Category Archives: Environment and Forests

AEB Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Board to study the Aliso Canyon LNG Environmental Disaster

While Corporate Enterprises are looking at partnering up on Indigenous land, The Turtle Island Government is concerned with the potential for Large Scale Environmental Disasters, specifically in regards to Pipelines, LNG , Land Storage, Proposed LNG Barges, and the increasing in Fracking practices in the industry, to examine projects to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be.

The large-scale natural gas leak at Aliso Canyon – is of great concern to The Government of The Anishinabe Nation, the increase in the potential for man made Natural Gas Environmental Disasters. The AEB Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Board ESRD, is looking into the Aliso Canyon Gas Leak.

Anishinabe Nation of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – adheres to ISO 14001 requirements,

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO).

Aliso Canyon gas leak From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Aliso Canyon gas leak
Aliso Canyon gas leak site, Dec. 14, 2015 (23389378449).jpg

Aliso Canyon leak site on December 14, 2015
Duration October 23, 2015 – February 18, 2016
Location Aliso Canyon Oil Field, Porter Ranch, Los Angeles, California
Coordinates 34°18′54″N 118°33′51″WCoordinates: 34°18′54″N 118°33′51″W
Also known as Porter Ranch gas leak / blowout
Type Gas leak Blowout (well drilling)

Aliso Canyon is located in the Los Angeles metropolitan area

Aliso Canyon
Aliso Canyon

Gas leak site shown within the Los Angeles metropolitan area

Aliso Canyon SS 25 wellhead, December 17, 2015. Note subsidence craters at center, apparently from the attempts to plug the leaking well.

The Aliso Canyon gas leak (also called Porter Ranch gas leak[1] and Porter Ranch gas blowout[2]) was a massive natural gasleak that was discovered by SoCalGas employees on October 23, 2015.[3] Gas was released from a well within the Aliso Canyon’sunderground storage facility in the Santa Susana Mountains near Porter Ranch, Los Angeles.[4] The second-largest gas storage facility of its kind in the United States, it belongs to the Southern California Gas Company, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy. On January 6, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown issued a state of emergency.[5] The Aliso gas leak carbon footprint is said to be larger than the Deepwater Horizon leak in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 11, 2016 the gas company reported that it had the leak under control.[6]

On February 18, 2016, state officials announced that the leak was permanently plugged. An estimated 97,100 tonnes (95,600 long tons; 107,000 short tons) of methane and 7,300 tonnes (7,200 long tons; 8,000 short tons) of ethane was released into the atmosphere,[7] making it the worst natural gas leak in U.S. history in terms of its environmental impact.[8][9][10]

Continue reading AEB Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Board to study the Aliso Canyon LNG Environmental Disaster

Be It Known … I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith of Samahquam Indian Band will not allow myself to be stripped of my legal powers.

“As one can see … I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith of Samahquam Indian Band has been ostracised.

Be It Known … I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith of Samahquam Indian Band will not allow myself to be stripped of my legal powers.
Therefore, I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith of Samahquam Indian Band shall not take the position of Non-Voting Chair.
Furthermore, It is obvious that our Three Samahquam Councillors will indeed sign the BCRs approving the $1.6 Million that In-SHUCK-ch Nation requires in order to carry forward Eppa’s prescribed motions for our three Councillors to adopt.
I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith will not involve myself in anymore Back Door Politics. It is illegal.”

We don’t agree with the Minister of AANDC that the recent accepted UN human rights in Canada that the BCTC treaty process abides by this UN Human Rights! Kakila Hereditary Chief Clarke Smith

“We don’t agree with the Minister of AANDC that the recent accepted UN human rights in Canada that the BCTC treaty process abides by this UN Human Rights!”

Kakila Hereditary Chief Clarke Smith

” We thank the Minister of AANDC of the recent letter of reply regarding our urgent situation of fraud at treaty and logging. When you read the Loan agreement document it states it was approved by the constituents. Both documents make that statement. Over the last 20 years of this Treaty Process we constituents have never been provided the Treaty Loan Agreements for our consideration. Therefore, the documents are false thus fraud

In 2007? a letter was sent to the Chief Commissioner at BCTC asking for clarification. But no reply.

As you can see Gerard Peters is the Chief Negotiator and also Band Member of SAMAHQUAM and seems to be instructing His Employer on what to do! It the Tail wagging the Dog situation. It has been influence by the Inshuckch Treaty Chief Negotiator to vote for treaty!

Since the start of the Inshuckch treaty on October 15, 1994 at a convened AGM of SAMAHQUAM members voted no to the BCTC Treaty Loan agreements. This Resolution has never been rescinded or over ruled.

In 1997 SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council went forward with Inshuckch treaty without consulting nor consent from SAMAHQUAM Members the so called constituents.

In 1999 Sanahquam Chief and Council stopped support of this Inshuckch treaty since Inshuckch entities were not in compliance with treaty loan agreements and that Members did not have input to vote for participating with this treaty process

In 2001 A so called referendum took place for SAMAHQUAM but the Electoral Officer was non Canadian had just was released from jail and was wanted by the FBI !

In 1999 N’Quatqua with legal advice opted out of this treaty!

In 2010 Xasata First Nation with legal advice opted out of this treaty! Following that SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council re-entered this treaty without consulting SAMAHQUAM Members and thus are in breach of trust.

Most recently the SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council opted to not continue support of this treaty. And called for a referendum! Read the documents and make your own considerations

In 2011 the Chief of SAMAHQUAM signed a Forest Range agreement without Council or membership knowledge. This has been going on since 2004! Lizzy Bay Logging is a party to these logging initiatives and to date no audits of either the treaty loans and logging profits been provided to the SAMAHQUAM Members.

At the November 30, 2015 SAMAHQUAM AGM two Elders presented a resolution for a vote of non-confidence on the full SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council! At the recent May 01, 2916 SAMAHQUAM AGM the resolution was voted unanimously for the vote of non-confidence. However, the original resolution signed by the two elders was changed but was not addressed at the AGM to ask if the mover and Seconder agreed with the changes. More corruption.

Presently our Chief Kathleen got SAMAHQUAM Legal Counsel on these urgent matters. I did speak to this lawyer who confirmed he is accepting on behalf of SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council.

In 2012 we presented a resolution requesting Legal over view of this treaty process but were denied. In 1999 we did the same. Several times signed letters of petitions by elders and members and Hereditary Chiefs for legal help. Denied every time.

On July of 2015 two elders met with Troy Hunter to help us look into these fraud situations and damages to our Aboriginal a Title via the logging and surrender of aboriginal title via the Inshuckch Treaty. Both situations are in contempt of the Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuuk 1997 that ” you cannot use Aboriginal Title lands if it is going deprive future generation of their continued Use of their aboriginal rights. ” and the recent Tishlqotin Decision makes the BCTC process redundant!

Thank you

We don’t agree with the Minister of AANDC that the recent accepted UN human rights in Canada that the BCTC treaty process abides by this UN Human Rights!

Thank you”

Kakila Hereditary Chief Clarke Smith

Environmental Protection & Enhancement Policy – EPEP regarding Water.

Under Review, please note: no current or historic compacts and treaties are recognized to supersede or govern Water on / or above The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island.

All contracts made for import or export of Water must be authorized by the EPEP regarding Water.

If any contracts by sub-contracts or agencies of CANADA or THE PROVINCES, proof of the validity of such contracts must be provided to the EPEA of The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island to comply with land and water use policies, as of Jan 2016 all inquiries for authorization to import or export water must be authorized by the Grand Council of The Anishinabe Nations. and the EPEP.

As of Jan 2016 no Companies or Agencies have applied or been authorized to import or export water by the EPEP  Environmental Protection & Enhancement  Policy Agency regarding Water.

If any companies or foreign agencies transport or export water, they are in violation of the EPEP law regulating water.  Any companies and entities currently exporting water are hereby notified to Cease & Desist immediately. Fines for such offenses of the sale or export of water from Anishinabe Nations carries a daily penalty of 1 Million Euros per day beginning as of March 31 2016.

AEB Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Board ESRD are mandated by EPEP regarding Water.

Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – examines a project to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be; Public interest decision – the applicable AEB Board  decides whether it is in the public interest to let the project go ahead;

Approval with conditions – multiple regulators give formal approval to the project under various pieces of legislation. These approvals are in the Tribal Nations and People of The Tribal Nations interest, decision could be made by three potential boards, depending on the type of project.

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO). set specific conditions under which the project can be constructed and operate; and Compliance – ensure that the project is operating within the specified approval conditions. All significant Resource and projects which affect or potentially effect the Environment will be required to go through the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Process.

There are also environmental assessments conducted in Turtle Island which fall under the responsibility of ESRD and are mandated by EPEP regarding Water.

The Government of The Great Turtle Island, Individual Tribal Nations in the Federations, businesses and Bank institutions also undertake environmental assessment processes under their own laws and authority, for a variety of purposes.

EIA reports typically include:

• a detailed description of the project;

• the location and environmental setting for the project, and baseline environmental, social and culture information;

• the potential positive and negative environmental, health, social, economic and cultural effects of the proposed activity;

• plans to mitigate potential adverse effects and to respond to emergencies;

• information on public and (First Nations) Tribal consultation; and

• an assessment of cumulative effects .

The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO)

Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – examines a project to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be; Public interest decision – the applicable AEB Board  decides whether it is in the public interest to let the project go ahead;

Approval with conditions – multiple regulators give formal approval to the project under various pieces of legislation. These approvals are in the Tribal Nations and People of The Tribal Nations interest, decision could be made by three potential boards, depending on the type of project.

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO). set specific conditions under which the project can be constructed and operate; and Compliance – ensure that the project is operating within the specified approval conditions. All significant Resource and projects which affect or potentially effect the Environment will be required to go through the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Process.

There are also environmental assessments conducted in Turtle Island which fall under the responsibility of ESRD and are mandated by EPEA regarding Water.

The Government of The Great Turtle Island, Individual Tribal Nations in the Federations, businesses and Bank institutions also undertake environmental assessment processes under their own laws and authority, for a variety of purposes.

EIA reports typically include:

• a detailed description of the project;

• the location and environmental setting for the project, and baseline environmental, social and culture information;

• the potential positive and negative environmental, health, social, economic and cultural effects of the proposed activity;

• plans to mitigate potential adverse effects and to respond to emergencies;

• information on public and (First Nations) Tribal consultation; and

• an assessment of cumulative effects .

Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD)

Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – examines a project to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be; Public interest decision – the applicable AEB Board  decides whether it is in the public interest to let the project go ahead;

Approval with conditions – multiple regulators give formal approval to the project under various pieces of legislation. These approvals are in the Tribal Nations and People of The Tribal Nations interest, decision could be made by three potential boards, depending on the type of project.

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO). set specific conditions under which the project can be constructed and operate; and Compliance – ensure that the project is operating within the specified approval conditions. All significant Resource and projects which affect or potentially effect the Environment will be required to go through the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Process.

There are also environmental assessments conducted in Turtle Island which fall under the responsibility of ESRD and are mandated by EPEA regarding Water.

The Government of The Great Turtle Island, Individual Tribal Nations in the Federations, businesses and Bank institutions also undertake environmental assessment processes under their own laws and authority, for a variety of purposes.

EIA reports typically include:

• a detailed description of the project;

• the location and environmental setting for the project, and baseline environmental, social and culture information;

• the potential positive and negative environmental, health, social, economic and cultural effects of the proposed activity;

• plans to mitigate potential adverse effects and to respond to emergencies;

• information on public and (First Nations) Tribal consultation; and

• an assessment of cumulative effects .

Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC)

Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – examines a project to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be; Public interest decision – the applicable AEB Board  decides whether it is in the public interest to let the project go ahead;

Approval with conditions – multiple regulators give formal approval to the project under various pieces of legislation. These approvals are in the Tribal Nations and People of The Tribal Nations interest, decision could be made by three potential boards, depending on the type of project.

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO). set specific conditions under which the project can be constructed and operate; and Compliance – ensure that the project is operating within the specified approval conditions. All significant Resource and projects which affect or potentially effect the Environment will be required to go through the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Process.

There are also environmental assessments conducted in Turtle Island which fall under the responsibility of ESRD and are mandated by EPEA regarding Water.

The Government of The Great Turtle Island, Individual Tribal Nations in the Federations, businesses and Bank institutions also undertake environmental assessment processes under their own laws and authority, for a variety of purposes.

EIA reports typically include:

• a detailed description of the project;

• the location and environmental setting for the project, and baseline environmental, social and culture information;

• the potential positive and negative environmental, health, social, economic and cultural effects of the proposed activity;

• plans to mitigate potential adverse effects and to respond to emergencies;

• information on public and (First Nations) Tribal consultation; and

• an assessment of cumulative effects .

ISO 14001 requirements are as follows

Within the ISO standard there are elements of ISO 14001 that are required to be met by organisations seeking formal recognition for their EMS. ISO 14001 requirements are as follows:

An environmental policy supported by senior management;

The identification of environmental aspects and impacts, and the identification of significant environmental impacts that the organisation may cause;

Identification of environmental compliance requirements;

The development of objectives and targets, and their environmental management programs;

Defined resources, roles, responsibilities and authorities for environmental management;

The development of competence, training and awareness procedures;

A communication process of the EMS to all stakeholders and interested parties;

The development of EMS documentation as required by the standard;

The development of document control procedures;

The development of operational control procedures;

The development of emergency preparedness and response procedures;

The development of procedures to monitor and measure operations that can have significant impact to the environment;

An evaluation of compliance procedure;

Procedures developed for the management of non-conformance, corrective and preventative actions;>

The development of a records management procedure;

A program for completing internal EMS audits and corrective actions; and

The development of procedures for management review by senior management.

The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island have adopted The ISO 14001 standard

 http://turtleislandgov.info/?p=135

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCAa7OWdjfo

The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island have adopted the ISO 14001 as the preliminary foundation for the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Authority.

The ISO 14001 standard specifies a process for the control and the continuous improvement of an organisation’s environmental performance. The management tool enables an organisation to identify and control the environmental impact of its activities, products and services; to continuously improve its environmental performance; and, to implement a systematic approach to set and achieve environmental objectives and targets.The ISO 14001 standard applies to those environmental aspects identified and controlled or influenced by the organisation.  The ISO 14001 standard does not specify environmental performance criteria but merely how to develop an EMS.

Currently within Anishinabe Tribal Nations the policy for the Environmental Assessment will be based on organisations certified to the highly recognizable ISO 14001 standard. At the end of December 2008 there were over 188,000 organisations globally that had been issued ISO 14001 certificates. A total of 155 countries had organisations participating in the scheme. The diagram below illustrates the ISO 2008 Survey results for ISO 14001:2004 standard.

ISO 14001 Standard - 2008 Survey ResultsThe ISO 14001 standard differs from ISO 14000. This is because ISO 14000 refers to the standards of the environmental management series developed by the International Standards Organisation while the ISO 14001 standard is the document containing specific EMS requirements.

The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island have adopted the ISO 14001 as the preliminary foundation for the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Authority.

cropped-182139_129765400521680_924900649_n2-1.jpg

Read about ISO 14001 benefits.