HiTest Board Meeting May 12, 2016 - Golden, BC citizens rejection of the smelter

(this is a backup copy of the pdf file I have on my computer - the original pdf can be emailed to anyone that wants it - send your request to pendoreillehealth@gmail.com)

Board Meeting May 12th, 2016 Location: Ponderosa Motel Room 403 3 pm – 5 pm AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introductions
   
2. Election of the following Executive positions: President
   Vice President Treasurer Secretary
   
3. Approval of Agenda
   

3.00 pm 3.10 pm
3.20 pm
3.25 pm
3.40 pm
3.55 pm
4.15 pm 4.25 pm
4.45 pm 4.50 pm
5.00 pm

To 3.10 pm Lynn To 3.20 pm
To 3.25 pm
To 3.40 pm
To 3.55 pm Joanne
To 4.15 pm Lynn
To 4.25 pm Joanne To 4.45 pm Lynn
To 4.50 pm Joanne To 5.00 pm

4. Review, Approve and sign off the minutes from the April 5th board meeting
   
5. Review the action points from the April board meeting: • No action points made
   
6. Striking of the following Standing Committees: Finance - monthly
   Event – as required
   HR – as required
   Stakeholder – Quarterly June, Sept, Dec & Mar Governance (Constitution and Bylaw) Annually – Oct Visitor Services - as required
   
7. DMO renewal plan
   
   • -  Discuss the Strategic Planning session date June 21st and 22nd
     
   • -  Any renewal updates
     
8. Discuss Horse Creek Silica Smelter
   Letter received from a group representing concerned citizens of Golden, B.C. and Area A – This is appended.
   
9. Update on visitor services
   
10. Update on short term illegal rentals
    
11. Discuss budget update
    
12. Questions or any other items on last Manager's Report
    
13. Adjourn
    

Board Meeting
May 12th, 2016 Location: Ponderosa Motel Room 403
3 pm – 5 pm

AGENDA

To: Tourism Golden
From: Concerned Citizens of Golden, B.C. and Area A
To; Board of Directors, Tourism Golden 

It has come to our attention that a silica mine and processing plant (Silica Smelter) are being proposed for the Horse Creek area approximately 10 km south of Golden, owned and operated by Hi Test Sand, an Edmonton based company, owner John Carlson. Recently there has been an articlei about this potential project in the Golden Star and a letter to the editorii from Bill Bennett, Minister of Mines & Energy. We believe the processing plant will have a negative impact on tourism and recreation in the area. 

Bill Bennett states: “Mayor Oszust and Area Director Karen Cathcart....along with Doug Clovechok have been working with me regularly to do everything possible to have this new job creating business put roots down in the Columbia Valley”ii. Our elected officials should not be “doing everything possible” to promote this development without a critical analysis of its potential impacts on the environment and tourism and recreation industries. As you know, the region has been working hard to promote tourism and recreation based on the area’s natural beauty, and we have seen great success over the last 10 years. We should not blindly accept large- scale industrial development projects without critical analyses. We feel large-scale industry should not be allowed to infiltrate and exploit Area A, simply because we have no zoning or by-laws.
The proposed Silica Smelter is indeed large scale. It is proposing to produce 50,000 tons of high-grade silica, which is 1⁄4 of North America’s current demand of 400,000 tonsi. A processing plant of this magnitude could have many environmental and social impacts, including impacts due to air emissions, impacts on traffic and transportation (due to the transportation of coal, hazardous and other materials required for the operation) and visual impacts. We believe these impacts would affect the tourism and recreation industry in our valley. 

Of particular concern to us is air emissions from a Smelter, and the cumulative effects of those emissions in a valley that already has poor air quality. Many of us are challenged by this poor air quality and inversions in the valley. A manufacturer has estimated that a plant in Iceland producing 60,0000 tons/year of silica would emit 56 tons/year of PM10iii. (PM10 is particulate matter with diameters less than 10 microns). Assuming similar operations, we can estimate that a plant producing 50,000 tons/year of silica would emit 47 tons/year of PM10. An air emissions inventory for Golden estimated the total PM10 emissions for the airshed is 567 tons/year and PM10 levels (the amount in the air per cubic meter at a given time) in

Golden are among the highest in BCiv. Based on these numbers, a processing plant would increase PM10 emissions in the area by over 8% and the effect on PM10 levels is unknown without detailed modelling. We do not believe this is acceptable given airshed management in the area is trying to reduce PM10 emissionsv. Clearly more detailed information about the proposed Silica Smelter and the effects of emissions on our air quality is needed before supporting the processing plant. 

The Silica Smelter will require huge amounts of electricityii, and therefore will require connecting the transmission line on the west side of the Columbia River and wetland complex to the proposed processing plant on the east side. We are concerned about the impacts of this transmission line and cumulative effects of additional industrial development that may ensue due to the availability of power. 

We believe that large-scale industrial development will have a negative impact on our businesses, and future sustainable businesses. We are asking Tourism Golden to work with our elected officials to ensure that there is a critical evaluation of this project and that the project does not negatively impact the environment and tourism and recreation in the Area A. 

We are trying to get as much information as we can regarding this proposed Silica Smelter, however, we are finding it difficult to get more information regarding this proposal, as neither the company or our local government are being very transparent. 

We are asking Tourism Golden to please:

•   Write a letter of opposition to this project to: Area A Director, Karen Cathcart
  Norm MacDonald, MLA
  Wayne Stetski, MPL
  Mayor Ron Oszust
  Town of Golden
  Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Hon. Catherine McKenna
  Minister of Transport, Hon. Marc Garneau Prime Minister, Hon. Justin Trudeau
  
•   Ask Tourism Golden members to write individual letters opposed to this proposed Smelter
  
•   Help raise awareness of this proposed smelter and the negative impacts this will have on tourism and local businesses
  Sincerely:
  Concerned Citizens of Golden, B.C. and Area A
  

Attachments:

“Potential Silica Plant Could Mean 150 Jobs”. The Golden Star. March 15 2016
“Silica Mine”. The Golden Star, Wednesday April 6, 2016. Letter to the Editor, from Bill Bennett, Ministry of Energy & Mines
i “Potential Silica Plant Could Mean 150 Jobs”. The Golden Star. March 15 2016
ii “Silica Mine”. The Golden Star, Wednesday April 6, 2016. Letter to the Editor, from Bill Bennett, Ministry of Energy & Mines
iii Silicon Metal Plant At Bakki In Hú Savı́K With Production Capacity Of Up To 66,000 Tons. Environmental Assessment Statement May 21st 2013. Draft Version. EFLA Consulting Engineers. Page 31.
iv An Air Emissions Inventory for Golden, British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. February 2006.
v http://www.goldenairquality.ca/airshed-management-planning/

Hi Test Sand Inc., claims Golden, B.C., Processing Plant Site "too expensive".

Hi Test Sand Inc., claims Golden, B.C., Processing Plant Site "too expensive".

When investigating any large operation or proposal involving huge sums of money, it is common (in my experience) to uncover evidence of dishonesty and corruption. Newport / Usk residents are not being told the whole story regarding the "selection" of the proposed Usk site for the Silicon Smelter.

Residents of Golden, B.C., have already fought the battle with Hi Test Sand, Inc., and their proposal to build a silicon smelter in their backyard. Concerns and objections were raised regarding environmental health, air quality, impacts upon tourism and the long-term effects of fugitive emissions.  Golden residents won this battle - and Hi Test, Inc., went looking for another location.

That brings us to Usk, Washington. Behind our backs, by State and local representatives working in secret with Hi Test Sand, Inc., Usk was picked as the next suitable location. Reportedly, $300,000 in Washington State funds was set aside for the development. Local residents were not even informed prior to this decision, although local county representatives were.

This sort of shennanigans is common with Hi Test, Inc., apparently, as Golden residents found out, stating in the letter linked above: 

"We are trying to get as much information as we can regarding this proposed Silica Smelter, however, we are finding it difficult to get more information regarding this proposal, as neither the company or our local government are being very transparent."

This has been my experience too, meeting with hostility from local representatives including the Newport Miner. Their mind has already been made up - and the rest of us are supposed to just go along with it.

This sort of underhanded betrayal is actually quite common, especially with pollutive industries like smelting operations and mines. Because there are known hazards, long-term effects and environmental damage, it is very common to uncover deception and dishonesty if you dig deep enough. At stake is far more then $300 million dollars, but a billion dollar industry that wants to put this toxic proposal in your backyard.

This money means very little to Newport and Usk residents. Only 170 jobs are being proposed at higher-then-standard wages then already found here. That impresses a few people, but it's a terribly poor trade-off for the sickness, ill-health and environmental destruction this will mean to the Pend Oreille River corridor and local communities. These effects will last a long, long time (over 100 years) if the smelter is built here.

Of particular concern is the 47 tons of air-borne particulates, which are hazardous to all living beings. And this is the minimum estimate of air-borne particulates, since the smelter and mining operation will have over twice this capacity as noted in previous articles here.

This should be of utmost concern to Newport / Usk residents - as the air quality here is also quite poor already, especially in winter time. The Ponderay Newsprint and air quality standards / measurements have already been covered on this blog. Contributing to this by adding even more health hazards to local residents is simply insane. Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg, there a great many seriously toxic chemicals and byproducts that will also be created and used.

So you have to ask yourself, who stands to gain from this? Certainly not the local residents who spend their lives traveling up and down this area, raising their families and working at their jobs. The people that actually contribute to the lifestyle we all love here.


The obvious answer without digging deeper is simply this: a foreign corporation stands to gain, and Pend Oreille County tax collection, and most likely a few insiders who helped grease the skids and pull the wool over the eyes of the local residents. But it is we who stand to lose the most, including our health, our homes, our kids and our future here.

I know what it is like to be sick, get cancer and have an incurable disease. It is critically important for residents to make sure that their environment does not contribute to any health hazards.

Did you know that an environmental impact statement has not been done for the proposed smelter? Did you know that Washington State officials have already decided for local residents to approve this smelter? Did you know that they already promised / spent $300,000 of your money without even informing you?

How does that make you feel, knowing that they simply do not care at all about any of us?

My investigation into this proposal has uncovered a lot of malfeasance and coverup. That is the reason very few people have even an inkling of what is going on here. And that's why I've chosen anonymity because I know what happens to people who uncover corruption at these levels.  

Washington has illegally tried to foist this operation upon Pend Oreille county and the residents who live here.

The articles on the blog, and the links I have provided are FACTS that anyone can check for accuracy and validity. You are strongly encouraged to do so before it is too late. 

The Silicon Smelter in Usk must be stopped dead in its tracks before it ruins the livelihood and the environment for Pend Oreille county residents. This operation was already rejected by the residents of Golden, B.C., we must do the same!

Golden Tourism REJECTED Hi Test Sand, Inc. for the proposal to build a Silicon Smelting operation in British Columbia!

Golden Tourism REJECTED Hi Test Sand, Inc. for it's proposal to build a silicon smelting operation!

The reason? Environmental damage / degradation to local residents and tourism.

Pend Oreille County Residents and Officials had better realize what they're facing if Hi Test Sand, Inc. is permitted to build its toxic facility at the proposed Usk location.

Hi Test Sand, Inc., has already attempted to get prior approval for the construction of a Silicon Smelter in British Columbia. This was rejected by local residents. Hi Test claims they found a better site in Usk, Washington, but there is far more to this story then you have been told.

This is a copy of the original letter submitted by Golden Tourism on May 12, 2016, B.C. for the proposed silicon smelter: (original link has been disabled - here is a backup copy of the letter)

To: Tourism Golden

From:  Concerned Citizens of Golden, B.C. and Area A

To; Board of Directors, Tourism Golden

It has come to our attention that a silica mine and processing plant (Silica Smelter)
are being proposed for the Horse Creek area approximately 10 km south of Golden,
owned and operated by Hi Test Sand, an Edmonton based company, owner John
Carlson. Recently there has been an article about this potential project in the Golden
Star and a letter to the editor (ii) from Bill Bennett, Minister of Mines & Energy.
We believe the processing plant will have a negative impact on tourism and recreation
in the area.

Bill Bennett states: “Mayor Oszust and Area Director Karen Cathcart.... along with Doug
Clovechok have been working with me regularly to do everything possible to have this new job creating business put roots down in the Columbia Valley” (ii).

Our elected officials should not be “doing everything possible” to promote this   
development without a critical analysis of its potential impacts on the environment
and tourism and recreation industries. As you know, the region has been working
hard to promote tourism and recreation based on the area’s natural beauty, and we
have seen great success over the last 10 years. We should not blindly accept large-scale
industrial development projects without critical analyses. We feel large-scale industry
should not be allowed to infiltrate and exploit Area A, simply because we have no zoning
or by-laws.

The proposed Silica Smelter is indeed large scale. It is proposing to produce 50,000
tons of high-grade silica, which is ¼ of North America’s current demand of 400,000   
tons (i). A processing plant of this magnitude could have many environmental and
social impacts, including impacts due to air emissions, impacts on traffic and
transportation (due to the transportation of coal, hazardous and other materials
required for the operation) and visual impacts. We believe these impacts would
affect the tourism and recreation industry in our valley.

Of particular concern to us is air emissions from a Smelter, and the cumulative
effects of those emissions in a valley that already has poor air quality.  Many of us
are challenged by this poor air quality and inversions in the valley. A manufacturer
has estimated that a plant in Iceland producing 60,0000 tons/year of silica would
emit 56 tons/year of PM10 (iii). (PM10 is particulate matter with diameters less than
10 microns).  Assuming similar operations, we can estimate that a plant producing
50,000 tons/year of silica would emit 47 tons/year of PM10.  An air emissions
inventory for Golden estimated the total PM10 emissions for the airshed is 567
tons/year and PM10 levels (the amount in the air per cubic meter at a given time)
in Golden are among the highest in BC (iv). Based on these numbers, a processing plant
would increase PM10 emissions in the area by over 8% and the effect on PM10 levels is
unknown without detailed modelling.  We do not believe this is acceptable given airshed
management in the area is trying to reduce PM10 emissions (v).

Clearly more detailed information about the proposed Silica Smelterand the effects of
emissions on our air quality is needed before supporting the processing plant.
The Silica Smelter will require huge amounts of electricity (ii), and therefore will
require connecting the transmission line on the west side of the Columbia River and
wetland complex to the proposed processing plant on the east side.   We are concerned
about the impacts of this transmission line and cumulative effects of additional industrial
development that may ensue due to the availability of power.
We believe that large-scale industrial development will have a negative impact on
our businesses, and future sustainable businesses. 
We are asking Tourism Golden to work with our elected officials to ensure that there is
a critical evaluation of this project and that the project does not negatively impact
the environment and tourism and recreation in the Area A. 
We are trying to get as much information as we can regarding this proposed Silica
Smelter, however, we are finding it difficult to get more information regarding this
proposal, as neither the company or our local government are being very transparent.
We are asking Tourism Golden to please:

Write a letter of opposition to this project to:
Area A Director, Karen Cathcart
Norm MacDonald, MLA 
Wayne Stetski, MPL 
Mayor Ron Oszust           
Town of Golden
Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change,
Hon. Catherine McKenna
Minister of Transport, Hon. Marc Garneau
Prime Minister, Hon. Justin Trudeau

Ask Tourism Golden members to write individual letters opposed to this proposed Smelter

Help raise awareness of this proposed smelter and the negative impacts this
will have on tourism and local businesses

Sincerely:
Concerned Citizens of Golden, B.C. and Area A

Attachments:

“Potential Silica Plant Could Mean 150 Jobs”.  The Golden Star. March 15 2016
“Silica Mine”. The Golden Star, Wednesday April 6, 2016. Letter to the Editor, from   
Bill Bennett, Ministry of Energy & Mines
------------------------------------------
(i) “Potential Silica Plant Could Mean 150 Jobs”. The Golden Star. March 15 2016
(ii) “Silica Mine”. The Golden Star, Wednesday April 6, 2016. Letter to the Editor, from   
Bill Bennett, Ministry of Energy & Mines
(iii) Silicon Metal Plant At Bakki In HúSavı́K With Production Capacity Of Up To 66,000   
Tons.  Environmental Assessment Statement May 21st 2013. Draft Version. EFLA
Consulting Engineers. Page 31.
(iv) An Air Emissions Inventory for Golden, British Columbia. British Columbia
Ministry of Environment.  February 2006.  
(v) http://www.goldenairquality.ca/airshed-management-planning/

Disobedience - Part II VOTE WITH YOUR MONEY

Please review the following articles. The extreme risks to Pend Oreille county residents of Usk and Newport are NOT being shared by your elected representatives!

Since this website went online, the Newport Miner local newspaper has now gone silent on the proposed silicon smelting operation in Usk. Moreover, they have refused to share any of the details and risks associated to county residents despite being notified.

This November, be SURE to vote according to your conscience! Don't let these people ruin our beautiful county!!!

I have taken my protest one step farther and will refuse to pay property taxes until this proposal is defeated. I will also FOREVER boycott these individuals who support the smelter. I cannot conscientiously support another rape of the public trust.

Please read the following articles and get informed on what Usk / Newport residents are facing:

Usk / Newport Resident Risk ALERT

Pend Orielle County Hazards

Cancer Deaths In Pend Oreille County

Smelting Operations, Air Pollution and Taxes

Where Do Americans Get Cancer? Pend Oreille County

Disobedience