Macdonald takes stand in House over Jumbo

Press release –

Macdonald to Premier: Jumbo Resort can only go forward with the support of the people of the Columbia Valley 

In question period this week, Columbia River – Revelstoke MLA Norm Macdonald asked the Premier for the assurance that the Jumbo Glacier Resort development will not go forward without the approval of Columbia Valley residents, but instead of a real answer all that was forthcoming was empty rhetoric.

“It is disappointing that instead of actually answering a straight-forward question, they put up Bill Bennett to talk in circles,” said Macdonald.  “It’s a reasonable question: Will the Premier give the assurance today that this project only proceeds with the support of the people in the Columbia Valley?”

This question was raised because one of the few options for local input into the Jumbo approval was pushed through without proper consultation.  The proponents of the Jumbo Glacier Resort requested a 5-year extension on their environmental assessment certificate.  The environmental assessment certification process is supposed to provide opportunity for public comment. But instead of allowing local citizens that input, the extension was simply approved.

There was also no urgency for the approval of the certification extension as the original certificate does not expire until October 2009.

“Both the regional districts of East Kootenay and Central Kootenay specifically requested that they be given some time to make a presentation before the extension was given, but those requests were denied,” continued Macdonald.

Regional District for Central Kootenay director Andy Shadrack was concerned enough about the lack of process that he has contacted the BC Ombudsman’s Office.  Shadrack’s central point is that there was essentially no consultation period, and all requests for an extension to the comment period were denied.

Shadrack also indicates that there have been significant changes to circumstances in the area in question, including the proposed Glacier-Howser river-diversion project which will have significant impacts on the area, and that increased development pressure alone should trigger another thorough review.

Macdonald acknowledged those changes in his question to the Minister, but he was also clear that one thing has not changed.

“The majority of Columbia Valley residents still oppose this development; that has not changed.  And that is the fundamental issue.  By every measure, people are opposed but stubbornly this government presses ahead,” said Macdonald.

Macdonald is encouraging residents to also contact the BC Omubudsman’s Office if they feel that a proper process was not followed in this matter.

“The Ombudsman is there to ensure that the rule of ‘administrative fairness’ is followed.  If you feel that the absence of thorough public and local government consultation resulted in a lack of administrative fairness, call the Ombudsman and voice your concerns.”

The Ombudsman can be reached by calling 1 800 567 3247 or by filling out the complaint form at www.ombudsman.bc.ca.

Norm Macdonald MLA
Columbia River – Revelstoke
March 6th, 2009

Backgrounder

Letter from Andy Shadrack, Regional District of Central Kootenay to Robin Junger, Environmental Assessment Office dated February 4, 2009:

Dear Sir,

I am the Director for Area D in the Regional District Central Kootenay, the Rural Area immediately adjacent to the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort project.  This Area is now the subject of an Environmental Assessment to do with the proposed Glacier-Howser IPP on the exact opposite slope of this mountain range.

I am writing to express my extreme concern with regard the decision of Project Assessment Officer David Riddell to refuse extension of the Environmental Assessment certificate comment period for the Jumbo Glacier Resort (the current certificate does not expire until October 2009) beyond the January 16, 2009 deadline.

I first learned about the comment period on Friday, January 16th when RDCK staff brought to Directors’ attention that they had attempted to have the comment period extended, but Mr Riddell had refused to grant such an extension.  As RDCK staff noted, the Directors had no formal meeting scheduled at which they could discuss this matter between December 13th and January 16th, and our Board did not formally meet again until January 24th.  The comment period was from December 19th, 2008 to January 16th, 2009.

I myself was taking a break from RDCK business between December 19th and January 2nd.  Then from January 5th to 9th we had a number of emergencies to deal with in Area D, including road closures due to avalanches, power outages, and the phone lines being down, which made it impossible for me to consult with my constituents during the comment period even if I had known about it.  It is incredulous to me that a comment period would even be set up to coincide with the Christmas period.

What disturbs me more is that on Sunday, January 18th I consulted with the new Chair of the Regional District East Kootenay (RDEK), Director Norman Walter, who informed me that his District first heard about the comment period from local environmental groups.  He also informed me that the RDEK was denied an extension, again requested because its Directors were not meeting during the comment period either.  The fact that the RDEK was not even notified of the comment period is understandable, given that Mr Riddell’s original email of December 19th was addressed to Greg Deck, the former Chair of RDEK, who was no longer an elected municipal official.

On Wednesday, January 27 I attended a public meeting in Kaslo where I was finally able to ask approximately 80 local residents whether or not they knew about this comment period.  Only one person in attendance knew of the comment period: Michael Procter, a local and internationally renowned bear biologist who is currently completing a scientific analysis on grizzly bears in the very area for which the certificate was under review.

Mr Proctor then informed myself and the audience that he first heard about the review on January 12 and immediately contacted Mr Riddell to ask for an extension, since he was only a few weeks away from completing his analysis.  Again, for a third time, I understand that Mr Riddell refused to grant such an extension.  In speaking with Mr Riddell by phone on Tuesday, February 3 (at his request) he in addition admitted that several other government agencies asked for the comment period to be extended.

The clear impression emerging is that Mr Riddell purposely set up the comment period during the Christmas break when many organizations and agencies were least likely to be able to comment.  Then, when a respected local biologist informed him that he is about to complete a study that might better frame the science on this issue, Mr. Riddell still refused to consider extending the comment period.

I myself have contacted the BC Ombudsman’s Office and will now encourage others to dispute the decision against an extension.  I can see absolutely no reason why, when the existing certificate does not expire until October 2009, the comment period could not have been set up to allow various agencies, organizations and indiiduals to participate in a review outside the Christmas break period.

In this regard I want to underscore that since the first certificate was granted in 2004, a second but different project is now being proposed (Glacier-Howser IPP) exactly opposite the site where Jumbo Glacier Resort is being proposed.  This new reality speaks directly to the first question asked of us to comment on:

“Have there been any material and specific changes in circumstances since the original EA review that could impact the conclusions reached in the Certificate?”

The answer is yes, in the form of a proposed 97 kilometre power line over to Invermere from Howser Valley in the West Kootenays and I never got the chance to raise this fact before the comment period was closed.  As former RDEK Chair, Greg Deck, knows (since we discussed this issue) I was very much in favour of discussing cumulative impacts of both projects, which would have been appropriate to raise in the comment period if I had been given the chance.

It also seems absolutely inappropriate, especially after Oberto Oberti wrote in his letter of December 8, 2008 to Mr Riddell requesting the five year certificate extension.

“We note despite the extensive studies done before, the Grizzly bear issue has been raised again.  However, there has been no fundamental change regarding the information and the basis of the review that have generated the recommendation of the Environmental Assessment office and the decision of the Ministers.”

Contrary to Mr Oberti’s statements, as instanced by Ktunaxa Nation Council, recent studies in the Purcell Range have indicated the Grizzly bear population to be lower, and elsewhere in the same region the Ministry responsible for granting hunting licenses has cut them back significantly in line with the findings of Mr Proctor’s work.

I therefore find Mr Riddell’s letter of January 30th false and misleading in that only the Ktunaxa Nation Council is cited as having concerns, when both myself and Mr Proctor were denied an ability to express an opinion within an extended comment period.  The fact that Mr Riddell now admits that other agencies wanted an extension as well sharpens this contradiction in what Mr Riddell reports to Mr Oberti and the actual reality of the situation.

When I questioned Mr Riddell about why the two Boards of the Regional Districts were not granted an extension to comment he explained that it was only agency staff whose opinion he wanted for this technical review, not politicians.  Why then did his first email asking for comment on December 19th get expressly sent to Greg Deck, the former Chair of the RDEK and not the CAO of the RDEK?  And why is the same email sent to New Denver where the Chair of the RDCK Gary Wright is Mayor?

Maybe the provincial government works differently but in our Regional District, staff never make comment on requests for information without first seeking permission of the Chair or the Board as a whole.  As a consequence I now want to categorically challenge the EAO’s right to claim the RDEK and RDCK were consulted when neither body actually met to make decisions during the comment period.

Whether either would have chosen to make comments is, in my opinion, immaterial.  The fact of the matter is that they could not comment because they did not meet.  Likewise I find it unacceptable, EAO saying I will have some new information of Grizzly ears within two weeks, the EAO did not say, for the sake of good science, we had better wait before we close the comment period off.

I would also like to know why my name was removed from the original comment list, as prior to 2004 I was asked comment?

In conclusion I think that you need to start over and do the comment period properly, and as soon as Mr Proctor’s study is complete I will be informing the public of my investigation as to how the EAO handled this particular comment period unfairly.

Whether one is for or against Jumbo Glacier Resort, I believe that the process to determine impacts has to be an accessible one, which clearly this one was not.

Respectfully submitted,
Andy Shadrack
Director Area D
Regional District Central Kootenay

CVNews related links:

• It’s about power! — conservationists question private power project