[LookOutSugarLake] Kokanee Resort Development - Sugar Lake

[Catherine Hansen]

Further to this email from Eveline, please make sure to see page A30  
of Friday's Morning Star 'Assessment conserves valley'.  The Nature  
Conservancy of Canada (NCC) has announced the completion of its  
Okanagan ecoregional assessment, after more than three years and  
nearly $300,000.  Their website is http://www.natureconservancy.ca/ 
site/PageServer?pagename=bc_ncc_work_okanagan   This is just one more  
acknowledgement of the ongoing challenge to conserve our valley.   
With this information in hand, NCC is now beginning to focus on  
specific areas of high biodiversity importance and identify  
properties to protect.  However, they acknowledge that it is a  
challenge in the valley because of the high land costs.  Let us not  
let money destroy this watershed.
Cathy Hansen

On 9-Feb-07, at 5:41 PM, Eveline Wolterson wrote:

> I have been monitoring the information and feedback to this  
> development since I last emailed to you my opposition to this.   
> It's clear now that several agencies, at least two local  
> governments, and many of the residents in the area have concerns  
> with how the development is proceeding, but that you and BC  
> Environment are not prepared to support or even respond to those  
> concerns.
>
> I also understand that one of BC Environment's chief concerns is  
> that the sewage discharge is a regulated activity, under the BC  
> governments results-based regulatory regime.  In this case, the  
> regulation, the Municipal Sewage Regulation, and how it is supposed  
> to work is being challenged because of concerns identified in other  
> nearby communities (Shuswap and Okanagan Lakes) and because Sugar  
> Lake is currently a pristine environment.
>
> With respect, I remind you that the MSR requires an EIA process  
> that analyses and suggests management strategies for potential  
> impacts from a sewage discharge.  This has been done, but the EIA  
> assumed, as is usual, that the development is a single discharge  
> and does not need to consider the cumulative effect of the  
> discharge  - i.e. what is the impact on Sugar Lake, the Shuswap,  
> and downstream lakes and rivers, of this discharge if it is added  
> to other either existing or possible future discharges (these can  
> be from point sources, such as the Lumby sewage treatment plant,  
> marinas, or perhaps a future resort development, as contemplated  
> here, and non-point sources, such as boating, golf courses,  
> forestry and range activities, agriculture, stormwater, and  
> multiple residential septic systems).
>
> Scientists and environmental policy makers now widely agree that  
> this conventional EIA process suffers from a lack of credibility,  
> since it is largely concerned with single-project development.  It  
> does not address the management of cumulative effects associated  
> with multiple developments.
>
> Cumulative effects assessment is recognised as a major challenge to  
> scientific predictive modelling on which policies are developed.   
> Decision makers are starting to realise that, as the pace and scale  
> of development increase, impacts can extend far beyond the  
> influence of individual activities. To some extent, ecological and  
> social systems can adapt to these influences, but it is becoming  
> increasingly apparent that cumulative effects associated with  
> multiple activities can create irreversible changes that are  
> different from those caused by any single activity or impact.
>
> Your own government recognises the cumulative effects issue.   
> Decision makers want to know, for example, how many new salmon  
> farms can a marine ecosystem support without impact; or how many  
> new heli-skiing operations can an alpine area support, without  
> impacting the tourist values of existing operations.
>
> I encourage you to consider the impacts of this development, not  
> only as a single development (and we're not only talking sewage,  
> but also noise, light, marina related impacts, traffic concerns,  
> among others), but also in the context of the cumulative  
> developments that exist and are emerging in the entire Okanagan and  
> Shuswap basins.  You are aware, I am sure, that the Okanagan and  
> Shuswap regions are facing huge development pressure, and  
> environmental impacts have occurred at great cost to taxpayers: for  
> enhanced waste water treatment, improved fresh water treatment,  
> restricted agriculture practice, shoreline protection and  
> enhancement, storm-water management, health concerns related to  
> poor air quality, loss of green space and wildlife habitat, and  
> impacts on food security.  Sugar Lake currently is at the end of  
> this development chain, relatively pristine, and thus has huge  
> recreational and habitat values.
>
> It is your and our choice - we either protect those values through  
> smart growth or allow this development to proceed as currently  
> contemplated, changing the area forever and settting the precedent  
> to enter into the same development cycle that is now plaguing other  
> regions under your political jurisdiction.
>
> I understand you are meeting with NORD and some of your local  
> constituent citizens to discuss this issue on Monday.  I hope you  
> will consider what I have said above. and trust you will be able to  
> at least acknowledge to those attending the meeting that the  
> development has to be delayed until the concerns of agencies, local  
> governments and residents have been addressed.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Eveline Wolterson, 925 Shuswap River Drive, Lumby, BC
>
> _______________________________________________
> LookOutSugarLake mailing list
> LookOutSugarLake at sensociety.org
> http://sensociety.org/mailman/listinfo/lookoutsugarlake_sensociety.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/lookoutsugarlake_sensociety.org/attachments/20070210/9eb24c2e/attachment.html