juveniles and should be avoided by such projects.”

Impacts from the marina include the potential for fuel spills, pollution from washing the houseboats, shade from the boats that create hiding places for more predators of the salmon fry, as well as noise and siltation.  While a comprehensive, independent impact assessment will be prepared; it should be made available to the public for review before a final decision is made.

The marina would also impact other species that utilize the foreshore, such as shoreline birds that feed and nest in bays. Sandy beaches are rare in the Shuswap Lakes and many of these beaches have some form of development. An assessment is also needed of the use of this area by other species and of the impacts that could occur from a marina development.

In addition to the impacts on recreation, the marina would also impact public recreation values. The proposal calls for privatizing public foreshore.  The Shuswap Lakes Integrated Planning Process (SLIPP) is just in the beginning stage of developing a recreation management plan for the lakes. Any proposal to privatize a large area of the foreshore should wait until there is a publicly approved plan in place to manage recreational values.

In conclusion, Jim Cooperman, President of Shuswap Environmental Action Society (SEAS), urges that “the public, especially all those concerned about salmon habitat and recreational values provide comments to the Integrated Land Management Bureau about the inappropriate marina development as soon as possible, as the deadline for comments in May 19th.”  “Even though the marina is designed to be located in deeper water outside the primary zone critical to salmon fry, we remain concerned that this massive marina, that would fill in the entire bay, will still negatively impact salmon and other species,” he added.

Note that the public can access what little information is available about the project and can provide comments using this link:

http://www.arfd.gov.bc.ca/ApplicationPosting/viewpost.jsp?PostID=29366

For more information, see the Backgrounder

Looking after our Shuswap watershed

A Shuswap Passion column for the Shuswap Market News
April 20, 2012
by Jim Cooperman

Shuswap residents can take pride in knowing that the protection of their watershed is continuing to improve thanks to the work of the Shuswap Lakes Integrated Planning Process (SLIPP). At the April 12th all-committee meeting, government and public representatives were provided with updates on all the projects underway.

There are four streams of activities within SLIPP: recreation; water quality; foreshore development; and education, compliance and enforcement. Significant progress is occurring for all these programs, through the work of government agencies and volunteer organizations.

While efforts have been underway for sometime in the other three streams, work on the recreation program, which focuses on water based activities, has just begun. A draft situational analysis report about Shuswap water based recreation has been prepared and once it is complete it will be made publicly available in the fall. Many of the water-based recreational sites have also now been identified and mapped.

Recreation expert consultants based at Thompson Rivers University have been tasked to review best management practices; complete the mapping; identify the issues, the diverse community values and use patterns; and present their findings to the SLIPP committees. The final step will be to prepare a recreational management plan with strategies that recognize our region’s carrying capacity and identify a vision for the ideal future condition.

A few statistics about recreation were provided that shows just how significant this activity is to the Shuswap life style and economy.  With three types of users, permanent, short-stay and seasonal, there are an average of 32,000 marine park visits per season, 35-40,000 angler days, thousands of bird watchers and many millions of dollars that go into our local economy. But, with so many vastly different types of user groups from families to backcountry adventurers to hard-core partiers, conflicts do occur. Concerns that need attention include, noise, waste, safety, health and habitat and cultural resource destruction problems, as well as access conflicts and a host of compliance and enforcement issues.

Water quality monitoring has been both comprehensive and cooperative so that efforts are no longer duplicated and timing ensures optimal results. Not only are samples now being taken throughout the lakes, but also in those creeks and rivers where there are the highest potential impacts from agricultural practices. Early results are already showing high concentrations of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus during spring run-off times. The public can now find useful information about the water quality monitoring program at the slippbc.ca website and will soon be able to access the results for specific locations using the map-based database.

The shoreline development stream is providing some of the best results, especially for its restoration activities. Thanks to a $100,000 grant from the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, the most serious shoreline modifications such as illegal concrete boat ramps, large rock groynes, and abandoned docks are being removed and the natural condition of the shoreline is being restored. Fifty-three of the most critical sites have been identified and numerous sites have been rehabilitated at no cost to the property owners, who have been primarily supportive of the program. More education will be underway soon, so that lakeshore property owners have an improved understanding of the importance of the shoreline for fish habitat, as salmon fry utilize the gravel and rocks during the year they spend in the lakes.

In addition, a comprehensive inventory has been completed for the Sicamous Channel that shows how and where dock structures are consistent with existing tenures. Some of the old, unpermitted structures will be removed and others will be rebuilt with an improved design, which will help restore important salmon habitat features in this channel.

The compliance and enforcement program has benefited from additional staffing and new vessels, with joint patrols on long weekends. As well, there was a houseboat used by the team that was stationed in the Cinnemousun Narrows, so that patrols would be located closer to where problems occur. Thanks no doubt in part to this program; the fatality rate was the lowest last year with only one death.

We are fortunate that local governments are now taking a very active role in helping to protect the Shuswap watershed, as not only our economy but also our way of life is dependent on the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem. While monitoring water quality is key, so will be the next step, to take action to reduce the level of pollution entering the system. And at some point, SLIPP needs to be expanded to include the entire watershed with a new name that better fits this mandate.

A major effort will soon be underway to raise funds for the purchase of the property adjacent to the mouth of the Adams River called the Cottonwoods Campground.

Download the Cottonwoods Campground Brief to learn more.

And view the video, SEAS and the Adams River.

Aerial view of the campground adjacent to the Adams River:

By Tracy Hughes – Salmon Arm Observer
Published: April 04, 2012

see www.saobserver.net/news/146210865.html

NOTE: click here for a copy of the judgement – Judge Leask, re Neskonlith Band

A BC Supreme Court judge ruled against the Neskonlith Indian Band’s petition regarding the City of Salmon Arm’s handling of the  SmartCentres development permit process.

Justice Peter Leask dismissed the band’s claim in his decision which was handed down today, April 4.

In the decision, which resulted from three days of hearings beginning March 19, Leask noted the principle issue in the dispute rested on whether the city had an legal or constitutional obligation to consult with the band before issuing the environmentally hazardous area development permit for the SmartCentres site. The permit was approved by city council and was officially issued on Oct. 25. 2011.

The Band initiated the lawsuit saying they are concerned that the SmartCentres property will flood, and that flood-control measures will be necessary. These flood control measures, they argue, will do damage to the environment and to the interests of the Neskonlith people.

In its legal arguments, the Neskonlith Band claimed that they city had a constitutional obligation to consult with it before making decisions that could adversely affect its aboriginal rights or title. The Neskonlith Band’s land lies directly adjoining the SmartCentres property to the west.

Both the city and SmartCentres denied this was the case.

One of the main arguments made by the city is that B.C. law states that once an applicant has complied with the guidelines under an official community plan, a municipal council has no discretion to withhold the development permit. As well, they argued, existing case law from the Supreme Court of Canada and British Columbia courts makes it clear that a local government cannot stand in the shoes of the Crown for the purposes of a duty to consult and accommodate a First Nation.

In his judgment, Leask rejected the Neskonlith’s legal arguments.

“In this case, as even the Band agreed, there is no express or implied statutory language in the Local Government Act requiring or empowering the City to engage in… consultation or in any consultation beyond that required by s. 879,” Leask writes in his decision.

“I reject the argument of the Band that the duty to consult vests automatically with whoever is empowered to make decisions affecting aboriginal rights… I find that the City of Salmon Arm had no such duty. As a result, I dismiss the Band’s petition. In the circumstances, there is no need to consider the other arguments put before the Court.”

Leask’s ruling was issued in time to accommodate the SmartCentres proposed construction schedule which is set to begin later this month.

The Observer will have more information and reactions to the judgement as they become available.

This is a good article, just a small goof up on the size – it is 12 hectares (30 acres). Also,  that the sewage permit may have expired which allowed the former operator to truck out the raw sewage as there is no treatment plant built on the property. If this is true, the campground may not be able to open.

Shuswap groups hope to turn West Beach into park
March 29, 2012

By Cam Fortems
Daily News Staff Reporter
A coalition of Shuswap groups is raising money in a bid to purchase the West Beach development property for eventual use as parkland.

The project kicks off April 15 with a benefit concert in Salmon Arm that will raise seed money, with a goal of eventually purchasing the West Beach development site.

“It’s a beautiful sandy beach,” said Jim Cooperman, who is helping to lead the effort. “There aren’t that many beaches like that on the lake. It’s a total gem.”

The effort comes amid foreclosure proceedings at West Beach on Shuwap Lake. Primary lender Mission Creek Mortgage Co. filed a foreclosure notice last month after protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act for owner New Future Group was lifted.

The 8.5-hectare parcel is directly beside Roderick Haig-Brown provincial park.

Mission Creek is owed more than $21 million on the West Beach project, the site of two stillborn development projects by New Future under principal Mike Rink.

The development site and private campground is now operated by receiver-manager KPMG.

Ken Ihas, a Kelowna lawyer acting for Mission Creek, said there are no firm dates under the foreclosure process. The company is seeking either an order absolute, where it becomes the sole owner or an order for conduct of sale.

Under an order for conduct of sale it would have the right to sell the property and pursue New Future for remaining debts. New Future is still the title holder pending any award by B.C. Supreme Court. Ihas said Mission Creek intends to operate the campground under the receiver-manager. “I’m not aware of anything that will stand in the way of operations,” he said.

Receiver-manager Cecil Cheveldave, with KPMG in Kamloops, said crews are at the site with the goal of opening Cottonwood Family Campground May 1. “It’s always been a busy place in summer. We have an expectation it will be busy (this year), if not busier.” Cheveldave said operations this year will be unaffected by the foreclosure proceedings.

New Future was seeking to develop a 160-unit RV park, but B.C. Supreme Court recently ruled New Future’s plans were contrary to campground zoning under Columbia Shuswap Regional District.

Cooperman acknowledged the effort to turn West Beach into parkland remains in its infancy. Recording artist Joel Plaskett is playing at Salmar Classic Theatre in Salmon Arm at a reduced rate on April 15. Proceeds will be used to start fund-raising.

Shuswap Environmental Action Society, Salmon Arm naturalists club, Lee Creek Ratepayers Association and Shuswap Water Action Team are behind the effort.

Their eventual goal is to add the property to Roderick Haig-Brown park, mirroring a failed effort five years ago. At that time Cooperman and others trying to push the province to purchase the property from Rink, but those negotiations failed.

“Certainly they’ve (province) been approached but the government is having its own problems…. They say they don’t have they money,” Cooperman said. He added the goal is to raise funds to purchase the land, which would be owned by a conservation society and leased to the province for parkland.

“We want it used by the public with light camping, no motorized vessels. (But) a great deal of restoration is needed there.”

Copyright 2012 Glacier Media Inc.

Adams River development controversy reveals need for legislative amendment

March 2012, Watershed Sentinel, www.watershedsentinel.ca

By Jim Cooperman

In 2008, groups from throughout the province supported the efforts by Shuswap residents and organizations to halt the proposed condo and RV development adjacent to the Adams River, home to a world famous sockeye salmon run. Although they successfully prevented the re-zoning for the proposal, the developer went ahead and installed new infrastructure and began marketing RV lots. Plus, in spite of the regional district’s rejection of the plans for a huge marina, 75 large buoys were installed in the sensitive fresh water estuary that provides critical salmon nursery habitat.

The developer used a loophole in the Land Title Act to market the RV lots by selling 199-year leases of a small metal storage shed that included the right to park a RV or park model on the site. This loophole took advantage of a clause in the Act that allows for the leasing of buildings or portions of buildings for offices and shopping centres. Adding to the problem was the lack of will by the Financial Institutions Commission to enforce the Real Estate Development Marketing Act, which provides the authority to prevent marketing when developments do not have the necessary approvals from local governments. Instead, the Superintendent of Real Estate simply allowed the developer to file numerous disclosure statements, with each new one amending the deficiencies in the previous ones.

In 2011, the development ended up in court by challenging the plan by the regional district to issue an injunction to stop further construction, as its stop-work orders had been ignored. Fortunately, Supreme Court Judge Sigurdson agreed with the regional district’s interpretation of the zoning rules and the developer lost, meaning it could not use the grandfather clause to market the RV lots. In addition, the developer’s attempt to register one of the RV lot sales was rejected by the Land Title office.

The development had been under bankruptcy court protection, as it is in debt to the tune of over $18-million dollars to a mortgage company and there is a list of unpaid contractors who provided materials and labour for the new infrastructure.  In late January, Judge Sigurdson placed the development into receivership. On February 13^th, the creditor, Mission Creek Mortgage, filed a foreclosure petition that states its intention to sell the property.  Thus, efforts will likely begin soon to hopefully purchase the property so that it can be added to Roderick Haig-Brown Park.

While the issues concerning the proposed Adams River development appear to be nearing final resolution, the shed-lease loophole in the Land Title Act remains. Another Shuswap Lake development is now attempting to market RV lots by leasing sheds and apparently there are other developments also utilizing this loophole. Thankfully, the provincial government is now considering an amendment to the Act, so that developers will no longer be able to circumvent the rules and market undesirable developments without complying with existing regulations.

Jim Cooperman is president of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society, the primary organization working to protect the land adjacent to the mouth of the Adams River.

Remember the controversy regarding proposed Animal Waste Composting on a farm in Grindrod?  Well, that project was rejected, but now the farm has been sold and there are renewed concerns regarding the possibility of a mega-feedlot and meet processing plant. Below is the recent article from the Okanagan Advertiser (we appreciate that they shared it with us), followed by a letter from the local group’s spokesperson, Sheldon Moore, that corrects some of the information in the newspaper article.  You can also watch the CHBC news report on this issue by using this link: http://www.chbcnews.ca/video/slaughterhouse+fears/video.html?v=2213105444#stories

These are very serious concerns that demand attention. There is a potential for serious pollution of our precious Shuswap Watershed, at a time when we are finally making some progress to determine what has been the source of existing pollution through the SLIPP water quality monitoring program. The provincial government has reduced the regulations and control over not only mining, oil and gas, and logging; but also for agriculture. An it is the impact of industrial agriculture, such as the huge dairy farms that spread massive amounts of manure, that is likely having the greatest impact on the Shuswap watershed. Stay tuned, as this situation demands further attention and close scrutiny.

Grindrod slaughterhouse causes concerns
By Stacy Pavlov
Okanagan Advertiser
March 14, 2012

A 10,000 square foot beef slaughter facility in Grindrod has raised some concerns for residents neighbouring the facility.

“I thought this was a small family farm, but now it’s been sold to Blue Goose Cattle Company Ltd. and who knows how big it’s going to get,” said Sheldon Moore, who lives and runs a winery about two kilometres from the slaughterhouse.

Moore, who represents the Concerned Citizens of Enderby/Grindrod, believes the facility has the potential to grow to almost unlimited size due to what he calls a loophole in the Agricultural Land Commission farm act regulation 171, which doesn’t have a limit on the size of such a facility if it’s within the ALC.

But Dave Robertson, who sold the slaughterhouse property to Blue Goose, said there is no intention to expand the operation. “This facility is for our own capacity, our own product. We’ve never talked of an expansion,” assured Robertson, who is still a major shareholder of the facility.

Currently Robertson puts about 30 head of cattle a week through his farm, and has to send them to Salmon Arm to be processed. Having an in-house slaughter facility will make things more economical and create jobs for locals. “We’ll probably employ about six to eight guys anyway,” said Robertson, who still owns and lives on part of the property as he’s done for the past 50 years.

He doesn’t expect to process more than 50 head of cattle a week. “We’re not a mom and pop shop, but we’re not a conglomerate like Maple Leaf either. The cattle business is not something you can ramp up instantly. It takes years to grow the numbers.”

The size of the facility isn’t the only thing concerning Moore. He’s also worried about the wastewater management of the slaughterhouse, which is expected to be up and running this June. “The initial facility is already being erected without a proper waste water management plan submitted,” said Moore.

Robertson disagreed, and assured that water waste management permits are in place, even above current standards. He also said waste from the feed lot will be trucked to Alberta.

Area F North Okanagan Regional District director Jackie Pearase said that is looks as if Robertson and Blue Goose are compliant. “It looks like he’s allowed to do what he’s doing according to the approval from the Agricultural Land Commission.”

Rob Smailes, general manager of planning at RDNO, explained RDNO really can’t do much about the project as it falls under the ALC. “It frustrates the community, but as long as it’s located in the ALR and meets the requirements of the land commission, there’s not much we can do at our level,” said Smailes.

Dear concerned citizens,

The Concerned Citizens of Enderby/Grinrod would like to clarify a few points made in the recent article regarding the Grindrod Slaughterhouse facility.
Fact 1:

It was the local community that had to inform NORD, the ALC and the Ministry of the environment that this property change hands and was purchased by the Blue Goose Cattle Company Ltd on February 6, 2012.  The acting architect of this facility is also the President of The Blue Goose Cattle Company Ltd., so this was likely never intended to be the small Robertson Farm facility from its inception.  They should have informed all regulatory agencies of this change, but that did not happen for some reason.

Fact 2:

Dundee Corporation purchased Blue Goose Capital, who owns 100% of The Blue Goose Cattle Company Ltd.  They purchased 700,000 deeded and un-deeded acres in this acquisition, so now we have a scenario were the produce (cattle) will descend on a 160 parcel in a sensitive watershed in the North Okanagan.  Dundee Corporation is an investment company with over $700 million Cdn in annual sales.  They invest in growth businesses and I strongly doubt they gave Dave Robertson enough shares for him to claim he is a majority shareholder. They will likely go head-to-head with the big players and they have the money to do it. I am certain they have big plans for this facility and at the minimum it needs to be regulated.  This site borders the Enderby Cliffs National Park, so expect the view to change drastically.  Let’s just be conservative and say they only produce 50 head per 1000 acres.  That alone would produce 35,000 head of cattle per year.  Under the lose regulations the ALC have they can also get 50% from external producers.

Fact 3:

Dave Robertson claimed in this article all the waste water permits are in place and exceed requirements.  On the same day I received a call from the Ministry of Environment and no application has been submitted.  Here we have a 10,000 sq/ft facility already erected and no waste water permit submitted.  Do you think the local community should be concerned about this facility and the nature in which it has been rubber stamped through the system?  There is a loophole in Regulation 171 and the ALC have the power to destroy communities at the stroke of a pen.  The intention was to help a small farmer add value to his business.  The intent was not to have the produce of 700,000 acres descend onto a tine 160 parcel in our community.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/dundee-corporation-acquires-interest-in-blue-goose-capital-corporation-tsx-dc.a-1597001.htm

Fact 4:

This is not a small operation and needs to be reviewed properly in its true light.  If anyone in this community has any doubts what this could become or do to the watershed in this area I strongly suggest you research Dundee Corporation and read about what has happened to the watershed north of Lethbridge from slaughter plants and feedlots.  They now have to pay for their water to be hauled from the Rocky Mountains.   The whole area got caught right in the middle of a huge feedlot expansion program and do you think the companies that did this are stepping up to the plate and helping with all these costs?  This is not the kind of industry you want in a tourist rich zone.  The entire site sits on sand and gravel and the underground aquifer and Lambert Creek are all less than 1km from the Shuswap River.  Have a look at the video of what these facilities become.

http://www.doulton.ca/manure_pollu.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03tQOEX3iiA

I strongly urge more people to inform themselves and others about the real potential this facility has to become very large in amateur of months.   I think it will destroy the North Okanagan brand as a premium tourist area overnight and open the doors for more facilities just like this.  The local community has already stopped this from happening before, but we have something much larger lurking in our community now.  Please become more aware to what is potentially coming to this community.  Tell ten people in the community what is happening and you will help our cause.

Regards,
Sheldon Moore

Here are the concluding paragraphs for the March 9, 2012 Shuswap Passion column (a concise version of the comprehensive Forest neglect article for the Watershed Sentinel:

Here in the Shuswap, the situation is not as grim, since there are fewer pine stands. However, where lodgepole pine does grow, the beetles have wiped out vast numbers of hectares, such as in the Salmon River watershed and on the hills above Adams Lake. Plus, pine has long been the preferred species in the plantations and the beetles have hit some of these.

A local forester reports that the major issue here is not the dismal state of the future timber supply, but is that the companies are having problems locating enough timber to feed their mills. He explained how there is a “ribbon war” in the woods as First Nations are competing with mills to ribbon off planned cutblocks. This comes as no surprise, as our organization, SEAS, did a comprehensive spatial timber modeling analysis in 1995 that showed how overcutting then would lead to the situation we are seeing now. And that was before the beetles hit!

British Columbians need to face the facts: forestry is a sunset industry due to decades of high-grading and overcutting, the massive climate change caused beetle kill, and now over a decade of sympathetic mismanagement by the provincial government.

This map was done in 1994 and shows how a portion of the Shuswap would look in 2012 if overcutting continued. The red blocks are the projected logging blocks.

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