FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 19, 2009
« Carbon Committee Forming »
LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY & SEQUESTRATION
- ‘YELLOW CEDAR’ PROJECT TO FOCUS COMMUNITY PRIORITIES -
CEDAR – Those attending the Monday night RDN meeting of the Electoral Area A OCP Citizen's Committee will be the first to be presented with information about the MISSI proposal to form a climate action team - as per suggestions in the BC Climate Action Tool Kit sent out by our provincial government.
“MISSI has been prominent in expressing the need for proactive measures to address the serious challenges we will all soon face in reducing our carbon and GHG emissions,” said Laurie Gourlay, MISSI president. “With this proposal we are offering potential means to integrate local initiatives within formal RDN & provincial processes - and involve all sectors and interests in positive solutions.”
After introducing the proposal to the local community at the RDN Monday night meeting* MISSI will forward a formal letter to the RDN requesting similar consideration within it’s Regional Growth Strategy and further support for a local Carbon Cttee by elected District representatives.
“A carbon neutral society will bring many changes,” Gourlay noted, “and MISSI wishes to assist. By identifying means by which individuals and communities can benefit, and a process for working together for the greater good, MISSI is inviting locals to actively participate in long-term solutions.”
MISSI’s ‘Yellow Cedar’ proposal has been developed over the past year, with assistance from the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre and in discussion with both the public and private sectors. **
With the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December, MISSI is looking to assist the mid-island region in its search for local solutions to global challenges.
Gourlay proposed community priorities before the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1986, when “sustainable development” was first proposed by Brundtland’s book, Our Common Future.
“At that time the WCED was focused on international challenges,” Gourlay said. “No one thought much about the huge potential for local communities to contribute to sustainability and stewardship – but now this is the norm. Well MISSI is saying that we can, and will, do the same here and now to address the challenge of climate change!”
The presentation is expected to be held on Oct. 19, 6:30pm, N Cedar Fire Hall, 2100 Yellow Point Road
followed by Q&A’s at the discretion of the RDN’s Area A OCP Citizen's Committee. *
-30-
For information, please contact:
Laurie Gourlay (250) 722-3444
** - a copy of MISSI’s ‘Yellow Cedar’ draft proposal is available on request.
Joe Stanhope, Chairperson,
Directors & staff of the Regional Board
Regional District of Nanaimo
6300 Hammond Bay Rd.
Nanaimo, B.C.
V9T 6N2.
Re: Request for Climate Action Team
& Carbon Neutral Community Initiatives
October 23, 2009
Dear Mr Stanhope and RDN Board members,
On behalf of MISSI - the Mid Island Sustainability and Stewardship Initiative, I would like to note our support for the RDN’s work to address climate change and considerations raised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - composed of a network of 2,000 scientists worldwide.
As you know an IPCC update report on the warming of the earth's climate system will be a prominent driver on deliberations before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.
This past Monday in fact the Prime Minister of Britain, Gordon Brown, announced that a climate 'catastrophe' was in the making if countries did not come to an agreement on GHG emissions at this UN Summit, just 50 days from now. (BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8313672.stm)
In this respect MISSI is looking to assist the mid-island region in its search for local solutions to global challenges. We believe such work is needed if this Region is to do its part in meeting such challenges as we will all soon face in reducing our carbon footprint.
We have had opportunity to work with the Area A OCP process, as well as to contribute our recommendations for sustainability and stewardship to the Regional Growth Strategy, presently underway. MISSI is impressed by the professional approach of staff, and the attention to details.
MISSI has also reviewed the information posted on the ‘Action for Climate Change’ section of the RDN’s website, and we would like to observe that outreach throughout the community, and efforts to involve the many sectors in this important work, could be furthered by convening a Climate Action Team for the Region.
In making this suggestion we also would like to take a moment to congratulate the RDN on its announcement of this week - to establish an “Energy and Sustainability Manager position to guide the organization toward carbon neutral operations”. This offers a solid step forward in securing the RDN’s approach to climate change, and to successfully integrating sound measures throughout the region to help achieve the goal of carbon neutrality.
A carbon neutral society will bring many changes, and MISSI wishes to formally register its interest in assisting in this important and urgent work. By identifying means by which individuals and communities can benefit, and a process for working together for the greater good, MISSI is inviting locals to actively participate in long-term solutions – as outlined by our attached proposal
We would then like to encourage the RDN to take further leadership by meeting the Province of BC Climate Charter recommendations to form a Climate Action Team. A representative committee, from all sectors of the community and region, meeting to discuss initiatives and assist in the implementation of actions, will substantially assist in the RDN’s goals to reduce GHG emissions and contribute to local climate change solutions.
A Climate Action Team would also further the RDN’s stated objective of developing a “Region-wide Energy, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Plan ...(that) will reflect the input of diverse community interests and show how by working together residents, business, industry and institutions can reduce energy consumption and GHGs.”
MISSI believes there are many means to integrate local initiatives within formal RDN and provincial processes – as well as to involve all sectors and interests in positive solutions. And we very much appreciate that “Climate change and energy planning is a major thrust of the RDN Board of Directors' strategic plan for the region, which has sustainability at its core.”
In this regard we immediately see great potential for integration within Official Community Plans, and the Regional Growth Strategy deliberations presently underway.
In reviewing the stated objectives of the RDN with respect to climate change and carbon neutrality, as noted on the RDN’s website, we also must applaud the RDN’s intentions for ‘Taking action at the local level’, as well as that the RDN and the City of Nanaimo joined the Partners for Climate Change Protection in 2002.
In this regard we bring to your attention an overview of the ‘Yellow Cedar’ project that MISSI has been developing over the past year, with advice and research support from the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre, and in discussion with both the public and private sectors.
We believe that the RDN would benefit by reaching out to the community in it’s climate change work – and in particular that a not-for-profit organization, such as MISSI, would be able to play an important role in assisting and facilitating investment in projects that yield carbon offsets, or that generate credits in local emission trading plans.
MISSI would welcome the opportunity to provide additional details, and will note that we're in touch with climate initiatives in Duncan and Cowichan as well as Nanaimo so as to identify interested groups and individuals who may wish to participate in such efforts.
The attached ‘Yellow Cedar’ project proposal is intended to bring public attention to climate change issues, and to implement local options that would result in carbon credits being directed to community initiatives within the mid-island region.
It is our intention to further engage in discussion with the Pacific Carbon Trust in this respect, and to make recommendations that would enable their validation and verification terms to be adapted to facilitate smaller areas, and a less costly substantiation process – one that will reflect climate change goals and make local projects viable.
We have been encouraged in our initial overtures in this regard, and expect that establishing this precedent will see new means for carbon credits to be directed to local climate change efforts for carbon sequestration and mitigation. And we believe that residents of the mid island region, and across the Province, will whole-heartedly support the investment of local carbon levies to local initiatives that assist in achieving carbon neutral goals.
We also believe it is time that our local volunteer assets and resourcefulness, in addressing global challenges at the local and regional level, were given their due! A Climate Action Team, and projects such as that in our ‘Yellow Cedar’ proposal, would serve as means to engage and educate the community, and to assist in planning development while integrating conservation and climate change goals.
We see a regional Climate Action Team and our project as essentially addressing sustainability and stewardship in the region, and would be very pleased to work with the RDN in furthering such work. This would be a great opportunity for the RDN to again show leadership in climate change issues, and to advance local initiatives for the common good.
MISSI would then, along with providing this request for a Climate Action Team, request to appear before the Board at a time of your convenience, so that we can further address the need for such work, as well as begin a dialogue that we hope will lead to specific community initiatives.
We hope you will give every consideration to this important and urgent work for climate change solutions locally, and globally.
Sincerely,
Laurie Gourlay
President, Mid-Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative
www.missimidisland.com,
2689 Cedar Road
Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1K3
(250.722.7223)
* The Yellow Cedar Project is the working name for this initiative at present. The name was chosen to reflect local and global, environmental, sociodemographic and spiritual dynamics.
“Given its longevity and dendroclimatological sensitivity, yellow-cedar potentially offers forest ecologists and resource managers insight into long-term climate–growth dynamics over the last millennia, information essential for understanding changes in growth dynamics accompanying future changing climates. Furthermore, the proven crossdatability of yellow-cedar means that archeologists should now be able to confidently use this species in their attempts to date First Nation artefacts. Given that yellow-cedar has a significant ceremonial ancestry within this region, recognition of this potential is exceptionally noteworthy.”
Tree-ring analysis of yellow-cedar, (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Colin P. Laroque and Dan J. Smith (UVIC Geography Dep’t), 1999, NRC study.
Questions Arising – Please use the form below to note considerations and additional information needed in order to advance the Yellow Cedar Project.
...& please return the form to the project sponsor:
Mid Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative
c/o Laurie Gourlay, president, 2689 Cedar Road, Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1K3,
|
Background to the project
|
|
General aims(s)
|
|
Initial Risks
|
|
Expected Outcomes
|
|
Benefits of running with this project
|
|
Initial estimates of cost and time
$:
Time:
|
|
Appraisal of the business case
|
|
Other observations
|
|
Name/Date
|
The Yellow Cedar Project * Summary Overview
Draft - July 17, 2009
Please note that a feedback form has been attached to the last page. We welcome your comments and suggestions.
|
|
Project Host & Location: Mid Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative
Cedar/Yellowpoint, Vancouver Island, BC
(info@missimidisland.com)
c/o Laurie Gourlay, president
2689 Cedar Road, Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1K3
(250 722-3444 o)
|
|
Project Background:
|
GHG emissions from consumption of fossil fuels are leading to climate changes that adversely affect essential ecological systems upon which society depends.
This project, located in a rural and predominantly agricultural area of Vancouver Island, will implement means to offset and mitigate such global challenges via sustained and incremental measures that will sequester such emissions, as well as reduce related consumption and practices.
|
|
Project Benefits:
|
The project will actively address the lack of options available, locally and otherwise, to individuals and other stakeholders in contributing to solutions to the immediate and long-term problems resulting from climate change.
Benefits will accrue to the local area in the same relative ratio that GHG emissions are added. This will help to create a sense of ownership, and a means for the public and corporations to begin to mitigate their contributions to the GHG problems.
Benefits will include assistance to farmers and landowners in undertaking practices that sequester carbon; and opportunities to adapt agricultural practices for increased yield and carbon reduction, realizing benefits to residents and the region.
As well, a number of direct and substantive benefits will accrue in the form of increased agricultural, forest and greenspace sequestration initiatives – with payments expected to landowners to retain such carbon sequestration options; and the relatively undervalued benefit of having agricultural lands and forests retained immediately adjacent to VI’s second largest city.
The opportunity to retain a natural landscape that sequesters carbon will complement Canada’s National Park plans for a National Marine Conservation Area to the south Gulf Islands.
Tourism and related business and economic benefits will increase accordingly, with home and cottage industries reflecting the rural character and attributes of the region.
|
|
Project Objectives:
|
The project will work to offset climate change locally, developing means so that individuals as well as crown and corporate partners can mitigate and offset both fossil fuel consumption and carbon production.
Research and demonstration initiatives will go hand in hand with information dissemination and specific workshops designed to engage the public and residents in contributing to and benefitting from carbon sequestration and energy reduction measures.
The Project is expecting to serve as a model for similar local efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
|
|
Project Deliverables:
|
The project will help develop means for direct contributions to be made at the point of purchase or consumption of fossil fuels – in the form of carbon offset ‘credits’.
Energy conservation efforts will result in home, farm, corporate and crown retrofits that could reduce consumption by 40% by 2020 - with commensurate benefits to the local economy.
Research will identify appropriate practices, planting and species that will sequester carbon locally, opening up options for similar projects as the benefits of small-scale carbon offset programs are realized. Similarly marine sequestration problems and opportunities will be addressed, with consideration for innovative options reflecting the scale and capacity of the Georgia Strait and environs.
The project area will serve as a natural land-based buffer and complementary working reserve, situated adjacent to the proposed National Marine Conservation Area.
Partnerships will be fostered between residents, landowners, corporate, crown and First Nation interests in the region.
|
|
Project Boundaries
|
The project is expected to include the areas roughly extending between the northern estuary of Ladysmith Harbour and Kulleet Bay to the southern estuary of Nanaimo Harbour, east of the Island Highway to the coast of the Cedar and Yellowpoint areas.
|
|
Success Criteria:
|
Success will be measured by the reduction in energy consumption, number of public-private partnership agreements, contributions in the form of carbon ‘credits’, number of retrofits and conservation measures undertaken, number of trees planted, changes to agricultural/forest practices so that carbon is sequestered, new planning guidelines that incorporate climate change requirements, research results that identify options for small-scale carbon offset/sequestration opportunities, as well as the number of inquiries, information and assistance provided both locally and to other regions as interest grows in adopting climate mitigation efforts.
|
|
Constraints:
|
We are looking to establish a Co-op (&/or Trust) that will solicit and receive funds both for administration as well as for the deliverables of the Project.
Familiarity with carbon offset options and opportunities need to be developed, as do skills for assessment and delivery of Project objectives.
The project team must have the resources available, deadlines in place, and legal and scientific counsel identified so that decisions can be made as new challenges arise.
The residents, businesses, and governments of the local areas, as well as such authorities overseeing related carbon initiatives, need to be engaged and supportive.
The present orientation by carbon mitigation trusts, to require massive areas for sequestration, need to be adjusted so that the incremental contribution of small-scale projects will be recognized - with access to such resources and funds made available.
|
|
Key Assumptions:
|
We anticipate that climate change impacts will increase at a rapid rate, leading to greater interest and support for mitigative measures. As the need to reduce fossil fuel use and GHG emissions becomes evident we expect greater co-operation, funding and partnership opportunities to evolve.
|
|
Project Manager:
|
TBD:
- Need individual to fulfil this role and define the specific tasks.
|
|
Project Sponsor:
|
TBD: A Co-op and/or Trust will be formed. In the meantime MISSI (Mid Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative) is willing to host the Project, and is pursuing charitable status, etc in order to assist.
Expressions of interest and support have also been received from the Mid-Island Co-op (predominantly involved with fuel sales), and the Heritage Food Co-op (working with farmers and institutions on issues involving food production). As well, start-up funds for projects with these goals are available for up to $75,000 from the Cdn Co-op Association.
Additional funds will be solicited locally, as well as from such carbon ‘credit’ agencies as the Pacific Carbon Trust.
|
|
Project Board/Steering Group Members:
TBD
|
Who fulfils these roles and what they do.
|
Project Team Members:
TBD
|
|
|
BudgetŒ
|
|
Resource Costs:
|
Other Costs:
|
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Total costs (attach a breakdown of the overall budget)
|
|
|
|
Start Date:
|
asap; Business Plan in circulation by December 2009
|
Completion Date:
|
Five-year business plans are expected to be renewed in an ongoing manner.
|
|
Signature of Project Manager:
|
TBD
|
Date:
|
|
|
Approval from Sponsor:
|
TBD
|
Date:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below you will find a copy of the Petition, regarding the airport, that is being sent to the office of the Auditor General – attention of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Scroll down for the Yellow Cedar Project.
Petition
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G6
ATTN: Mr. Scott Vaughn
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Re: Petitions
petitions@oag-bvg.gc.ca
June 30, 2009
Dear Mr. Vaughn,
We request the intervention of the responsible federal ministers so as to address matters that may be a threat to the public and environmental health, integrity and sustainable development of the mid-island region of Vancouver Island. Please accept this as a petition under Section 22 of The Auditor General's Act.
We are petitioning that in the interest of the health and well being, and the quality of life of the majority of the citizens in and around the mid-island region associated with the Nanaimo Airport; as well as in the interest of protecting aquifer and groundwater, drinking water and irrigation supplies; and in the interest of preserving important community wetlands, migratory and resident birds, and threatened and endangered species; as well as in the interest of supporting long-term economic and business interests compatible with the rural attributes of this region - that the plans and undertakings of the Nanaimo Airport Commission, to expand and develop lands under its authority as well as the surrounding region impacted by its operations, be halted until such time as a thorough Environmental Assessment, with full public consultations, can be conducted.
We are writing with respect to a local airport, the Nanaimo Airport – Vancouver Island, BC, and concerns that development plans and actions that are being undertaken in a three stage expansion over the next five - seven years will have both immediate and long-term adverse impacts locally, as well as with respect to federal commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions affecting climate change.
At a time when the environment and the economy are both in need of the attention of a balanced and considerate sustainable approach it appears that little is being done, or attempted, to ensure that the public's interest is first and foremost when federal funds are being spent.
The Nanaimo Airport Commission (NAC) is being subsidized by millions of dollars from both federal and provincial taxpayers. And yet residents in the immediate area are unable to access pertinent information, or be assured of a public process that will ensure that such monies as are being spent are for the best and highest use – without undue or ill-considered planning with respect to impacts on human health and the environment.
It does not appear that normal and accountable checks and balances, that would usually be expected prior to funding and development approvals being given are in fact being required. Nor does it appear that independent studies, federal reviews or specific investigations or follow-ups to ensure that health and safety considerations will be met for the short and long-term needs of the region, are being undertaken or required.
It further appears that decisions are being taken, by federal agencies and representatives that would normally be expected to oversee and approve such courses of action, such that the usual process is being circumvented so as to permit NAC to avoid being held accountable or to meet the usual environmental assessment processes and expectations so as to maintain standards respecting sustainability, health, water and local community and economic considerations.
These concerns also come in part as a result of actions undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when it apparently intervened following a request by the NAC, in a manner that may have contravened federal regulations - acting in concert with local authorities to clear a salmon stream that DFO had apparently previously refused to touch, or to allow anyone to touch because of concerns regarding salmon habitat destruction.
The DFO’s subsequent approval of measures to clear the stream was reportedly undertaken so that a deal could be made between NAC and a private property owner whose land was being flooded by debris accumulation in the stream. Following such questionable intervention, the private property owner apparently gave permission to have tall trees topped or removed that were on his private property in the proposed expanded runway flight.
These actions were undertaken at a time when Transport Canada had issued an ultimatum that such tree topping/removal was requisite, and a deadline was quickly approaching that would have required NAC to proceed with a full environmental assessment review process, and additional public review before the runway’s airport expansion plans would be able to proceed. It would appear that two federal government agencies ignored due process, and proper environmental assessment procedures, in order to assist private interests and the NAC.
We are then concerned that NAC’s actions and plans are not respecting the public interest, nor the rules and regulations and due process, that are in place to protect our environment and our social infrastructure, including the principles of Sustainable Development.
Conclusions by laypersons would suggest that Transport Canada, DFO and other federal departments are failing to meet their responsibilities, failing to ensure that the public interest as well as environmental and sustainability requirements are protected, and that there is a commensurate need of assistance to ensure that the public's monies and larger long-term common interests that we share as a society are upheld.
The Nanaimo Airport expansion plans appear to have failed to have met standard norms for public consultation, with concomitant economic impacts adding to the adverse cumulative social, environmental, sustainability and community impacts.
By way of background we would note that the Nanaimo Airport Commission was given control over the airport operations, incorporated in August of 1990 as a not-for profit authority under the Canada Corporations Act - Part II.
In 2004, NAC announced plans to expand the airport, its runway and operations, subsequently promising to fully comply with environmental and social assessment processes. However, as plans have transpired the NAC has increasingly expanded on its intentions, and is now intent on a three-stage process that will see the airport expand to permit aircraft as large as 737’s, as well as re-designating lands for industrial and commercial operations.
Such industrial and commercial plans would appear to have little to do with airport operations, furthering revenue generation for NAC in a manner more reflective of land speculation and an attempt to utilize the special status provided to airports so as to avoid normal review and approval processes for industrial and other development purposes. We are also concerned that a precedent is being set for the manner in which airports in general in Canada are using such status as a means to circumvent due process and related public and sustainability considerations.
It is further apparent that there is no need for additional industrial and commercial development lands as are being proposed by NAC, given that major industrial park lands at Duke Point, only a few miles away, have recently been re-designated for residential development - since there is no demand by industry for such lands. It would appear that the NAC is using its ability to proceed without the normal review processes required for socio-economic and environmental impact assessments, so as to avoid the scrutiny and accountability normally in place to protect the interests of residents, sustainability, the environment and local economic and rural considerations.
"[Name and information withheld] from the Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo expressed such concern in January 2009, noting that the $25.5 million airport expansion project would damage an important local water supply aquifer and affect rare wildlife – notably the Vesper Sparrow, which nests close to the two airport runways and is the only confirmed Coastal Vesper Sparrow breeding ground in Canada."
Additional specific concerns with respect to the environment and sustainability pertain to expanding the runway into the habitat of this rare species, as well as significant impacts on Trumpeter swans - another rare species just coming back from near extinction that are resident in the ponds, streams and wetlands lying in and around the flight paths of NAC. Similarly resident and migratory bald eagles, great blue herons, hawks, owls and Pacific migration flyway species such as the american wigeon, northern pintail and green-winged teal are expected to be negatively and permanently impacted.
Replies to correspondence with Transport Canada, since June of 2008, with regard to federal monies being provided to various programs and infrastructure improvements that support Nanaimo Airport plans and projects, and that indirectly contribute to the NAC expansion plans, can be characterized as more of an attempt to avoid addressing the questions and concerns that have been raised.
Potential problems are consistently referred back to the NAC for answers, with little clarification or attempt to direct the public to solutions to problems that fall within federal jurisdictional responsibilities. Essentially each request for information receives a reply saying nothing can be done.
As well as an inadequate, and apparently deceptive, process to keep the public from understanding the cumulative impacts of the full development plans being put in place, the actions by NAC and the various federal departments, as they are complicit in furthering the NAC’s plans and development, are detrimental to the environment and sustainability.
Specifically, NAC's expansion program and plans do not adequately address the adverse impact of its runway and operations on the Cassidy aquifer that is directly below it, only meters under the runway and tarmac. This although both the main population centres in the region, Ladysmith and Nanaimo, have noted intentions to draw water from this aquifer in the future, and reports to the BC government identify this aquifer as being at risk. Human, environment, community, economic, rural and sustainability interests are being put at risk.
Neither have noise impacts been addressed adequately, nor have proposed upgrades to landing systems that are being planned to increase direct routes into the airport so as to allow larger planes to land. Locations and impacts of new high-intensity runway lighting, and navigational towers to allow planes to land in inclement weather, have been vague – and expected flight paths and related runway routing is yet to be revealed.
The usual practice, established to protect people and the environment, would see the onus placed on any new development to prove that there will be minimal adverse impacts from proposed operations – to consult comprehensively with local residents and fully consider ecosystems and sustainability considerations so that there are little or no adverse effects. The NAC plans and developments however appear to have been undertaken so as to provide the least opportunity for public review, especially so at the immediate local level where the impact will be most severe, and would appear to result in major adverse cumulative impacts on human health, the environment and economy, and sustainability of the area.
The long-term interests of residents, the general public, sustainable development and the environment apparently have been intentionally overlooked by NAC as well as by the federal government and local authorities that would normally be expected to undertake proper and thorough regulatory reviews. Standard practices for consultation and review appear to have been purposely ignored so as fast-track short-term and self-interested plans.
In other words should this airport expansion and related developments be permitted to continue in the manner they have been conducted to date the public interest, environmental protection and sustainability considerations will be diminished, to be superceded by ill-considered development and what amounts to boosterism schemes devised for the sole purpose of furthering special interest economic and infrastructure plans and promises.
Given such imminent concerns to human and environmental health we believe that Environment Canada as well as Health Canada should be required to uphold the spirit as well as the letter of the law by ensuring that the Canadian Environment Assessment Act (CEAA) is followed, including full public consultation. Similarly Health Canada, if it is to retain credibility, needs to provide leadership in protecting the aquifer and groundwater supplies that provide drinking water and crop irrigation for rural residents and farms in the vicinity – as well as future supplies for Vancouver’s Islands second largest city – Nanaimo, as well as the Town of Ladysmith.
We would then appreciate a response, by the appropriate government Ministers, to each of the questions outlined below. Please reply to each point separately, keeping in mind that the overall questions revolve around a wish to identify the funding and support provided by the federal government to the NAC.
Essentially we wish to know how the federal government is involved, implicated if you will, in furthering the NAC’s proposed expansion plans; as well as the responsibility of the federal government and it’s Departments, given such funding, support and involvement, in addressing key concerns relevant to sustainability and the environment.
In essence we want to know what has been done by the federal government and its Departments and representatives to discharge its duties and responsibilities with respect to protecting the public interest, the environment and sustainability being prominent in such considerations.
In this respect then we would like responses to be made such that they are readily understandable to lay persons, while ensuring specificity and relevant reports are referenced along with the names and positions of those who may have contributed, for follow-up as need be.
Based on our attempts to obtain information it would appear that there has been little done to address environment and sustainability considerations. And further to this, it also appears that the public interest and due process has not been respected. We are then looking for evidence that the Federal government and Departments and responsible agencies have undertaken to respect the rules and regulations, the letter and intent of the law governing Canada and Canadians, and all those resident herein.
In this regard we wish to know what information the federal government has produced, and in what form it is available, that addresses the public interest, and questions and concerns surrounding the expansion of the Nanaimo airport? Especially we wish to know what has been produced for the public to review and consider, and how has it been distributed so that local residents as well as those who may be affected by such expansion plans may be made aware and have opportunity to consider and respond to such information.
1) With respect to the Nanaimo Airport, and plans that have been progressing with the assistance of federal funds over the past five years, have Transport Canada staff, other federal government departments, employees, contractors, or organizations in receipt of federal government funds, been requested not to speak with the media or the public unless "appropriate approvals are in place", and have they similarly been directed not to provide technical or other replies to "ad hoc" technical or other questions from the public unless they are vetted?
If this has occurred please explain your rationale, and how this has affected decision-making with respect to the Nanaimo Airport, and accountability to local affected residents and the general public.
2) Please explain and direct accordingly, in terms that would assist a layperson in understanding such directives and briefing notes, what information has been made available to the public with respect to the above and future development as it applies to Nanaimo Airport expansion plans.
3) Could you please identify what funding and support has been provided for the NAC expansion and otherwise, pertinent to Transport Canada’s purview, or any other federal government department, with regard to federal services provided or monies spent, offered or being considered for various programs and infrastructure improvements that may directly or indirectly support the goals and proposed plans for the development and/or the expansion of the Nanaimo Airport over the past five years.
Please enumerate and elaborate in terms that would assist the general public to understand the full range of agreements, contracts, funds, communications and terms for assistance provided by the federal government to the Nanaimo Airport Commission over the past five years.
4) Similarly, could you please summarize the research conducted by the federal government or its Departments and representatives particular to the impact, and potential impact, of the Nanaimo Airport Commission’s development work and plans - especially as it may affect the environment, aquifers and groundwater, and sustainability considerations for the public as well as local, regional and federal jurisdictional authorities?
Could you please extrapolate on how the short and long-term interests of residents, the general public, sustainability and the environment were addressed by the Department of Transport and/or other federal government departments/agencies or contracted bodies, so as to ensure that regulations and the intent of the law were addressed, upheld and implemented effectively with respect to the Nanaimo Airport.
5) Could you please explain the role, responsibilities and influence of the Department of Transportation in relation to expansion plans of the NAC; which individuals and agencies may be involved, how many meetings have been held and correspondence exchanged between representatives.
Similarly please explain the role of the Department of Transportation with regard to advising and assisting NAC; and please provide specifics with respect to the number of meetings and the volume of correspondence exchanged particular to each matter under consideration with respect to the Nanaimo Airport and its proposed expansion and development plans.
6) It appears that there have not been sufficient studies undertaken that would protect the public interest or environment or sustainability considerations with respect to the NAC’s proposed expansion plans. Could you please list all reports produced by, or provided by or on behalf of the Department of Transportation, or other federal Departments or agencies/organizations.
Could you please provide specific explanation, noting the absence of such work where it may apply to the Nanaimo Airport and environs, with respect to normal practices that would be undertaken in due course of federal funding and assistance being provided for works that directly or indirectly contribute to development in, above or adjacent to an aquifer and groundwater supply.
Similarly please provide such explanation, and absence thereof, as would be expected to address both short and long-term needs and interests of local residents, wildlife, biota, insect and aquatic populations - as well as normal practice taken to consider the public commons, surrounding watershed, biodiversity and ecosystem needs and sustainability.
7) Could you please explain the rationale particular to actions considered or taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and/or any other federal department or representative, to clear a salmon stream in the vicinity of the Nanaimo Airport; and especially that area where a private property owner was previously refused permission to clear debris from a stream because of concerns and regulations protecting salmon habitat and the potential adverse effects and impacts such clearing may precipitate.
In other words, in light of past protection and past actions undertaken by the federal government and its representatives, to prevent the local private property owner from removing debris in a salmon habitat area, why was special dispensation provided so that the net effect would benefit the Nanaimo Airport in its expansion plans? Please also explain why it appears this was done regardless of national standards and regulations pertinent to fisheries regulations and protection of such salmon streams and habitat.
Please further explain what considerations originally led to the private property owner being disallowed from clearing the salmon stream, and what assessments were undertaken to support the decision to permit the federal government’s Departments and representatives to support the debris removal and subsequent cut work. Who and what Departments were involved, and was this undertaken in consideration of or in concert with local authorities?
8) Please note the Departments that are responsible for ensuring that the federal government and its representatives ensure that public duties are fully discharged, accountability ensured and that due process is followed.
Could you please specifically note the manner by which the failure of a federal government Department, agency or authority to follow due process, public hearings and proper environmental assessment procedures, should be addressed. Specifically could you note such steps as may be relevant where private interests have been assisted, especially as they may relate to the Nanaimo Airport and its proposed expansion plans.
Could you please comment and provide explanation on the adequacy of the regulations and procedures that would permit Transport Canada, or any other federal department or appointed individual or agency and the like, to contribute to the Nanaimo Airport Commission and it’s three-stage development plans (not all of which have yet been revealed to the public) without necessitating an environmental assessment, full public consultations and specific mitigative efforts pertinent to threatened species, habitat destruction and protection of essential aquifer and groundwater supplies.
9) Could you please identify Federal funds that have been or may be granted to assist in the NAC's proposed expansion plans. Similarly could you please determine if other funds that the Government of Canada contributes, or plans to contribute to the NAC, may lead to or indirectly support expansion of the airport by NAC or any other interest.
In like manner is there similar funds or assistance that may be available to persons, organizations, local residents and the general public - those who may wish to review such information for themselves, or wish to undertake independent evaluation and obtain assistance so that they may fully participate in a consultative and environmental assessment process particular to such proposed expansion plans as NAC may be furthering.
10) Could you please undertake to have Transport Canada, or other federal department with related jurisdictional responsibilities, take steps to review present regulations and such authority that falls to it, so as to protect the interest of the public, especially as such steps may:
- ensure that NAC's expansion program and plans do not adversely impact the aquifer and groundwater supplies directly below it, only meters under the runway and tarmac – a sensitive zone that BC governments have identified as being at risk, and that the main population centres in the region, Ladysmith and Nanaimo, have identified as intending to use in the future so as to draw water for their residential and business needs.
- publicly identify the planned flight paths, as well as those flight paths that might reasonably be expected to be established in the future, along with measures that should be in place to report violations and ensure accountability.
- mitigate impacts on the residents, environment, community and businesses that may be adversely affected by NAC’s proposed expansion plans.
- identify the next phases, work and placement of high-intensity lighting and ancillary equipment, etc that NAC will require to be in place to meet its projected expansion plans in Phases two, three, etc.
- be able to protect the public interest.
11) Could you please undertake to have Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Health Canada, DFO or other such federal department as may be responsible, to hold public hearings and information meetings so that all considerations may be heard and appropriate decisions made so as to protect the social, economic, sustainable development and environmental interests of the region and public – and that will also require accountability and due process for any and all expansion plans underway or proposed by NAC.
12) Could you please confirm recent suggestions, noting the names and positions of all those undertaking such deliberations, particular to the Nanaimo Airport being considered as a support, supply and service location for proposed BC coastal and offshore oil and gas development and related activities.
Please also reference background materials developed pursuant to such deliberations, providing copies of materials, communications and reports developed over the past five years in this respect.
As representatives of the peoples of Canada, sworn to uphold the laws and to act so as to further the environment, sustainable development, quality of life, health of Canadians, as well as the values of community and country that nurture and promise a fair and just treatment for all, we urge you then, and would also request your direct intervention to address such specific federal actions and inactions that appear to have been taken in order to support the NAC’s airport expansion plans, and that have led to regulations and due process being circumvented, and that would permit both public scrutiny and accountability.
In particular potential problems of the airport expansion that include specific concerns about the impact on the aquifer, should be deemed adequate to require that an environmental assessment process be triggered. Using the excuse, that the proposed expansion falls only meters short of automatically triggering an environmental assessment, should not be deemed adequate to avoid undertaking such a full assessment and public consultation.
Potential damage or deterioration of an aquifer is a substantive and critical matter, of high order, and should be ignored only if human and ecosystem health are meaningless to this federal government and its representatives.
Your intervention then, and further direction requiring that the federal government and its Departments and servants require due process to be followed ...so that residents who will be affected can proactively address potential impacts problems posed by the planned Nanaimo Airport expansion, would be most appropriate and welcome in this circumstance.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurie Gourlay, on behalf of MISSI
Laurie Gourlay
President, Mid-Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative
2689 Cedar Road
Nanaimo, BC
V9X 1K3
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G6
ATTN: Mr. Scott Vaughn
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Re: Petitions
petitions@oag-bvg.gc.ca
June 30, 2009
Dear Mr. Vaughn,
Unfortunately it appears that after a year of corresponding with Transport Canada, and several years attempting to get specific answers from the Nanaimo Airport Commission (Vancouver Island, BC), we are no further ahead with respect to obtaining information, or having serious questions addressed about the potential impact of the local airport's expansion plans on the environment, sustainability, livelihood and wellbeing of local residents.
It also appears that Transport Canada is purposely avoiding such questions, and specifically providing funding to the Nanaimo Airport Commission (NAC) where such assistance might be construed as utilizing such funds for other than expansion purposes - thereby avoiding an environmental assessment.
We first approached Transport Canada to determine how we could obtain information on the Nanaimo Airport’s flight paths, so that we could assist with planning, via the local ‘Official Community Plan’ that is presently under review, whether the community and region of Cedar, Yellowpoint, South Wellington and the Town of Ladysmith are to regularly and without recourse be subject to low-flying jets taking off and landing directly over homes, farms and businesses. Such overhead flights have been consistently increasing, sometimes shaking the windows of residences in the middle of the night, and being so low as to appear to be just over tree-top level.
Complaints to the NAC do not seem to result in action, and certainly there is no follow-up reporting on how such complaints were addressed, who may have been contacted, and what new actions will be taken so that the problems do not persist.
Despite informing Transport Canada representatives in Vancouver that the Nanaimo Airport Commission was consistently failing to address such questions and provide such information, Transport Canada has continued to direct us for responses to such questions back to the NAC. It would then appear that there is a major fault in the process since the public cannot access information that is directly relevant to their livelihood, health and wellbeing. Neither has government, nor the non-profit society (NAC), addressed these questions through an accountable and formal public review process.
Where questions have been raised about potential environmental and sustainability impacts resulting from the NAC’s airport expansion plans, Transport Canada has consistently referred all questions back to NAC. This, despite the point being raised that it appears that NAC is avoiding steps that might require such assessment. For instance, anecdotally it appears that NAC’s planned runway extension, begun this spring, falls only meters short of triggering an environmental assessment – a length that suggests a purposeful decision to avoid a federal environmental assessment.
As well, a number of requests to obtain information on planned flight paths and related impacts, from NAC as well as Transport Canada, have been answered with vague suggestions that the information is proprietary to the private company that was contracted by NAC to develop such plans – essentially excuses as to why such information cannot be provided.
In this regard there is little doubt that due process and accountability are being intentionally avoided at this time with respect to the Nanaimo Airport’s planned expansion – and that an environmental assessment process that should be in place is in fact being circumvented.
All of this is of course potentially detrimental to the future wellbeing of local residents and businesses, the environment and sustainability of the area, as well as having implications for the town of Ladysmith and City of Nanaimo as future water supplies from the Cassidy aquifer (directly below the airport) and surrounding groundwater supplies are threatened.
Thank you for your assistance. Please let us know if there are further steps required so as to formally have this Petition brought to the attention of the various Ministers for their reply.
Sincerely,
Laurie Gourlay
President, Mid-Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative
2689 Cedar Road
Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1K3
The Yellow Cedar Project * Summary Overview
Draft - July 17, 2009
Please note that a feedback form has been attached to the last page. We welcome your comments and suggestions.
|
|
Project Host & Location: Mid Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative
Cedar/Yellowpoint, Vancouver Island, BC
c/o Laurie Gourlay, president
2689 Cedar Road, Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1K3
(250 722-3444 o)
|
|
Project Background:
|
GHG emissions from consumption of fossil fuels is leading to climate changes that are adversely affecting the essential ecological systems upon which society depends.
This project, located in a rural and predominantly agricultural area of Vancouver Island, will implement means to offset and mitigate such global challenges via sustained and incremental measures that will sequester such emissions, as well as reduce related consumption and practices.
|
|
Project Benefits:
|
The project will actively address the lack of options available, locally and otherwise, to individuals and other stakeholders in contributing to solutions to the immediate and long-term problems resulting from climate change.
Benefits will accrue to the local area in the same relative ratio that GHG emissions are added. This will help to create a sense of ownership, and a means for the public and corporations to begin to mitigate their contributions to the GHG problems.
Benefits will include assistance to farmers and landowners, in undertaking practices that sequester carbon; and opportunities to adapt agricultural practices for increased yield and carbon reduction, will realize direct benefits to residents of the region.
As well, a number of direct and substantive benefits will accrue in the form of increased agricultural, forest and greenspace sequestration initiatives – with payments to landowners to retain such carbon sequestration options; and the relatively undervalued benefit of having agricultural lands and forests retained in the area immediately adjacent to VI’s second largest city.
The opportunity to retain a natural landscape that sequesters carbon will complement Canada’s National Park plans for a National Marine Conservation Area to the south Gulf Islands.
Tourism and related business and economic benefits will increase accordingly, with home and cottage industries reflecting the rural character and attributes of the region.
|
|
Project Objectives:
|
The project will work to offset climate change locally, developing means so that individuals as well as crown and corporate partners can mitigate and offset both fossil fuel consumption and carbon production.
Research and demonstration initiatives will go hand in hand with information dissemination and specific workshops designed to engage the public and residents in contributing to and benefitting from carbon sequestration and energy reduction measures.
The Project is expecting to serve as a model for similar local efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
|
|
Project Deliverables:
|
The project will help develop means for direct contributions to be made at the point of purchase or consumption of fossil fuels – in the form of carbon offset ‘credits’.
Energy conservation efforts will result in home, farm, corporate and crown retrofits that will reduce consumption by 40% by 2020 - with commensurate benefits to the local economy.
Research will identify appropriate practices, planting and species that will sequester carbon locally, opening up options for similar projects as the benefits of small-scale carbon offset programs are realized. Similarly marine sequestration opportunites will be actively addressed, with consideration for innovative options reflecting the scale and capacity of the Georgia Strait and environs.
The project area will serve as a natural land-based buffer and complementary working reserve, situated adjacent to the proposed National Marine Conservation Area.
Partnerships will be fostered between residents, landowners, corporate, crown and First Nation interests in the region.
|
|
Project Boundaries
|
The project is expected to include the areas roughly extending between the northern estuary of Ladysmith Harbour and Kulleet Bay to the southern estuary of Nanaimo Harbour, east of the Island Highway to the coast of the Cedar and Yellowpoint areas.
|
|
Success Criteria:
|
Success will be measured by the reduction in energy consumption, number of public-private partnership agreements, contributions in the form of carbon ‘credits’, number of retrofits and conservation measures undertaken, number of trees planted, changes to agricultural/forest practices so that carbon is sequestered, new planning guidelines that incorporate climate change requirements, research results that identify options for small-scale carbon offset/sequestration opportunities, as well as the number of inquiries, information and assistance provided both locally and to other regions as interest grows in adopting climate mitigation efforts.
|
|
Constraints:
|
We need to establish a Co-op (&/or Trust) that will solicit and receive funds both for administration as well as for the deliverables of the Project.
Familiarity with carbon offset options and opportunities need to be developed, as do skills for assessment and delivery of Project objectives.
The project team must have the resources available, deadlines in place, and legal and scientific counsel identified so that decisions can be made as new challenges arise.
The residents, businesses, and governments of the local areas, as well as such authorities overseeing related carbon initiatives, need to be engaged and supportive.
The present orientation by carbon mitigation trusts, to require massive areas for sequestration, need to be adjusted so that the incremental contribution of small-scale projects will be recognized - with access to such resources and funds made available.
|
|
Key Assumptions:
|
We anticipate that climate change impacts will increase at a rapid rate, leading to greater interest and support for mitigative measures. As the need to reduce fossil fuel use and GHG emissions becomes evident we expect greater co-operation, funding and partnership opportunities to evolve.
|
|
Project Manager:
|
TBD:
- Need individual to fulfil this role and define the specific tasks.
|
|
Project Sponsor:
|
TBD: A Co-op and/or Trust will be formed. In the meantime MISSI (Mid Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative) is willing to host the Project, and is flexible in pursuing charitable status, etc should this assist.
Expressions of interest and support have also been received from the Mid-Island Co-op (predominantly involved with fuel sales), and the Heritage Food Co-op (working with farmers and institutions on issues involving food production). As well, start-up funds for projects with these goals are available for up to $75,000 from the Cdn Co-op Association.
Additional funds will be solicited locally, as well as from such carbon ‘credit’ agencies as the Pacific Carbon Trust.
|
|
Project Board/Steering Group Members:
TBD
|
Who fulfils these roles and what they do.
|
Project Team Members:
TBD
|
|
|
BudgetŒ
|
|
Resource Costs:
|
Other Costs:
|
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Total costs (attach a breakdown of the overall budget)
|
|
|
|
Start Date:
|
asap; Business Plan in circulation by September 2009
|
Completion Date:
|
Five-year business plans are expected to be renewed in an ongoing manner.
|
|
Signature of Project Manager:
|
TBD
|
Date:
|
|
|
Approval from Sponsor:
|
TBD
|
Date:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The Yellow Cedar Project is the working name for this initiative at present. The name was chosen to reflect local and global, environmental, sociodemographic and spiritual dynamics.
“Given its longevity and dendroclimatological sensitivity, yellow-cedar potentially offers forest ecologists and resource managers insight into long-term climate–growth dynamics over the last millennia, information essential for understanding changes in growth dynamics accompanying future changing climates. Furthermore, the proven crossdatability of yellow-cedar means that archeologists should now be able to confidently use this species in their attempts to date First Nation artefacts. Given that yellow-cedar has a significant ceremonial ancestry within this region, recognition of this potential is exceptionally noteworthy.”
Tree-ring analysis of yellow-cedar, (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Colin P. Laroque and Dan J. Smith (UVIC Geography Dep’t), 1999, NRC study.
Questions Arising – Please use the form below to note considerations and additional information needed in order to advance the Yellow Cedar Project.
...& please return the form to the project sponsor:
Mid Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative,
c/o Laurie Gourlay, president, 2689 Cedar Road, Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1K3,
|
Background to the project
|
|
General aims(s)
|
|
Initial Risks
|
|
Expected Outcomes
|
|
Benefits of running with this project
|
|
Initial estimates of cost and time
$:
Time:
|
|
Appraisal of the business case
|
|
Other observations
|
|
Name/Date
|
The first Board for MISSI was elected Nov. 25 2008.
Below you will find a copy of the Petition, regarding the airport, that is being sent to the office of the Auditor General – attention of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Scroll down for the Yellow Cedar Project.
Petition
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G6
ATTN: Mr. Scott Vaughn
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Re: Petitions
petitions@oag-bvg.gc.ca
June 30, 2009
Dear Mr. Vaughn,
We request the intervention of the responsible federal ministers so as to address matters that may be a threat to the public and environmental health, integrity and sustainable development of the mid-island region of Vancouver Island. Please accept this as a petition under Section 22 of The Auditor General's Act.
We are petitioning that in the interest of the health and well being, and the quality of life of the majority of the citizens in and around the mid-island region associated with the Nanaimo Airport; as well as in the interest of protecting aquifer and groundwater, drinking water and irrigation supplies; and in the interest of preserving important community wetlands, migratory and resident birds, and threatened and endangered species; as well as in the interest of supporting long-term economic and business interests compatible with the rural attributes of this region - that the plans and undertakings of the Nanaimo Airport Commission, to expand and develop lands under its authority as well as the surrounding region impacted by its operations, be halted until such time as a thorough Environmental Assessment, with full public consultations, can be conducted.
We are writing with respect to a local airport, the Nanaimo Airport – Vancouver Island, BC, and concerns that development plans and actions that are being undertaken in a three stage expansion over the next five - seven years will have both immediate and long-term adverse impacts locally, as well as with respect to federal commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions affecting climate change.
At a time when the environment and the economy are both in need of the attention of a balanced and considerate sustainable approach it appears that little is being done, or attempted, to ensure that the public's interest is first and foremost when federal funds are being spent.
The Nanaimo Airport Commission (NAC) is being subsidized by millions of dollars from both federal and provincial taxpayers. And yet residents in the immediate area are unable to access pertinent information, or be assured of a public process that will ensure that such monies as are being spent are for the best and highest use – without undue or ill-considered planning with respect to impacts on human health and the environment.
It does not appear that normal and accountable checks and balances, that would usually be expected prior to funding and development approvals being given are in fact being required. Nor does it appear that independent studies, federal reviews or specific investigations or follow-ups to ensure that health and safety considerations will be met for the short and long-term needs of the region, are being undertaken or required.
It further appears that decisions are being taken, by federal agencies and representatives that would normally be expected to oversee and approve such courses of action, such that the usual process is being circumvented so as to permit NAC to avoid being held accountable or to meet the usual environmental assessment processes and expectations so as to maintain standards respecting sustainability, health, water and local community and economic considerations.
These concerns also come in part as a result of actions undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when it apparently intervened following a request by the NAC, in a manner that may have contravened federal regulations - acting in concert with local authorities to clear a salmon stream that DFO had apparently previously refused to touch, or to allow anyone to touch because of concerns regarding salmon habitat destruction.
The DFO’s subsequent approval of measures to clear the stream was reportedly undertaken so that a deal could be made between NAC and a private property owner whose land was being flooded by debris accumulation in the stream. Following such questionable intervention, the private property owner apparently gave permission to have tall trees topped or removed that were on his private property in the proposed expanded runway flight.
These actions were undertaken at a time when Transport Canada had issued an ultimatum that such tree topping/removal was requisite, and a deadline was quickly approaching that would have required NAC to proceed with a full environmental assessment review process, and additional public review before the runway’s airport expansion plans would be able to proceed. It would appear that two federal government agencies ignored due process, and proper environmental assessment procedures, in order to assist private interests and the NAC.
We are then concerned that NAC’s actions and plans are not respecting the public interest, nor the rules and regulations and due process, that are in place to protect our environment and our social infrastructure, including the principles of Sustainable Development.
Conclusions by laypersons would suggest that Transport Canada, DFO and other federal departments are failing to meet their responsibilities, failing to ensure that the public interest as well as environmental and sustainability requirements are protected, and that there is a commensurate need of assistance to ensure that the public's monies and larger long-term common interests that we share as a society are upheld.
The Nanaimo Airport expansion plans appear to have failed to have met standard norms for public consultation, with concomitant economic impacts adding to the adverse cumulative social, environmental, sustainability and community impacts.
By way of background we would note that the Nanaimo Airport Commission was given control over the airport operations, incorporated in August of 1990 as a not-for profit authority under the Canada Corporations Act - Part II.
In 2004, NAC announced plans to expand the airport, its runway and operations, subsequently promising to fully comply with environmental and social assessment processes. However, as plans have transpired the NAC has increasingly expanded on its intentions, and is now intent on a three-stage process that will see the airport expand to permit aircraft as large as 737’s, as well as re-designating lands for industrial and commercial operations.
Such industrial and commercial plans would appear to have little to do with airport operations, furthering revenue generation for NAC in a manner more reflective of land speculation and an attempt to utilize the special status provided to airports so as to avoid normal review and approval processes for industrial and other development purposes. We are also concerned that a precedent is being set for the manner in which airports in general in Canada are using such status as a means to circumvent due process and related public and sustainability considerations.
It is further apparent that there is no need for additional industrial and commercial development lands as are being proposed by NAC, given that major industrial park lands at Duke Point, only a few miles away, have recently been re-designated for residential development - since there is no demand by industry for such lands. It would appear that the NAC is using its ability to proceed without the normal review processes required for socio-economic and environmental impact assessments, so as to avoid the scrutiny and accountability normally in place to protect the interests of residents, sustainability, the environment and local economic and rural considerations.
Dr Stephen Earle from the Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo expressed such concern in January 2009, noting that the $25.5 million airport expansion project would damage an important local water supply aquifer and affect rare wildlife – notably the Vesper Sparrow, which nests close to the two airport runways and is the only confirmed Coastal Vesper Sparrow breeding ground in Canada.
Additional specific concerns with respect to the environment and sustainability pertain to expanding the runway into the habitat of this rare species, as well as significant impacts on Trumpeter swans - another rare species just coming back from near extinction that are resident in the ponds, streams and wetlands lying in and around the flight paths of NAC. Similarly resident and migratory bald eagles, great blue herons, hawks, owls and Pacific migration flyway species such as the american wigeon, northern pintail and green-winged teal are expected to be negatively and permanently impacted.
Replies to correspondence with Transport Canada, since June of 2008, with regard to federal monies being provided to various programs and infrastructure improvements that support Nanaimo Airport plans and projects, and that indirectly contribute to the NAC expansion plans, can be characterized as more of an attempt to avoid addressing the questions and concerns that have been raised.
Potential problems are consistently referred back to the NAC for answers, with little clarification or attempt to direct the public to solutions to problems that fall within federal jurisdictional responsibilities. Essentially each request for information receives a reply saying nothing can be done.
As well as an inadequate, and apparently deceptive, process to keep the public from understanding the cumulative impacts of the full development plans being put in place, the actions by NAC and the various federal departments, as they are complicit in furthering the NAC’s plans and development, are detrimental to the environment and sustainability.
Specifically, NAC's expansion program and plans do not adequately address the adverse impact of its runway and operations on the Cassidy aquifer that is directly below it, only meters under the runway and tarmac. This although both the main population centres in the region, Ladysmith and Nanaimo, have noted intentions to draw water from this aquifer in the future, and reports to the BC government identify this aquifer as being at risk. Human, environment, community, economic, rural and sustainability interests are being put at risk.
Neither have noise impacts been addressed adequately, nor have proposed upgrades to landing systems that are being planned to increase direct routes into the airport so as to allow larger planes to land. Locations and impacts of new high-intensity runway lighting, and navigational towers to allow planes to land in inclement weather, have been vague – and expected flight paths and related runway routing is yet to be revealed.
The usual practice, established to protect people and the environment, would see the onus placed on any new development to prove that there will be minimal adverse impacts from proposed operations – to consult comprehensively with local residents and fully consider ecosystems and sustainability considerations so that there are little or no adverse effects. The NAC plans and developments however appear to have been undertaken so as to provide the least opportunity for public review, especially so at the immediate local level where the impact will be most severe, and would appear to result in major adverse cumulative impacts on human health, the environment and economy, and sustainability of the area.
The long-term interests of residents, the general public, sustainable development and the environment apparently have been intentionally overlooked by NAC as well as by the federal government and local authorities that would normally be expected to undertake proper and thorough regulatory reviews. Standard practices for consultation and review appear to have been purposely ignored so as fast-track short-term and self-interested plans.
In other words should this airport expansion and related developments be permitted to continue in the manner they have been conducted to date the public interest, environmental protection and sustainability considerations will be diminished, to be superceded by ill-considered development and what amounts to boosterism schemes devised for the sole purpose of furthering special interest economic and infrastructure plans and promises.
Given such imminent concerns to human and environmental health we believe that Environment Canada as well as Health Canada should be required to uphold the spirit as well as the letter of the law by ensuring that the Canadian Environment Assessment Act (CEAA) is followed, including full public consultation. Similarly Health Canada, if it is to retain credibility, needs to provide leadership in protecting the aquifer and groundwater supplies that provide drinking water and crop irrigation for rural residents and farms in the vicinity – as well as future supplies for Vancouver’s Islands second largest city – Nanaimo, as well as the Town of Ladysmith.
We would then appreciate a response, by the appropriate government Ministers, to each of the questions outlined below. Please reply to each point separately, keeping in mind that the overall questions revolve around a wish to identify the funding and support provided by the federal government to the NAC.
Essentially we wish to know how the federal government is involved, implicated if you will, in furthering the NAC’s proposed expansion plans; as well as the responsibility of the federal government and it’s Departments, given such funding, support and involvement, in addressing key concerns relevant to sustainability and the environment.
In essence we want to know what has been done by the federal government and its Departments and representatives to discharge its duties and responsibilities with respect to protecting the public interest, the environment and sustainability being prominent in such considerations.
In this respect then we would like responses to be made such that they are readily understandable to lay persons, while ensuring specificity and relevant reports are referenced along with the names and positions of those who may have contributed, for follow-up as need be.
Based on our attempts to obtain information it would appear that there has been little done to address environment and sustainability considerations. And further to this, it also appears that the public interest and due process has not been respected. We are then looking for evidence that the Federal government and Departments and responsible agencies have undertaken to respect the rules and regulations, the letter and intent of the law governing Canada and Canadians, and all those resident herein.
In this regard we wish to know what information the federal government has produced, and in what form it is available, that addresses the public interest, and questions and concerns surrounding the expansion of the Nanaimo airport? Especially we wish to know what has been produced for the public to review and consider, and how has it been distributed so that local residents as well as those who may be affected by such expansion plans may be made aware and have opportunity to consider and respond to such information.
1) With respect to the Nanaimo Airport, and plans that have been progressing with the assistance of federal funds over the past five years, have Transport Canada staff, other federal government departments, employees, contractors, or organizations in receipt of federal government funds, been requested not to speak with the media or the public unless "appropriate approvals are in place", and have they similarly been directed not to provide technical or other replies to "ad hoc" technical or other questions from the public unless they are vetted?
If this has occurred please explain your rationale, and how this has affected decision-making with respect to the Nanaimo Airport, and accountability to local affected residents and the general public.
2) Please explain and direct accordingly, in terms that would assist a layperson in understanding such directives and briefing notes, what information has been made available to the public with respect to the above and future development as it applies to Nanaimo Airport expansion plans.
3) Could you please identify what funding and support has been provided for the NAC expansion and otherwise, pertinent to Transport Canada’s purview, or any other federal government department, with regard to federal services provided or monies spent, offered or being considered for various programs and infrastructure improvements that may directly or indirectly support the goals and proposed plans for the development and/or the expansion of the Nanaimo Airport over the past five years.
Please enumerate and elaborate in terms that would assist the general public to understand the full range of agreements, contracts, funds, communications and terms for assistance provided by the federal government to the Nanaimo Airport Commission over the past five years.
4) Similarly, could you please summarize the research conducted by the federal government or its Departments and representatives particular to the impact, and potential impact, of the Nanaimo Airport Commission’s development work and plans - especially as it may affect the environment, aquifers and groundwater, and sustainability considerations for the public as well as local, regional and federal jurisdictional authorities?
Could you please extrapolate on how the short and long-term interests of residents, the general public, sustainability and the environment were addressed by the Department of Transport and/or other federal government departments/agencies or contracted bodies, so as to ensure that regulations and the intent of the law were addressed, upheld and implemented effectively with respect to the Nanaimo Airport.
5) Could you please explain the role, responsibilities and influence of the Department of Transportation in relation to expansion plans of the NAC; which individuals and agencies may be involved, how many meetings have been held and correspondence exchanged between representatives.
Similarly please explain the role of the Department of Transportation with regard to advising and assisting NAC; and please provide specifics with respect to the number of meetings and the volume of correspondence exchanged particular to each matter under consideration with respect to the Nanaimo Airport and its proposed expansion and development plans.
6) It appears that there have not been sufficient studies undertaken that would protect the public interest or environment or sustainability considerations with respect to the NAC’s proposed expansion plans. Could you please list all reports produced by, or provided by or on behalf of the Department of Transportation, or other federal Departments or agencies/organizations.
Could you please provide specific explanation, noting the absence of such work where it may apply to the Nanaimo Airport and environs, with respect to normal practices that would be undertaken in due course of federal funding and assistance being provided for works that directly or indirectly contribute to development in, above or adjacent to an aquifer and groundwater supply.
Similarly please provide such explanation, and absence thereof, as would be expected to address both short and long-term needs and interests of local residents, wildlife, biota, insect and aquatic populations - as well as normal practice taken to consider the public commons, surrounding watershed, biodiversity and ecosystem needs and sustainability.
7) Could you please explain the rationale particular to actions considered or taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and/or any other federal department or representative, to clear a salmon stream in the vicinity of the Nanaimo Airport; and especially that area where a private property owner was previously refused permission to clear debris from a stream because of concerns and regulations protecting salmon habitat and the potential adverse effects and impacts such clearing may precipitate.
In other words, in light of past protection and past actions undertaken by the federal government and its representatives, to prevent the local private property owner from removing debris in a salmon habitat area, why was special dispensation provided so that the net effect would benefit the Nanaimo Airport in its expansion plans? Please also explain why it appears this was done regardless of national standards and regulations pertinent to fisheries regulations and protection of such salmon streams and habitat.
Please further explain what considerations originally led to the private property owner being disallowed from clearing the salmon stream, and what assessments were undertaken to support the decision to permit the federal government’s Departments and representatives to support the debris removal and subsequent cut work. Who and what Departments were involved, and was this undertaken in consideration of or in concert with local authorities?
8) Please note the Departments that are responsible for ensuring that the federal government and its representatives ensure that public duties are fully discharged, accountability ensured and that due process is followed.
Could you please specifically note the manner by which the failure of a federal government Department, agency or authority to follow due process, public hearings and proper environmental assessment procedures, should be addressed. Specifically could you note such steps as may be relevant where private interests have been assisted, especially as they may relate to the Nanaimo Airport and its proposed expansion plans.
Could you please comment and provide explanation on the adequacy of the regulations and procedures that would permit Transport Canada, or any other federal department or appointed individual or agency and the like, to contribute to the Nanaimo Airport Commission and it’s three-stage development plans (not all of which have yet been revealed to the public) without necessitating an environmental assessment, full public consultations and specific mitigative efforts pertinent to threatened species, habitat destruction and protection of essential aquifer and groundwater supplies.
9) Could you please identify Federal funds that have been or may be granted to assist in the NAC's proposed expansion plans. Similarly could you please determine if other funds that the Government of Canada contributes, or plans to contribute to the NAC, may lead to or indirectly support expansion of the airport by NAC or any other interest.
In like manner is there similar funds or assistance that may be available to persons, organizations, local residents and the general public - those who may wish to review such information for themselves, or wish to undertake independent evaluation and obtain assistance so that they may fully participate in a consultative and environmental assessment process particular to such proposed expansion plans as NAC may be furthering.
10) Could you please undertake to have Transport Canada, or other federal department with related jurisdictional responsibilities, take steps to review present regulations and such authority that falls to it, so as to protect the interest of the public, especially as such steps may:
- ensure that NAC's expansion program and plans do not adversely impact the aquifer and groundwater supplies directly below it, only meters under the runway and tarmac – a sensitive zone that BC governments have identified as being at risk, and that the main population centres in the region, Ladysmith and Nanaimo, have identified as intending to use in the future so as to draw water for their residential and business needs.
- publicly identify the planned flight paths, as well as those flight paths that might reasonably be expected to be established in the future, along with measures that should be in place to report violations and ensure accountability.
- mitigate impacts on the residents, environment, community and businesses that may be adversely affected by NAC’s proposed expansion plans.
- identify the next phases, work and placement of high-intensity lighting and ancillary equipment, etc that NAC will require to be in place to meet its projected expansion plans in Phases two, three, etc.
- be able to protect the public interest.
11) Could you please undertake to have Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Health Canada, DFO or other such federal department as may be responsible, to hold public hearings and information meetings so that all considerations may be heard and appropriate decisions made so as to protect the social, economic, sustainable development and environmental interests of the region and public – and that will also require accountability and due process for any and all expansion plans underway or proposed by NAC.
12) Could you please confirm recent suggestions, noting the names and positions of all those undertaking such deliberations, particular to the Nanaimo Airport being considered as a support, supply and service location for proposed BC coastal and offshore oil and gas development and related activities.
Please also reference background materials developed pursuant to such deliberations, providing copies of materials, communications and reports developed over the past five years in this respect.
As representatives of the peoples of Canada, sworn to uphold the laws and to act so as to further the environment, sustainable development, quality of life, health of Canadians, as well as the values of community and country that nurture and promise a fair and just treatment for all, we urge you then, and would also request your direct intervention to address such specific federal actions and inactions that appear to have been taken in order to support the NAC’s airport expansion plans, and that have led to regulations and due process being circumvented, and that would permit both public scrutiny and accountability.
In particular potential problems of the airport expansion that include specific concerns about the impact on the aquifer, should be deemed adequate to require that an environmental assessment process be triggered. Using the excuse, that the proposed expansion falls only meters short of automatically triggering an environmental assessment, should not be deemed adequate to avoid undertaking such a full assessment and public consultation.
Potential damage or deterioration of an aquifer is a substantive and critical matter, of high order, and should be ignored only if human and ecosystem health are meaningless to this federal government and its representatives.
Your intervention then, and further direction requiring that the federal government and its Departments and servants require due process to be followed ...so that residents who will be affected can proactively address potential impacts problems posed by the planned Nanaimo Airport expansion, would be most appropriate and welcome in this circumstance.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurie Gourlay, on behalf of MISSI
Laurie Gourlay
President, Mid-Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative
2689 Cedar Road
Nanaimo, BC
V9X 1K3
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G6
ATTN: Mr. Scott Vaughn
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Re: Petitions
petitions@oag-bvg.gc.ca
June 30, 2009
Dear Mr. Vaughn,
Unfortunately it appears that after a year of corresponding with Transport Canada, and several years attempting to get specific answers from the Nanaimo Airport Commission (Vancouver Island, BC), we are no further ahead with respect to obtaining information, or having serious questions addressed about the potential impact of the local airport's expansion plans on the environment, sustainability, livelihood and wellbeing of local residents.
It also appears that Transport Canada is purposely avoiding such questions, and specifically providing funding to the Nanaimo Airport Commission (NAC) where such assistance might be construed as utilizing such funds for other than expansion purposes - thereby avoiding an environmental assessment.
We first approached Transport Canada to determine how we could obtain information on the Nanaimo Airport’s flight paths, so that we could assist with planning, via the local ‘Official Community Plan’ that is presently under review, whether the community and region of Cedar, Yellowpoint, South Wellington and the Town of Ladysmith are to regularly and without recourse be subject to low-flying jets taking off and landing directly over homes, farms and businesses. Such overhead flights have been consistently increasing, sometimes shaking the windows of residences in the middle of the night, and being so low as to appear to be just over tree-top level.
Complaints to the NAC do not seem to result in action, and certainly there is no follow-up reporting on how such complaints were addressed, who may have been contacted, and what new actions will be taken so that the problems do not persist.
Despite informing Transport Canada representatives in Vancouver that the Nanaimo Airport Commission was consistently failing to address such questions and provide such information, Transport Canada has continued to direct us for responses to such questions back to the NAC. It would then appear that there is a major fault in the process since the public cannot access information that is directly relevant to their livelihood, health and wellbeing. Neither has government, nor the non-profit society (NAC), addressed these questions through an accountable and formal public review process.
Where questions have been raised about potential environmental and sustainability impacts resulting from the NAC’s airport expansion plans, Transport Canada has consistently referred all questions back to NAC. This, despite the point being raised that it appears that NAC is avoiding steps that might require such assessment. For instance, anecdotally it appears that NAC’s planned runway extension, begun this spring, falls only meters short of triggering an environmental assessment – a length that suggests a purposeful decision to avoid a federal environmental assessment.
As well, a number of requests to obtain information on planned flight paths and related impacts, from NAC as well as Transport Canada, have been answered with vague suggestions that the information is proprietary to the private company that was contracted by NAC to develop such plans – essentially excuses as to why such information cannot be provided.
In this regard there is little doubt that due process and accountability are being intentionally avoided at this time with respect to the Nanaimo Airport’s planned expansion – and that an environmental assessment process that should be in place is in fact being circumvented.
All of this is of course potentially detrimental to the future wellbeing of local residents and businesses, the environment and sustainability of the area, as well as having implications for the town of Ladysmith and City of Nanaimo as future water supplies from the Cassidy aquifer (directly below the airport) and surrounding groundwater supplies are threatened.
Thank you for your assistance. Please let us know if there are further steps required so as to formally have this Petition brought to the attention of the various Ministers for their reply.
Sincerely,
Laurie Gourlay
President, Mid-Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative
2689 Cedar Road
Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1K3
* The Yellow Cedar Project is the working name for this initiative at present. The name was chosen to reflect local and global, environmental, sociodemographic and spiritual dynamics.
“Given its longevity and dendroclimatological sensitivity, yellow-cedar potentially offers forest ecologists and resource managers insight into long-term climate–growth dynamics over the last millennia, information essential for understanding changes in growth dynamics accompanying future changing climates. Furthermore, the proven crossdatability of yellow-cedar means that archeologists should now be able to confidently use this species in their attempts to date First Nation artefacts. Given that yellow-cedar has a significant ceremonial ancestry within this region, recognition of this potential is exceptionally noteworthy.”
Tree-ring analysis of yellow-cedar, (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Colin P. Laroque and Dan J. Smith (UVIC Geography Dep’t), 1999, NRC study.
Questions Arising – Please use the form below to note considerations and additional information needed in order to advance the Yellow Cedar Project.
...& please return the form to the project sponsor:
Mid Island Sustainability & Stewardship Initiative,
c/o Laurie Gourlay, president, 2689 Cedar Road, Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1K3,
|
Background to the project
|
|
General aims(s)
|
|
Initial Risks
|
|
Expected Outcomes
|
|
Benefits of running with this project
|
|
Initial estimates of cost and time
$:
Time:
|
|
Appraisal of the business case
|
|
Other observations
|
|
Name/Date
|
MISSI - First Board Elected
Elected:
Jack Anderson - 'At Large' - MISSI rep to OCP Review, District A - RDN
Jackie Beauty Moad 'Secretary'
Jim van Barneveld 'Internal Audit Cttee'
Goody Niosi 'Vice-President'
Laurie Gourlay 'President'
Lynn Burrows 'Treasurer'
Melvin Bramley 'At Large'
Outline of Plans for MISSI in 2009
Overall MISSI members should consider that they have done well to bring sustainability considerations before the RDN, and the Cedar/Yellow Point area. There were lots of promises in recent local elections, to support and further sustainability and environmental considerations - and MISSI has done its fair share to contribute to this debate.
The Board will meet quarterly or as needed, and maintain MISSI according to society regulations. The work over the next year will be to support MISSI goals, especially for sustainability measures to be included in the OCP/RGS. No public meetings are planned at this time, but the society is open to ideas that further cooperative initiatives and reach out to other organizations in the region.
In that respect MISSI members are encouraged to go to meetings in the area - and report back. What are the issues, the interests, the debates out there? How can MISSI act to help address (not necessarily lead) such matters ...to help the community as it addresses sustainability?
MISSI will also consider expanding its area of interest – to identify a larger core of members and expand from its focus on the Cedar-Yellow Point. Overtures will be made to interested people and representatives between Chemainus/Cobble Hill and Nanoose/Parksville. As we do so meetings of the Board will rotate into the above areas, perhaps in concert with related community organization meetings. We hope this will expand awareness of the diversity of interests, issues and socio-demographics of the region.
The RDN OCP/RGS will demand concerted and focused efforts, and MISSI members who are resident in the appropriate Area(s) will be encouraged to dedicate volunteer work to that effort – to assist local and rural community sustainability. Jack Anderson will be MISSI’s representative to the OCP review.
Funding options will be identified, so that the mandate of MISSI can be addressed with appropriate resources in place to pursue such goals.
MISSI’s Board will look to put its energy and that of its members, to assist the greater good ...the RDN OCP/RGS recognized as one such priority at this time.
I personally think that MISSI members, and Board, will find that working to further these general goals will be a very worthwhile process - assisting us all to become aware of challenges this region faces - and means available to assist in change.
And, with the economic downturn and developments being put on hold, it is reasonable to take a step back for self-reflection, and a moment to catch a breath. This can be a time to re-charge our personal and collective batteries, to reconsider strategic use of limited resources (sustainability), and to re-build the interest and trust of the communities and leaders in the area.
MISSI has done a lot in this first year to be proud of. Now it’s time to assess next steps, to prepare to take on new challenges as the world, and local regional districts, begin to address the challenges of sustainable development – the theme of the inaugural meeting that brought MISSI into being a year ago – December 10 2008.
Please consider joining us in this work, and do let us know how you would measure progress!
- Laurie Gourlay, president
