An update on Roundabouts

Here we go again!

I just watched our Global News and, guess what ?...They bought up the issue of roundabouts re. the recent Bus/ Truck tragedy at an intersection.

I have been saying for years that Roundabouts save lives...And they are statistically proven to reduce fatalities by over 90%. In our local town we need a roundabout or even more roundabouts at our problem, accident prone, intersections.

The D.O.S.Council has not pushed hard enough in lobbying for this...I guess more people have to die first!

I hope The Ministry responsible for BC.Highways sees this and stops dragging their butts on this! In Countries where there is extensive use of roundabouts there is far less road rage.....the people who use them have to drive, drive well and have little time for the confrontations we see here. Even in those places where it seems that there are no rules....if you watch you can see the skills, the concentration and the resulting statistical lack of serious incidences. Go with the flow, concentrate, use your horn when necessary, learn and keep cool! Oh and I.C.B.C should reward good drivers and severely nail the bad ones! Wanna see what I mean?... ride in a Taxi in Mexico City...a humbling experience!  :-):That's all I have to say about that"...for now. Now go to this link:

https://trib.al/ejan75j

On the Kinder Morgan Pipeline April 2018

Much has been said recently on this issue:

The trouble is, the Premiere of Alberta wants her "cake and eat it'. 

She wants to keep her economy going with minimal tax ( think about their sales tax!). She does not want to give us (BC) anything in terms of monetary support for our inconvenience and possible damage to our water ways. 

She says she supports Confederation but her Province is one of the richest in resources. If we are a Confederation, we should all have equal shares in those resources. We pay heavy sales tax and so should they. For her to threaten to cripple our economy and cut off our rightful resources is inexcusable. 

I have words for her and they are not polite! The whole Province of BC should not be punished as a result of her desires The Feds should step up to the plate and sort this out very soon. Why should I pay almost twice as much for my gas and oil because of the extreme views of a few. I am not against the pipe line,only the very real dangers to our inner waterway. 

The pipeline should go to the Roberts Bank area and an extra pier for loading should be constructed. Yes I AM for the curtailment of Fossil-fuel use but it should be done gradually. Better still, burn our own resources for our own use and not export it all to nations who have little conscience in its use.....pissed off!!!


A slightly different view from a friend:

"So far it’s been a lot of hyperbole on both sides. I fully support John Horgan in his perfectly legal means of slowing down and trying to stop the pipeline. 

BC has not challenged the constitution or done anything illegal. They have used the courts to challenge another governments decision. That is how the rule of law in a democratic society works. Kinder Morgan is using this to get out of a bad deal for them. The fact that they just discovered a huge reserve of much cheaper oil in Bahrain probably has nothing to do with their decision to mothball the pipeline. 

Notice they were very particular not to abandon the pipeline, just stop any further development at this time. They want concessions to get their costs lower. They don’t want to pay for a spill response until a spill happens. If they don’t get that they still have Bahrain. It’s a win/win for them."

Here is an article related to all this:

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-kinder-morgan-spat-is-an-intractable-slog-but-its-also-democracy-in-action/

Some recent correspondence with our Council

From: Dave Colwell  

Subject: Re. Your recent calls for input

Squamish Council:

We have recently been inundated with requests for input regarding the running of this town.

We have had numerous requests to fill out surveys  regarding the above. I have dutifully filled them out.

There have been numerous Public Forums.

But you do not let up. You must be mindful of the numerous modes of input that you have had access too.

Namely:

  1.  Squamish Chief Letters

  2.  Squamish Reporter Posts

  3.  Numerous Survey Data

  4.  Personal letters to you by citizens like me.

  5.  An awareness of all that our wonderful service clubs are doing for this community

  6.  The obvious Environment needs of our area in the light of Global problems.

  7.  The financial needs, in balance with all of the above

With respect, I think there is a need on your part to think about and discuss all this in a rational thoughtful manner, without prejudice, and to think about the economy of your strategies.

Again, Respectfully, Dave Colwell

_______________________________________________________________________________

On Mar 7, 2018, at 8:07 AM, Dave Colwell   wrote:

I already made a comment but  I wish to say this in addition to my previous words which may have been interpreted as negative and  possibly not supportive:

I am fully in favour of anything and everything which will enhance efficient Government, Business, Ecological stability, Social interaction, and most important, COMMUNICATION. Most of the Sponsors listed would seem to be able to help improve these things. No Council should need seemingly endless permissions to work towards any of these goals.

Let us not stick at the "survey post" ....... rather get on with the job.

And I do applaud your motivation to be as fair and inclusive as possible.....It is just that we elected you to be able to make informed decisions as efficiently as possible with confidence.

______________________________________________________________________________

Thanks Dave. Appreciate the feedback. It is a fine line between too much and not enough engagement. We usually get criticism for not doing enough.

Cheers

Patty (Mayor of Squamish District)

_____________________________________________________________________________

And a further reply from a Council Employee:

Thanks for the feedback, and I do recognize that there is a level of engagement fatigue with regards to all of the programs and projects currently flowing through the District. If I may, I would like to share a few points with you from our perspective, for your consideration.

Modern principles of public engagement reflect the premise that better decisions are made when citizens who are affected by those decisions have input into the decision-making process. There has been a demand for greater transparency across all levels of government (and many private organizations and businesses too) in the last decade, and inviting citizens into the decision-making process is a way to increase that transparency and gather important feedback from those who will ultimately be affected. It is not a substitute for leadership, and is not about asking for permission, but rather a recognition that “collective wisdom” from a group of impacted stakeholders serves to make a better decision.

We do recognize that there can be engagement fatigue and burn-out among citizens, and this is also a comment on how busy our municipality currently is with the growth that we are experiencing. Some of our processes are legislated, i.e. around development applications and public hearings, and certainly there is an unprecedented volume of applications from the development community as demand for housing in Squamish has sky-rocketed in the last few years, due to market factors.

We are also just coming off a two-year massive project as we update the Official Community Plan, which has required extensive input from the community to ensure the plan reflects the wishes of the community as to how we all envision Squamish in the next 25 years.

(Just one note about the Smart Cities project that you commented on, this is a contest that is hosted by Infrastructure Canada, and a key element of the contest requires municipalities to demonstrate how their community has been involved in crafting a challenge-statement).

Again, thank you for your feedback and it serves as a good reminder to us that we need to consider community engagement fatigue as we approach new projects and opportunities.

On the age of different things in our Universe....Part of a recent conversation with a friend:

There was a discussion about whether everything we see is of different ages or all the same age. Like: Is a rock on Earth older or younger than a distant star? So I wrote this:

.........." Once the stuff of the Universe was made "condensed" just after the big bang it was mutated into everything that exists today in a multitude of constantly changing forms: Ordinary matter, dark matter and all the rest of energy.. The age of all is the same. A house may be made of bricks....the bricks have an age so the house or any portion of the house is also the same age. You may grind up the bricks and remold them but the material is still the same age. We assume that all the material came from the same source and so everything made of it is the same age. We need to think at the quantum level here. Quantum is the Latin word for amount and, in modern understanding, means the smallest possible discrete unit of any physical property, such as energy or matter. Quantum came into the latter usage in 1900, when the physicist Max Planck used it in a presentation to the German Physical Society. Rearrangements may have different ages but the stuff that is arranged is all the same age. My body is a temporary "hologram of particles", all of the same age but which pass in, out and through the arrangement of my body at any point in time. Hence the phrase: "We are are all made of Stardust"....but so much more! We are made of quantum particles."

So now try this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/08/19/is-everything-in-the-universe-the-same-age/#4a3d4f8a1a1d

My friend replied: "How old are you Dave?"

I replied: "Around 13.7 Billion years, at any point in my life-time!  But soon I will be dispersed!.....i.e. the stuff I will be made of at the time of my 'death' will be. But it will be the same age approximately and continue to be."

My Friend: "Dave, you said, "We need to think at the quantum level here" WHY? It seems this leads only to pedantry. Taken to its logical conclusion, this reasoning dictates that all questions of the age of physical entities must be answered "+/_13.7 billion years."

Manage

I replied: "Yes all matter and energy...not entities....Entities can be temporary formations of matter and energy but matter or energy is all of the same age. You and I are entities made of different matter and energy at different points in time. Like we are a river or lake but with different water all the time. First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. (Hawking will have some extras here related to the time between the Big Bang and the initial expansion (which was a very, very short time...seconds) but The Law is still generally accepted as true)."

      The Burnco proposed Gravel Pit in How Sound          Jan 2018

For a long time many concerned citizens backed by Local Environmental Groups have been protesting a proposed Gravel Extraction Facility at McNab  Creek on the west side of Howe Sound.

This is where there is a small Estuary, formed by the local creek which runs into the Sound.

A large variety of shore life and sub-tidal organisms will be affected. This article which has been forwarded to me gives more background information:

Federal Approval Next Step for Howe Sound Gravel Pit

Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:04pm

184.71.160.114

Federal Approval Next Step for Howe Sound Gravel Pit

Public Comment for Burnco Aggregate Mine Project open til Jan. 26

By Eric Thompson

https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/whistler/federal-approval-next-step-for-howe-sound-gravel-pit/Content?oid=6625848

PHOTO SUBMITTED - Gravel pit The Canadian Environmental Assessment is accepting public input on the proposed Burnco Aggregate Mine Project

GRAVEL PIT The Canadian Environmental Assessment is accepting public input on the proposed Burnco Aggregate Mine Project

The federal environmental assessment of the proposed Burnco Aggregate Mine Project is nearly complete, meaning after years of public debate, the Howe Sound gravel pit is closer to a conclusion, one way or the other.

The public comment period on the comprehensive study report released by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) runs until Jan. 26. Originally slated to go until Jan. 22, the CEAA extended the comment period after a technical issue limited people's ability to provide comments or access the registry website around New Year's.

Burnco's proposal is for the construction of a sand and gravel mine located at McNab Creek, approximately 22 kilometres southwest of Squamish. The mine's production capacity would be up to 1.6 million tonnes of sand and gravel per year, and is expected to be in operation for around 16 years.

The CEAA's comprehensive study concludes — after considering Burnco's mitigation measures and proposed conditions by the BC Environmental Assessment Office — that the project "is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effect."

However, there is disagreement on these findings. Ruth Simons, executive director of the Future of Howe Sound Society, has a number of issues with how the study was conducted, for example, how they measured potential noise impact on residents and wildlife.

"Being a valley, the sound will reverberate off the mountains and travel across the water," said Simons. "We really do not agree with the way the studies were done. The only standards that they based the assessment on were B.C. Oil and Gas regulations and Health Canada. There are no regulations that are relevant to this type of geography, there's only industrial-based or WorkSafe noise regulations. So I think the reason they end up at these conclusions is because there's not relevant regulations in place to protect pristine, quiet areas."

Along with noise, the biggest public concerns have been over water quality, and what potential affects the project could have on the estuary. Howe Sound has only recently recovered from years of pollution from the Britannia Mine, and it still has some locals on edge.

"Now that the acid rock drainage is being neutralized, we've seen a resurgence of the ecosystem of Howe Sound," said Ken Melamed, Green Party president. "People are celebrating the returns of orcas, dolphins, herring are spawning in greater numbers. We're seeing a revival as a result of, not just de-industrialization, but the active remediation that's been going on. People are really excited about that, and those same people are very concerned about re-industrialization, if you will."

In their proposal, Burnco has been trying to design against potential environmental problems, or putting in remediation to compensate some other way, like the construction of 4,034 square metres of in-stream habitat.

"I'm confident that we've put forward a really strong application. It's up to regulators now to decide if it's in the best interest of the province," said Derek Holmes, Land and Resource Manager for Burnco BC.

As of Jan. 15, the CEAA has received 26 comments from the public and Indigenous groups as part of the comment period.

Following this final public comment period, Catherine McKenna, the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, will consider the report, along with all the comments received and decide whether the project should go ahead as currently constituted.

Though CEAA approval would be a significant step, it wouldn't be the final hurdle for Burnco to break ground in McNab Creek. If granted, the project will then be referred back to Fisheries and Oceans Canada for authorization. The project will also require re-zoning by the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada will then be accountable for ensuring any necessary follow-up and monitoring programs are implemented, so that will play a factor in their review. Simons and Melamed both expressed skepticism over the company following through on proposed clean-up once it gets approval, but Burnco said its reputation is on the line.

"It really comes down to the nature of resource extraction. Our company — which is a Canadian company — has been in business for over 100 years, and it's no mistake that you stay in business by doing what you say you're going to do. Gravel being non-renewable; it needs to be replaced. So this won't be the last project we look to do in the province, and you're really judged by the track record you have on previous projects. I think that your track record stands for itself," said Holmes.

Even still, Simons and the Future of Howe Sound Society plan to keep fighting the project. If necessary, they will send letters to Fisheries and Oceans and engage in the re-zoning applications. Simons is also leading an initiative to get Howe Sound designated a UNESCO biosphere reserve, which would mean a greater focus on sustainable development.

Added Melamed: "Howe Sound is a very special Canadian fjord. We don't have many, especially in such proximity to a major population centre. There's a lot of industrial and development pressures around an area that's so close to Vancouver, so it requires an extra level of diligence in assessing the merits of these various proposals."

_____________________________________

So now the latest development:

The March 5 weekly newsletter for our 1st. Nations band members led with this message:

“Dear Squamish People

“On March 1, the Coast Reporter published a story confirming Squamish Nation’s ‘approval’ of the Burnco Aggregate Mine Project at McNab Creek in the Howe Sound without providing the details of the agreement or process. We sincerely regret not informing you about Squamish Nation Council’s position on the project before it came out in the media. This project has been in negotiations before the new term of council was elected since 2010. We had a short window to make a decision due to timing of the provincial and federal process.”

The message goes on to explain that since the provincial and federal environmental assessments did not meet the Nation’s standards, council demanded to assess the project “from our unique perspective based on our inherent title and rights to the land and water.” Burnco agreed, and the Nation hired “independent environmental specialists” to review the project.

The result was a series of conditions that required Burnco to “enter into a legally binding agreement regarding ways to avoid, mitigate or accommodate impacts on our deer/elk, fish, and our access to practice Aboriginal rights; maintain current habitat for our deer and elk; [and] ensure water levels and quality are not affected and fish habitat is constructed. The Nation also won the right to override specific decision-making processes on the operations of the project.”

Council had voted in favour of the agreement two weeks earlier, the newsletter said, and it lists the seven Councillors who voted in favour, three who were opposed, two who abstained and four who were not present.

No details about possible resource-sharing were mentioned, but the next step will be to invite band members to two information meetings where council will “present to our people the terms and conditions we won on a confidential basis.”

So it turns out that while opponents of the Burnco project were focused on critiquing the flaws in the environmental assessment process, Squamish Nation was following a different track entirely, carrying out its own review with its own experts.

As with Woodfibre LNG, the Nation’s leaders can go back to their members and say their assessment, conditions and enforcement tools are more robust and authentic than Victoria’s or Ottawa’s, and that tangible benefits for the community are part of the deal. And as with Woodfibre LNG, both senior governments will likely green-light the project now that the company has obtained First Nation consent.

Last month in Ottawa, in her first speech since she stepped down as B.C. Liberal leader, former premier Christy Clark told a gathering of conservatives that Indigenous communities “are the single most important piece” in the pipeline equation. “If we want to get our resources out to market, we have some incredibly powerful voices on our side,” she said. “So, let’s fight with them.”

It’s an insight that applies across the board in debates over resource extraction. The side that works with Indigenous communities is increasingly the side that wins.

Wild Salmon and Fish Lice Re. Open Net Fish Farming

                                                   Our Wild Salmon and Fish Lice                 January 2018

Over several years there has been much discussion regarding the effect of open net Fish Farming of Salmon on our BC Coasts. It has long been suggested that there is a very real relationship between salmon farming and disease caused by the industry. One particular disease is the devastation apparently caused by Sea lice.
Pressure groups have long been lobbying the Federal Government and our own Provincial Government to step in and address this problem. There has been considerable resistance to this for some time. Here is an open letter from a Mr. Noel Murphy which offers  considerable  weight to the issue, Perhaps we can now move forward:

OPEN LETTER TO ANGLERS, CONSERVATIONISTS, AND CONCERNED CITIZENS

Most of you are aware of the steady decline of our salmon stocks in recent years. While some natural causes are partly responsible, man-made open-pen fish farms are suspected of having the greatest single impact to the decline of our fisheries. The following examples are noteworthy:

• Global Warming - Dry summers result in extremely long spells of low water-levels in the rivers and creeks. This makes it challenging for juvenile salmon trying to survive under these adverse conditions. • Questionable management of our fisheries, at the Provincial level. • Relaxed enforcement of Fishing Regulations. • Foreign owned pen-net fish-farms, many in critical areas of our coastal waters.

While some issues are more difficult than others to correct, what we really need is a genuine and concerted effort on the part of DFO to address our concerns. This department should assume responsibility and be required to provide accountability and transparency.

I suggest to DFO that they take a look at other North American management policies, and compare them to our own. The Alaskan Fisheries Program is a recommended model and worth reviewing.

Of the many issues impacting our salmon, the greatest danger by far (in my opinion) is posed by open-net fish farms. Primarily Norwegian owned, this farming concept has quite a reputation for decimating local wild fisheries wherever their fish farms have been implemented. Their unfavourable history is well recorded and documented. Originating in Europe, the wild salmon fishery in Norway has been decimated. Coastal inlets in Ireland that harboured fish farms, lost their runs of salmon and sea trout, while estuaries free of fish farms were less affected. Scotland’s salmon fisheries suffered tremendous losses, with the blame placed directly on the open-net fish farms.

Why are we in British Columbia allowing the risk of having our irreplaceable wild stocks wiped out? Replacing our salmon stocks is not as simple as building more hatcheries and producing more fish. Specific gene pools are irreplaceable. Gene pool diversity in the salmon populations are critical to the species survival. We have lost some genetic strains in the past; the Fulford Creek run of Coho salmon in Salt Spring Island for one. This unique run of fish was wiped out in the 1980’S, a prime example of mismanagement.

Why is DFO so protective of fish farms? Fish farms and wild salmon are in direct conflict. There is an old Hebrew (biblical) expression, “you cannot serve God and Mammon (money)”. Neither can DFO claim to serve the interests of the wild salmon, while protecting the interests of



Marine Harvest and other fish farms related activities. These are strictly business people, concerned only with their “bottom line”, and protecting the interests of their shareholders.  What about the rights of our indigenous people? Their future access to fish for both food and ceremonial purposes appears to be threatened. Where is DFO’S responsibility to ensure that this does not happen? Surely you are not telling them to “Buy Farm Fish!”   Why is DFO preventing the scrutiny of Peer Reviews surrounding the testing for HSMI’s? PEER REVIEWS SHOULD BE OPEN TO SCRUTINY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. TRANSPARENCY IS ALSO REQUIRED. An independent review of this policy is warranted.

We in the sports fishing industry contribute significantly to our provincial economy and should not be dismissed so easily. We are also concerned for the future of our native salmon. Neither should our efforts towards conservation and environmental causes be under estimated. For too long we have had no lobbying power, and therefore we have no voice in matters that affect us. The decimation to our wild fish, resulting from the irresponsible activities of the fish farming industry is far-reaching. Fish farming impacts the livelihood of our industry professionals, (sports fishing shops, charter boat owners, guides etc.) A common aftermath, caused by an industry with a horrific reputation for fish and habitat decimation on a worldly scale and very little credibility.

Marine Harvest is a foreign conglomerate that appears to have very little regard for others, including the people of this province. Their disregard for our wild salmon goes without saying. Now it is up to us to protect our fish and our waters; they are our children’s inheritance.  I personally have lost confidence in DFO’S ability to protect or manage our fishery, I assure you that the same opinion is widely held throughout the sports fishing industry. Perhaps we are expecting too much from a reformed Commercial Fisheries lobby group!

We cannot let our salmon disappear like the cod fish in Eastern Canada, I feel that we are very close to that right now. Removing the open-net fish farms, would (in my opinion) be a step in the right direction. A dedicated fish management/protection department, with substantial input from the sports fishing industry, should be considered. Listen to Joni Mitchell’s song: “YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’VE GOT ‘TILL IT’S GONE.”

Most of us anglers are conservationists and release most of our catch. We are also stream keepers, and are witnesses, first hand, to the dramatically reduced salmon returns to our spawning streams. It is time to for change, while there are still some salmon left to preserve and protect.

Of the many critics and testimonials relating to the state of our salmon fishery and related issues, I refer you to the following links:

http://salmonfarms.advokit.ca




http://mailchi.mp/watershed-watch/salmon-news-weekly-salmon-media-round-up-jan-32018?e=2796db5f76

Part One: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=198175;article=10231 Part Two: https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/01/11/DFO-Gut-Rules-Protecting-WildSalmon/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110118

https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/wild-salmon/

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/12/14/Fish-Farms-Expose-Wild-Salmon-Deadly-Virus/


Please read all pertinent information and show your support for eliminating fish farms by writing to your local MLA, requesting the implementation of new regulations that will preserve and protect our salmon fisheries before it’s too late.

Regards,

Noel Murphy

Return!

Well I am now back after several years and will be posting here some nonsense as time goes by....Stay tuned.