NGR RESORT CONSULTANTS INC.
#449-3220 Village Way
Sun Peaks, B.C.
Canada  V0E 1Z1
Tel. (250) 578-6941
Fax.(250) 578-6946
Email. ngr@telus.net

December 9, 1999
Mr. Ray Crook
Cayoosh Resort EA Committee Chair
PO Box 9426
Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC  V8W 1V9

Dear Chairman Crook & Committee Members:

We have recently received the letters from SPEC dated November 22, 1999, and McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. dated November 19, 1999.  We note that both letters were received well after the closure date for public comment, which ended on October 12, 1999.

You have requested that we submit our response to both public and agency comments by November 30th, 1999.  Throughout the public process, we have encouraged the committee to accept or listen to all discussions and positions.  We trust that your committee members would agree that over the three years since our application (November 1996), there has been considerable public discussion and review of our proposal.  Every public process must have final closure.  We find it difficult to meet your requested schedule if we are required to respond to correspondence received some 40 days followed the scheduled closure of the public process.  We have proceeded in good faith through this EA process, at considerable time and expense, with the expectation that the legislated time schedules would be met unless some unusual circumstances were encountered.

As you may recall, our CASP [Canadian Alpine Ski Policy] application preceded the EA Act, yet we accepted the Government's request to have the proposed EA Act apply to this project.  At that time, it was represented to us that the legal time lines under the Environmental Assessment Act would be strictly enforced.  Relying on these representations and the Act itself, we felt very comfortable in proceeding under the present assessment.  We were also confident that this mountain resort proposal would survive any reasonable environmental impact review.

We wish to have the committee understand this background information because we are disturbed by the comment in Mr. Will Koop's cover letter of November 22, 1999, that, "We would like to remain involved throughout the remainder of the Environmental Assessment Review and believe this issue is deserving of fuller public consideration".

We question whether this information should have been the subject of further committee review given the legal obligations under the Act.  We understand, however, that these submissions have been referred to the committee members, therefore, NGR will respond to the non-technical issues raised by SPEC and McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd.  We will also have our technical specialists address the key environmental issues raised by both letters.

It is clear from reading Mr. Koop's letter that he has only read the project report and has not read the project application, nor the project specifications or the responses to the agency comments prior to the finalization of the project specifications.  Without following each step of the EA process, those who only read the project report might conclude that not all environmental issues were addressed.  In reality, these issues would likely have been addressed earlier in the process, and thus, were not project specifications or requirements of the committee.  The grizzly bear issue was reviewed by MELP and as I understood it, MELP was generally satisfied with the information provided earlier in the process and agreed that a bear management plan would be required as part of the CASP process.  The issue of non-logging in Melvin Creek has never been considered due to the rights held by Ainsworth Lumber.

We are very concerned about Mr. Koop's suggestion that some inappropriate cabinet intervention has taken place.  It is surprising that a letter written by Cabinet ministers dated August 15, 1994 and internal letters of staff dated September 22, 1994, would be part of the EAO's correspondence as stated by Mr. Koop.  NGR was never provided with this information.  Is it really part of the EAO files?

The conspiracy intervention theory would not be substantiated by an independent review.  However, we will outline the sequencing of our application's history for clarification.

Our 'expression of interest' was filed with Crown Lands in late August 1990 under the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy (CASP).  Public input was solicited by regional and Vancouver newspaper advertisements placed by BC Lands in April 1991.  On June 24, 1991, BC Lands issued a 'Public Proposal Call' seeking proponents for a ski resort development.  This was advertised provincially.  Bids were received by the Ministry on August 30, 1991.  NGR was selected as the successful proponent on February 27, 1992.  The Squamish Lillooet Regional District adopted the Duffey Lake Corridor Official Community Plan, which anticipates resort development only in Melvin Creek drainage, on June 28, 1993.  Interim agreement negotiations with BC Lands continued until mid-1994 when the proponent received notice that our proposal would likely be subject to the proposed Environmental Assessment Act.  During this time, the proponent began carrying out the studies requested by the Province.  A public meeting was held with the St'at'imc ["Statlium"] First Nations on March 18, 1993.  In addition, a public meeting was held in Lillooet on September 7, 1994.  Many dozens of newspaper, magazine stories, as well as TV coverage publicized this project.

The EA Act was proclaimed on June 30, 1995.  On April 27, 1996, an interim agreement was signed by the Ministry of Lands and the proponent.  On November 7, 1996, the proponent made an application for resort development with the EAO.   As part of the EA review, public meetings were advertised in Vancouver and regionally with meetings held on February 10, 11, and 12, 1997 in Pemberton, Whistler and Lillooet.  The proponent has met in Vancouver with groups expressing interest such as the Federation of Mountain Clubs of BC.  The proponent has continually indicated a willingness to make presentations to any interests groups.  On October 7, 1997, project specifications were issued by the EAO after several public committee meetings held in Lillooet, where government agencies reviewed the project application as well as the proponent's comments to the agency review of the application.  On July 6, 1999, the proponent filed a project report in response to the project specifications.  Public meetings were again advertised in Vancouver and regional newspapers.  Public meetings were held on September 30 and October 1, 1999 to review the project report (Whistler & Pemberton).

As the committee members know, a project registry is maintained by the EAO.  The application, project specifications and project report were available in part or whole by internet.  In addition, copies of the application, specifications and project report were filed with public libraries in Vancouver, Kamloops, Pemberton, Lillooet, Whistler and Squamish.

The following dates are important in analyzing Mr. Koop's intervention argument:

1.  A public proposal call seeking bids to develop a ski resort were placed by Government on June 24, 1991.
2.  A section 13, Controlled Recreation Area reserve was established on January 23, 1991.  Discussions were held with Ainsworth Lumber who had planned to log Melvin Creek in 1992.  (Moratorium was placed to delay logging schedule until ski resort feasibility completed.)
3.  NGR was selected as the successful proponent on February 27, 1992.
4.  Following its selection as proponent, NGR received Terms of Reference outline of various government Ministry's requirements.  NGR immediately began to prepare mapping, engage consultants for wildlife impact assessments and infrastructure issues as well as preliminary access road engineering.  The first wildlife inventory flights with MELP participating began on April 24, 1992.
5.  Mid-1994, NGR was notified by the Province that this resort proposal would be subject to EA Assessment.
6.  The EA Act was proclaimed on June 30, 1995.
7.  April 27, 11996, an interim agreement outlining terms and conditions for a Melvin Creek resort project was signed by BC Lands and the proponent.  One condition of this agreement was that the Environmental Assessment Act would apply.
8.  The LRMP process for the Lillooet Forest District was announce by the Province on November 23, 1995.  First meetings were held on March 7 and 8 of 1997.

It should be understood that if, in 1993, the Regional Protection Areas Team were reserving Melvin Creek as a special interest for conservation preservation, that such a decision would have been in conflict with BC Lands' June 24, 1991 public proposal call and the Controlled Recreation Area reserve.  Mr. Shimmin's letter of September 22, 1994 addresses issues arising from the selection of a proponent on February 27, 1992, a process which was actively proceeding under CASP.

NGR has never been privileged to receive minutes of the Interagency Management Committee meetings nor the correspondence of the Assistant Deputy Minister to the Chairperson of the Thompson-Okanagan IAMC or copies of Cabinet directives.  Where is the source for such information?  Are government staff permitted to forward copies of such minutes to other interest groups or was formal request made for such information?  Could we receive a copy of this request?

The intervention theory would perhaps have validity if, following the RPAT 1993 decision, BC Lands had then issued a proposal call and subsequently selected a proponent for this development and had placed the CRA reserve after RPAT's 1993 decision.  However, with the public proposal call and selection of a proponent already completed, it is logical that a subsequent 'protected area' proposal would have needed senior review as there would then have been two conflicting land use proposals being presented by two different government agencies.

For the record, NGR was never informed by BC Lands or the RPAT that there was an interest in 'protected area' designation over the Melvin Creek area.  NGR was never interviewed by RPAT.  Perhaps they were not aware of the CRA reserve notation placed on Melvin Creek in 1991, although this is difficult to comprehend.  NGR was informed sometime in late 1994 by Ainsworth Lumber that a committee was proposing 'protected area' status over upper Melvin Creek.  This alarmed us as we had already spent considerable time and money on the resort proposal based on the proposal call and selection as proponent.  We were subsequently told by the Regional Manager, by telephone, that this conflict was to be addressed by Government.

We trust that Mr. Koop recognizes that having 'called for proposals', and after selection of proponents and after the proponent has committed hundreds of thousands of dollars to environmental studies, it is a serious issue to have another government agency make a recommendation that would override the previous commitments of government.  Surely, some government decision was required.  It is our opinion that any pre-emptive land use proposal would require full compensation of the proponent's expenses and lost opportunity.

In resolving this conflict, we speculate that the Province likely recognized that the EA process is a comprehensive planning and assessment process and that the EA process would be the best process to review the environmental issues as the LRMP process does not require the same level of research.

The grizzly bear issues raised by Mr. Koop will be left to our biologist consultants for response.

We have read the points made with regards to impacts on goats, which will be addressed by our goat specialists, be we are extremely disappointed by the distortion of information in the third paragraph on Page 7.

Mr. Koop suggests that NGR has ignored MELP's desire to have no 'helicopter skiing, heli-hiking or other heli related activities'.  The letter states that "NGR has nevertheless stated in its July 1999 report mission statement under point number 3, that it will 'capitalize on .... BC's heli ski operators".

For the record,  the development strategy statement number 3 states:

"Capitalize on the reliable snow image of British Columbia and the international success of Whistler Resort and BC's heli-ski operators".

This statement surely does not mean that NGR is proposing heli-skiing activities.  At an LRMP sub-committee meeting on November 24, 1999, the SPEC representative, Mr. Koop, insisted that this above statement indicated that heli-skiing was part of the Cayoosh proposal.  He repeated this statement several times to the committee meeting.  After the meeting, when we reviewed the full statement, he still insisted that the statement says "capitalize on heli-skiing".

To mislead a process by selecting certain words from a statement and then word-smithing them to represent a different meaning and then placing the words in quotations is a questionable practice.  The statements of Mr. Koop should not be given any credence by the committee and in our opinion, the misrepresentations contained within the letter should not be considered as factual.  It would appear that a little bit of word deception is considered tolerable and that 'the end justifies the means' because the cause is considered just.

Mr. Koop has advanced the conspiracy intervention theory and suggested that the proponent used political pressure to compromise due process.  In support of his position, he uses a full range of internal and external government letters.  This is in keeping with the proponent's EA experience to date where many of the objections to the project application have come from individuals who contract professional services either for the Ministry of Environment, Parks or a protected area agency review task force.  Mr. Koop's access to government files without conducting a 'Freedom of Information' request is alarming.  Is it possible, that a government employee who agrees with the decisions made by Government is providing information to SPEC?

Mr. Koop's final point is that the process is in need of a comprehensive environmental assessment hearing is without justification.  The EA process is extremely open and thorough.  With over three years of a very public process, such a request is without merit.  Any decision that considers economic growth is likely considered 'political' by SPEC.  We have been working on this project for 9 years.  If we have the ability to circumvent due process as is suggested by Mr. Koop, we have obviously failed miserably.

Summary

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on these letters received.  Based on our review of these two submissions, we do not see any issues that have not been previously identified by your committee members.

We would point out that the potential for successful destination resort development is extremely limited in south western BC.  Finding a location, with reasonable access,  vertical drop and slope gradients, favourable snow pack and weather conditions is very difficult.  The Melvin Creek valley is one of the few favourable sites and is one of the smallest drainages of Cayoosh Creek, and not, as has been represented, the most important center of everything in the Cayoosh Range.

We trust that this very long and detailed EA process cannot be hijacked by unsubstantiated threats of political interference, suggestion of inappropriate cabinet intervention and accusations that over the past three years, your committee has not carried out a comprehensive and public review of the project.  For those who have keenly followed this process, any consideration of Mr. Koop's recommendations would cause tremendous loss of faith in the very public EA process and its objectivity.  Where there is a conflict between recommendations of two Ministries, Deputy Ministers and Ministers are required to make decisions.

Yours sincerely, Al Raine.