Opposition to Re-zoning in support of Industry in the Estuary

Letters from CERCA members submitted to Electoral Area Services Directors

1. Peter  Morris

Dear CVRD and Board Directors:I am writing to urge you not to approve a rezoning application for the Cowichan Bay Terminal.People are drawn to the Cowichan Valley for its beauty.  We need to protect that and enrich it.  The Cowichan estuary is a treasure that draws people every day, year round, from near and far.  The nature trails draw more people every year.  We can enhance them and more people will come to the shores of Cowichan Bay to see the tidal waters where the Cowichan and Koksilah enter the ocean.The salmon and sea life draw the eagles, osprey, hawks, herons, swans, ducks and geese, along with the otters, mink, seals, sea lions and killer whales.  Myriad other birds are drawn to the fields and marshes including hummingbirds, marsh wrens, song sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, swallows and more.There is a food chain and the eel grass needs protection as do the shellfish, the salmon up to the whales.There are more human visitors every year; more hikers, nature lovers, and photographers, who share their photos drawing others.  Just as the Stoney Hill trail and Mt. Tzouhalem trails have drawn thousands of visitors in a very short time, along with concerns to protect and preserve the forests, to which the CVRD has listened and responded,  I would encourage the CVRD to listen and address the public's concerns about protecting the estuary.In these times of climate change and global warming we must do all that we can to help nature and Mother Earth and to preserve as much as we can for our children, grandchildren and future generations.Please do your part to make this possible and make life in the estuary better, not worse.Sincerely,Peter Morris, Cowichan Bay resident   2. Beate Weber-Schuerholz (Retired Lord Mayor of the city of Heidelberg,Germany) Ladies and Gentlemen,please allow me to draw your attention to an important decision you are about to make. If you look at the issue of rezoning superficially it all seems to be about two issues: jobs versus environment seemingly dividing the public into two groups: the "good and sensible" people vote for jobs, the others the "bad" people, for the environment.Take a closer look and ask yourself why some countries/ regions in this world develop a healthy and sustainable economy, growing wealth and social stability within a healthy environment, while others suffer from a deteriorating economy, social instability within a  deteriorating environment. It is not a question of jobs, it is a question of what kind of jobs and the location. The second scenario, an un-sustainable economy  still to be found throughout the world. Be it in regions such as Detroit in the USA or Liverpool/Manchester or the Ruhr area in Central Europe, characterized by coal and steel industry. By now these areas  struggling hard  to repair the damage done to their economy and their environment in the past. Rehabilitation of damage done  comes at a very high cost. Even more costly now efforts to restructure  industry towards sustainability to be based on a clean and attractive environment. But -and this is the interesting part- creating thousands of new and sustainable jobs in the process.The first scenario, the creation of a sustainable economy, is very attractive to people. People  move to those locations with their wealth and substantial purchasing power. Examples are the sun-belts in the United States, Europe, Australia etc., offering a clean and green environment and attractive living conditions. These areas show a steady economic growth through the influx of wealthy people creating jobs for thriving communities through their income, expenditure and taxes. The same areas provenly are turning into prime tourist destinations, often becoming the additional economic driver as also seen already in  parts of BC, the Cowichan Valley being a classical example. People moving to the Cowichan Valley are attracted by its setting, its beautiful location by the sea,  pleasant climate, in short drawn in by ideal living conditions. Modern and sustainable industrial jobs stay safe when located in properly designated industrial areas. Industry in such areas may stay there for decades providing stable jobs and the services needed for people moving into the neighbourhood. Proper land use allocation with industry located at suitable and well equipped industrial sites prevents costly land restoration on sites un-suitable for industry in the first place as is the case of industry on the Westcan Terminal. Once the current Crown Leases expire the cost for clean up and restorations will be horrendous. Instead of rezoning in favour of industrial expansion on an obviously unsuitable and ecologically highly sensitive site, the CVRD should offer the proponent a more suitable and less controversial site within the CVRD. There are several such sites available.The Cowichan Valley, the „Warmland“ should avoid the mistakes declining industrial areas made in the past and take the necessary steps to develop towards an economically sound and socially and environmentally healthy future. Conditions are ideal: scenic beauty offering a high quality of life. The CVRD should make an effort to restore what has been destroyed in the past, helping to restore the ecological integrity of the Cowichan Estuary enabling recovery of shellfish fit again for consumption! It should restore estuarine habitat so vital for all of our edible saltwater fish species ( 80% of all edible saltwater fish spend part of their life cycle in estuaries!). Approving re-zoning in favour of metal manufacturing industry would close the door for such positive development within this century. Let the Cowichan Valley and the Estuary- the Warmland- become the beautiful, healthy and successful Canadian sunbelt area with a rich economic, cultural, educational and social life.Warm regardsBeate Weber-Schuerholz, Cowichan Bay resident   3. Ray Demarchi, Retired, BC Chief of WildlifeThe following was read over the telephone to CVRD Chairman Ian Morrison by Ray Demarchi at approximately 3:00 PM on Friday, February 22, 2019:In dealing with the rezoning issue of the Cowichan Causeway, the Ministers responsible, Honourable George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Honourable Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forests Lands and Natural Resources abrogated their responsibilities. Minister Heyman handed off his legal responsibilities as prescribed in the Cowichan Estuary Order-in-Council 1652 to Minister Donaldson who then in turn passed this responsibility to a middle level government staff person in his Nanaimo office. In addition, by accepting the responsibility to rezone the Causeway from lumber storage and shipping to heavy metal manufacturing and assembly the CVRD has acquiesced to the provincial government down-loading what is clearly a provincial matter.These errors were then compounded in two ways:Firstly the Minister’s delegated person erred by approving the rezoning application and claiming that there was “…no significant environmental impact” without the benefit of any scientific environmental assessment and secondly by the CVRD Planning Services Head who accepted this unfounded claim and proclaimed that the false conclusion that changing the zoning from lumber storage and shipping to heavy metal manufacturing and assembly was not a significant change in land use.The consequences of this are an uncertain future for the Cowichan Estuary and a further tax burden on the taxpayers of the Cowichan Valley.Respectfully submitted,Raymond A. Demarchi, Retired, BC Chief of Wildlife; Cowichan Bay resident      4. Ed Mankelow,  Past President BC Wildlife FederationAs a long time resident of Chemainus and the Cowichan Valley I wish to voice my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the causeway to facilitate a metal manufacturing facility.  My involvement on the Estuary goes back to 1978 when Doman Industries decided to build a sawmill on the Estuary. I was also involved later with  David Anderson and the provincial government that set out the  management plan to address issue with log storage that far exceeded their  permit. Cowichan   Estuary  protection became a big issue.In 1973  I co-authored for the BC Wildlife Federation a “Wild River Proposal”  for British Columbia and took it to the BC Cabinet where it was accepted and the Parks Branch was told to bring the proposal into legislation. However there was a delay in the Ministry and a General Election, and the new government predictably did not follow the previous NDPs government’s  proposals.The tie to the Cowichan Estuary is that in our “Wild Rivers “ proposal,  we proposed three Categories of rivers to protect “Wild”, “Scenic” and “Recreation” . Our Candidate for “Recreation” was the Cowichan River which while it had been impacted by changes, still had so much that was worth protecting.When you are talking of protecting a river, all must start with it’s estuary. We have come to understand that estuary protection is essential certainly when you are talking of a river with such a valuable fishery resource.The industry- Metal Manufacturing  that is proposed is not in any way compatible with this or any river estuary and  should be denied.Ed Mankelow,  Past President BC Wildlife Federation      5. Bob ReckhowHi Lori,I think you would agree with me that the Cowichan Estuary is one of the highlights of Area D - Cowichan Bay. It is a precious resource for tourism, nature study, photography, and its unique communities of plant, animal and microbial life, both above the waterline and below.For well over a hundred years, the estuary has also been the site of extensive agricultural and industrial development, dike building, and an important source of employment within Area D.With the rezoning application currently before the CVRD EASC, these two values could be seen as presenting a dilemma that can only be resolved by choosing one over the other. As you consider your position in this matter, I would like to suggest that both the environment and the economy are important to all of us, and to the future of Area D as a great place to live and visit.We all know that in the long term, industrial activity in the Cowichan Estuary will not be viable. The effects of climate change, sea level rise, weather extremes, storm surges, river flooding, and/or changing economic conditions and priorities will eventually prevail. It's not an issue of "if"; the only uncertainty is "when?".Now is the time to begin the process of planning for the safe and economical removal of industry from the Cowichan Estuary. Perhaps it may take 10 or 20 years to negotiate and move the operations of Pacific Industrial Marine from its current location to another more suitable location such as the industrial port of Chemainus. But if we don't start the process now, it will never happen.Please don't just "kick the can" further down the road, by approving the current application without conditions. The Cowichan Estuary has been nearly destroyed by "a thousand small cuts" over the past hundred years, and such an approval would be just another one of those cuts - maybe the one that ends in a major ecological disaster.I urge you and your colleagues to take this opportunity to demonstrate the foresight, courage, and creativity that the citizens of the Cowichan Valley expect and need from you, to think, plan, and take action now, to ensure the environmental and economic health and vitality of our Region for the long term.Thank you,Bob Reckhow, Cowichan Bay resident   6. Paula Foot

Dear Editor, I am deeply concerned about the intended future industrialization of Cowichan Bay, already through its first reading by CVRD. This beautiful area is a sensitive and complex ocean environment of marine life, islands, eel grass breeding habitat and waterfowl. A few jobs that can be provided in another industrial location are not worth the cost. The output of heavy metals, toxic chemicals, and increased shipping pollution have not been investigated by an independent source, which the proponent should pay for, not the government. And the cost of cleaning up future contamination, perhaps as sea levels rise and waste sites are flooded, is paid for by? As you read this, the second hearing is taking place, Wednesday 27 at the CVRD 1.30pm, so if you miss it, perhaps letters to this paper or the CVRD will express  your concern.  Yours sincerely, P Foot, 391 Pine Ave, Duncan V9L 1Z3

7. Dr. Joe Solanto and Lisa SolantoTo Minister of Environment, George Heyman, and Sonia Furstenau, MLA:As residents of Cowichan Bay, we are asking that you support our efforts to protect the Cowichan Bay Estuary by helping us to reject the zoning change request currently before the CVRD.Surely, the facts that the current owners/operators have been blatantly violating existing regulations for years, have been polluting our night skies with glaring spotlights, engage in ear splitting activities day and night, have been engaged in heavy duty metal construction with its attendant toxic pollutants to our air and water, have not provided any independent environmental impact studies or demonstrated adequate mitigation efforts or plans, and are situated within a precious and sensitive ecosystem, should be enough to reject this request, and to order a re-location of this entire industrial complex.A re-location to an appropriate, non-residential, perhaps already existing industrial zone would be a logical win-win-win: the business and jobs are protected, the Estuary is protected, the community's future is protected. Doesn't this seem to be the most reasonable resolution?We urge you to do all in your office's power to help us defeat this request for rezoning our precious Estuary into an expanded industrial zone, and to protect our ecosystem now and into the future.Joe Solanto, PhDLisa Solanto, RMT2045 Cowichan Bay Road7.  Carol Hartwig, Ray Demarchi, Paul RickardTo: Board of CVRD and Cowichan Watershed Board February 15, 2019Western Stevedoring (Carrix Inc. ) Rezoning Application in Cowichan Estuary. Due to provincial and regional government negligence in enforcement and at the same time, both governments refusing to provide environmental impact information, Western Stevedoring, is applying at Cowichan Estuary to legalize heavy metal manufacturing and smelting operations on WestCan Terminal that for over 20 years have been unregistered and out-of-compliance with the Management Plan and OCP zoning and that potentially pose risks to the present and future of shellfish harvesting, human health and safety, eco-tourism, chinook habitat restoration, and the health and nutrition of the southern resident orcas through the potential bioaccumulation and biomagnification of heavy metals such as cadmium, chromium, lead, welding slag and silicates (among other potential toxins). Such a shift in land use is profound and not a simple change in land use as suggested by the CVRD Planning Department.Western Stevedoring is wholly-owned by Seattle-based Carrix Inc.2, one of the world’s largest privately held marine terminal operators. In 2009 the Seattle Hood Canal Bridge was brought to Cowichan Estuary (similarly with MOE cooperation and no environmental impact information) for the purpose of demolition and reconfiguring into wharves that would have led to concrete and asphalt being deposited into the Estuary. It was only after vigorous citizen protests that the bridge was removed. It is troubling that ten years later, the government is similarly willing to rezone six Crown leases placing the public resources at risk for which the government receives $1 per year each. Retiring some or all of the leases for conservation or possibly turning some of them into ecotourism lease operations makes sense, something compatible with the estuary. Western (Carrix) owns CVS Cruise Victoria which operates downtown tourist shuttle buses from Ogden Point in Victoria.Rezoning for incompatible metal manufacturing operations will likely spell the end to the future of shellfish harvesting (a specific target of the Cowichan Watershed Board) after the community has worked for more than 45 years to reduce the impress of industry and the E. coli contamination. It would also be a move backwards from the hard-won restoration activities such as backchannel restoration, drift log removal, dyke breaching, terminal breaching, trail development and the establishment of parks and ferry and kayaking tourism in the estuary.Under the name Tidal Harmony Holdings (wholly owned by Western Stevedoring) that holds the BC government 50 year leases until 2037.2 In 2014, Goldman Sachs sold 49% of FRS Capital Corp. stock, the holding company of Carrix Inc., to the Smith/Hemingway Family Trust who immediately sold that percentage to Fernando Chico Pardo, a Mexican investor; Smith/Hemingway families own the other 51% of FRS.“Western Stevedoring Co. Ltd., which operates the Ogden Point terminal for GVHA and CVS Cruise Victoria, which operates the downtown shuttle bus service, are wholly owned by a Seattle-based Enterprise, Carrix Inc. Much of the ‘local’ profit, along with cruise industry profits, flows south.” (James Bay Neighbourhood Association 2011).cover letter:Directors of the CVRD,Please find attached a new document concerning the Rezoning in Cowichan Estuary.Some of you have been surprised to learn this last week that the rezoning will not only allow heavy metal manufacturing and fabricating but also metal smelting.  (This information is in the documents submitted by Western Stevedoring).  Why should you be concerned about such industrial activities in the middle of  Cowichan Estuary?  Because as a brownfield site,  there have been activities including  smelting, welding, marine salvage, and fabrication,  that are listed in Schedule 2 of the Contaminated Sites Regulation (Environmental Management Act).   Also, the applicant, Western Stevedoring  is wholly-owned by a large private multinational company whose objectives may not be clear without more information. Will they sell to another corporation? Will they protect the environment?As you will see from the information we have summarized, there is reason to be concerned about:

1. The lack of environmental impact information resulting from a failure to participate or to apply due diligence by DFO, and Provincial and Local government agencies.
2. The natural resources and ecosystem functions that  may be at risk in such a highly valued and important estuary.
3. The issue that while industry may donate or work as a contractor for environmental projects, this does not negate the potential for creating new impacts that will require more volunteer community restoration.

We advise you to vote NO to the second reading of the bylaw for the Public Hearing on this issue on February 27.  A public hearing will not bring forward professional environmental impact information; it willbe a public debate about the lack of information and the negligence of government and could well further divide the community.Stand up for the protection of the Cowichan Estuary as legally the Order in Council 1652 and the Cowichan Estuary Environmental Management Plan prescribe.Sincerely,Carol Hartwig, retired, Ecodomain ConsultingRaymond Demarchi, retired, BC Chief of Wildlife ConservationPaul Rickard, retired school principal, charter member of the Cowichan Chinook Rebuilding plan Committee, Past Chair of the Cowichan Stewardship RoundtableI have followed this closely for several years now. I am completely opposed to the rezoning application for several reasons.

1. There has been  no environmental check on what has been  going on in secrecy , by PIM , actions that are contrary to the  bylaws .
2. The mandate, as specified in the Ceemp, an environmental assessment, has been  ignored by the committee that is supposed to oversee such an assessment. That committee is the Cowichan estuary environmental management Committee.
3. According to one of the top staff people at CVRD, speaking to a group of us, the committee is totally dysfunctional.
4. Pacific Marine Industries(PIM) has consistently ignored all permitting on the area until they were caught by bylaw officers. Their credibility is in great question, at least by me.
5. If this bylaw is amended as per the application, there will be no check on industry on this highly sensitive area.
6. The rising water in the bay will submerge the area, in places it has already done this in places. What will be washed into the bay, killing the sea life there? Nobody knows as there has been no assessment of the kinds of possible toxic materials that may be present from the illegal work that has gone on there for years.

I implore the CVRD Board to reject this application by Western Stevedoring on behalf of PIM. Please do think of the incremental degradation of the Cowichan Estuary and of your grandchildren and mine who will pay for the careless use of our precious environment.