Re-zoning Issue: Newspaper Articles and "letters to the Editor"

Dr. Goetz Schuerholz (Conservation EcologistLetter to the Editor (published in Citizen)A local Fairytale?Imagine holding a fifty year Crown Lease which the Government has generously given to you for a 50 acre island with two km prime waterfront in the center of an area known for its beauty and very high wildlife values in the middle of an estuary. It is located in close proximity to all goods and services a community has to offer. As a bonus the Government has supplied you with a private hard-top access road leading to your island connected by a bridge constructed by your nice neighbours for your personal benefit. Even better, the fee you pay for the 50 year Lease amounts to a combined total of 300 Dollars, for a Lease with practically no strings attached. In other words you are free to do whatever you please. You don't even need building or development permits for structures you put up. You are not bound by any laws. You may block off the access to keep people out; you also can post your island with no trespassing signs. In other words you own your own personal paradise without checks and balances. Would this not be great and a dream come true? You are the king of the castle and no subject to law enforcement! What a life that would be! And if anybody dares to complain about your privileges you call on your Government to defend you. And, low and behold, the Government hastens to your defense chastising whoever dares to speak up against you and your privileges, against the noise and light pollution which bother your neighbours and worse, the damage you do to the highly sensitive estuary bordering your island.If you think that this is bad just wait for what will happen if the current re-zoning application by the Lessee of this island would be approved by your elected CVRD representatives. This would open the door for any type of manufacturing industry to settle in the heart of one of the most sensitive ecosystem on earth. It also would slam the door shut for multiple uses instead that are compatible with the conservation objectives of the Cowichan Estuary and benefit our community. Why is it that politicians on all Government Levels appear to turn a blind eye on matters related to industry in the Cowichan Estuary? Ironically this all is happening in your immediate neighbourhood right under your nose on Crown land -the Westcan Island- that belongs to all of us and should be used for the good of society instead. Think about it!Goetz Schuerholz, Cowichan Bay resident since 1977 Dr. Geoff Strong, Atmospheric ScientistLetter to the Editor (published in Citizen)CVRD and the Estuary Re-Zoning IssueWe've heard ecological and economic concerns expressed for and against the re-zoning of the estuary for heavier industry. Consider this from the perspective of climate and the economy.Fisheries, agriculture and tourism represent the best economic potential for the Cowichan Valley, especially Cowichan Bay and Estuary. Fisheries, particularly shell-fishing, were virtually wiped out of Cowichan Bay by pollution. I'm told that Cowichan Bay was once a sports fishing Mecca and regular haunt of famous people such as John Wayne and Bing Crosby. With cleanup, fisheries and tourism in Cowichan Bay could be rejuvenated into multi-million dollar industries. But tell me, have you ever heard of such activities anywhere in the world centered around a major heavy industry in the very heart of an estuary? Clearly, no, and that's where CVRD should focus in this re-zoning issue, along with a future dictated by climate change.We cannot now avoid at least 2°C of global warming in this century. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet accelerated 15 years ago to double its rate of the 1990s, and apparently has quadrupled in the last 5-10 years. Translated to Cowichan Bay, that means a minimum of 2 metres rise in sea-level in this century, 7 metres if all of that ice sheet melts. But sea-level rise is not the immediate concern for Cowichan Bay. Rather, it's ocean surges that will occur when a major storm hits, which would wash over and wipe out industry on that artificial island in our estuary. That will happen at any time from here on, and likely within the next 10-15 years. The resulting mess would also destroy our chances for a return to the fishery, and would prevent any tourism revival.The potential for a fishing industry and tourism, should be high priority for CVRD in this 're-zoning gamble', for gamble it is. They should first consider how much in the short-term that this industry would improve our economy. Short-term that is, because in the long-term there will be virtually nothing to consider, and by then your fishery and tourism will be lost.Geoff Strong, Cowichan Bay Dr. Geoff Strong, Atmospheric ScientistLetter to the Editor (published in Citizen)Regarding 'When talking Sea Level and Scientific Facts'John Walker's letter of Mar. 1 commenting on Bellerive's letter of Feb. 20 contains several misconceptions. Walker claims that melting of polar ice does not contribute to sea level rise because it is already on the ocean. He misses the simple fact that most ice in the Arctic is land-based on the Greenland ice sheet, about 2-3 km thick, where sea ice thickness is measured in meters. He further claims that sea level measurements are inaccurate. However, very accurate measures of ice melt and sea level are carried out today using satellite altimetry (from ICESat) and gravimetric data (from GRACE satellite).When climate science refers to polar ice melt and sea level rise, they refer to melting of land-based ice, on either Greenland, Antarctica, or alpine glaciers on mountains. Those, Mr. Walker, certainly DO contribute to sea level rise. The Greenland ice sheet is now melting 3-4 times faster than was believed in the 1990s. If all this ice melted, sea level would rise by 7 m all around the globe. We cannot now avoid 2°C global warming in this century, given inaction by governments and industry, and the very best estimates are that sea level will rise more than 2m for every 1°C rise in global temperature, meaning a minimum further rise of 2m. Add to that the result of thermal expansion of the oceans, since much of the heat added to the atmosphere ultimately ends up there. Sea level rise is only one part of the equation, since ocean surges during storms mean that anything less than 5m above sea level is at risk from catastrophic flooding. Mr. Bellerive was quite correct in pointing out the risks in Cowichan Bay.Mr. Walker, if you are going to use science, get your facts straight.Geoff Strong Heather Roderick and Chris ShermanLetter to EASC Diurectors, 11 March 2019I am composing this letter to draw your attention to Rezoning and Metal Manufacturing in Cowichan Estuary. As a home owner on Khenipsen Rd., I have the honor of witnessing the fantastic population of swans, eagles, osprey and ducks. With the natural protected areas diminishing for fowl and salmon, it is important to shelter and give sustenance in the estuary in Cowichan Bay. We share with the First Nations the legal and moral responsibility to protect the health of the Cowichan Estuary.I am writing this letter because I heard that no proper independent environmental impact assessments have been done regarding industry in our neighborhood. In order to satisfy the municipal bylaws for a home improvement we were required to have an environmental impact study. It is not appropriate that industry and government are not required to do the due diligence of a thorough independent assessment. I am not just writing in opposition to rezoning the causeway for metal manufacturing in Cowichan Estuary, I propose the following action plan:

• Industrial impacts should be reduced as the Cowichan Estuary Environmental Management Plan and OIC 1652 intended. The Cowichan Estuary Environmental Management Committee needs resources allocated so that they could bring these studies up to date in order to manage and plan properly.
• If the sticking point is monetary resources, consider allocating funds directly to support the diminishing Orca population as the Cowichan chinook salmon are a food source for the southern resident orcas.
• Metal manufacturing has potential for bioaccumulation of pollutants in chinook salmon, thus leading to biomagnifications in orcas and resultant health and reproductive problems. Human health and the health of migratory and non-migratory birds are also at risk.
• Revisit the target of Cowichan Watershed Board who established a community target of being able to eat shellfish from Cowichan Estuary by 2020 requiring pollution-free conditions, due to dioxins and cadmium was found in shellfish in 2009-2010.
• Require current industry to record during winter King Tides, when the current terminal is flooding, thus making management of storm water and pollution impossible.
• Create a sustainable strategy to move from heavy industry to eco-tourism in the Cowichan Estuary. This would provide a bright future for the citizens and continue to build the slow food and destination brand that has been invested in to date.

I can only imagine the responsibility that is on your shoulders by demanding constituents and the plethora of issues that are weighing on you every day. Please be a voice to stop the CVRD from approving application by multinational company owned by Seattle business posing as a local business PIM to proceed with this rezoning without proper scientific studies for the sake of orcas, salmon, bird populations and risks to our human health.  Thank you for your service to our community and the future of Canada.Sincerely,Heather Roderick and Chris Sherman976 Khenipsen Rd, Duncan, B.C. V9L 5L3, heather@surgicalcs.com