Residents for a Better Port Moody Win at BC Court of Appeal

Speech to the mining industry On October 22, 1996, the Fraser Institute sponsored a conference promoting the view that environmental standards should be weakened in order to boost the mining industry in BC. Alan Young was allowed to address the meeting. Alan is the executive director of the Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia, a coalition of national, provincial and local conservation organizations (including WCELA) whose combined membership is over 50,000 people. Alan spent what he describes as “a couple of long years” as a lead negotiator for the Canadian environmental sector working with industry, union, native and government representatives to reach a final agreement on the Whitehorse Mining Initiative (WMI). The following is a shortened version of his speech. I have supported implementation of the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. But now, given industry’s continued resistance to the establishment of protected areas, its push for what is effectively de-regulation of environmental protection, and its calls for limited corporate environmental liability, I — like others in the environmental community— am beginning to wonder whether it is wise to continue to do so. We are seeing a willingness on the part of some in the industry to scapegoat environmental regulations and processes as part of the agenda for global competitiveness. This is a dangerous and ill-advised strategy which violates the spirit and intent of the WMI and will only contribute to investor uncertainty. Economic Performance Contrary to the gloomy predictions made by some mining spokespeople, even after all the land use processes and after 2.5 million hectares of new protected areas, the BC mining industry is registering record high mineral production, and significant increases in both mine development and exploration. Clearly, mining is a boom and bust industry. Blaming the industry’s business problems on environmental standards is bad business, even though it may seem like good PR. The fact is that what causes most mines to open and close is metal prices, not environmental considerations. The way to deal with these fluctuations is to improve the investment climate. This can best be done by minimizing conflict and respecting legitimate public concerns. You shouldn’t forget the fact that BC taxpayers have provided your industry with literally hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, grants and loans over the past two years. While British Columbians may be willing to provide these incentives to a responsible industry, I can assure you that they will not tolerate an erosion of environmental standards or a decrease in corporate liability. Increasing environmental risks for the sake of profits is not on. That is why the WMI vision is so important and why the extent of your commitment to it will make or break investor confidence. Industry’s Track Record Industry performance will be the real acid test for increased investor certainty. But, it has not been a good couple of years for the reputation of Canada’s mining companies: Placer Dome’s Marcopper disaster in the Philippines involved a major tailings failure that resulted in the mine closure and the arrest of senior officials. Cambior’s Omai mine released a major cyanide spill into the Essequibo River, and Canadian engineering firms have been accused of negligence. Curragh’s Westray coal mine resulted in the death of over 20 Nova Scotians. Galaxy’s Summitville mine has left the US Environmental Protection Agency holding a $100 million clean up bill. For foreigners, these disasters are putting a whole new spin on the industry’s slogan, “Keep Mining in Canada.” I recently noticed an American conservation activist wearing a “Keep Mining in Canada“ button as he was campaigning against Noranda’s proposed New World Mine on the edge of Yellowstone National Park in the US. As you know, that mine was stopped by President Clinton in September. Here at home, the Mining Association of Canada estimates the cost of cleaning up abandoned mines across our country to be $6 billion. (Globe & Mail, Sept. 24, 1994). In BC, there are 13 acid generating mines and a number of potentially acid generating mines proposed for development. There are approximately 72 million tonnes of acid generating tailings and 250 million tonnes of acid generating waste rock in BC. This is increasing by 25 million tonnes per year. (BC State of Environment Report 1994, p. 25) Accountability and Environmental Protection Clear, consistent environmental regulations are a key factor in preventing disasters and promoting a responsible, innovative industry. A Viewpoints research poll conducted for BC Spaces for Nature in May 1996 showed that 61% of British Columbians surveyed felt that environmental mining regulations in BC should be kept at their current level, and 25% felt they should be stricter. Only 4% felt that BC should reduce environmental standards to compete with Third World nations. What’s more, 79% of respondents were opposed to industry self regulation of environmental standards. And, 74% of British Columbians said “No” to mining in parks. The mining industry is increasingly seen as a prime obstacle to completion of the protected areas system throughout Canada. Yet the mining industry does not have to follow the forest industry’s path of environmental conflict. The Whitehorse Mining Initiative was an important step in the right direction. Industry, labour, environmentalists and native groups rejected the conflict approach. This accord was reaffirmed in BC in 1995, with the signing of the Statement of Commitment by the Chamber of Mines, the Mining Association of BC, labour leaders and environmentalists. Industry Has a Choice In the end, industry has a choice: co-operation and environmental responsibility, or conflict with other land users. I urge you to meet the commitments you made in signing the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. British Columbians and your investors will accept nothing less. The full text of Alan Young’s speech is available on the Internet at http://vcn.bc.ca/wcel/otherpub, or from the West Coast office, 604 684-7378.

Biodiversity Convention Meets in Buenos Aires International gathering focuses on biodiversity, forests, indigenous knowledge, access to genetic resources and intellectual property rights Linda Nowlan attended the 3rd Conference of the Parties (COP-3) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as an ENGO representative with the Canadian delegation earlier this month. Before the official meeting started, she went to the Fifth Session of the Global Biodiversity Forum, organized by IUCN and other environmental groups and attended by 145 people from 35 countries. The main substantive issues discussed at COP-3 were: Agricultural biodiversity (the chief sectoral issue) The Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources, a compilation of data from 158 countries warns of a large-scale loss of plant genetic resources of importance to food and agriculture. The main causes for this alarming loss of genetic diversity are the spread of industrial agricultural practices and the introduction of new varieties of crops. The COP, after long hours of contentious debate about issues such as the role of trade in decline of agricultural biodiversity and farmer’s rights, decided to establish a multi-year program of activities aiming to promote the positive effects and mitigate the negative impacts of agricultural practices on biological diversity in agro-ecosystems. Parties are also encouraged to develop national strategies to promote agricultural biodiversity. Forests and biodiversity Many Canadian environmental groups were interested in what actions, if any, the COP would take on forest biodiversity. In the end, the decision reached on forests was: “Some forests” can play a crucial role in conserving biodiversity. The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) has been directed to carry out a limited program of work related to: methodologies to implement criterion indicators for sustainable forest management; and, analysis of the negative human impacts on forest biodiversity, especially through forest management and measures to mitigate those influences. The CBD Secretariat will also develop a draft work program on forest biodiversity for review at the next meeting of the COP. The issue of a Forests Convention was also discussed informally in the halls. Some countries are adamantly opposed to this idea. The Canadian government is a strong supporter of a Convention and has proposed that this issue be raised at the next session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in April 1997. It will also be debated in more detail at the next, and final, session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests in New York in February 1997. Indigenous knowledge, innovations and practices The Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Network produced consensus on a recommendation to the COP for the formation of an Open-Ended Working Group on Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity. Five representatives of the network made statements to the COP, including Violet Ford of Canada. Canada proposed an alternative of an informal intersessional meeting on the effective implementation of Article 8(j) of the CBD, which requires parties to act, subject to their national legislation, to “respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity...”. The Canadian government proposal was adopted by the COP. Many of the Canadian indigenous representatives were disappointed that Canada did not actively seek support from other countries for the creation of an Open-Ended Working Group, but also recognized that the lack of widespread support for this option meant that the Canadian proposal was likely as much as they would get from this meeting. Access to genetic resources The whole notion of benefit sharing arising from access to genetic resources in developing countries is seen to be one of the key provisions of the Convention by developing countries. Countries have started to prepare national access legislation, such as that of the Philippines and the Andean Pact, as well as more recent legislation such as the Bill currently before the legislature in Costa Rica. The trend toward more legislation on this issue is not supported by all countries however, including Canada. Many developed countries feel that legislation which heavily regulates access to genetic resources will drive away both investment as well as research companies. The decision by COP-3 recognizes that there are a variety of approaches to managing access to genetic resources based on their diversity and other considerations. The decision urges governments and other organizations to provide information on access and benefit sharing to the Secretariat of the CBD before COP-4 . Intellectual property rights The relationship between intellectual property rights (IPR) and conservation of biological diversity remains controversial. Canada’s position, along with other developed countries, is that until there has been empirical evidence demonstrating negative impacts from IPR on biodiversity, there is no reason for the CBD Secretariat or the COP to work on this issue. These countries believe that any issue related to IPR and the Convention and the CBD can be addressed through domestic legislation and other international fora. NGO concerns about possible negative impacts of IPR on biodiversity continue. NGOs are concerned with the trend of companies that have IPR protected plant varieties to restrict farmers’ and plant breeders’ exemptions from IPR regimes. IPRs are also questioned when knowledge, innovations and practices of local communities or indigenous peoples are used as the basis for research which gives rise to a patentable invention. There is no guarantee that sharing benefits from these inventions will occur. The final decision of COP-3 on intellectual property rights encourages communication from parties concerning the impact of IPR on CBD objectives, and requests the CBD Executive Secretary take a bigger role in other international fora that address IPR issues. Financial resources and mechanism Many participants at COP-3 talked about the urgency of halting biodiversity loss, and expressed concern that both individual parties and the international community are not spending enough and are not spending fast enough on solutions. Despite high hopes, once again no decision was made on whether the global environmental facility (GEF) should be designated as a permanent financial mechanism for the CBD. There was also much debate on the questions of whether “new and additional” financial resources had been devoted by parties to implementing the CBD. An analysis by Bird Life International criticized the reduction in official development assistance (ODA) budgets of many developed countries, concluding that as a result biodiversity funding was also reduced. The Canadian representative from CIDA maintains that Canadian biodiversity-related ODA funding has doubled in the past few years. Biosafety The Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety is working on recommendations for a biosafety protocol. UNEP has also prepared International Technical Guidelines for Safety in Biotechnology. The exact content of the Protocol has not yet been determined. The COP decision agreed that work on a Protocol will proceed in 1988 “as a matter of urgency”; and, that the UNEP Guidelines can contribute to the development of the Protocol. Marine and coastal biodiversity At COP-2, this was a major issue. Surprisingly absent at COP-3 was any discussion of marine and coastal biodiversity. Informal discussions revealed that not much work has occurred on this issue since the mandate was issued November 1995. GEF trip to Patagonia A highlight of the entire visit was a trip organized to view the GEF-financed coastal zone management project in Patagonia. GEF has provided $2.8 million in financing over the past three years to allow a non-governmental organization, the Patagonian Natural Protection Foundation, to bring together all stakeholders to prepare a strategy for preserving the incredible richness of marine life along 3,000 km of Patagonia’s coast, which includes major wildlife reserves such as the Punta Tombo penguin colony, and the Valdez Peninsula, home to penguins, right whales, elephant seals, sea lions, and a host of other marine wildlife. The two day trip was subsidized by the GEF and the government of Switzerland. Due to last minute cancellations from other delegations, I was able to attend the two day meeting, and had a great time with the other people on the trip. Our NGO hosts in Patagonia were superb, keeping us on the go in rented buses from dawn until well after dusk, with timely infusions of maté, the national drink, and great commentary on the project, ecological issues and life in Patagonia. All the background papers for COP-3 prepared by the Secretariat on Biological Diversity are available at http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/biodiv/cop3/docs.html. This site also has a comprehensive summary and analysis of the meeting. For more information, or for a full copy of the report from COP-3, please contact Linda Nowlan at 604 601-2509. — Linda Nowlan

Beyond Hot Air — BC Government Needs to Put GHG Action Plan into Action This op-ed piece, written by Chris Rolfe, was published in the Victoria Times Colonist on November 20, 1996. In the next few weeks Glen Clark’s cabinet will be facing an acid test on how serious it is about environmental protection. All Canada’s energy and environment ministers will be meeting on December 12 to discuss what they should do about Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Clark and his ministers will be meeting beforehand, to define BC’s position and BC’s plan of action. Faced with greenhouse gas emissions that are spiraling out of control, the Clark government has to choose if it wants to go beyond rhetoric and make the commitments — commitments to energy efficiency, transit, clean electricity, and reduced urban sprawl — which will reduce BC’s emissions. Their choice will affect the BC environment, the BC economy and Canada’s international standing. Since the industrial revolution, burning fossil fuels and deforestation have lead to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In recent years scientists have reached a growing consensus that this increase is affecting and will continue to affect global climate. They warn that emission reductions of 50% are necessary to stabilize our impact on climate. Faced with increasing scientific concern, the BC government joined the federal government and the rest of the industrialized world in commiting, as a first step, to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2000. In November 1995, the BC government adopted a Greenhouse Gas Action Plan. The Plan was a good start, but it contained no new concrete commitments and cabinet has largely ignored it since it was announced. In the meantime greenhouse gas emissions rise steadily. Canada is already the second worst per capita greenhouse gas polluter in the world. With a 13% increase projected from 1990 to 2000, our emissions are growing faster than any other major industrialized nation. BC is one of the chief causes of Canada’s poor record. BC’s 1995 greenhouse gas emissions were almost 57 million tonnes, 15% higher than 1990 emissions. A rising population and a do-nothing attitude on the part of the federal government have contributed to exponential growth in emissions, but the provincial government shares much of the blame. The Clark government must decide whether or not to allow this trend to continue unabated. Despite a good record in dealing with other forms of air pollution, the BC cabinet has ignored the implications of its decisions on greenhouse gases. Huge capital expenditures on highway expansion have proceeded while transit has been frozen. New fast ferries are being built that emit four times as much carbon dioxide per passenger carried. BC Hydro is increasingly relying on burning fossil fuels rather than focusing on renewable sources of energy and increased conservation. The province has approved an 80% increase in carbon dioxide emissions from Lafarge Canada’s Richmond cement plant. We allow emissions to increase at our peril. The United States and leading European nations are advocating emission reduction targets that will be binding in international law and enforced by trade sanction. Once binding targets are in place, jurisdictions like British Columbia which have allowed emissions to escalate will have to take more drastic steps to reduce emissions. On the other hand, if we take action sooner rather than later our economy can benefit. For instance, if we reduce car use to reduce greenhouse gases we also reduce local pollution and related health care costs. The Royal Society of Canada has estimated that measures such as this — measures worth doing for other reasons — could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. These measures are worth doing for reasons ranging from increasing competitiveness to improving air quality and increasing the livability of urban areas. BC stands to gain the most of any Canadian province. One of Canada’s leading economic forecasters has projected that a plan to reduce Canadian emissions by one-fifth would boost the BC economy and create 10,000 new BC jobs by the year 2010. But the most compelling reason for reducing emissions is what climate change will mean for British Columbia’s natural heritage if we do not take action. Temperatures in Canada have already risen 1° C in the last century. Unless action is taken global average temperatures are projected to increase 2° C, possibly more, over the next century. To put this in context, global temperatures have only risen 4° since the end of the last ice age, when Vancouver was under a thick sheet of ice. Climate change may make the NDP’s achievements in environmental protection irrelevant. New parks will not protect forests from climate change, and the speed of climate change will be too fast for old growth forests to adapt. Fish protection laws will not protect salmon from summer droughts, winter floods or the shifts in ocean currents that scientists are attributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Curtailing greenhouse gases needs international cooperation, but Canada, and British Columbia in particular, cannot expect other countries to reduce their emissions when we are one of the worst offenders and getting worse by the minute. When Clark and his cabinet meet, they need to go beyond the hot air of action plans that are not implemented. They need to implement changes and demand the same from the federal government.

Year-end review As another calendar year draws to a close, we are reflecting on our work over the past months, and looking at what we need to do in the coming months. It has been another busy year at West Coast and one of some changes. Our staff lawyers continue to work in many areas. Chris Rolfe returned after a year’s secondment to the Ministry of Environment to work on greenhouse gas emissions policies. He has been continuing in that field this past year, and is almost finished a yearlong research project for both the federal and provincial governments on greenhouse gases. Ann Hillyer left West Coast after seven years of hard work to start her own practice in Victoria. She is continuing her work with Forest Renewal BC and has been leading conservation covenant workshops throughout the province. Linda Nowlan has been extremely busy with her work in the fields of biodiversity, habitat and endangered species protection. Linda also revitalized the provincial endangered species campaign in the summer, and the Endangered Species Coalition has since brought campaigner Kate Smallwood on board to lead the campaign. Kate is working out of the West Coast offices, and works closely with Linda. See “From the Lawyers’ Desktops” for a summary of Kate’s work to date. Bill Andrews continues his work on federal/provincial harmonization and was recently appointed to the federal environment minister’s Task Force on the Environment. And Patricia Houlihan, now in her third year here as the EDRF Liaison Lawyer, has been continuously improving the delivery of EDRF services, and broadening the reach of this important fund. As our organization has grown over the past years, we have been grateful to the Law Foundation of British Columbia for its ongoing support of West Coast’s work, but this support has been meeting less and less of our total operating costs as we have grown. We have become more dependent on other sources of funding, including other foundations and the support of individual donors and members. We now know that we face a fifteen per cent cut in the funds we will receive from the Law Foundation in our coming year, as a result of the low bank interest rates. This means we will need to bring in ever more funds from other sources than we have in the past, and this is where we need you. If you haven’t made a donation to West Coast this year, please consider making one now. All donations made to West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation are tax creditable, and we will send you a receipt for income tax purposes before year-end. We are grateful to every one of you who has donated in the past, and hope you will be able to donate to our work again this year. We will not be sending out a separate plea for funds as we have done in past years. We’d also like to take this opportunity to tell our members, donors and supporters that we will not be having a year-end party this year. We have been reviewing all our expenses with an eye to spend more efficiently, and we have decided that our annual year-end party was one place to make a change. We are planning to use the savings from the party to improve the format of and participation in our annual general meeting, held each year in June. We think it makes sense to focus on the AGM as an opportunity to bring together our members and donors at a time when we are reviewing our year’s work, and making plans for future work. So, we’re sorry we won’t be seeing you this December, but we hope to see you at our AGM in June.

20/20 Vision: Letter Writing for Social Change Have you heard of 20/20 Vision? No, it has nothing to do with improving your eyesight. 20/20 Vision is a group of dedicated Lower Mainland residents who volunteer their time and research abilities to help others create positive change. 20/20 Vision’s goal is to make it easier for concerned individuals to take action — write, phone or fax a key policymaker — on peace and environmental issues that concern them. And by making it easier, more people speak up. It’s a well known fact that every letter a policymaker or legislator receives represents many people who feel the same way but have not taken the time to write. Our letters have clout! 20/20 Vision subscribers use the monthly postcard (with background facts and the name and address of the individual who has the power to act) to use that clout to help build a safe and sustainable future for all life. 20/20 Vision does the research, you do the writing. Twenty minutes a month is all that is required. Principles underlying the organization include working in a spirit of good will and nonviolence, and suggesting positive solutions to problems. 20/20 vision has worked closely with West Coast Environmental Law since the letter writing group’s inception in 1990. Over 70 topics have been covered over the years. Among these are Protecting Biodiversity, Giving Canadians a Choice about Junk Mail, Protecting BC’s Ancient Temperate Rainforests, Solving the West Coast Salmon Crisis, Completing Southwestern BC’s Park System, and Cancelling the Nanoose Bay (submarine base) Agreement with the USA. It may seem like a small thing to do in the face of all our problems, to write a letter. But, as Edmund Burke said, “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.” Please join the 250 regular letters writers with 20/20 Vision. Together we can make a difference. For more information, write: 20/20 Vision, 1475 Chamberlain Drive, North Vancouver, BC, V7K 1P8. To subscribe, send $20 (per year) with your name and address to the same address. Or phone for information, Coordinator Pru Moore at 604 926-3417.

From the lawyers' desktops Since our last issue of the Newsletter, our legal staff has been involved in the following: Bill Andrews met with the CEN environmental assessment caucus in Crescent Beach, BC. EA under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is on the defensive on a number of fronts. To facilitate Canada’s sale of CANDU nuclear reactors to China, the federal government quietly changed and quickly passed the Projects Outside Canada regulation, so that it now removes any requirement to do a “comprehensive study” of any project outside Canada. Bill is raising this with the Regulatory Advisory Committee under CEAA. Also, the CCME harmonization initiative released a new draft agreement on EA that appears to give responsibility to the provinces for EA of all projects except those on federal land, even where there is a federal role in the project. Bill is working on this with the EA caucus and the CEN harmonization working group. He has also been active with the Environmental Mining Council (see the article in this issue), and the National Advisory Committee regarding the environmental side agreement to NAFTA. We have completed the first draft of the report on fish, fish habitat and fisheries management in BC for the provincial government. Linda Nowlan is working on this project with Ann Hillyer and Judy Atkins in Victoria. We meet with the Ministry of Environment clients every two weeks to review progress of the report. The first draft of the report contains a description of current laws and programs that govern fish in BC and a description of how the current laws and programs operate in certain defined subject areas, such as ecological protection of fish and fish habitat. The report also analyzes the gaps, duplications and overlaps in the legal and program frameworks. Linda attended the Third Annual Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Buenos Aires from November 1 to 12, 1996. There were approximately seventeen people on the Canadian delegation and she was the sole ENGO representative. The main topics covered at this year’s meeting were agricultural biodiversity, forests and biological diversity, and indigenous people and biodiversity; Linda focused on forests issues of interest to other Canadian NGOs, as well as attempting to obtain an overview of the other issues discussed. Linda is preparing a report on the meeting for the Biodiversity Convention office, part of Environment Canada. She also took part in a field trip to Patagonia to see a UN-financed coastal zone management program in action – an amazing experience! In anticipation of a joint meeting of energy and environment ministers on December 11 and 12, Chris Rolfe has devoted considerable time over the last month trying to increase awareness of climate change issues among politicians and the general public. Chris lead a coalition of BC environmental groups in writing a letter to Glen Clark calling for Provincial leadership on climate change. This call was reiterated in an opinion editorial piece published in the Times Colonist and in a media release and backgrounder. Chris has also assisted Better Environmentally Sound Transportation in the development of a Vancouver City program for transportation demand management and continues to work on a major WCEL report on strategic options for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Last month Patricia Houlihan visited the Money’s Mushroom composting plant in Surrey and met with the Surrey/Langley Environmental Protection Society to discuss strategy in the group’s ongoing fight to address air quality issues in the community. Pat also continues to work with several community groups on pulp mill sludge issues and will be participating in meetings scheduled by the Ministry of Environment to discuss this issue. For more information on work on Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund files, please see the EDRF update elsewhere in this Newsletter. Kate Smallwood is continuing her work with the BC Endangered Species Coalition. Both Kate and Linda will be responding to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. Although a step in the right direction, the bill is deficient in several key areas. The bill only applies to species at risk on federal lands (1.1% of land in BC), aquatic species and birds listed under the Migratory Bird Convention Act. Interprovincial cross-border species are not protected. Other concerns include: the role of the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada is advisory only — politicians still have the ultimate say in which species are listed; habitat protection is very limited (restricted to dens, nests and other dwelling places); recovery plans have no legal status; and, there is no advance review of projects that will affect species at risk or their habitat. Although the Standing Committee had scheduled Committee hearings on Bill C-65 in Vancouver, the hearing was cancelled at the last minute. Both Kate and Linda were scheduled to make submissions to the Committee, and may still do so if the hearing is rescheduled, or held out east.

EDRF Update The Residents of Port Moody won the appeal (on November 27th) taken by the city to the BC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the BC Supreme Court ruling which required council to disclose environmental information regarding an area affected by a change to the official community plan. For more detail, see the cover story in this newsletter. Friends of Boundary Bay/Fraser for Life Society have been fighting to have the Tsatsu Shores condominium project in Delta assessed to determine the environmental impacts. The group has also been pushing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to require the development to stop because the group believes there has been harmful alteration and destruction of fish habitat contrary to the federal Fisheries Act. Recently, the Chief of the Tsawassen Indian Band and a number of other individuals and companies were charged with violations of the Fisheries Act related to the construction of a sewage treatment plant on the ecologically sensitive salt marsh. The Hedley Creek Protection Committee received a grant that will be used in its efforts to protect Hedley Creek, which provides water to the community. A developer wants to install a gondola lift to take tourists to a historic mine site situated above the town of Hedley. The EDRF grant will enable the Hedley Creek Protection Committee to obtain a legal opinion on a proposed development and continue negotiations with the gondola proponent. The Brackendale Citizens Opposed to Airport Development are continuing their efforts to protect the large Bald Eagle population around Brackendale. They received a grant for a legal opinion regarding the likelihood of successfully appealing a decision that ruled the airport expansion was not illegal. The Peace Country Environmental Protection Association received funding to continue their participation in the EAB hearing regarding Louisiana Pacific’s air emissions permit. The hearing was adjourned (due to lack of time to properly consider testimony from all the experts and witnesses) and will reconvene in early December. PCEPA is attempting to protect the ambient air quality in Dawson Creek. The Cowichan Estuary Preservation Society is concerned that pulp mill waste dumped into the Chemainus Estuary may contain contaminates. The EDRF grant to the Society will provide legal assistance and help with negotiations with government regulators to have this practice halted. WCEL Closes for the Holidays The West Coast Environmental Law offices will close for year-end holidays from December 21st until Thursday, January 2nd, 1997. If you must speak to a lawyer during the office closure, please leave a voice-mail on our main line at (604) 684-7378 or 1 800 330-WCEL, and someone will get back to you as soon as possible. Our next issue of the newsletter will come to you in mid January. Thanks for your support over the past year; have a great holiday season! See you next year!

WCELRF, 1001 ­ 207 West Hastings, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1H7, Canada. Phone (604) 684­7378; fax (604) 684­1312; 1-800-330-WCEL; email: admin@wcel.org; home page: http://vcn.bc.ca/wcel/ NEWS from West Coast Environmental Law (ISSN #1204-4326), copyright 1996. Printed on 100% recycled paper (not secondarily bleached or de-inked). Published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and represents the work of the non-profit West Coast Environmental Law Groups: West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation (WCELRF) does research and education and maintains an environmental law library. West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCELA) provides legal representation and promotes law reform. The West Coast Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund Society (WCEDRFS) provides assistance and funding to citizens to help solve environmental problems in their communities. The mission of the West Coast Environmental Law groups is to provide legal services to protect the environment and to foster public participation in environmental decision-making. We are grateful to the Law Foundation of British Columbia for core funding of West Coast Environmental Law. West Coast staff are: Bill Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge, Chris Heald, Patricia Houlihan, Catherine Ludgate, Alexandra Melnyk, Linda Nowlan, Chris Rolfe, and Kate Smallwood. ___ Yes! I want to be a member and receive NEWS from West Coast Environmental Law. Here's $20. ___ Yes! I want to make a tax-creditable donation. Here's my cheque for: ___ $50 ___ $75 ___ $100 Name: ______________________________ Address: ____________________________ City, Prov: ___________________________ Postal Code: _________________________ [ Volume 20 Newsletter Index ]