|
About
EarthCare
The
Canadian EarthCare Society (EarthCare) is a non-profit environmental
organization with a mandate to protect Earth's environment through
advocacy and public education...
more
| The Green Vacation
Challenge: An Initiative from EarthCare and Bearfoot Canada |
 |
|
|
|
 |
What's New?
|
B.C. nixed national park despite 2-to-1
public support
MARK
HUME
VANCOUVER— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published
Monday, May. 14, 2012 9:50PM EDT
Last
updated Tuesday,
May. 15, 2012 6:31AM EDT
When
British Columbia rejected a new
national park in the South Okanagan earlier this year, the government
cited a lack of public support for a proposal that would have protected
“one of the driest, hottest and most threatened ecosystems in Canada.”
The
decision was made even though the
government had in its possession a study that showed twice as many
local residents in support of the park as opposed.
But B.C.
Environment Minister Terry Lake
defended the decision Monday, saying he felt the level of support
wasn’t enough to justify such a dramatic shift in land use.
“It is
all in how you look at that data,”
he said, acknowledging the government had poll results showing about 39
per cent of respondents slightly or strongly supported the proposed
park, while only about 19 per cent were slightly or strongly opposed.
The remaining roughly 41 per cent said they neither supported nor
opposed the proposal, didn’t know, or needed more information before
deciding.
Mr. Lake
said 39-per-cent support isn’t
enough to justify establishing a national park in a region where
logging, ranching, hunting and other activities would be impacted.
“So, the
way I look at it is … if you are
going to make a huge change to the land base, that’s going to affect
peoples’ livelihoods … then I think there should be more than tepid
local support,” said Mr. Lake.
“I know
there’s a lot of people outside
the area that think it’s a great idea and I completely understand that
… I support the principle, but I think it’s critical to have local
support that is more than the level we are seeing here, otherwise it
divides communities,” he said.
Bob
Peart, a member of the Elders Council
for Parks in B.C., said he was surprised the government justified its
rejection of the national park proposal on the basis of the
public-opinion results.
“If two
to one isn’t strong enough
support, what would be?” asks Mr. Peart.
He said
he thinks Mr. Lake and other
Liberal members are more worried about upsetting ranchers and hunters
than in what the majority of the people in the South Okanagan and
Similkameen Valleys want.
The
proposal had been under study for
nearly a decade when Mr. Lake suddenly pulled the plug in January,
ending a federal-provincial process that seemed on track to establish a
park reserve in time to mark Parks Canada’s 100th anniversary in 2011.
At the
time, Mr. Lake said the decision
was made because a joint federal-provincial feasibility study
“recognized there was a large contingent of people opposed to the
initiative.”
That
feasibility study, completed early in
2011, was never released, but a copy obtained by The Globe and Mail
shows a random mail survey drew 777 responses and “indicated that
overall, supporters outnumbered opposition by approximately 2:1.”
There
were also several open houses that
drew 1,800 people and that helped Parks Canada modify its proposal,
changing proposed borders in an attempt to diminish conflicts with
resource users.
“Feedback
has generally been positive,
however, there continues to be some local opposition, primarily from
sportsman groups and motorized recreation users,” states the
feasibility study.
The
report states the park would have a
positive economic impact on the small towns nearby, but some logging
and mining rights would be curtailed and cattle grazing would have to
be stopped in some areas.
It called
for the establishment of a
national park reserve and said the federal, provincial and first nation
governments could then begin working on putting all the pieces in place
to make it a full national park, covering about 300 square kilometres.
When Mr. Lake rejected the proposal, Parks
Canada posted a notice on
its website saying it couldn’t proceed without provincial government
support
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*B.C. Forest Watch is an outreach service of the Shuswap Environmental
Action Society [www.seas.ca]
*To submit a message, send to:
bcforestwatch@npogroups.org
*To subscribe to bcforestwatch, a current
B.C. Forestwatch member must
send a message to the list manager <jcoop@ribaa.ca> with
a recommendation.
*To unsubscribe, send a blank email to:
bcforestwatch-unsubscribe@npogroups.org
1. Use B.C. Forestwatch only for information related to forest issues
in B.C.
2. This list is closed and information
exchanged on this list is
private and confidential unless clearly indicated for broad
dissemination. Unless indicated otherwise, please do not cross-post to
anybody without permission of the author.
3. Personal diatribes against particular
individuals and/or B.C.
environmental organizations are not condoned. Please keep all
communications relevant, respectful, insightful and constructive.
Bill
C-38: the
Environmental Destruction Act
Packing so many
attacks on nature into one bill, Harper bets, will confuse citizens.
Here's what's at stake.
By Elizabeth May,
10 May 2012, TheTyee.ca
Special
treatment for
oil industry means poor environmental laws
We’ve been
clear that the roll-back of
Canada’s environmental laws – legal environmental protection that
Canadians have worked for decades to put in place – can only benefit the oil and gas, mining and
other big industrial players, at the expense of our communities and the
environment.
By gutting
Canada’s long-standing
environmental laws, the budget bill gives big oil and gas companies
what they’ve been asking for – fewer environmental safeguards so they
can push through resource megaprojects with little regard to
environmental damage. It is Canadians and our children who
will pay the cost.
The
government certainly doesn’t deny that these changes will benefit
the oil and gas industry, although it is quick to
dispute any suggestion that they are doing this to accommodate the
industry and our view that the environment will suffer as a
result.
Nonetheless,
it may be useful to list, in
one place, just how the oil and gas industry – which is getting a
number of perks that are unique to the energy sector – is effectively
subsidized by the changes to Canada’s environmental laws, and what the
implications are for Canadians hoping for responsible regulation of the
industry. The industry has been actively lobbying for many of these changes
for years, and now they have what they have advocated for.
Tailor-made
environmental
assessment
The
centre-piece of the government’s Budget Implementation Bill
is an entirely new Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, 2012 (CEAA). There’s a
lot that it offers Oil Industry and other “Project Proponents” – the
industrial players that have their proposed projects assessed – and a
lot that should concern anyone who cares about democracy or strong
environmental laws:
- A
dramatic reduction in the number of
environmental assessments required. Exactly how dramatic a
reduction remains unclear, since assessments will only be required if
the Cabinet passes regulations (as yet unavailable) requiring an
assessment and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency decides
that an assessment is required. However, it almost certainly
includes eliminating assessments in large numbers of
very significant projects for which there is no
equivalent provincial environmental assessment;
- Tight
time-lines that, unless a limited
exception is provided at the discretion of the Minister or Cabinet,
apply only to the government and the public; a proponent’s experts can
take years to prepare studies and proposals, while experts working for
the government, or concerned community and environmental groups, only
have a narrow window to assess the project or do their own studies; and
- Very
narrow assessments that no longer
consider environment or social impacts broadly, but only focus on
impacts that are directly related to federal government approvals, or
the impact on federal lands, Aboriginal communities or other narrow
categories of impacts. For example, the downstream toxic
impacts of an oil sands tailings pit could probably not be considered
in most cases under the new CEAA, except as it relates to Aboriginal
communities.
Whether in
the oil and gas industry, or for
other large-scale or environmentally significant projects, fewer, more
narrowly focused, rushed environmental reviews are a recipe for
environmental disaster, and it is taxpayers who will be on the hook for
potentially multi-billion dollar clean-up and remediation costs.
A
weaker Fisheries Act
In addition
to the new CEAA, industries
which tend to destroy fish habitat in the wake of their infrastructure
or resource projects have reason to celebrate. The Budget
Implementation Bill repeals bans on destroying fish or fish habitat,
replacing them with a much weaker rule against causing “serious harm”
to fish – and only to fish that are considered
useful enough to commercial, recreational or Aboriginal interests to
warrant protection.
Seriously
harmed is defined as only
including situations where these “useful” fish are actually killed or
their habitat is permanently damaged – maiming, deforming or stunting
the growth of fish, for instance, does not amount to “serious harm” - a
far weaker test which will quickly result in a real loss of fish and
fish habitat over the long term.
The
government has also signaled that it
will pass regulations allowing some activities that might cause serious
harm to go ahead without federal government approval or
oversight.
The
implications for pipeline projects is
obvious. The controversial Enbridge Pipeline and Tanker
Project crosses over 1,000 rivers and streams on its proposed route
from Alberta across Northern BC, to Kitimat, and anything which removes
legal responsibility for damage to fish or fish habitat is good for
that industry – but very bad for fish and for the rest of us.
Additional
goodies for the oil
and gas industry
But for the
Oil and Gas industry – and
specifically for the construction of pipelines – there are additional
goodies. Everyone knows that the law is supposed to treat
everyone the same – but the Budget Bill:
- Turns
energy-related assessments over to
the National Energy Board (NEB)– an agency whose mandate includes, as a
prominent feature, promoting the industry and which lacks specialized
environmental assessment experience.
- Eliminates
the possibility that future
environmental assessments for pipelines will be conducted by “review
panels” – panels of experts that are arms length from
government.
- Limits
public participation in
environmental assessment of pipeline projects to individuals who can
demonstrate that they are either “directly affected” by the project, or
have particular expertise or information that, in the opinion of the
NEB, is relevant. As we’ve written previously,
this test, taken narrowly, has the potential to exclude a lot of people
who live near or are otherwise indirectly affected by pipeline projects.
- Allows
the NEB to sign off on pipeline
projects without ensuring that the project’s impacts on the critical
habitat of endangered species are minimized. All other
federal government agencies that make decisions impacting endangered
species habitat, and the NEB when considering non-pipeline related
projects, are still required to minimize impacts on critical
habitat.
- Takes
powers away from Transport Canada–
which has a mandate and expertise related to navigation on public water
bodies – related to the protection of public travel on waters, and
gives it to the National Energy Board, which doesn’t.
That’s a
pretty extensive list of special
treatment for the oil and gas industry, on top of the many benefits
that all large-scale industry is getting. I guess that over 1,100 meetings over 3 years
between industry lobbyists and senior federal government officials have
paid off.
Oil
and Water don’t mix
Canada’s
environmental laws have been built
up over decades, by Canadians whose focus was figuring out how best to
protect the environment through the law. Over the past
several years the oil and gas industry has been lobbying hard to repeal
and gut those laws, and now it looks as if they may be
succeeding. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has been lobbying for the “proposal repeal of
the Fisheries Act and a new Fisheries Act.”
Energy Giant, Kinder Morgan, which is seeking to expand its pipeline
from the Tar Sands to Metro Vancouver, so that it can ship oil from
Vancouver to Asia and the USA, has been lobbying on: “an
effective environmental assessment regime to enhance and streamline the
assessment of pipeline development.”
And now it
looks as if they may have
succeeded.
But we take
comfort in the fact that the
vast majority of Canadians, of all political walks of life, and all
backgrounds, recognize the importance of a healthy and clean
environment. We believe that Canadians care about clean water
and clean air.
If
you too care about laws that protect our natural heritage, please sign
the petition at envirolawsmatter.ca,
and spread the word – encourage your friends, family, neighbours to
sign. Because the “environment” is just another word for
home, and Canadians take pride in looking after our home.
By
Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer
Leaked
report shows that
changing the way the
Mininstry of Environment operates has sever implications
Do-it-yourself
conservation: Will bears go on Facebook?
Social
media are a key part of B.C. environment ministry shuffle
By Ethan Baron,
The
Province September 15, 2010
Tweet
tweet: The provincial government is moving away from trying to reduce
environmental impacts in favour of social-media outreach and
do-it-yourself environmental protection. The move comes as part of a
massive and secretive Ministry of Environment reorganization, revealed
in a leaked memo.
"It is
clear we can no longer spend so much
of our time responding to specific projects and trying to mitigate
negative impacts," says the memo sent Monday by deputy minister Doug
Konkin to all staff.
"Future
success depends on accelerating
the shift to proactive environmental management; on using social media
and finding more ways to get manufacturers, proponents and society to
protect the environment."
This
sea change, unannounced to the
public, but effective last Monday, centralizes the four major ministry
departments -- environmental protection, environmental stewardship,
water stewardship and parks -- into two new divisions.
No
ministry jobs will be cut, but some staff may be moved to other
functions, ministry spokesman Suntanu Dalal says in an email to The
Province, confirming the contents of the Konkin's memo.
Konkin,
in his memo, says the change is not about money. "We do face further
budget reductions next year but need to address those by changing work
processes and systems, not by reorganization."
The
memo was
leaked to the Wilderness Committee. The group's spokeswoman, Gwen
Barlee, said there are no more efficiencies to be gained in a ministry
that has seen staff and funding halved since the Liberals took power in
2001.
"The
Ministry of Environment doesn't need more
reorganization, it needs more funding and it needs more staff and it
needs better environmental laws," Barlee said. "We don't have the
hydrologists or the biologists or the environmental scientists on the
ground enforcing the few laws that we have remaining."
Konkin's
reference to "market-based instruments" and reliance on social media
suggest the government will reduce oversight and hand industry an
increasing role in environmental management, Barlee said.
"It's
not adequate to leave the management of the environment to Twitter and
Facebook and to market-based approaches, which means logging companies
and mining companies telling us the right ways and the wrong ways to
manage the environment," Barlee said.
The
ministry hasn't
developed specific plans for using social media. The changes will not
result in reduced environmental protection, Dalal said in his email to
The Province.
Coming
from a government that has laid waste to
environmental-protection budgets, it's hard to believe this change is
not about the money -- likely, it's preparation for staff cuts next
year.
As for
B.C.'s salmon, wolves, bears, caribou and other
creatures, it looks like they better make like the birds, and learn how
to tweet.
ebaron@theprovince.com
©
Copyright (c) The Province
Read
more: http://www.theprovince.com/business/yourself+conservation+Will+bears+Facebook/3526328/story.html#ixzz0zl14bKyX
|
|
New Report on Parks Released
Subject: BC Auditor
General's latest report: Conservation of Ecological Integrity in B.C.
Parks and Protected Areas
Good afternoon,
As Auditor
General of British Columbia, I just released my latest report, Conservation
of Ecological Integrity in B.C. Parks and Protected Areas. Should
you be interested in viewing this report, as well as the associated
news release and/or supplemental materials, they can be accessed from
the home page of the Office’s website at www.bcauditor.com.
I welcome your
feedback on the report at communicationsteam@bcauditor.com.
|
|
The RDCO has officially
opposed the sinking of the pontoons
.
"The Regional Board
does not support the sinking of the old floating bridge pontoons into
Okanagan Lake. It's resolution recognizes the Province has jurisdiction
over the eventual outcome of how the old pontoons will be disposed and
that the Province has a contract with SNC Lavalin, but asks that the
Province ensures environmentally friendly disposal options are
thoroughly investigated before a final decision is made on the fate of
the former bridge pontoons."
Details can be
found in the RDCO Staff Report dated Jan. 21, 2009.
|
|
A 13-year-old challenges
pontoon scheme
By Judie Steeves -
Kelowna Capital News
Published: December 11, 2008 10:00 PM Updated: December 13, 2008 9:02
PM
Raphael Nowak of Kelowna says his
experiments show dumping the old floating bridge pontoons to the bottom
of Okanagan Lake is a harmful idea. A 13-year-old Kelowna boy, who
admits to being captivated by old ships and passionate about Okanagan
Lake, has conducted an experiment to demonstrate the potentially
harmful affects of dropping the 12 old bridge pontoons to the bottom of
the lake. Raphael Nowak says that may be the easiest solution to
disposal of the huge slabs of concrete, but it doesn't make any sense.
About a year ago he built a remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) with a
skeleton built from irrigation pipes and lights for probing the depths
of the lake so he could learn more about the deep parts where he
couldn't dive. He saved his money and bought himself an underwater
camera, manipulator arms and began exploring the deeps from the 12-foot
aluminum boat he and his 15-year-old brother Ephraim use to go fishing.
He found that Okanagan Lake has extremely dense sediments but there are
different seaweeds and fish, boulders and even tires down there as
well. He was also surprised to find water intakes and pumps far under
the surface of the lake. With construction of a new bridge over the
lake, he's been very interested in watching its completion and the
dismantling of the old bridge.
"It's not every day you can watch
something like that," he said. However, he is adamant that the pontoons
should not be dumped to the bottom of the lake, and became determined
to prove the potential problems with such a scheme. Finally, on Nov.
10, the boys found a calm day when conditions were perfect so as to
take their boat out far enough to conduct the experiment and have good
visibility. Their dad, Sam Nowak, usually gets the boat out and
launches it for them, but both boys have obtained their operators'
licences and taken the VHF radio course, so they usually go out alone.
On this day they went out about 200 metres from shore near Cedar Creek
in the Mission area, where the water is about 30 metres deep.
"We positioned the boat and hovered the
robot at the bottom. Then we dropped a 10-pound piece of cement in
front of it from different heights," explained Nowak. The first drop
was from about three metres off the bottom and a cloud of sediment
puffed up around the block. During 10 drops, they dropped it from
higher up each time to get an idea of the different impacts it had on
the lake bottom from different heights. A plume five metres by five
metres was created, Raphael said, and it spread to the side and up the
water column. As well, a current was moving the plume.
"Without question, dropping the (thousands
of tonnes of) concrete pontoons will stir up a huge plume of
sediments," he concluded. "The deeper you are, you are going to have
way more sediment, and the suction from those 4,000-tonne pieces
landing on the bottom will create a plume miles and miles wide, which
will definitely pollute water supplies," he added. His dad is proud of
Raphael's efforts, and notes the government should pay attention and
not take the cheap way of disposing of such things, by dumping them in
the lake. "We have a moral obligation to set a good example for the
children," he said.
His son thinks much further ahead, he
notes, to the next generation, instead of just the immediate future.
Raphael has written to a local lawyer who has also expressed concerns
about the disposal plans and says he's trying to let the community to
know it's not a good idea. Last weekend Raphael visited fellow
concerned citizen Richard Drinnan, a retired environmental and resource
management consultant who has been in contact with both the environment
and transportation ministries regarding his concern.
Drinnan argues there has been no analysis
of what's in the sediments that would be disturbed if the pontoons are
dropped into the lake. He says the impact speed has been estimated at
46 kilometres an hour by a naval architect, and he doesn't believe it
will be possible to predict just where they will land, or whether they
will hit a steep slope and cause gouging and even more sediment
disturbance. What's in those sediments is of particular concern to him.
"It's a crap shoot what's down there," Drinnen says. Because the
dumping will impact our water reservoir, he says there should be a full
public review of the project.
"It's intentionally been engineered to
look smaller than it will be," he adds. Because an estimated 210,000
cubic metres, or 30,000 dump truck loads of sediment will be disturbed,
he said it's just like that is being dumped into our reservoir. Drinnan
feels Nowak's video should be shown to the environment ministry to
indicate how much impact even a small piece dropped on the lakebed can
have.
jsteeves@kelownacapnews.com

Articulate inventor Raphael Nowak,13,
shows off the robot he created to carry his underwater camera to the
depths of Okanagan Lake and film an experiment to indicate what sort of
sediment plume can be expected when a chunk of concrete is dropped to
the lakebed. He's opposed to the proposal to dump the concrete pontoons
from the old bridge into the lake.
Sean Connor/Capital News
|
|
Pontoons delay bridge
demolition
by Wayne Moore -
Story: 43388
Dec 1, 2008 / 5:00 am
A decision by the Ministry of Environment
is having an effect on the demolition of the old Okanagan Lake Floating
Bridge.
SNC Lavalin, the contractor charged with
decommissioning the old structure, is awaiting word from the Ministry
as to whether they will be allowed to sink a dozen pontoons from the
old structure.
The plan to sink the pontoons has been met
with opposition from area municipalities and environmental groups.
SNC Lavalin had hoped to sink the pontoons
sometime this fall, however, that now appears unlikely.
Ministry of Transportation official, Jon
Buckle, says the delay in dealing with the pontoons has put the
demolition of the bridge a bit behind schedule.
He says it's too early to say whether the
contractor will fall short of its contractual obligation of having the
bridge totally dismantled within 12 months of the opening of the
William R. Bennett Bridge.
While they await word on the pontoons,
Buckle says work is progressing on the dismantling of the steel lift
span.
"The towers are pretty much down which is
a big step forward," says Buckle.
"The counterweights and everything that
was kind of hanging up on the towers is pretty well down and a lot of
it is on barges waiting to be taken to the graving dock for shipping
out."
Buckle says SNC Lavalin had hoped to have
the lift span dismantled by January.
"I don't think they are quite where they
originally thought. A number of things in terms of the removal of the
bridge have taken a little more time than we expected for all kinds of
different reasons."
He says the contractor is ready to proceed
with sinking of the pontoons if the Ministry of Environment comes back
with approval.
|
|
EarthCare asks B.C.
Environmental Assessment Office
to declare sinking Okanagan Lake Bridge
reviewable under the B.C. Assessment Act.
On November 11, 2008,
Lloyd Manchester wrote to Mr. Garry Alexander,
Project Assessment Director, Shoreline Modification Projects, BC
Environmental Assessment Office to request that Okanagan lake Bridge
Floating Bridge become a reviewable project.
Dear Gary,
I am writing you to request that the EAO deem the sinking of Okanagan
Lake Floating Bridge as reviewable under the regulations. In the
interests of brevity, EarthCare supports this documentation as a
rationale (footprint is over 2 hectares) to have the sinking of the
bridge made reviewable under the Act.
EarthCare is concerned with the environmental impacts of sinking the
bridge and sincerely hopes that you share them and ensure that this
project will not cause harm to the public that use Okanagan Lake as a
drinking water source.
I look forward to your early response to our request.
Environmentally yours,
Lloyd Manchester
Related documents:
Letter
to G. Alexander (.doc)
Changes
to impact areas (.xls)
Talisman
Reclamation Plan (pdf)
Letter
requesting exemption (pdf)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE
Application for
Approval Under the Provisions of the Environmental Management Act.
Okanagan Lake Concession Limited Partnership the "Concessionaire" and
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia; as
represented by the Minister of Transportation, submit this application
to the Director for approval to authorize the disposal of the concrete
pontoons and piers from Okanagan Lake Bridge into Okanagan lake.
The disposal is proposed to occur at the following locations:
* Twelve Pontoons - sunk in the section of the lake between Traders
Cove and Wilson's Landing in greater that 150m depth of water.
* Two Piers - sunk in the section of lake between Gellatly and
Trepanier in greater than 150m depth of water.
The approximate quantity of concrete for the pontoons and piers is
11,000 cubic meters.
Prior to sinking, the pontoons and piers will be carefully cleaned and
all deleterious materials and potential contaminants will be removed in
accordance with all regulatory requirements.
Any person who may be adversely affected by the proposed disposal and
wishes to provide relevant information may, within 30 days after the
last date of posting, publishing, service or display, send written
comments to the address below, with a copy to the Regional Manager,
Environmental Protection, at 102 Industrial Place, Penticton, B.C.,
V2A-7C8. The identity of any respondents and the contents of anything
submitted in relation to this application will become part of the
public record.
WRB Bridge Environmental Protection Notice
#300 - 1358 St. Paul Street
Kelowna, B.C. V1Y2E1
Letters of concern should be sent to the Regional Manager,
Environmental Protection,
at 102 Industrial Place, Penticton, B.C., V2A-7C8. You can also email
Dale Bonke at dale.bonke@gov.bc.ca
Please cc your emails to
info@earthcares.org
Also you can read a
column by:
Richard
Drinnan, M.Sc., Guest Columnist – Kelowna Daily Courier, October 26,
2008.
|
|
Rational For Not Sinking
The Bridge
read more here
Pontoon Article in Kelowna
Daily Courier
read more here
Bridge pontoons could become
a hazard
read
more here
Pontoon plan criticized
read more here
|
|
Kelowna Elects a New Council
Kelowna elected a new
City Council on Saturday November 15. EarthCare published responses to
questions on the environment from the majority of elected councillors.
(see below on this page) Two councillors that did not respond to our
survey were Brian Given and Andre Blanleil. EarthCare encourages you to
write, email and phone these two councillors for their opinions on the
environment. Please advise EarthCare should you get any responses from
them.
Andre Blanleil can be contacted at 862-0592
or e-mailed at: ablanleil@andres1.com
Brian Given can be contacted at 979-1313
or e-mailed at: bgiven@kelowna.ca
Graeme James can be
contacted at gvg@shaw.ca
| SHEPHERD, Sharon |
12769 |
75.89 |
| HOBSON, Robert Douglas |
9197 |
8.05 |
| GIVEN, Brian |
8334 |
7.30 |
| BLANLEIL, Andre |
7962 |
6.97 |
| REID, Angela |
6213 |
5.44 |
| RULE, Michele |
6011 |
5.26 |
| JAMES, Graeme |
5643 |
4.94 |
| STACK, Luke |
5089 |
4.45 |
| HODGE, Charlie |
4683 |
4.10 |
|
|
EarthCare quizzes local
municipal candidates on the Environment
Canadian Earthcare is
seeking input from candidates on the following questions:
1. Are you in favour of sinking Okanagan Lake Bridge into Okanagan
Lake? If so why and if not why?
2. If you are elected, would you support amending the current pesticide
bylaw to not allow commercial pesticide applicators to spray cosmetic
pesticides in the City of Kelowna? When the bylaw comes into force in
2009 homeowners will not be allowed to spray cosmetic pesticides within
City limits.
3. On October 24, 2007, in a memo to the City Manager, the City
planning department made recommendations regarding the OCP Growth
Strategy for the South Pandosy Sector (Mission area). They included
withholding support for any development until there has been public
input into the Official Community Plan, withholding support for
development variance permit applications or rezoning applications that
result in height beyond four stories for commercial and residential and
six stories for apartment/hotels and eight stories for the
Lakeshore/Watt site.
Currently development applications for the Mission area have come
before the Advisory planning commission such as the Mission group's
Aqua project proposing variance of the height to accommodate three high
rise towers. Other development applications in the area include Manteo,
Hiawatha trailer park, Gyro Beach Resort (all seeking height variances)
and a current project being built by MKS on Trusswell Road.
If elected, what is your position on the proposed developments in the
Mission area? What course of action to you propose to deal with the
height issues as well as the capacity and transportation issues?
4. What is your vision on helping Kelowna become a sustainable City?
5. Okanagan Lake is the major source of drinking water for the North,
Central and South Okanagan populations. What steps would you take to
ensure that water quality is protected and enhanced? As well, what is
your opinion on how effective the Okanagan Basin Water Board has been
on protecting Okanagan Lake.
Read The Answers!
|
|
Help prevent CANADA'S
GREATEST CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY from being lost!
PLEASE take 5 MINUTES
to WRITE and PHONE for a new SOUTH OKANAGAN -
SILMILKAMEEN NATIONAL PARK

Right now the BC and federal governments are undertaking a
joint feasibility study to look at the possibility of
creating a new national park reserve in the desert,
grasslands, and Ponderosa pine forests of the South Okanagan
and Similkameen Valleys in southern BC. To be located near
the towns of Osoyoos, Oliver, and Keremeos, this proposal is
currently Canada's greatest conservation opportunity. A
decision on whether the park will go ahead is expected to
occur late this year or in 2009.
Read more here.
|
|
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT BANS
URANIUM MINING IN PROVINCE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE
EarthCare is
extremely pleased that the government of B.C. has put a ban in place
that controls the exploration and mining of Uranium and Thorium in the
province. This may provide certainty for the mining industry but more
importantly it establishes a precedent that protects the health and
safety of all British Columbian's. Please send a letter in our 'Take Action Section' thanking
the province for doing this.
NEWS
RELEASE
For Immediate Release
2008EMPR0029-000624
April 24, 2008
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum
Resources
GOVERNMENT CONFIRMS POSITION
ON URANIUM DEVELOPMENT
VICTORIA - The Province will not support
the exploration and development of uranium in British Columbia and is
establishing a "no registration reserve" under the Mineral Tenure Act
for uranium and thorium, Minister of State for Mining Kevin Krueger
announced today.
"By confirming our position on these
radioactive minerals, we are providing certainty and clarity to the
mining industry," said Krueger.
" B.C. is an attractive place for mining exploration and investment,
and we are committed to fostering a healthy, productive industry."
The "no registration reserve" will ensure
any future claims do not include the rights to uranium. Government will
also ensure that all
uranium deposits will remain undeveloped. These changes support the BC
Energy Plan commitment of no nuclear power.
Uranium is present in many areas of the
province and can be encountered while exploring for other mineral
resources. Therefore, the Province will also amend the Health, Safety
and Reclamation Code concerning exploration for minerals where uranium
or thorium are incidentally encountered. The amendments are designed to
enhance the protection of workers and the public during
exploration-related activities. The amendments also ensure that B.C.'s
standards for exploration are consistent with national standards and
guidelines.
Today, there is no uranium mining in the
province. Development and mining of uranium in Canada is regulated by
the federal government
through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The only uranium mines
operating in Canada are in Saskatchewan.
-30-
Media
contact:
Jake Jacobs
Public Affairs Officer
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
250 952-0628
250 213-6934 (cell)
For more information on government
services or to subscribe to the Province's news feeds using RSS, visit
the Province's website at
www.gov.bc.ca.
|
 |
Rainbarrels
are a great way to conserve water
|
 |
Because
Every Drop Count$
EarthCare has
painted and plain rainbarrels for sale year round. You can purchase a
rain barrel for $50.00 including taxes and a garden watersaver kit
adapter for $25.00 plus GST. Please call 861-4788 to order your barrel
now.
Read
More Information on Rainbarrels....
Rainbarrel
FAQ
|
|
Spring
Water Conservation Products Now Available
|
|
ZEBA
Zeba is a biodegradable, non-toxic,
odourless, corn starch based super-absorbant product that promotes
healthy lawns, landscapes and houseplants with less watering.
For more details and sale information follow
the link.
Read
more ...
|
 |
| |
Pesticide
Free Organic Lawn Care Company comes to Kelowna
Turf Logic is a
Nation-wide Natural Lawn Care Franchise for residential customers with
everything you need for a beautiful, natural lawn. Turf Logic has used
the science of nature to improve lawn care and has developed an
environmentally friendly solution for today’s lawns. The Turf Logic
trained professionals will analyze your lawn and apply your customized
pesticide-free treatments for a lush, healthy pesticide-free lawn.
Visit http://www.logicalliance.ca/turf/
for more information or call Gary Klammer
at 826-0729.
|
 |
March 15 deadline
to register for the Pesticide Registry
Do your Health a
Favour, Protect Your Family and your Pets, Sign up now!
|
A typical pesticide application in a residential
neighbourhood
|
TO REGISTER please phone (250) 469-8556 or
email enviro@kelowna.ca.
You must provide your name, phone number and address, including your
postal code. You must specify whether you want previous-day or same-day
notification. As well, you must state the reasons for your concern
about pesticides near you.
More
Important Info...
|
ALSO, come in to Earthcare and receive a
free "Pesticide Free" sign and stake for your lawn, and a free
"Earth-Friendly Natural Recipes" carabiner keychain when you sign up
for the pesticide registry.
|
Pesticide
Bylaw Update
Dec 11th, 2007
On Monday afternoon Kelowna City Council passed
Option 2 which does the following:
A pesticide by-law will be drafted and this will ban the use of
cosmetic pesticides by homeowners in the community. EarthCare has
supplied a copy of the draft by-law that Bill Andrews drafted to the
City Clerks office.
The public will have a year before they have to comply and in that year
an extensive education program will be introduced.
Commercial applicators will be excluded from the by-law. The City of
Kelowna will seed PlantHealth BC accreditation and once they have it,
they will force commercial applicators through the bylaw to have that
accreditation before they can apply pesticides.
The commercial Pesticide Notification Registry will be continued which
allows the public to be notified of pesticide application adjacent to
their property provided they have signed up.
Although we did not achieve a full ban on cosmetic pesticides, we will
have a bylaw in place and there is a good possibility that we can
continue to put pressure on City Council to amend it and knock out the
commercial applicators. EarthCare will continue on this campaign during
the next year and intends to make it an election issue in the upcoming
municipal elections.
Action to take: We continue to encourage you to write City Council and
request that they amend the pesticide bylaw to ban commercial
applicators from spraying cosmetic pesticide in our community. You can
email City council at mayorandcouncil@kelowna.ca.
Thank you.
Lloyd Manchester Director
EarthCare
|
For
Immediate Release
Dec 10th, 2007
"Kelowna City Council has taken one
step forward and two steps back. Passing a pesticide bylaw that ban’s
the use of pesticides and provides an education program for the public
is good, but does not go far enough. To allow the pesticide industry to
have an ‘open market’ on the spraying of poisons in our community is
ludicrous.” says Lloyd Manchester Canadian EarthCare Director in
response to City Council’s decision to allow spray companies to
continue to operate outside of the bylaw.
“The City has consistently stated that it
should be able to continue using pesticides while the public can not.
Council’s decision to use a new organization, (PlantHealth BC) shows
that we already have a problem with spray companies. The application of
cosmetic pesticides should not be allowed,” stated Manchester
Manchester says, There are currently 145
communities across Canada that have adopted pesticide bylaws. Spray
companies have been forced to seek organic solutions for lawn care.
“Based on this decision, Kelowna can not be
considered ‘a green community’ as a result of their recent decision,”
stated Manchester.
For more information please contact: Lloyd
Manchester at 878-9352 or 861-4788
|
Green
Initiative Defeated
“Kelowna City Council has taken a huge step
backwards in protecting the health of our citizens by refusing to
recognize the need to curb the use of pesticides in our community,”
says Lloyd Manchester Canadian EarthCare Director. Manchester’s
comments are in reference to City Council’s decision Monday to not
support adoption of a proposed pesticide bylaw.
Read complete press release here.
|
EarthCare
granted Intervener status by the B.C. Court of Appeal in the case
Gehring vs. Chevron.
B.C. Court of Appeal to hear
from environmentalists on Chevron contaminated site liability
Madame Justice Rowles of the B.C. Court of
Appeal announced that the Kelowna-based environmental organization,
Canadian EarthCare Society, will be allowed to make submissions to the
court on Chevron’s liability for gas contamination at a former gas
station in Salmon Arm. Canadian EarthCare had applied to become an
intervener in the appeal of Gehring v. Chevron, a precedent setting
case that will set the rules for who will be required to pay for the
clean up of contaminated sites in British Columbia.
To view the ruling please to the following link:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/07/05/2007bcca0557.htm
View the press release here.
|
| |
PESTICIDE
BYLAW UPDATE...
YOUR COMMENTS NEEDED NOW! |
| |
Deadline
for comments
to City Council:
Deadline for public comments extended to November 26 at 4pm
The City of Kelowna is
seeking input on the recommendations of City Staff on a pesticide
reduction program which includes the implementation of a pesticide
bylaw.
Your
input is needed now. Please respond to the
recommendations directly. For example: I support recommendation Number
1
(which recommends a bylaw)
To view the
recommendations click on this link
pesticide
reduction strategy.
Written comments should
be sent to City Clerk's at cityclerk@kelowna.ca
before 4 p.m. October 15th.
|
Please
feel free to call or meet with City Councillors. Their phone numbers
are:
Barrie
Clark 764-7062
Brian Given
979-1313
Carol Gran
861-7837
Colin Day
861-0695
Michelle
Rule 762-3749
Andre
Blanleil 862-5092
Norm
Letnick 864-2260
Robert
Hobson 469-6224
Mayor
Sharon Shepherd 469-8980
|
Further
reading on pesticides ...
|
|
|
|
|
Pesticides
and Health:
Battle on the front lawn
|
Pesticides
and Cancer:
A Need for an Effective Bylaw
|
What we
don't know about pesticides can hurt you
|
|
|
|
Pesticide
Bylaw
Kelowna City Council deferred making a
decision on implementing Pesticide Bylaw and education program at their
meeting of July 9th.
Your help is still needed to keep the
pressure on to implement a Pesticide Bylaw.
You can still download and
send our sample letter to the Mayor and Council or you can e mail it
to: mayorandcouncil@kelowna.ca.
Medical Doctor rebutt's the Pesticide
Industry. Please click here
to view...
Thank you for your support on this issue.
|
|
LOCAL COMMUNITIES HELP SHAPE
NATIONAL PARK PROPOSAL
The Parks Canada national park reserve
feasibility study is now about half way towards the completion of a
park proposal in late 2007. Over the past several months, First
Nations, stakeholders, and local communities have been providing input
to an emerging vision for a potential national park reserve – what we
(Parks Canada) are calling a draft park concept.
This handout provides an overview of what we have heard, how this input
will be used, and the next steps in the study – building a park
proposal. Fall 2006
To view the pdf click here.
Also available E-News January 2007
in pdf.
Click for Feasibility
Study (July 2007)
|

|

|
Community Program helps
Earthcare
Don't leave home without it. By using this
card when you make purchases at Huskey / Mohawk stations you can help
raise money for Earthcare.
Contact the office to participate in this
program which so far has raised $250.00 for our programs.
|

from Capital News |
Opening
up parks for commercial resorts
Why should the public subsidize developers
by allowing them access to public park lands on which to build their
commercial enterprises?
At best, it’s simply unnecessary, and at worst, I can envision this
government permitting hot dog stands and souvenir stalls in our
wilderness parks next.
read
more...
EarthCare
joins Campaign for B.C. Parks
Visit the Friends of the Campaign for BC
Parks
website
to read fact sheet and sign petition
|
|
Pesticide
Bylaw
|
|
Encourage Council to
adopt a pesticide by-law in our community that would ban the use of
cosmetic pesticides such as 2,4-D.
read
more...
|
|
HOW
SAFE IS YOUR DEODORANT/ANTIPERSPIRANT?
|
|
All anti-perspirants
and some deodorants contain aluminum. Aluminum clogs your pores and is
the element that keeps you from sweating. Inhibiting a natural process
by which you release toxins from your body is essentially unhealthy. As
well, aluminum is absorbed and accumulated in the body, and has been
linked to serious illnesses including osteoporosis, extreme
nervousness, anemia, headache, decreased liver and kidney function,
forgetfulness, speech disturbances and memory loss.
read
more...
|
|
Solutions
to make your lawn healthy and how to use native plants to reduce water
consumption

|
 |
 |
Is
a National Park Reserve Feasible?
|
| The South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen is part of the
"Interior Dry Plateau", a region of rolling plains dissected by deep
valleys and long narrow lakes with a particular ecosystem. This area is
one of the most interesting and ecologically diverse parts of Canada
with many native plants and animals, and natural communities found
nowhere else in Canada. The Interior Dry Plateau Natural Region is
currently not represented in the national parks system. Parks Canada
and the province of British Columbia are examining the possibility of
protecting this area by identifying a certain park boundary. Read more... |
|
Uranium mining in the
Okanagan Valley
|
|
Update:
Coalition Organized to Oppose Uranium Mining in British Columbia
EarthCare has joined the Uranium-Free
BC Mining Coalition.
Read the Press
Release Here.
|
 |
|
|
|
We will be updating our site on this issue
as time permits. In the meantime, we encourage you to write letters to
the government requesting that Uranium mining not be allowed in British
Columbia and that a moritorium be enacted. Read More....
|
|
|
| In this article: Pesticide regulation is
examined in the context of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory
Agency’s assessment of the chlorophenoxy herbicide
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) for turf. 2,4-D. Read More... |

|
City
Of Kelowna Launches "Be Pesticide Free" Campaign
|
| The City of Kelowna is launching a new campaign
encouraging residents to reduce pesticide use and explore pesticide
alternatives for the home and garden. To promote the "Be Pesticide
Free" campaign, the Environment Division is offering Pesticide Free
lawn signs and carabiner key chains that include "recipe" cards for
creating eco-friendly pesticide alternatives such as "hot and spicy
pest repellent", "vinegar weed eradicator" and "orange zest". Read More... |
|
City of Kelowna Considers
Enacting Pesticide Bylaw
|
 |
| Kelowna City Council, in their meeting on Monday,
considered creating a bylaw prohibiting the use of certain cosmetic
pesticides, citing existing support for such a bylaw and the need for
education of the effects of pesticides on groundwater and wildlife. Read More.... |
|
EarthCare Kicks off
the Green Vacation Challenge
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Katimavik
Volunteers
Katimavik volunteers Karen Ka-Yan Cheung
from Burnaby (left) and Jennifer Brooks from Mackenzie B.C. take in the
sites of Kelowna from Knox mountain. Jennifer is working with EarthCare
while in Kelowna
|
Katimavik
Volunteer
Katimavik volunteer Jennifer Brooks from
Mackenzie B.C. shows off two rainbarrels that she painted for EarthCare.
|

|
For Older Updates, See our ARCHIVE
|
 |
 |

EarthCare
has used appeal processes, the court systems, discussions with
politicians, corporations and stakeholder groups to create an
atmosphere that fosters positive change. Over 90% of our work is
educationally based.
We support the
public in voicing their concerns on environmental issues that affect
their lives. EarthCare hopes that you will utilize our website to
become aware and effect change. Please use our take action section!! It
is important to let decision makers know how you feel.
Our mission is
to create change in a positive manner for the benefit of all. We hope
you will join us.
more
|
 |
 |
* Contact
information for BC MLAs, the Minister of Forests and the
premier is available on our "links and resources" page.
 |

The Canadian EarthCare Society is always looking for community concious
individuals who would like to do more to help.
Volunteers are a big part of our organization. If you feel you fit this
bill then we encourage you to please fill out our volunteer application...
|
 |
 |
|