Squamish Estuary Conservation Society'

Home , Squamish (wind)

#3 @ Squamish Estuary Conservation Society’ ._/\/'\. %-Z\Z' Box 2285 Telephone: \-/'\./ Squomish, a.c. (604)393-3747 vow aoo 892-5849

April 28, 1982 ' PUBLIC SUBMISSION

to the Public Involvement Work Group, Sguamish Estuagy Management Plan.

The Squamish Estuary Conservation Society (SECS) has done an assessment of the Estuary Draft Plan and come to some conclusions about the recommendations within it. Members feel that classifying the East Delta as a "Planning Assessment" area subject to possible industrial uses is a mistake and that it should be left strictly alone as a conservation area. C. Rail intends to expand their classification yard into the B. seen there Trum ter Swan habitat at Wilson Slou . The swans are food and pop- every day for mont s on en . ey nee the habitat for ulation stability. Breaching the training dyke could revitalize ‘ this old channel for fish as well. boxcars .g But B. C. Rail sees room there for 50 tracks and 2000 way class— a day according to Vice President Gordon Ritchie. ra yard of this magnitude which could easily‘be situated ification serenity of elsewhere would destroy this habitat and the suburban not allow the Dentville-Wilson Crescent area. The residents will this to happen. admits that this is "pie in the sky dreaming... Mr. Rithhie April 16, looking into the year 2000", quoting from his submission of The alternative, he admits, would be a classifir 1980 to the PING. we solidly cation yard at Lilloet or Kelly Lake further up the line. option. The present danger is that the intended alien- support this to ation of the Wilson Slough area by B. C. Rail could be allowed for 20 years or more, whereas the Gonservation option hang fire use within with enhancement could turn this area into productive a year. 7.. Squamish Estuary Conservation Society

x./\_/' Box 2295 Telephone: \—/'\_z Squamish, B.C. (504) 898-3747 VON acso 892-5849

Public Submission (2)

The second intended industrial project in the East Delta area is the 31 acre expansion of Squamish Terminals north into the estuary. The technical experts call this an area "absolutely necessary for continuing present levels of production of estuarine species."

Again the choice must be made. Do you destroy forever an irreplacable estuary full of renewable wealth or do you establish a slightly more expensive, one-time-cost port site on unproductive land elsewhere? The recommended Port Options study could search out alternative sites for a common berth facility which do not alienate estuary nor take a chance on disturbing dangerous mercury sediments by dredging.

The Terminals representatives also like to talk about a "land bridge" from the Industrial Park to the port. This would be a road paralleling the B. C. Rail spur line. Our group adamantly opposes this further barrier to the fullest recovery of the Last Delta. Complete conservation west of the townsite is the most crying need in the estuary.

If the industrial park reaches the stage of needing a port‘ facility, a trucking route away from the estuary can easily be found. An alternative port site further down the Sound could handle .pulp or genera carg . e es uary S1 e s n ep 0 ~ the profit picture of Squamish Terminals‘ Norwegian owners. One obvious improvement that could be made in the PAl area in the Central Delta is the removal of the CRB log booming and storage_ area. Again the experts advise that the wood debris, the leachates and the booms themselves destroy the productivity and integrity of the habitat as well as water quality.

The society supports the suggested Log Handling and Storage study with a view to removing the worst effects from the estuary. Just recently, B. C. Forest Products in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans CQ?El§E§Q_?'I'h_Le ¢.§1L'== - lished a dr land sort an coming groun in a new oca n which enabled"'""__——-_—I____—-_—-them to here? ——"-'""‘TEE71FTETiER5?f“T“W?y‘E5?*E"?E'E3"1t Squamish Estuary Conservation Society

J\Z' Box 2285 Teiephone: \—-/‘L Squamish, B.C. (604) 898-3747 VON 3G0 892-5849

Public Submission (3)

T The project would require a study which comprehensively addresses the waterfront lease picture in the Mamquam Blind Channel and searches out alternative sites. Loggers need secure lease tenure and water access. Could there not be a well-planned reorganization and consolidation of land in the Channel area which endeavours to solve these problems? If the participants were told they must co-operate, a new picture of shared facilities and more efficient storage and booming methods could easily result. out on the same basis as timber ri ts The_%§§t§_§hgg;g_bg_§haredena ing the inde endent loggers to ang in w t the big companies. One last blight in the Central Basin is the outfall from the Squgmish Central sewage treatment plant. To allow this effluent to slosh back an_ fort wit t e tides cou d endanger fish species and even man. An exte sio f th outf 11 into the S ‘ ' ' long overdue. '

The same thing goes for the Mamquam sewage treatment plant. N There, for 7 months of the year, while the river is low, the outfall spreads a thick, smelly black sludge complete with toilet paper down the south bank of the river. Children play in this area and adults walk their dogs. The suggested campground for that area can never be established until this public health mnace is dealt with.

The society agrees with the need for a Hazardous Chemicals study to determine the nature and quantity of chemicals being shipped through the area. An emergency plan in case of a chlorine spill or. seaplane crash into the chemical plant must be set up as soon as .. possible to protect the public.

We also support stricter enforcement of pollution controls in the estuary. Frequent inversions result in a haze of noxious chemical smoke hanging over the valley. Squamish Terminals and Weldwood both release dangerous PCPs into the estuary. Why do we have to expose ourselves and our children to potentially toxic substances?

QL I Squamish Estuary Conservation Society

Box 2285 Telephone: Squamish, B.C. (604) 898-3747 VON 3360 892-5849 Public Submission (4)

On a more positive note the society generally agrees with the suggested enhancement projects in the area. The dredge spoils should be reclaimed economically, possibly with man-made pools and planted vegetation. Members also feel that the training dyke should be breached in order to reclaim the Central Basin for fish habitat. This would allow salmon fry to enter a buffer zone filled with food and calm water before they head into the open ocean. We've nearly lost our Chinook salmon run and the Cohoe have decreased drastically. Estuary reclamation and enhancement is like fertilizing a garden. The government should be made financially responsible for these projects which benefit commercial and sports fisheries immeasurably. Why build an expensive hatchery at Tenderfoot Creek if you don't save the estuary?

The Society also sees that the use of existing dyke trails and roadways for the foot traffic of fishermen, hunters and birdwatchers should be the practice for several years to minimize habitat destruction. we don't want a Coney Island out in the estuary. And a car- top boat launch in the Central Basin is out of the question. Bird and fish populations should be left strictly alone. But eventually population pressures will require an intelligent ordered use of trails bordering sensitive habitat areas for the purposes of recreation, education and to minimize impact on wildlife. This could be done with the idea of constructing a model human use of the estuary through a Nature Centre to educate children about protecting this irreplacable resource for the future. Our group is dedicated to this project and we feel that many of the technical people who assessed the area and wrote the reports have a similar vision. In the long run conservation of what's left of the estuary will enhance the biologically rich life-style of our community and result in an even more prosperous, healthy valley in which to live. .2‘, 1 ~44 . @

INDEPENDENT SQUAMISH LOGGING OPERATORS LIMITED

Box 256 President, N.R. BARR Squamish. 3-0 VON330 Secretary, NORMAN HALVORSON

April 16, 1932

Dr. L. C. Kindree, Chairman, P.W.I.G. Squamish, B.C.

Dear Sir,

Please be advised that we wish to present our

remarks on the Squamish River Estuary Management Draft

on April 28, 1982.

Yours truly,

Norman Bar r NB/mk INDEPENDENT SQUAMISH LOGGING OPERATORS LIMITED

Box 256 President, N.R. BARR Squamish. 8.0. VON 3G0 Secretary. NORMAN HALVORSON ~

April 23, 1982

To: Squamish Estuary Management Plan Public Involvement Work Group

Mr. Chairman & Members:

The Independent Squamish Logging Operator's involvement in the waterfront is primarily for the functions of sorting,‘ dumping, booming and storeage of logs. Generally, we do'not foresee any significant change from our present requirements, however, as a group of small loggers we will need continuing access to the waterfront. A secure tenure position must be available to justify the investment necessary to develop and maintain log handling facilities.

We would recommend that the following points be endorsed by the Public Involvement Work Group.

1. That existing industrial users be given priority to expand or relocate before other users be considered.

2. Any established users that are required to relocate because of changing estuary management policies be allocated lands by the Provincial Government and funds be made available for relocation costs.

Log Handling

iThe log handling and storeage study is not critical at this time as the methods practiced in the Squamish area are acceptable and consistent with industry standards. The log handling function must be developed on a coastal basis with gradual changes taking place. A coastal study is now being finalized. The Plan Process

The co-ordinating committee should be structured in such a way as to equalize any biases. There should be equal numbers of people on the committee representing both the environmental and industrial interests. The co—ordinating committee chairman should be "neutral" to any agency or group.

If the co—ordinating committee appoints an Environmental Assessment committee to advise the parent committee, then likewise an Industrial Assessment committee should be appointed in the advisory capacity. The Industrial Assessment committee should have equal stature to that of the Environmental Assessment committee. This committee should perform promptly and must not be allowed to become stalemated because of bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Area Designations Mamguam Blind Channel

The Mamquam Blind Channel is historically developed.as an industrial area and as no alternate sites presently exist, the status quo should be maintained. Additional industrial development should be encouraged within this section of the estuary wherever possible.i

Planning Area 1 East Delta

This is a highly desirable area for both environmental and industrial activities. Planning should continue in this area to establish future uses and priorities. This area has tremendous industrial potential, particularly that portion East of the railroad track. A large part of the East delta area should receive industrial designation as much of the land is above extreme high tide levels. This could become- the transition zone between the Mamquam Channel and West and Central delta areas.

Conservation Areas Central Delta West Delta

These are excellent designated uses and should remain‘ conservation areas. Future planning should encourage enhancement in the West and Central delta areas as this is the most desirable area for estuarine habitat enhancement. Planning Area 2

The future here is limited at the present time as access is restricted because of the railroad bridge and the tidal channel. If these problems were overcome, this would be an ideal location for a public marina.

General Comments

The present draft leans heavily toward the environmental point of view. This domination must be corrected and the final management structure must be represented by an integrated multiple use committee not dominated by any government agency or interest group. This is absolutely mandatory if we are.to have a fair and equitable.management concept developed for the future.

We must continue the planning process as the Squamish waterfront is vitally important to the future of our area and the future of the Province. The management committee should be fully aware of their responsibility to produce decisions without undue delay. Anyone submitting a prospectus should expect prompt attention and a fair and unbiased hearing.

Cost benefit analysis must be an integral part of the future planning process.

We formally request that a motion be passed by the Public Involvement Work Group supporting the position that " The Co-ordinating Committee be an integrated multiple use committee, not dominated by any government agency or agencies or special interest groups; with the chairman being neutral and unbiased."

In conclusion, we see the draft as a positive con- tribution to the final estuary management plan.

May wetake this opportunityto expressour thanks to.the committee for-their gggtinued efforts and for the- opportunity to present our assessment of the draft documents.

Respectfully submitted by the Members of the Independent Squamish Logging Operators Ltd. C)5 Save Howe Sound Society

ggggugseggeaéh 6172 Nelson Ave . .. West Vancouver WW-34?‘ v7w1z9

April 26, 1982

Dr. L. Kindree, Chairman Public Involvement work Group P.O. Box 389 Squamish, B.C.

Dear Sir,

This is to inform you that I would like to make a short verbal statement at the April 28th meeting of the Squamish Estuary Management Plan.

Yours truly, /=/.C%4«W~a L.M. Calvert (Mrs.) President, Save Howe Sound Society

Doreen Wakely, Pr ‘ en: Tom Sewell. Vice-Piesident 6698 Nelson Street West Van er, B.C. V7W 2T7 West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 282 I (604)9Zl-9121 phi {604]92I-752! Save Howe Sound Society 325 B 6172 Nelson Ave West Vancouver v7w1z9

April 28, 1982

Dr. L. Kindree Chairman Public Involvement Work Group Box 389 Squamish B.C. VON3G0

Dear Sir,

I enclose a brief for submission to the P.I.W.G. At the 3 end of the brief is a resolution which was approved unanimously at the AGM of Save Howe Sound Society on April 20, 1982. The resolution had previously been circulated to our members. I also enclose a completed questionnaire.

Yours truly, %.?¢. L.M. Calvert (Mrs.) President, Save Howe Sound Society

Encl. Brief, resolution, and questionnaire

t TmnkwmL¥hH%?HaW Do§g%%?m$e¥m?d 6698 Nelson Street West Van ak;§gL&mnT$nr. B.C. V7 West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 2B2 ph: [604] - l2I ph:(604)9Zl-7521 SAVE HOWE SOUND SOCIETY

Submission to Planning Committee of Sguamish Estuary Management Plan April 28, 1982

Since its inception as an Ad Hoc committee ten years ago,

Save Howe Sound Society has been concerned with the Squamish

Estuary. The estuary is an integral part of the Sound and

the future of the estuary greatly affects the future of the

rest of the Sound. Ten years ago a large coal port might have

been built on the central and east deltas - that it didn't become

reality is at least partly due to our Society's efforts.

Today as a registered society of B.C. we have roughly 400

members from across the Lower Mainland, in Squamish, in Lions Bay,

Gibsons, on the islands of Howe Sound, and even outside the

province. These members believe that the Sound and estuary

are invaluable and irreplaceable. We recognize that industry has had as long a history as recreation on the Sound and, therefore we know we must co-exist. However, certain kinds of developments

could change the face of Howe Sound forever.

During the last ten years many reports have been issued which

say essentaally the same thing - a dredged estuary is a dead

estuary. A healthy estuary is an invaluable, renewable resource,

but it is well nigh impossible to turn a highly industrialized area

back into a healthy estuary. Estuary land is relatively cheap

for a developer, it is flat and he can always make a little more

land by rearranging the gravel. Estuary land for young salmon

is expensive, it will cost them their lives if they lose it.

The Squamish Estuary Management Plan is to be congratulated

on its thoroughness. It stresses better management of the

estuary, optimal use of the industrial land, and it has many excellent

. y.-3.-mach u-nAatcn~—c~a-nan-u.—-manna.-acorn-nan...»-a-—~ proposals for cleaning up the present industry. (Let's find the unaccounted for mercury;over two thousand kilos in 1978 and

1979 - how much this year?)

The Planning Committee has agreed that the west and central deltas be designated as a Conservation Area, and that the area presently used by industry be designated Industrial/Commercial.

Consensus agreement was not reached concerning the east delta, as yet undredged and containing areas critical for the survival of estuarine species. This area is known as Planning Assessment

Area 1.

B.C. Rail has a proposal for extending its marshalling yards over many acres of the east delta. This area contains critical estuarine habitat, and is also the wintering ground for

the rare trumpeter swan. B.C. Rail owns over 27,000 acres of

B.C. land. Surely they can find suitable land that is not

on the estuary. Even a piece of less vital Crown land would

be more appropriate.

Squamish Terminals proposes increasing its port facility by 31 acres in the east delta. B.0. Rail serves the ports of Squamish and North Vancouver. More than 80% of its business is

connected with the forest industry. Port facilities are needed

for the commodities that are brought south, and obviously B.C. Rail

does not want to cut off its future options. For a railway to

be profitable, it must carry bulk commodities in full-load

trains at frequent intervals and over long distances. The 1977 Royal Commission found that there were no resources that

were likely to make much difference to the company in the" 3 in the foreseeable future, and also that present port facilities were adequate. The original dream of the province's resources being hauled south by train and shipped out is only partly true. Many commodities are taken north to Prince Rupert, or through the Fraser Canyon, or by truck. Squamish is presently very

dependent on the forest industry. Its main inddustries are

all related to the forest industry, and B.C. Rail and Squamish largely Terminals provide the transportation of its rawand products. It is hoped ,ffinished that industries attracted to edfquamish's§newindustrial park .. be more v ‘w _;-(.~—_.1 I . - diversified, ‘-_.. _ _ _ will .’-5}.» i ’_ ;‘_:.".._.';_-3,};-.1:‘ .. " ‘ .1.'ab:9.\1r*-i,n.tensive,and compatible withSquamish. For example,

‘**§é£§i11§l§£ei£érs,which have been proposed for Squamish are not thehindof industry which Squamish needs. Metallic smelters usuallirequire large facilities for shipping materials. Also reports have shown that Squamish is particularly susceptible to air pollution. While no-one expects Squamish to become a town of watchmakers (you can easily carry a million dollars in a suitcase), diversification and labour-intensive industry is something Squamish does need. It is close enough to the Lower Mainland for technical help and training. If and when increased berth space is needed by B.C. Rail or the industrial park, it should

either be constructedwithin the Industrial/Commercial Area, or Vpossibly in a well-planned area where the water is already deep and. ‘relatively non-productive, and not on the estuary.

By encouraging the right kind of industry to the industrial park, the estuary will be less threatened and Squamish will broaden its economicbase. The conserved estuary will then retain its 4

attractiveness for nature study, recreation and tourism (well- planned, of course). It will also retain its attractiveness

to birds and fish (literally millions and millions in the next few years.)

Save HoweSound Society at its Annual General Meeting on April 20, 1982, unanimously approved a resolution.which had previously been circulated to its members,- "that Planning Assessment Area 1 and 2 be included in theconservation

Area” and reserved from industrial and commercial development for as long as people need to eat.

—_...—~..... (‘S‘ .., %“7 .3— I s lApril 26, 1982

Chairman of Co-Ordinating Committee Public Involvementwork Group Squamish, B. C.

My logical approach to the estuary situation is as follows: The human being on the Planet Earth, is the highest form of life, and is blessed with a brain that can think and with this brain, has done many wonderful things i.e. operations on humans, put man on the moon, built bridges, roads, tunnels, buildings, transported liquids, gasses and minerals in many different ways, and has done wonders in the electronic field - and boasted about it. But, as clever as the human being professes to be, he cannot build an estuary, yet he can destroy it very quickly. Are we really that ‘clever’ when we destroy life so blatantly? when is industry and government going to accept this responsibility to the human race? The estuaries all over the world have been created over thousands of years and are being decimated in that bacteria is increasing around the British Isles, Middle of the Pacific, Mediterranean. On April 20/82, on the C.B.C. program "the Journal", there was an item saying there could be a ban on eating fish from the Great Lake system. Yet the Squamish sewer system is pumped into the Deltic system. And the road run-off is backed into the Deltic with unknownagreeance (I imagine lead is quite prominent). Nowwe have the "wonderful" Cheakamus sewerage system being developed for the whistler/Squamish corridor! 1 An Estuary is the beginning of life and a sustainer of life and should be respected for what its position is in the ecological system. In your Squamish Estuary Management Plan, on any of the 40% area left, you have never mentioned the word "SACROSANCT". The human being has taken 60% of the Estuary Area and its planning is something to »be desired. ~That is why there is a Squamish Estuary Management Plan being developed, so that we can plan better.l] My proposal is to take a line west of the British Columbia Railway spur line to the Squamish Terminal, then follow the dyke north to the MamquamArea, then a line west of the Squamish River and west Delta. Remove the River Training dyke north to the Central Delta. Put gates in the training dyke (like they have in the German River system) to let fresh water flow through the Delta System, and use the gates when there are flood situations. an '5

Page 2

Carry the sewerage outfall to the Squamish River and find another outlet for the road run-off with its deadly unknownmixture. Strict control for the Cheakamus River for sewerage disposal. And make the SquamishDeltic Area "SACROSANCT".And then enhance it. My other proposal is that the Cattermole Creek outletbe left to disperse its water into HoweSound, with the extra water coming from the gated training dykes. The Peninsular Area of F.H.C. could be-land filled and would create more docks and light non-polluting industry. The Squamish Yacht Club could have a larger yacht basin, better protected from sea planes, tugs and barges with the Cattermole outlet to HoweSound. I understand people with yachts and boats are reluctant to come to Squamish because of the entrance to the MamquamBlind Channel. with an entrance to the Cattermole Area, it would be safer. Dredging a yacht basin could be used to help land fill the F.M.C. area. I have touched on the Deltic and Industrial situation, as coming froman Industrial part of the world, I realise the situation. Even as a child, what I saw at that time, always posed the question, "what in Hell are we doing with the environmentwe inherited?9 Q%A+&Thank you 7

Barrie S. Suter . . 0' .,«JA4,«*zt»:*x. /2:2:-0 I/‘-J/L ,-'7L<.'(_/:14‘; " /f¢~»"'»(=~”.”r‘-'i";--(142.-fir’ ‘ -. » . n I /I I . “ _,{X,,_,(551’,,/.2: /@.r',,{I.z."(/.al~-Jh9.’.x.¢L/1, /3,5/.é('rf(/(L~’.3z.”‘~.// $3//“747"-?u AIa~ANo-BAIIRcomm @ iiacrwaaSewage ‘in-at.-nent Plant and outfall @ Central Sewage lreaunent Plant and Outiall 2 Mercury Contaai nation 3) Squenisl» TerminalsPort facility (IDiield-woodof Canada ua. sawmill/PlaneuillComplex 0 ilunicipal ReiuseSite @ Cm-on-innlevel ilonitorlng I GroundwaterMonitoring 0 Sedimentation [MD MD Ii/HERU55 @ tog Handling and Storage Study Part options study

Dredge Spoils Site E) training Dyke I3 Isolated tidal Channels sedge Harsh is lieadowI-iabitat lined liastes RECREAIION ® Riverside tanning I8 Public Access I9 Industrial Interpretation

F3 Estuary interpretation ‘ Q Marina Facilities INDUSTRIALPROFOSHS Squanish terminal s expansion Railyard expansion

L LANDF LL ‘’ 2 . Al

in (.0 ’5. Sections and 5.0 or Appendix which are not site-st-eciiic in nature or for which study areas have not been determined are not included on this llgure.

11200 0 200 400 srPz 600 000 IOOOM m U M

«. ,.‘<‘.-.'-'-».,~.¢’—(..u.u’1.'c-z-,t7,‘---:1"/x‘:(Z.»4r»_4t/m-(,.,/Let‘/r1«<’JZ: 4- 365%;,,aBK0_Pp§Eo:4\‘oJ1oNsANDSTUDIES Wz _

anmsn cootuuaialnm war A1,; FINAL PRESENTATION

on the

1Q SQUAMISHESTUARY MANAGEMENTPLKN

submitted by

THE SQUAMISHVALLEYROD AH GU? CLUB

0. -awn.,; %»€%u;~z ?;:*v-* ~.;-s«.<~2—.n€§:«.«“‘*=.-sir ~‘i';?~<._.;.-.-.--- ~ - - I , *''é . -” T«ax~

‘J1-A. V

The ?quamish Valley Rod and Gun Club was formed about forty

years ago and has, as members, a large representative number of residents and land owners of the Squamish area. He are affiliated with the B.C. Wildlife Federation through the Lower mainland Regional nranch, and recieve their support in the protection of our interest in the east, central andwest deltas of the 3quamish estuary.

A number of our members are actively involvedin hunting and fishing in the delta regions and this;along with the preservation of the natural habitat, constitutes the clubs interest in the proposed.development of this area. A special permit hunting area extends from the west side ed the west delta to a line parallel to, and 137.2 meters west of the B.C. Railway tracks in the east delta. .Theno rthern extremity of the permit area is inthe dyke culverts.i The cast and centraldeltas are considered essential, especially by hunters, as the west delta is accessible only by boat. It is unfortunate that the bulkof the development is proposed for the east and central deltas;as it appears that the area traditionally used by the sportsmen will be closed - at least to the hunters. ?hile local registrations of hunting permits and fishing licences show that this area is well used, it is clear that it is not over-used. We feel that these sports have been enjoyed for many years and they have not, and do not represent a threat to the natural habitat of the Squamish River delta. We are aware that some of the delta area is currently under ‘lease and beingused for different purposes. At this time we‘ see noreal need for any change in thepresent use of the delta T areas.

t we are also aware that some of the naturalhabitat in the delta area has been destroyed by landfill. 3e are notagainst enhancement projects to restore these areas.to their previous state. However, care must be taken to ensure that ggg?gé l productive these enhancement projects can be undertaken without doing further damageto the natural habitat. The members of the Squamish Valley Rod and Gun Club do not advocate an outright rejection of technology;industry and developed recreation,but we do feel that the intrinsic values of the Squamish estuary delta cannot be compromised.

Although growth is inevitable, it need hot lead to despoil- ation and destruction of the natural beauty and character of

' the landscape around Squamish. We feel that alternate locations for industry and developed recreation may prove to be more environmentallyand economically feasible thanthe development of the delta areas of the Squamish estuary. Se urgeenvironmentalists and conservationiststo concede to the fact that the mamquamChannel can never be restored to its original state.’ we ?eel that they should openly encourage the further development of this area to accomodate new industry, rather than having them expand further into the delta areasof

0 the estuary.

He recomwend that industry look more closely at utilizing ‘their present facilities to their fullest capacity and divert future development away from the delta area. If thcindustrics concerned took full responsibility for their own air and water pollution, even if the area currently supporting industry was utilized 1005, there neednot be any more pollution than what . .is present now - maybe even less.

' As well as the land that is still unused on the Tamquam Channel, waterfront property is available south of *Iac:.Iil1an Dloedel to Watts Pointand Britannia Beach. waterfront property should be available only to the industries relying on water» access, as_other industries canjust as well locate elsewhere. .£:a'.‘—-M-Jta Local authorities should encourage the industries whoare not dependant on the waterfront to relocate in the industrial park. It is important that all businesses and industries wishing "to locate on the waterfront be required to submit detailedplans for their present use of the land, as well as detailed plans for any possible future expansions. The land should then be allocated according to present and future needs. If the watere front property is well managed, we trust there will be room

enough for everyone, now as well as ten years iron now - eliminating the problems we are facing at present. Je ask that no new industrialdevelopment he allowed in the delta areas of the

. » _, -. - V’ ’ . ‘ u . .‘ . _. .a. .’ ‘ 5 A‘ ,« ‘.._~._. , l ‘N. . ",:FT1-__..7'?’:' I_.. > I. nth‘ V :. ..-;_-A-g._‘._;"_1...4!‘, .f-'1’ H-.‘_.:___‘;‘. '- , % ‘-In 1 <*.‘ ' . c->1. ?r. ' 5-,~‘\ '-_, ‘- ' s~’:’¢."7. ~ ’ - ‘- ' .‘- ‘ ‘ ‘ « ‘ ' '- " .' .. +4.-.-"<.:;.9,-. -1!.-‘i'."._ \ *.> ..- . ’-—‘ v 1‘ :"-"‘:--." . estuary until all possible other industrial locations are ex- » _hausted.

We also recommend that the groups interested in developing the delta areas for heavy recreational use look for more app-g ropriate areas for these activities. Landfill would be necess- I sary to develop this area for formalpicnicing, boat launching, pinterpretive trails, nature observationtowers, tourist activities or a nature study center. “Development for these purposes will not only destroy the natural habitat, but as also a totally unneccessary.

The people who currently use the , delta areas for such rc- tivities as fishing, hunting, walking and nature study do so because of the natural environment- not in spite of it. We do not wantto see any of this area'developed for the purpose of attracting tourism. Even the thought of such development in .this critical delta area shows a complete lack of appreciation

of the natural habitat. There are many places in and surrounding Squamish that are far more environmentally suitable for recreational development. It has.been stated that Squamishoffers few facilities for camping,climbing,hiking and picnicing enthusiasts. While this statement may be true, it is definitely not because of a lack of suitableareas. For camping we recommend a site along the amquam River just_ ‘east of the old bridge and behind the Wagon Jheel trailer court. Campsites were started here many years ago under the Opportun- ities far Youthrrogrambut never finished. ‘Anotherpossible .camping site along the namquam diver is around the dashiter creek area, shichalready hasan access road and cleared out areas. From this site a new, moredefined trail could be blased up U to the uashiter Falls; This trail wouldnot only provide an excellent walk for hikers, the Falls would be a perfect seta ting picnic for a area. The base of the Chief would also be an ideal place for camping and picnicing facilities. The facil-. ities in this area would also servethe climbing and.hiking enthusiasts.

we see no reason why these areas cannot and_shou1d not be developed. There is a need;for developedrecreation in Squamish andthere are places for it, but the estuary is not one of them. In conclusion, the SquamishValley Rod and Gun Club feel that any development of the delta area.-whetherfor industry orre-

creation would be very detrimental to the natural habitat - a compromise which cannot be afforded.At this time, the development of the Squamish River delta is not neccessary, and we strongly suggest that this areabe left exactly as is - its relatively natural state. @ SEELHDOCIEY- -1:~;- THESTEELHEADSOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

P.O. BOX 33947 ~ STATION - D - VANCOUVER, B.C. V6.1 3J3

nmsnCOLUMA April 27th., 1982 Steelhead Society Brief to the T0 v Public Involvement Work Group ?/€, L-/(/}/D165‘? Squamish, B.C. —{c///41/'<>/m/)

The Steelhead Society of B.C. strongly opposes any further industrial encroachment on the Squamish estuary delta. We challenge the stated concept in (Volume 1 - The Plan- page 7) that the ‘key factor affecting future industrial land use demand and economic growth in Squamish is continued port development". Continued port development leans

continued losses of important estuary areas. The Steelhead Society vigourously condemn the past industrial developments and the various jurisdictional levels of government that have conspired to degrade the estuary habitat.

In future industrial planning for the Squamish area, the Britannia" site shouldbe

considered as a vital link in the shipping and storage terminal business, already an

on-site mil link (direct) and excellent deep water potential for an additional two

or three vessel berths at a much lower development cost than the site preparation

figures quoted for the Squamish estuary port expansion, 10 to 1.1 million dollars, 1980.

The present highway location at Britannia is unsafe as it very closely parallels the

present B.C.R. minline and at several points has sharp curves. A realignment of the

present highway around the back of the Done-Britannia property would free the entire waterfrontarea for future industrial expansion. The Steelhead Society does not oppose any or all industrial plans for the HoweSound? Souamishregion’; "wedooppose estuary developnent and point to the Britannia site as" prime example of poor government and industry planning. The changing econcedo state and the shift or industrial expansion to the north (Prince Rupert) and the major development

of shipping ports in the region nay necessitate a complete re-evaluation of the Squaalish terminals estuary development proposal.

TheSteelhead Society fully endorses the excellent briefs on the Squamish estuary as

i-W4'.-e-2»...-a-W.-.«.--» ~nrm-—.»...;-nviuewx-<1in-2-‘ezr‘4n~:~v- presented by the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Squamish Valley Rod and Gun Club

(March, 1980/September, 1980) and proposes that full mitigation and habitat restoration

begin as soon as is feasible. The recommendations detailed in the “Habitat Hbrk Grou 0 Final Report‘ (pages 109-125), February, 1981, should begin by October, 1982, and have

sufficient funding for extensive habitat restoration and water quality monitoring.

water flow hydrology studies should be constant to evaluate the effects of the present

new-dyke restoration at Brakendale and Msmquam, and its long-term potential for changes

pro or negative to the estuary with particular concern to erosion of the west delta area.

Priority should be given to restoration of the central delta and redistribution of fill area adjacent to the training dyke. The culvert pond and dyked stream should be designed to maximise fresh~uater flow to

original levels and protect the east marsh and north fields from amulI=salinity.

New studies should be focussed on the training dke and floubthrust effect on youg

salmonids trying to maintain their position within the estuary. (salnonidamay be swept into the open sound prematurely, not having time to adjust to salinity or temerature changes.) Feeding/nurturing is also lost. Industrial egpgnsion. In the unfortunate event that government Jurisdictions decide to proceed with the present industrial expansion plans, the Steelhead Society requests 53;;

public provincial hearings into dredging and dispersal of the mercury laden material at

the F.H.C. filter pond site. The Society fears deep dredging from the east channel to

the bridge pond would release concentrations of mercury in the dredge sediments an such

material would be unsuitable for landfill purposes or ocean dumping.

The Steelhead Society requests that a habitat reclamation performance bond be implemented

to ensure that industrial activities are carefully planned and carried out with minimal/ negligible effect on the estuary area present and future. An amount of $1.5M (19%of

projected development costs) should be held in bond. This bond would also apply to any

potential shipping accident (oil spill, etc.) The bond should be financed 25%hy each federal, provincial, municipal and industrial participant. The Steelhead Society points to the various positive actions taken over the last few years to reclaim our valuable estuary areas at Cowichan, Nanaino and Campbell River as examples for Squamish to follow; w can no longer afford the luxury of eroding our ‘T yearly cycles of salmonid production.

on All too often in the past our valuable fisheriesresouaeee(self perpetuating) have been I ' . . sacrificed for the non-renewable or, in the case of the forest industry, I cycle period

of a life time or longer--b0 to 80 yeqrs for second growth harvestahle timber. Our. U‘}orestmanagement has all too often desecratedwatersheds with cleareut plans and little or no real effort to reseed, plant, or properly conduct selective logging practices. The long-term effect on our salmonid producing watersheds has been disastrous to flow regimes, spawning areas and important rearing areas.

The Stcclhead Society rclievas that our precious salmonid resource is a national heritage and deserves the utmost protection under the B.N.A.Act. The credibility of the federal SE? program begins and ends with the preservation of our irreplaceable snlmonid estuaries.

£1 Oloman, Past-President Steelhcad Society of B.C. April 27, 1982

SQUAMISH AMATEUR SPORTS

SUBMISSION TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT’ WORK’GROUP

Past development practice of Squamish estuary suggest prime consideration for land reclamation, discharge sites for municipal and industrial waste, and development of port facilities with an adverse net result of removalcand alteration of estuarine habitat, through dredging, landfill, erection of the Squamish river training dyke, Irreparible damage has occurred. We have witnessed chemical contamination (mercury posoning) and subsequent fish reduction. Very little foreshore is left industrially undisturbed, that precious little must be preserved. The very delicatabalance of our eccosystem demands protections as evidenced by our habitat studies. Squamish Amateur Sports enthusiastically endorse:

l) No industrial development within areasdesignated as Cl & PAl Estuary Management Plan. 2) Encourage salmon enhancement .

3) Restore and promote esturine habitat.

4) Estuary management by a registered conservation society, working in harmony with Federal and Provincal Dept. of Environmentaa?df?isheries.

7?¢.-'SP¢"c°TFOLL y you/?£ . -5:2/z...»/l.

Ea /74KCo-rtrzs’ £3 07? 516'.4:?u34tb/ /-//6/MA N135 /3,67 Uou -. ITO,

‘ 79 @ 2/“ COMENTS ON THE DRAFT squamish Estuary Management Plan

Regular 5 year reviews of the Management Plan are a good idea. Designated 0-1 Conservation area acceptable. Considerable increase in productivity could be effected with enhancement work. The area would be relatively secure from competing uses. Designated I/C Area for Industrial and commercial development should plan for the relocation of non-water dependen? industries. Designated Planning Assessment Area PA-1 should receive comprehensive planning in advance of specific proposals so that some direction may be given to projects prior to development plans. jhe management plan has not resolved a long standing application for additional space, and deep sea ship berths. This type of industry is clean and non polluting. It serves the whole of the province, as an interchange between Rail and Ocean traffic for wood products. It is to be hoped that once the plan is in place, development needs both in Industry and conservation enhancement, can be dealt with quickly. Planning Assessment area has been identified as having multiple demands for its use. could be deepened to provide access to marsh areas for Fish, and channels for recreational boating, marinas and deep sea shipping, As well additional overflow relief for the squamish uiver during flood could be provided. Areas gest of the channel would be isolated, and protected for ennancemen. Areas" East of the channel for port facility and marina

must be considered a highest priority. 7. Areas suitable for fisheries enhancement should be identified on a priority basis so that industrial trade-offs may be used to help" finance enhancement programs. 8. My view of an order of importance a. risheries habitat b. Port facilities c. Recreational Marine d. facilities water dependent Industry e,g, Booming Sea Planes e. Bird & Animal habitat f. Nature study. 9. Industry that is not water dependent should be identified for phasing out. A map showing this inventony should be prepared. 10. The squamish Library an excellent choice for the information bank. 110 Acceptable Industrial projects which must encroach on some habitat areas, should be required to compensate by bringing non productive estuarian lands into active production, thereby preventing any slow depletion of active acreage Planning should encourage compatible multiple use of lands and water courses. 12. Recommendations for remedial actions on page 57 Figure 6 "Proposed Actions and studies. These recommendations should be addressed by letter to the appropriate organizations, for their attention and action.

Respectfully submitted.

Squamish ?anHoldings Ltd. “L”/ »’ Pfovince of of Forest Service British Columbia Forests p,o, Box 1970 Squamish, B.C. VON3G0

82.04.30

FILE: 700-3-l-l Squamish Estuary Management Plan

Chairman Public Involvement work Group P.D. Box 389 Squamish, B.C. VON3G0

Dear Sir:

The Ministry of Forests in Squamish has recently received a copy of the Draft Squamish Estuary Management Plan. weare concerned that there is no provision for active involvement in the Coordinating Committee or work Groups by either The Ministry of Forests or representatives of the forest industry.

The main conerns of this Ministry would be input into the studies of alternative means of handling and storing logs in the estuary and participation in developing or recommending policies and decisions related to log handling and storage. This is the dominant industrial activity in the estuary area and, as such, any decisions or recommendations concerning this activity will carry more weight than decisions concerning other uses of the estuary. In view of the importance of this activity, the Ministry of Forests believes that there must be representation and participation by either or both this Ministry and forest industry representatives in the Coordinating Committee and/or work groups to ensure impartiality in the decision making process.

westrongly recomend that The Ministry of Forests and local forest industry have representation on the Coordinating Comittee.

Yours truly,

District Manager Squamish Forest District £57,.

Brief on the Squamish Estuary Management Draft Elan Submitted to the Public Involvement work Group and the Planning Committee

April, 1932

written by Jack Evans, President, 53/4797 Lower Mainland Regional Branch British Columbia wildlife Federation

.’_,T INTRODUCTION

with reference to the Squamish Estuary Management Draft Plan, which was first announced in 1979 and which formally began in 1980, a well-known anecdote is quoted below: "Betting things done around here is like mating elephants: 1) It is done at a high level, 2) It is accomplished with a lot of roaring and screaming and 3) Mostimportant of all, it takes two years to get any results!" An analogy may be drawn, with all due respect.

The British Columbia wildlife Federation, a non-profit, non-government organization, is pleased to be able to present the views of its 22,000 members on the topic of the Squamish Estuary Management Draft Plan. The views expressed in this brief are from concerned citizens from the length and breadth of our province, ordinary people who feel very deeply about the conservation and wise use of British Columbia's natural resources. The future of the Squamish River and its Estuary, as well as all other estuarine areas of such biologically significant primary production, is an issue which must be addressed with great care and deliberation by government agencies and public alike.

The goal of the Squamish Estuary Management Plan, as stated in the prefaces of the work Group reports, is "to provide a decision-making frame- work which can be used to guide land and water use in the Squamish Estuary, but remain flexible to allow refinement in later years." The policy of the 8.0. wildlife Federation with respect to development of land and water resources in estuarine areas is very clear. A quote from the enclosed 0.0. wildlife Federation policy paper on estuary management and some associated problems is given below:

"Predictably, any manipulation or development in these estuaries can have serious effects. we propose the establishment of "Estuary Reserves", on the same basis as the "Agricultural Land Reserves" and the "Forest Reserves", to protect the basis of our renewable resources.

"The concept is simple enough, yet examination of the traditional approach toward estuary development is not encouraging. Naturally, man has traditionally been attracted to settle and develop in estuaries. Rather than just taking advantage of what they so generously 9r°d”°3v we 9"°r°3°h “P0” them. we dyke marshes and mudflats to get more farmland —- yet, left alone, these areas may be twenty times as productive as the farmland. we fill them in to get cheap land for housing or industry -- assuming that the food no longer produced will come from this undefined area called "somewhere else". we allow log storage and booming operations to destroy the productive balance. we close our eyes to the debris, sewage and chemicals choking these most productive areas on earth."

In light of the above statements and countless others in a similar vein, estuarine areas, and the Squamish area in particular, are not.suitable for industrially-oriented development at the expense of habitat vital to the natural productivity of the area. Suitable habitat is the essential pre- yreguisite for all living things, including people.

The concept which many planners hold dear to their hearts, the concept~ of "multiple use", may sound fine on the surface. when one considers an area such as an estuary as a single unit, however, a complex, interdependent system of interacting physical and biological elements, the simplistic multiple use concept fades back into the realm of the theoretical. The possibility of successful, practical application of such a concept is very slight, as it is very unrealistic. Man can have the best of one option or another, but never the best of two. when one option is chosen and an area is managed for optimum use accordingly, it must be accepted and understood that it is at the expense of the second option. There must be a net loss if there is a net gain elsewhere. Once again, the natural estuary has been the net loser to date, and this trend must be reversed.

If this management plan serves no other useful purpose than to awaken the public to the natural importance of the estuary and to the necessity for greater involvement in its conservation and wise use, then the time, energy and dollars of so many people will not have been spent in vain. The identification of data gaps, which prohibit complete understanding of the estuarine. ecosystem, end various recommendations made to rectify this situation is also a notable accomplishment. However, it is hoped that a much more "concrete" type of success is achieved with the final management plan. The B.B. wildlife Federation sincerely hopes that adequate, relatively ngggflexible and long term recommendations and policies will be formulated which will protect and E enhance our beautiful inheritance called the Squamish Estuary. COMMENTSON THE RECOMMENDATIONSOF THE FOUR MORHGROUPS

1) RECREATIONwORHGROUP

Once again, the arguement for conserving and protecting the natural estuary is supported by a quote from Vol. 11 of the draft plan, p. 15h: "Although only a fraction of the estuary is actually used by recreationists, large areas are critical in the food chain and habitat of fish and bird life that are themselves the objects of various recreational pursuits. The salmon sports fishery in the Howe Sound Region, for example, is a multi-million dollar enterprise dependent upon the estuary, while bald eagle concentrations, also dependent on the salmon, are of international significance."

The recommendation which the Recreation work Group makes in section 6.5, p. 26 of their final report is of significant importance. To quote: "Area designations: It is imperative that some form of secure tenure be adopted for land intended for conservation and recreation and that some agency be given the responsibility and the authority for management. It is suggested that the campground near the Squamish/Mamquam confluence be managed by the District of Squamish or its agent.

" The remainder of the conservation area, including public access and interpretive facilities should be managed by the Fish and wildlife Branch as a wildlife Management Area."

This suggestion, to manage the ecologically and recreationally sensitive areas of the estuary in such a way, is to be applauded, for it would provide the stability and security necessary for long-range planning without the threat of further industrial encroachment. with a single agency responsible for an area for more positive and active steps can be taken than if a number of government bodies with radically different mandates try to come to grips with specific management options and problems. The Squamish Estuary won't survive’ too many more compromises. The B.B.wildlife Federation fully supports the recommendation to have the provincial B.C. Fish and wildlife Branch manage the conservation/recreation areas as a wildlife Management Area. Of course the Ministry of Environment will have to make sufficient funds and manpower available to Region II of the B.C. Fish and wildl?a Branch in order to carry out such a plan.

The need to have the public involved to some extent in estuary matters cannot be over-emphasized. without a plan to educate the public and to create an awareness of the natural importance and sensitivity of the estuary, no one can expect anything but the all too ubiquitous public apathy. If people aren't sufficiently informed about the estuary,they won't know what options for management are possible. They won't know what the consequences of further industrial development are with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitat. They won't care, then, to speak against proposals which will further degrade what's left of productive estuarine areas.

The B.C.wildlife Federation suggests, therefore, that development of public recreation and education facilities be undertakento ensure that residents of and visitors to Squamish, especially children, are better able to appreciate and enjoy the diverse beauty and intricacies of estuarine life forms.

To quote from the brief of the Squamish Valley Rod and Gun Club to the Public Involvement work Group, September, 1980, p. 13: "There are many people who look to nature for meaning and order, peace and tranquility, introspection and stimulus: Many more look to nature and activity in the outdoors as the road to restoration and health. A sound management plan for the Squamish Estuary in terms of this social need must therefore take into consideration the present and future recreational opportunities it can afford." The B.C. wildlife Federation concurs.

Furthermore, the B.C. wildlife Federation strongly supports the plan to have continued public involvement in future estuary planning matters. In order for public input to be meaningful those concerned must be well-informed. They must have free access to a source of up-to-date technical information, perhaps, as suggested in the draft plan, made available through an "Information Bank" located in the Squamish Public Library.

Hunting is a legitimate and long—established form of public recreation in the Squamish Estuary. Although it has been suggested by some people that hunting activities within the estuary present serious conflicts with other recreational uses, most hunting occurs at times of the year when the majority of "sensible" people are home and dry. A rainy} gusty dawn or dusk in late October or November is not too appealing to even the most ardent outdoor enthusiast, and these are the times when most intensive hunting occurs. Hunting does not, and never has disrupted breeding and nesting behaviour of birds, largely because these activities occur in the spring while hunting activities occur in the fall. However, such is not the case with certain other recreational pursuits. The B.C. wildlife Federation feels, therefore, that there is no. reason why hunting opportunities cannot continue to be pursued over the majority of estuarine lands. A poem by an anonymous person is relevant to the topic at hand, and is quoted below: "God grant the day shall never be when youth upon November's shore Shall see the mallards come no more. Too barren all this earth for words If gone are all the fish and birds."

2)LAND USE MDRHGROUP

Two major issues addressed by this treatment of existing and potentially- available industrial land in the Squamish Estuary are log storage and future port development.

In the foreseeable future, additional port facilities can be accommodated in locations other than the Squamiah River Estuary. Britannia and watts Point are examples where estuarine, biological productivity would not be adversely affected by such expansion. By taking advantage of sites proximal to Squamish, the usua1.community objective of local job creation and corporate bolstering of the local economy could still be realized. It is an established fact, however, that the majority of jobs created by suchprojects and developments are skilled labour positions. Also, labour unions aften dictate that such positions be filled by not just anybody, but by union members only. The hope of recruiting skilled, union labour from the ranks of the locally unemployed is rather far-fetched, a "myth" perpetrated by officials and corporate tycoons trying to justify the destruction of a particular natural site for their own advantage,which is usually monetary in nature. An example of this kind of situation is found at Squamish Terminals, where many of the union longshoremen were imported to Squammsh from outside the District.

The question has been raised as to whether the attraction of Squamish to potential developers will be substantially decreased if there ?ns‘ promises made with respect to increased size and scope of port facilities. The B.B. wildlife Federation feels that a lack of increase in port fecitities will not deter most industries from locating in and around Squamish. Only very large operations such as smelters, steel mills and pulp and paper mills require more extensive port facilities than what presently exist: in Squamish. Due to the need for environmental safeguards, which have been agreed to by all the technical work groups, operations of the magnitude requiring significant increases in port size will have to be located outside of the estuary Egg gg. Environmental degradation from such large operations has traditionally been i excessive, and in this case would be far more than‘what the Squamish Estuary, or any estuary for that matter, can withstand. The severity of the problem of mercury contamination of the estuary will be felt for decades to come; for generations to come.whatever development or action is taken in the inflicted areas, there must be minimal d13pu31t1on of mercury upon the estuary's upland and/or waterways. No one wil1_tolerate a repeat of the mass poisoning of the environment which occured in the recent past.

Expansion of Squamish Terminals must occur only after conclusive proof is shown to the regulating body concerned that there is a real necessity in the public eye for such continued development. The expansion proposals must by environmentally accountable within the realm of current technology. "where there is a will there is a way" and where there is a valid, environmentally accountable program there will be funding to carry out that program so that primary productivity of the estuary is not jeopardized. In light of this, it is gratifying to see contained within the Land Use work Group Report, on the first pageof the first Appendix, a letter from F.B.Boyd, Habitat Protection Division of the Department of Fisheries and oceansto Squamish Terminals in 1979. It states that "we must recommend against any development which would result in a permanent alienation of the brackish water marsh, which is considered to be a highly productive fish habitat." The B.C.wildlife Federation would like to expand on this point, and recommend this refer not only to the proposed Ixpansion into the East Delta, but expansion into any area considered to be highly productive fish or wildlife habitat. The area is designated PA-l at present, but because it is critical fish producing habitat, the PA-1 status should be changed to C-1, as is the status of the adjacent lands of the Central Delta.

Unfortunately, it often seems that too many "decision-makers" are trying to spread their "vote-getting" and "project promotion and justification energies" too thin. They try to keep, or appear to keep, as many camps satisfied as possible. The public will be baffled into terminal quietness if they are under-informed or misinformed according to a precise timetable , format and formula. It is politically and corporately expedient to have absolute control of information and its dissemination. witness the "pipe-dream" -like statement proferred on p. 62 of the Land Use work Group Final Report: "The challenge is to accomodate the needs of existing industries while not fore- closing opportunities to accept new industries, and simultaneously satisfy the region's social, economic and environmental requirements." Some challenge!

° Some pipe-dream! The second major area addressed by the Land Use work Group is the paradox of log storage in the Squamish Estuary. The forest industry is of paramount importance to the economy of the Squamish area, and yet it is as detrimental to the productivity of the estuary as any single major industry in the area.

At this point it is appropriate to introduce an analogous situation which is now being completed in the estuary of the Campbell River on Uancouver Island. Cooperation between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and B.C. Forest Products Ltd, enabled the estuary to be enhanced and hopefully the productivity of the area to be greatly increased. The water sorting and booming ground was relocated and transformed to a dryland sorftng operation. If this type of cleaneup process can be applied successfully to one area, why not employ the techniques and experience in another, similar situation? The wood debris, chafing, shading and propellor wash are all problems which also occur in the Squamish Estuary. Since the majority of Brown foreshore leases for log handling will be due for renewal between 1982 and 198k, the B.B.wildlife Federation feels the opportunity exists to begin transformation to alternative means of log handling and storing in the Squamish Estuary. The Management Guidelines outlined in Vol. 11 of the draft plan, p. hl, "concur", Dryland sorting and storage of logs is preferred to water—based methods, particularly over intertidal areas..."

The argument will probably be advanced that economic conditions are not favourable to effect such radical changes. However, when economic times improve the excuse will be used that there is insufficient time because mills and related activities are too engrossed in turning a profit. The Federation feels the largest factor is time; at present both the forest companies and the economy have a surplus. The derth of ready cash for enhancement and upgrading programs can be overcome if incentives are sufficient to warrant serious and concerted action. Incentives on both sides of the coin -- on one side monetary stimuli and on the other, government policy and legislation and public pressure on bureaucracies charged with safeguarding the estuarine I‘BSOUI'l3BBo

In our view, the CRB Logging operation in the East Delta should be relocated and the desecrated area should be enhanced to the maximum extent. The remainder should be used for public access, as well as facilities for educational and public involvement purposes. with reference to the draft plan, Vol. 11, p. 17h, Option 1 is favoured with respect to the deposition of the CRB Logging Bo. site. Option 1 reads: "Relocation of the facilities to a more environmentally acceptable location and the setting of terms and conditions for development of a new site. If relocation is found feasible the site should be considered for a possible public access/boat launch facility."

The log dump area is adjacent to an area of the estuary designated C-1 and thus its continued presence would not contribute positivlly toward the objectives of the conservation status. In effect, p. 173, Part 11 of Vol. 11 of the draft plan has recommended just this course of action:

"This operation has been identified as a non-conforming activity in the Management Plan. Due to its negative impact on the surrounding conservation area." This would effectively give all of the East Delta G-1 protective status. Due to the necessity for preservation of this relatively undisturbed, critical, "highly productive fish habitat," B-1 status is mandatory.

3) HABITAT MDRKGROUP

The wood waste located on the west side of the East Delta is a major contributor to the accelerated ecological succession taking place there. The result will eventually lead to the formation of an upland area, which may be biologically less productive than what is currently in place. Thus, the B.C. wildlife Federationagrees that an assessment of the benefits and costs of removing the wood waste should be undertaken.

Estuarine meadow habitat which was isolated from the upper inter-tidal area by the construction of a flood control dyke is also undergoing ecological succession. The biological productivity of the area will be enhanced and the rate of succession slowed down if adequate water flows are amplified from the Central Basin into the meadow habitat. The option of managing the meadow habitat as a brackish water impoundment would result in the formation of an upland- type area over time due to lack of water flow. The impoundment scheme might be favoured by some relatively far-sighted but ignorant "decision-maker" because; if an upland develops inathe former meadow and is considered to be one of the least productive areas of the estuary, it will be more ausceptable as a target for industrial expansion.

The sedge marsh east of the 8.8. Railway mainline at the'south—eaat side of the Msmquam Blind Channel should be included in the adjacent D-2 area located at the mouth of the Stawamus River. As is stated in the recommendations of the Habitat work Group, p. 111. the area could be enhanced by improved water circulation. “...which would not only permit increased nutrient exchange but would also allow fish to utilize the marsh." The isolated tidal channels located in the Central and East Deltas must be returned to full biological productivity. The fact that some of the isolated tidal channels are located in a conservation area, B-1 is reason" enough to insist that all efforts be made to return them to former levels of productivity. Those channels of the East Delta which have'been isolated should receive no less diligent effort to return their productivity to former levels. As stated earlier, the B.C. wildlife Federation strongly suggests PA-1 areas be included in 8-1 areas wherever possible. The inclusion of PA-1 into C-l area designations would be a very positive and far—sighted step toward the advancement of over-all productivity of the estuary.

The training dyke is part of an area designated 8-1 by the study and thus ans area to be managed for the production of fish andidildlife resources. To improve the productivity of the Central Delta there is a need for increased water flows from the main river channel directly into the Central Basin. This increased productivity will be achieved mostly by the infusion of fresh water and nutrients into areas presently degraded due to saline water conditions and inadequate circulation. The salinity of the water of the Central Basin is a critical factor affecting survival of downstream migrating and maturing salmonid smolts.

The effects of the training dyke also serve to flush migrating salmonid smolts out to sea during periods of peak flows. By reason of their lack of survival capabilities they perish due to the sudden high salinities, or become easy prey to a host of predators. Migrating andmaturing salmonid smolts also require niches in which to gather food and hide from predators. Training dyke rip-rep does not lend itself to food production or escape territories.

Thus, the B.B. wildlife Federation recommends that a series of openings be put in the training dyke to allow water to freely flow at all times of the day and year into critical nutrient production and salmonid rearing areas of the Central Basin. These openings need not be extensive but should be frequent and of such a nature that they would not wash out during freshet and silt the surrounding estuarine areas. Bridges would be preferrable to culverts. Ideally, the entire training dyke should be removed to maintain a continuity of policy with regard to C-1 designation and maximization of productivity of that area of the estuary.

The Habitat work Group has also recommended monitoring of the dis- tribution of marsh vegetation. The vegetation is critical to invertebrateand juvenile salmonid productivity and thus must be monitored.The B.B. wildlife Federation insists that as many gaps be Filled in the marsh vegetation data as possible, since Zostera and Carex species, and others as well, are such critical Factors in the ecosystem.

Our comments For the river training dyke also apply to the 14.2 hectares of dredge spoil located in the Central Delta. To be consistent with the conservation designation of the area, major and meaningful habitat enhancement work should be carried out, or the dredge spoil removed or reshaped, if an environmental study deems it economically and environmentally feasible. At this point it would be in order to reiterate and compare the reclaimetion and enhancement prejact‘recently carried out on the Campbell River Estuary.

we do not recommend consideration be given to development of the.dredge spoil area For ' public recreation because of the environmentall,aensitivity of the adjacent estuary lands. To provide access out to the spoil area will mean increasing and altering the river training dyke, which would adversely affect the productivity of the estuary. Boat launching ramps require dredging, filling, large parking areas, etc, to be functional, throughout various tidal and seasonal permutations. Alternate sites for boat launching facilities are available throughout the estuary, further removed from areas of such critical productivity as the Central Delta. Locations such as the present CRB Logging Co. (assuming they were no longer occupying the space), Mamquam and Barge Channels and the mouth of the MamouamRiver would be more desireeble from an ecological point of view than regions designated for habitat conservation. The National Second Century Fund of BLC:should be approached regarding the protection of critical Trumpeter Swan wintering habitat located in and above the East Delta and milson Slough. The Habitat work Group has designated this area as critical habitat, "absolutely necessary for continuing present levels of production of estuarine species." (p. 1C5) The report qualifies "critical habitat" as: "No use should be permitted that would adversely affect the biological productivity of the Habitat." Proposals such as the B.C. Railway marshalling yard expansion into the "critical habitat" of milson Slough are absurd. Every avenue must be explored to ensure that potential tragedies such as this can never occur.

To organizations in the Squamish area there is another vehicle for enhancement ofthe estuary. The provincial Habitat Conservation Fund was set up by the B.C. Ministry of Environment to Fund and oversee habitat enhancement projects, Theae_projects are undertaken on these sites For which wild animals have shown a preference and which would benefit from an increased management 11

effort. Some of the projects undertaken are suggested by private citizens and the public is encouraged to propose acquisition or enhancement projects that would benefit fish and wildlife.

while reviewing the recommendations of the Habitat work Group two items present themselves time and again. First is the willingness for involvement in habitat enhancement projects by Ducks Unlimited of Canada and second is the admission of a magnitude of gaps in the biological data for the estuary. Clearly, many studies, as outlined in the Habitat work Group Report, pp. 110- 112, must be performed before "decision-makers" can have_a clear overview of the estuary. This fact, however, must not preclude our haste in demanding that meaningful decisions be made to ensure the estuary is protected from further degradation.

It is truly gratifying to learn of the interest expressed by Ducks Unlimited of Canada in the following habitat improvement projects: training dyke, isolated tide channels, sedge marsh, meadow habitat, wood wastes and nesting structures.

On p. 110 of the Habitat work Beoup Report there is a recommendation that "a structure could be built to protect the remaining west Delta from the eroding forces of the Squamish River." we would suggest that the estuary, left in a natural state, is one of the most dynamic systems of the natural world. Erosion and siltation are natural processes. Cnly when men attempts to control the system is a static state approached. In order for ecological succession to be carried out there must be a change. The proposed construction of a compli- mentary structure to the training dyke is preposterous. The area is designated conservation and the consensus of opinion is that the area should be left untouched or else enhanced for wildlife. Rather than construct a second "training dyke-like" structure, why is the cause of the erosion problem not addressed specifically? The training dyke is a detriment to the productivity of the estuary. why not remove it and solve a multitude of problems all at once?

A) AIR ANDMATER QUALITYNURH GROUP

The problem of sedimentation of the Squamish River Delta is one which must be treated very delicately if the conservationstatus of much of the area of intensive sedimentation is to be maintained. The B.C.wildlife Federation endorses the recommendation that the sedimentation process be monitored on a continuing basis. However, we reject the concept which could be, and in fact has proven to be, a corollary to the temporary alleviation of excessive 12

alluvial material ...dredging of sediments. The deposition of dredgates=onto- any part of the estuary will not be tolerated. The continued disruption and destruction of biotic communities is unacceptable. If an offshore dumping ground for dredg?t?‘ material is chosen the impact on the local flora and fauna of the respective oceanic site would be very negative. Our most fervent concern, however, is that no more of the critical fish rearing habitat of the estuary be lost through deposition-of dredge spoil.

Monitoring of ground water from weldwood's Empire Lumber solid waste disposal site should be undertaken on a concerted basis in view of the designation of the PA-2 status which has been given the northern-most reach of the Mamquam Blind Channel. If there are indeed leachates getting into the waterway from the solid waste disposal site they should be identified and rectified in order to safeguard further users of the resources. The B.C. wildlife Federation would propose that this PA-2 designation be changed to conservation status due to its proximity to the town and adjacent residential areas. ThePA-2 area also has definate intrinsic wildlife values even though some of the foreshore lands have been developed. The fact that an opportunity exists to involve the public in their local neighbourhoods with wildlife resources mustbe realized and acted upon; The.PA-2-region has definate potential for extensive recreational use by the public.

The B.C.wildlife Federation concurrs with the recommendation of the Air and water Quality work Group that monitoring of chromium levels in ditch water adjacent to the Canadian Dxy Chemical brine sludge landfill be continued. The source of the chromium must be found and effectively corrected to the satisfaction of ALL concerned.

The former Municipal refuse site falls under PA-1 assessment and as such qualifies as a truly disturbed site. The Federation insists that no leachate be allowed to enter any part of the Squamish River system. Thus, a stringent monitoring program must be instigated to ensure leachates now percolating from the site do not find their way into any environmentally sensitive areas. we also concur with the Air and water Quality work Group's recommendation that no form of development be considered without assessment of methane production of the site.

The B.C. wildlife Federation agrees with a further recommendation with respect to the weldwood of Canada Ltd. sawmill and planemill complex located on the east bank of the Mamquam Channel. Pentachloraphenol (PCP) and associated substances must not be allowed to find their way into the waters of Mamquam Channel. These chemicals are dangerous to both humans and aquatic life in the estuary. Combined with the chemicals‘ toxicity to estuarine life is the degradation of the water quality from the accumulation of chips and bark. Decomposition of wood waste depletes crucial oxygen concentrations and thus contributes greatly to the sterility of the estuary.

Yet another tragic sterilization technique which has been employed is the discharge of mercury into the Barge Channel, Eattermole Creek and ultimately the entire estuary and Howe Sound to greater or lesser degrees.

The B.C. wildlife Federation insists that if any dredging is poposed for any part of the estuary or similarly mercury-contaminated area, that such dredging not be allowed to proceed on the grounds ofevents of the past, is, the poisoning of part of Howe Sound and the Squamisb Estuary for a substan- tial length of time, both economically and recreationally.

Realistically, what can be done with the contaminated sediments? we feel the ocean.dumping proposal is out of the question. The ostrich never solved its problems by sticking its head in the sand, save to lose its tail feathers to some milliner. Dredging the sediments will cause a repeat performance of past experiences, which noone can afford. Once the dredgateq material is in a landfill site in upland areas there would be serious leachate problems. Similar leachate problems would be encountered if the entire affected area were filled. Pressures brought about in the ground water by tidal activity, underground streams and springs, time of the year, height of tide, etc. would all combine to transport the mercury back into the estuary. Regardless of whatever development takes place in the estuary, great care must be taken to ensurethat mercury-contaminated sediments do not reinfect the region. It may be adviseable to leave the mercury alone and let natural siltation bury the contaminated sediments.

Much time and energy is needed to be spent in the satisfactory resolution of the mercury contamination dilemma. The recommendations of the Air and water Quality work Group should be seriously considered and acted upon. The Report maintains that FMC chemical plant should: complete during 198l(i)the work of filling the abandoned settling pond and covering it with an impervious layer, continue to monitor ground water near the settling pond, continue efforts to reduce loss of mercury from all sources and derermine the remaining sources of mercury as yet unaccounted for. Only by taking a "hard line, get tough" position with any polluter can progress be made on habitat protection.

Sewage treatment for the Squamish area is oneenvironmental impact which cannot be allowed to go unchecked. Discharge into the Squemish River and Estuary must be regulated to the maximum degree.

At present, situations occur where there is minimal treatment of effluent reaching the river from the Mamquam Sewage Treatment Plant due to high run-off conditions. The Air and water Quality Group stresses that this can, and indeed will, be a public health hazard. The most effective method of reducing the public hazard from inefficiencies in both the Mamquam and Central Sewage Treatment Plants due to high flow rates would be to seriously upgrade both treatment plants. This upgrading would solve problems with respect to discharge of effluent with excessive biological oxygen demand and suspended solids concentrations, ammonia, chlorine and other such pollutants which from time to time find their way into the system. we endorse the recommendation that studies be initiated to assess the effect of the sewage effluent on ammonia values under worst case conditions in the estuary and the reassessment of chlorination procedures for effluent leaving both treatment plants.

The potential for serious poisoning of large areas of the estuary is very possible if ammonia and chlorine are not closely monitored. Greatly increased flows of river water through the Central Basin must be established to ensure that greater flushing and dilution of contaminants will occur. Salmonids are very sensitive to even small discharges of chlorine into their habitat.

Irrespective of the flushing action with the estuary as a whole there is a pressing demand that the outfall of the Central Sewage Treatment Plant be extended into the main arm of the Squamish River. This is an area designated C-1. Again, to be consistent the area must have maximum safeguards for protection of habitat and its dependent life forms.

There may be an alternative to extending the outfall of the Central Sew- age Treatment Plant. If the training dyke were breached to allow significant flushing, at all times and tides, of the Central Basin, nutrients, detritus and effluents would be dispersed and critical rearing habitat for salmonids would be greatly enhanced. Again, it would appear, as outlined earlier, that the removal of the training dyke would save energy and money . and possibly the necessity of an additional project.

Yet another issue which is of great concern is the need for consistent and'proper bacteriological sampling techniques. If_the‘expense of sampling is to be incurred by the citizens of the area, surely proper and valid techniques can be employed to ensure that data collected will be credible and of some use in formulating policy. we question the motives behind perpetrating and supporting a sampling program which generates data which cannot be used because of its lack of credibility and its inaccuracies.

Serious consideration must be given to public health when locating any recreation facilities at the mouth of the Mamquam River. The outfall for the Mamquam Sewage Treatment Plant must be extended to ensure maximum dispersion of effluent during all conditions.

In summary, the a.c.wildlife Federation agrees_with the recommendation of the Air And water Quality work Group that there is, indeed, room for improved performance in both sewage treatment plants with reference to efficiency and effluent quality.

The age-old cry of wanting the air pollution from woodfibre stopped or extremely improved is once again repeated here.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the B.C.wildlife Federation feels that if prevailing conditions and'attitudes continue, the net worth of the Squamish River Estuary will approach zero with reference to estuarine productivity. The host of activities, industries and services dependent on that productivity will be seriously and permanently degraded. The net loss will be to the local economy of Squamish in particular and our "Super, Natural British Columbia" in general.

The time has come to make firm committments with respect to preservation of the estuary for generations to come. This generation has already done more than its share toward the net loss of estuary productivity. The decisions which have been and will be made to alienate estuarine habitat from productiv-

‘ ity are, for the most part, irreversible. For too long, the prevailing attitude has been to accomodate as much industry as possible or plan for as much development as possible, justified on purely economic grounds. Meaningful measures must now be instituted to preclude further alienation of habitat.

One of the major accomplishments of this study is the identification of data gaps. Not until all the information available to date on the estuary was compiled for incorporation into the management plan could anyone realize the extent of the lack of Baseline data. To fill these data gaps according to an established set of priorities is necessary to a point. Although it can only be beneficial for scientists to gain more knowledge about the dynamics of an

._._....- ..__...... -.._....-. ..-,...._.._._.__-.....-- ..._——..__...‘-.—...... _——..-...— -.—-. . ..- .. estuary, it is strongly felt that at this point in time enough knowledge is already available For "decision-makers" to be able to make a firm statement regarding the importance of estuaries For various life Forms. For too long these "decision makers" have taken refuge behind the lack of quantitative data. Their rationale has been "we don't know everything yet, and we cannot commit ourselves to Firm policies until we do know a lot more."

The time is N?m to make a Firm commitment to ensure that what remains of the Squamish Estuary is conserved. Any delays in making such a commitment will only result in Further piece-meal loss of prime habitat.

No One would even suggest development in the province cannot proceed, but at the expense of our most critical and productive wildlife and fisheries habitat? Other less sensitive areas are available For intensive development adjacent to all estuaries in the province. These less sensitive lands must bear the load of industry and commerce in the future, rather than the lands we depend upon For Food and wildlife production.

Specifically, in reference to the Squamish River and its Estuary, it is appropriate to include the oft-quoted passage of the late Roderick Haig-Brown. we realize that it may be becoming a little worn but perhaps, just perhaps, the process of osmosis will instill the message into the mind of just one person responsible For making decisions concerning the Future of the Squamish Estuary. The message reads:

"The salmon arena test of a healthy environment, a lesson in environmental needs. Their abundant presence on the spawning beds is a lesson of hope, a reassurance that all is still well with water and land, a lesson of deep importance For the future of mankind."

Right now, the salmon are not abundant on their spawning beds, we all must do some "soul-searching" and ask why they aren't. Could it be that, as Haig-Brown suggests, all may not be well with the water and land? He has deemed this a lesson of deep importance For the future of mankind. The members of the 8:8. wildlife Federation strongly agree and urge "decision- makers" to consider these ideas and realize that there is, indeed, something basically lacking in our priorities with respect to preservation of lands and resources critical to our survival as a species.

No species can continue to pollute its own environment and Food- producing resources indefinatley. Let Future generations not point accusing Fingers at us. Let them not refer to us as a generation of Home the eggs but rather as Homo gapiens. The 8.0. wildlife Federation, on behalf of its province-wide, 22,000 members, thank all those concerned for the opportunity of presenting this brief. we look forward to receiving a copy of the final Management Plan for the Squamish Estuary, and hope to be involved on a continuing basis as the Plan is carried into its implementation stage.

Yours truly, M4/7>:€-«J ack Evans, President, Lower Mainland Regional Branch, British Columbia wildlife Federation Atty‘. Hunt.) .11 U‘O&OO

5659 176th St. Surrey. B.C. V33 4C5

January 1981

ESTUARYPROTECTION IN B.C.

Estuaries occupy a relatively very small part of the surface on earth, yet they are vitally important to our famoussalmon fishery and to migratory birds.-

The combination of three of the four life—giving elements, (air, soil, fresh and salt water) occurs many places, however, only in estuaries do all fourelements

tome together. The result of this in the healthy major (low gradient) estuaries

ti an abundance of marshes, marine-life, fresh water, highly productive farmland, easy accessibility and very often also sheltered environment.

?redictably, any manipulation or development in these estuaries can have serious effects. We propose the establishment of "Estuary Reserves" on the same basis as the "Agricultural Land Reserves" and the "Forest Reserves" to protect the basis of our renewable resources.

C0002

Representing 160 affiliated conservation clubs throughout BritishColumbia Contributions to the B.C. Wildlife Federation are Tax Deductible approach toward The concept is simple enough, yet examination of the traditional man has traditionally been attracted estuary development is not encouraging. Naturally, just taking advantage of what they . to settle and develop in estuaries. Rather than We dike marshes and to get so generohslyproduce, we-encroach upon them. mudflats twenty times as productive as the more farmland - yet left alone, these areas may be

housing or industries - assuming farmland. We fill them in to get cheap land for undefined area called " somewhere that the food no longer produced will comefrom this destroy the productive balance. else". we allow log storage and booming operations to choking these most productive We close our eyes to the debris, sewage and chemicals

areas on earth.

that eluséve best-of-al1-possible- Government policies appear to favour "multiple use": everywhere, as multiple use is too worlds. Unfortunately, a little bit of everything from an almost chronic lack of frequently interpreted, is a delusion. we suffer would consider the needs of the river baseline research and overall planning which

estuary before developments. This lack of fore- system and natural environment of the to death. sight will inevitably compromise our estuaries

79 of these are major estuaries and 18 B.C. has over 550 estuaries. Approximately being critical in terms of importance to fish have been selected and designated as development. and wildlife and potential threat of

and ( ) was supposed to compensate for past The Salmonid Enhancement Program S.E.P. cancel the program. The lack of coordina- present neglects, yet a stroke of a pen can has clearly been the missing link. For tion between S.E.P. and habitat protection or by other artificial means, the habitat ahile fry may be produced from hatcheries natural estuaring areas, cannot be found ”CqulPed for their rearing, and supplied by

0900 3 outside the confines of those areas where river meets sea. Nor can it be recreated artificially.

In summary, the viability of estuaries will depend upon: a. Recognition

Establishment of “Estuary Reserves"

b. Planning

Establish long term planning objectives and shoreline management plans.

Have carefully documented baseline studies before development proposals are considered.

c. Commitment

Support and funding for proper studies, and a commitment to enforce laws

0 and regulations.

Traditional attitudes towards estuaries have far too long been based on demands-from many sectors to the detriment of the long term natural values. Approaches-have been superficial and piece-meal. There is wide support for radical change towards a more responsible approach. An important measure of responsible government is the application of foresight far beyond the current term of office. Estuaries provide that opportunity. we urge that you take it.

——-any ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The British Columbia wildlife Federation would like to sincerely thank the following persons who contributed time, energy and expertise to the preparation of this brief:

Diane Paxton Marie Payton Reg Ahern Brian Giles Birgitta Meagher Bob Dick Laurie and Jim Errington Don MoDermid Danwilliamson .2 ~/ 41 [gm

P000 BOX Squamish, B.C. VON3G0 April 28th, 1982

Chairman and Members of the PING Committee, Squamish, B.C. VON3G0

The h Estg - a final plea!

This is an open letter of concern regarding the matter that is before the conmrunity of Squamish and indeed all of the peoples of the planet we call Earth!

Please - let us respect nature in general and although many mi.stakes have been made in the past by our‘ predecessors, they need not be repeated or added to. In fact, we have an ideal ‘opportunity to propose strongly to remedy‘-some of these at this time!

Quite enough of the Squami.sh Estuary has been degraded to date, let no more take place. We know that it is easy and cheap to develop ‘flat esturine lands but the real cost was not recognized until recent years. We cannot afford this cost any longer! New estuarys cannot be created so we must not degrade what is left of any, including the Squamish.

It is easy to make a statement of concern for nature and wildlife, to use it sensibly, to raise questions, but answers must also be provided! I have listened to marry fellow citizens over past months, read up on the many costly reports prepared by the various groups involved in the study: of the Squami.sh Estuary Management Plan and attended many of our public meetings. My personal conclusions based on this information and my own interest in the area are sunnnarized in the following:

1) No further development of any ki.nd shouldbe allowed in what is left of the Squami.sh Estuary 2) Development a.].ready in place a.d;)oining the Mamquam should be intensified without expansion 3) Non—water.~,{requi.ri11{g_-ijnd'try.;shouJ.d.beencouraged to move intonew ' J.ight’}.industria]."ff'parket:_{-ale‘-or-land,basis A) Industry 5'p].aceV:”8niC1;'§i'.8CII151'i11g=f.waterfrontage;could ~enen;%e,sana. its land or new industry requiring such a "facility could be -located on the MamquamChannel 5) Additional industrial land could be created by diverting the Gattermole creek to the west side of the terminals road and adjoining rai.l trackage (refer map) and the present channel.

-:-‘Ugo!-'}v”;'.,,51é‘\-. cont‘ d : April 28th, 1982

Chairman & Members of the PIWGCommittee Squamish, B.C.

6) The above infill material could be provided by salvaging the fill presently dumped on the central delta - any remainder could be utilized in the new industrial park. 7) The removal of the central delta fill would allow for restoration of salmon feed habitat 8) The outer dyke should be broached and the resulting inflow of fresh water should be controlled by flood gates such as the Municipality is doing with its flood control program fu.rther upstream to protect Brackendale and Eagle Run. If it can be done there, then there is no reason it should not be done downstream from the Mamquam. 9) The B.C. Rail track "dyke" should also be similarly broken to permit restoration of habitat to the east" known as the East Delta. 10) B.G. Rail proposals to extend their hump yard south through Wilson Slough should not be permitted. Not only does it destroy valuable Trumpeter Swan winter habitat and the area for year round wildJ_i.fe utilization, it will create undue noise pollution for residents of Dentville, and little in the way of additional employment in the area. Such modern operations are highly computerized. Also the railway in its submission to your group April 16, 1980 admits to having a better site for such an operation at Kelly Lake. Their proposal would also destroy the upper reaches of Cattermole Greek and disturb the old Municipal refuse dump. 11) The of Cattermole Creek's present course east of Squamish Terminals will further cover the old FMCMercury Spill and valuable dockage space could be created to the east of the present terminals docks. An expansion to the - east would solve Squamish Terminals needs and eliminate the threat to the south end of the east delta and salmon feeding grounds 12) The ORB logsort should be removed off of east delta and relocated on the Mamquam Channel. . The latter is beyond reclamation anyway. 13) The Municipal Sewage Treatment plant should be modernized and the treated effluent pumped out into the main channel of the Squamish R.iver, which has a larger flow indication and thus relieve pressure on- the salmon ' breeding sites and the central/Eastdeltic areas. These itemize the main points of this citizen‘ oncern. Thank you!

copy to the press & radio A. Muir we s?eumm

BRIEF ON THE SQUAMISHRIVER ESTUARY

Submitted To: The Squamish Estuary Public Involvement Work Group

By: The B.C. Wildlife Federation 5659 176th St., Surrey, BC V38 3C5 576-8288

March 19, 1980 ‘

1 Dan Santana, President Introduction

The B.C.W.F. is pleased to have the opportunity to address the public involvement work group. We realize the difficult task in evolving a Squamish River Estuary plan and gathering public opinion. The B.C.W.F. is pleased with the present cross section of members involved in the work group and feel that the concerns of most of the Squamish, the members of the B.C. general public, citizens of and . Wildlife Federation will be adequately addressed. The B.C.W.F. will, in this brief, only attempt to address the complex biological, social, and economic principles involved in the Squamish River Estuary. We cannot be expected to deliver any new or unusual perceptions without a much longer effort and involved study. Most of the information base has been extracted and or analyzed from the "Special Estuary Series" done by Environment Canada in 1975 and the study on "Effects of Existing and Proposed Industrial Developments on the Aquatic Ecosystem of the Squamish Estuary" done in 1972 for the Federal-Provincial task force on the Squamish Estuary Harbour Development. Due to time restraints the informtion contained in this brief has not been referenced. The B.C. Wildlife Federation is a non-profit, non-government organization consisting of 160 Fish and/or wildlife Associations with over 22,000 annual due paying members. The primary concern of the B.C.W.F. is the conservation and wise use of British Columbia's natural renewable resources. only The B.C.W.F. has clearly outlined objectives which not interests address the concerns of its members, but also include the best efforts that of all British Columbians. We therefore seldom embark on use of effect a halt to development and expect only sound long term

this Provinces natural renewable and non-renewable resources. Page 2

The purpose of this organization is to recomend to government, private or public agencies, whenever necessary, to safe guard the interests of Fish, Wildlife, Park and Outdoor recreational resources values in all resource developments.

The Public Involvement Work Group

The ability of the public to form and evolve over all long term developments of the Squamish River Estuary is a morethan welcoe approach to the decision making process, this has been initiated in this management plan to be an example of how the public can involve itself in other developments for other areas in British Columbia and resources management decisions for the future. The success of this group's effort may be expected in other public involvement groups. Similarly the short comings of this group's effort should also be rectified for future public involvement input. The ways and means of ensuring that the public is well represented by a cross-section of interested volunteers is necessary. This doesnot down play the Governmentagencies involved who work on behalf of the public to provide the much needed and necessary information, and programs that only professional resource managers can supply.

We must ensure that individuals, who may not be able to address their concerns adequately to government, are able to provide input via their peers through the public involvement process. The efforts of the Public Involvement Work Group should never be replaced in their close relationship between the public, government, industry, community developmentand the power that individuals have in the decision making process. The B.C.W.F. would then request that the Public Involvement Work Group outline the constraints which have evolved in performing the set task. Limitation such as time funding and

o[0O3ooo Page 3

independent professional advisors may have restricted the effectiveness of the Work Group. These restraints should be rectified for future public involvement tasks.

Value of Esturine Ecosystems

The Squamish Estuary is not any moreunusual or critical than other Estuaries which are faced with criteria for expansion on their" geographical locations. Battles between developers and conservationists continue on the Cowichan, Campbell, Kitimat, Skeena, Nanaimo, Fraser .River Estuary and more. All these Estuaries have the same dilema. They are all situated near or in, developed areas with demands for use

that threaten their ecosystem. Historically, areas near Estuaries were ideal locations for Native populations and early settlers existing on a subsistance basis. With a certain degree of clearing and dyking, the flat bottom land and valley floors above river mouths afforded good agricultural prospects. Access was available from the sea. Trails usually followed the river or.

valley. Growing settlements then found it feasable to utilize the

Esturine foreshores to develop their economic base. Estuaries in British Columbia, particularly the upland of Deltas, often afforded the only flat inhabitable land. For the past 100 years, Estuaries have been recognized from their geographical importance and only recently in the last 20years, has the biological importance beena criteria for management. Estuaries, being shallow water, receive a high degree of sunlight and supply nutrients for seges and algae growing at or near the surface.

The water clarity being poor at Squamish, limits growth to a certain degree.

00040O O Page 4

Increasing clarity from the river mouth causes primry production as far down as Anvil Island. The next link in the inner Estuary are the amphoids and other invertebrates or larvae. In the outer Estuary the zooplankton. The marshland vertebrates are the primary food source for juvenile Salmon and Herring which in turn are food items for mture Salmon. The Salmon and Herring in turn supply food for the predatory wildlife such as killer whales, bears, eagles,hawks and other preditors. The importance of the Estuary lies simply in its role as alink in the food chain. It would be simple enough to remove the Estuary and never notice the decline in a few of the more common, or noted predator species such as Steelhead or eagles. But if indeed these advanced predators were to be seen lying in the streets of Squamish, it would be a entirely different feeling portrayed. Thearesults are nevertheless the same. Survival of most species ultimately relies on primary production that only the Estuary can supply.

Economic Value Of The Sguamish River Estuagy

The value of the Squamish River Estuary lies, as was previously outlined, in its role in the food chain. Without the Estuary, juvenile Salmon would be lost. Without the juvenile Salmon, mature

Salmon would not return to restore the Squamish River stockse' Ultimately, Salmon originating from the Squamish would deminish. Although technology has afforded to some degree the Salmonid enhancement programes which are successful for Salmon breeding or rearing, we know of no technology that replaces Estuaries. Commercial fisheries depend only to a small degree, on the Salmon originating from the Squamish as compared to the Fraser. The best estimate that can be made is that Commercial Salmon, originating from Page 5

Howe Sound and primarly from the Squamish, are valued at $l0,000,000* and similar amounts for processing and retail handling. The food value to the consumer has not been addressed but could be, compared with the intesive agricultural production which has occured in British Columbia. The severeness of the food shortage for B.C. has spurred the Land Commission Act. This food probelm is not just isolated to B.C. or agriculture, but has concerned governments both

Federally and Provincially to provide between 25 to 35 million dollars annually to restore diminished Salmon stocks. The native food fishery has continued on the Squamish River for unknown centuries. Clearly, natives have inhabited British Columbia for over 12,000 years. Native Canadians are entitled to the hereditary right of a food fishery. This principle is supported by the B.C.W}F.

The value of the food fishery to the Squamish Indian Band has been significant enought to enact bylaw #10 of the Federal Indian Act

Alloting Managment of Fisheries to the band. Although the economic value may only approach $20,000, the value to the band is probably higher.

Most members of the B.C.W.F. are involved,to various degrees, in sport Fishing. The value of the Squamish River and Salmon.Fishing in Howe Sound is high.- Sport vessels approach 5,000 in numbers at sumer peaks. Total catches averaged 33,740 annually between 1967 - 1971. The estimate value at 1980 figures sould place this value at $100 per fisherman per day, at 40,000 fishermen days per year, this is over 5 million dollars annually.

*9 Based on data PP15, Task Force On The Squamish Estuary 1972., and adding the inflationary value of 90%

'o.6o o o Page 6

Based on 25% of Salmon originating from the Squamish,we can safely say over 1 million dollars is derived from Sport Fishery in Howe Sound based on the Squamish River.

The Squmaish_River itself is one of the best known rivers for Steelhead. In 1980, extracting Envirocon 1972 data, adding inflationary index of 11% and increased fisherman by 25%, the value would equal $30 per fisherman, 16,250 Steelhead fishing day per year, for a

value of $500,000 annually to the Steelhead fisheries.* What cannot be stated in briefs, is the enjoyment and satisfaction that is received by Sport Fisherman who, contrary to public belief, seriously enjoy catching Salmon and Steelheadas well as holding rods trying. The B.C.W.F. would, if time permitted, be prepared to publish a questionnaire in the quarterly newsletter sent to all our members, to receive azmore accurate picture of value, interest, or knowledge of the Squamish River for Steelhead. Further values on wildlife which depends on the Squamish River Fishery have not been determined. What is known is that the eagle population in Squamish is a growing attraction. The value of Wildlife is a growing public concern and cannot be comparedwith the purely economic ramifications.

Tburist And Aesthetic Value

It was thought that Squamish and Howe Sound would grow in value for tourism in the 1972 Lands Directorate Report. This has undoubtedly become a fact as the Whistler area has experienced a four fold growth

* Mp;e,accurate.data should be available from the B.CkéM?nistry'of ' S‘ . The Environment or Federal Fisheries." ,

0007000 Page 7 since then. The sumer steam train run to Squamish has endoubtedly proven popular. Road construction from Pembertonto Lillooet will soon open the area as an alternativeroute to the interior. This will result in Squamish becoming a vital link between Vancouver and Lillooet. The value of Squamish aesthetically is often not appreciated as much by residents as non-residents.Squamish Harbour itself was chosen as the site for the world famous film, Mccabe and.Mrs. Miller. Many visitors who explore out from the Lower Mainland venture to Squamish as an easy one day return trip. Should the Squamish Estuary be developed, this value would not be overly diminished but would certainly change the aesthetics which could be heightened by alternative uses. Aesthetics are very difficults to assess. Studies have had cross-sections of persons evaluate, on a point system, various aspects

to attain some degree of aesthetic value. The difficulty arises when one compares the aesthetics of Squamish, its River and Estuary, in relationship to other areas that he/she maybe more familiar with.

Sguamish Estuary Degradation

Apparent losses to the estuary have occurred to date by the construction of the present Squamish Terminals, the river training dyke, and F.M.C. chemical plant. Dredging and land filling have erased a large part of the Squamish Estuary and sub-littoral zone for the purposes of log storage and sorting. Scouring of stream beds, and banks, bark deposists, leachates, loss of spawning herring, wastes from recreational use and high mercury contamination eliminating the harvest of shellfish and groundfish, are just some of the damages that are known to the B.C.W.F. Further detriment of the Squamish River Page 8

Estuary or pollutants entering Howe Sound are not acceptable. A halt to the pollution sources is necessary. Some recclimation work is required to restore the remaining areas of the Estuary to its maximum biological productivity. Further dredging and land filling should not continue.

Alternative Sites For Development

The understand1ng.the.B.C.W.F. has, in preliminary investigations, suggests that alternative sites are available. Major Port activity is scheduled for Prince Rupert and possibly Kitimat. Export of interior lumber products can be accomplished by development of northern ports without over burdening the Lower Mainland. The most likely alternative to Squamish for the short term is Britannia Beach. Britannia Beach has very little ecological sensitivity and presents the least cost for providing port and log storage or handling facilities. The B.C.R. is presently associated with Britannia._ Little or no dredging and landfilling is necessary. The B.C.W.F. would be interested in knowing why Britannia has not been revitalized for this purpose.

Recomendations and Conclusions

For coal and lumber loading facilities the development of Squamish as a harbour can present itself with many ammenitites as well as create opportunitites for the residents of Squamish and elsewhere.

The forest, mining and transportation industries have been quick to point out the benefits of their industries, as well as for the developmentand natural growth of British Columbia. Squamish as a port could rival Roberts Bank in providing expansion and growth for these industries. It is our understanding that Squamish has been proposed as 8 Page 9 port since 1910, as recently as 1972 and now this plan is 1980. The halt on development has been the result of public opinion and government intervention. To our knowledge each time port development of Squamish in proposed government authorities have embarked on a complete study of the area in order that informed decisions can be made. There is no doubt that this is the logical process for decision

mers to take, however, it is our understanding that as many as 25 independent studies have been undertaken, including the study done by Howard Paish and Associates, who was formerly executive director of the B.C. Wild?feFederation. A review of some of those studies has indicated clearly that Squamish would be the best site for port develop-

ment geographically, but the poorest site environmentally. The alter- natives have also been made quite clear. 1) Complete port development. 2) Partial port development.

3) Port development that is environmentally the least damaging. 4) Development of alternative sites.

5) No development. The decision on which alternative to be taken has up till now been limited or no port development. In order for any development to be made, "further research is necessary." The B.C.W.F. would like the decisionmakers to be aware that the facts are clear. Enough time and money and effort have been

put into the Squamish River Estuary and how it should be developed. It shouldno longer be necessary to point out the increasing value of the Estuary. Any need for port development or other developments that threatens the biological sensitivity of Estuaries should be abolished.

00010000 -«...

Page 10

‘Ike Estuary presents the links in the food chain which are respg§1b1e for the fisheries resource of the Squamish Riverand, to various degrees, both the sport andcomercial fishery of the Howe Sound and the Pacific. So far, development at Squamish has been responsible for the elimination of the Herring and contamination of shellfish and high mercury levels associatedwith other marine life in the area. Obviously a swing to the positive direction is needed. The B.C.W.F. would recommend that the Squamish River Estuary

be given protective status. The B.C.W.F. support the Squamish Estuary Nature Park Proposal. This type of action could educate the general

public as to the value and role of Estuaries in the ecosystem.

The B.C.W.F. would like to see Federal or Provincial statutes with the foresight that would protect all critical and productive Estuaries from development plans that hamper their productivity.

Government acts like the B.C. Land Comission Act, which protect and preserve B.C.'s agricultural land base, should be imposed on productive Estuaries. The food shortage, the value of the Fisheries resource and value to the food chain for wildlife, warrant complete protection of the Squamish River Estuary and other similar Estuaries.

March 19, 1980 Dan Santano President B.C. Wildlife Federation LnazamzxgCom}

h7h9 Osler St. Vancouver, B.C. V6H 2Y5 29 April 1980

Public Involvement Work Group, of S uamish Estuary Planning Study c?oJack Stathers Stathers Home and Building Centre Ltd. Box 1610' Squamish, B.C. {VON3G0

Dear Sir,

I would like to submit the following brief, outlining my hopes for the future of the Squamish River Estuary. I am writing as an individual citizen of British Columbia.

I am an avid kayaker, and often paddle the Squamish and Cheakamus Rivers, but I generally don't go downstream of Bracken- dale. The main deterrent to paddling in the delta is air pollution from the pulp mill at Woodfibre. However, I believe that the estuary has the potential to be an outstanding recreational area. If the amount of pollution is reduced and if the undeveloped parts of the estuary are left in their natural state, then increased numbers of naturalists, fishermen, sailors, canoeists, kayakers and strollers would be attracted to the area. I would like to see the following things done.

1) The air pollution from Woodfibre should be drastically reduced.

In the Vancouver Express, 18 April 1979, Rayonier announced plans to spend $200 million at Woodfibre. I hope that some of this money will be used to reduce the gaseous emissions, especially of odour, particulates and water vapour, to the extent that they will be unnoticeable in the delta. In addition, the amount of gaseous emissions should not be more than permitted by Level A for Kraft pulp mills and for wood burners as defined in the Pollution Control Objectives for The Forest Products Industry of B.C. ( per Section A of the B.C. Pollution Control Act ), and should not be more than the desirable levels defined in the Ambient Air Quality Objectives Orders of the Canada Clean Air Act. 2) All other pollution in the area should be reduced to levels that will not detract from the recreational use of the lower Squamish basin.

I don't know what the present quality of the water and air in the lower basin is, other than emissions from Woodfibre, but the sewage plant effluents and the water and air pollution due to logging, sawmills and chemical plants should be reduced if necessary. ( I would exempt the Mamquam Channel from consideration for recreational use. )

3) The undeveloped parts of the lower Squamish basin should be left in their natural state. The West Delta, Central Delta, undeveloped parts of the East Delta and all other undeveloped parts of the lower basin should be protected, legislatively, by designation as an ecological reserve, wildlife sanctuary, or class A (category one) provincial park. I am not in favour of building nature houses or other developments of that type, but am in favour of a limited number

I can foresee some difficulties for the residents of Squamish if the things outlined above are done. Fewer jobs would probably‘ result than if the estuary was developed industrially, and with an increasing number of new residents commuting to Vancouver to work, higher taxes could result. If the decision was made to restrict industrial development of the estuary (for the recreational benefit of the residents of B.C. and particularly of Greater Vancouver), I believe that the provincial and/or federal governments should subsidize the local taxes. However, the decision to clean up and protect the estuary would result in some new jobs. Rangers and maintenance personnel would be needed for the park, sanctuary or ecological reserve. Another possibility is a canoe and kayak rental business (for example, launching south of Brackendale and taking out at the East Delta). Increased recreational use of the estuary would mean increased business for motels, restaurants and other establishments in Squamish.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit my ideas for the Squamish estuary.

Yours truly, /

.>", , 77,, 1. Trevor Jones, P. Eng. L.//3/(/94 y A 60”)’

SQUAMISH YACHT CLUB

PRESENTATION T0

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT WORK GROUP

SQUAMISH ESTUARY

MANAGEMENT STUDY

MAY 7, 1980 I. * MAY 7, 1980.

We,of Squamish Yacht Club, recognize that the purpose of the Squamish Estuary Management Plan is to develop a master plan for use of the delta lands and estuary at Squamish. Further, that the needs which have to be satisfied are many and diverse and include the need of recreational boating. We recognize that this is our opportunity to inform the community of the value the community places on recreational boating and the need to provide permanent space and facilities.

Our remarks at this point and time are given without the benefit of study of the various technical reports and in- terim managementplan. We, of course, reservethe right to enlarge upon our statements and position, in the light of the content of these recommendations and studies.

Recreational boating in Squamish is in its infancy at this time. We have only seen the start of general recognition in the community of the fact that Squamish has, at its door step, one of the most outstanding boating areas in all the world. A recent survey by the Govenment of Canada of Recreational Boating in Georgia Straight indicates that, although, the unsatisfied demands for boating facilities in Squamish are enormous, facilities are inadequate for a rapidly increasing demand.

In any coastal community in B. C. onecan find boats ranging from dinghys to massive motor launches, people who boat once a year and people who boat all year, people who boat alone and people who boat with others. The Squamish Yacht Club tonight wishes to speak for all of these people and wishes to advise the community of their needs.

Those needs are as diverse as the people themselves. In many communities recreational boating needs are satisfied and accommodated by 3 levels of organization. 1. Private Yacht Clubs; 2. Private marinas; 3. Govenment and often Civic Marinas or launching facilities.

We wish to point out that in Upper Howe Sound from Porteau' north there is only one public boating facility and that is the public launching ramp operated by the Squamish Yacht Club. Private facilities are still small but growing. The Squamish Yacht Club presently represents the only reasonably developed means of meeting the recreational boating needs in the Ccmmunity of Squamish. OOCOO2 2.

The Squamish Yacht Club is in a peculiar position regarding the needs of recreational boaters in our community. In most coastal towns, private enterprise is the first to accommodate the needs of recreational boaters and you will often find a private marina where you do not find a yacht club. In Squamish, however, recreational boaters got together in their own interest, established a Yacht Club and proceeded to develop facilities not only for their own specific needs but for the needs of the community in general. The Squamish Yacht Club consequently finds itself in a position of leadership regarding the establishment of facilities for recreational boating.

‘TheYacht Club held its first meeting on Wednesday, May l5th, 1974. At that time the nucleons of the Club was made up of the local -branch of the Power Squadron. These were people with vision; people who saw a need for such an organization and so they started; first, with a section of land and an unused water lot which, over a period of seven years (with labour, resources within the Club, and a helping hand from other interested individuals in the community) has developed into what is known today as the SQUAMISH YACHT CLUB. Our affiliation and associations with whichwe have become involved are manyzi

— B. C. Council of Yacht_Clubs who, among other things, are firmly engaged in an attempt to have log salvage standards changed with hopes to cleanup some of the floating debris and, therefore, make boating less of a hazard. - B. C. Power Squadron who teach basic boating safety and other boating courses who often share their information with members of the Yacht Club.

— Canadian Yachting Association who are involved in sailing training and boating safety.

— Public Emergency Procedures, an organized volunteer rescue group who recently gave a talk to the Yacht Club on Air, Sea and Rescue procedures.

- Pacific International Yacht Association who are involved in organizing races throughout coastal waters and promoting pleasure boating in general.

— Vancouver Area Racing Council - This organization coordinates sail boat races around and in Vancouver proper.i These people are presently working with us on Squamish Open AnnualRegatta which T will talk about later. - Canadian Coast Guard Auxillary of which some of our members are actively involved with. ' ...... 3 3.

The Yacht Club is situated on the south side of the Govern- ment Docks in the general area designated as a smallboat harbour, which is at the end of a dredged designated channel leading down the middle of Mamquam Blind Channel. The lease on the water lot is held by the Squamish Municipality who have assured us that a long term lease to the Yacht Club will be forthcoming as is the case with the Flying Club, the Curling Club, Golf Club and others.

Our existing facilities, with 450 feet of floats providing 900 feet of berthage, accommodates some 35 boats representing 53 club members or 180 people.

A recent estimate of Club facilities including improvements such as dredging, retaining wall, pilings, public launching ramp, floats, electricity and water, clubhouse, parking lot, landscaping and fuel facilities comes to a replacement value of about $245,000.

This facility, at the present time, represents the only group actively involved in the beautification of waterfront property in Squamish. A Yacht Club contributes much to the community in which it is situated. Its members are constantly purchasing goods either to maintain their boats or goods such as food and clothing for their daily or weekly trips. As a matter of fact, boaters in Squamish have the highest percentage of year round usage than anywhere else on the B. C. coast.

The Squamish Yacht Club is the manager of the Government Docks through agreement with the municipality of Squamish.i

The Club is involved in promoting the community as a whole. VI Vrefer.to our most recent venture Squamish Open Annual Regatta. This event will, in fact, be Annual and become the sailing event of the year for both dinghy and keel boaters alike and will be of benefit to many in the community of Squamish.

We, also, have a project underway called "The Rock". This is the development of a security station just west of Defence Islands. The station will have mooring bouys, docks and a building which will provide warmth and shelter to a boater in trouble. As you can see, the Club is a very energetic part of your grow: ing community and speaking of growth, we need to expand our present facilities. We predict that in five years (at the present rate of growth) we will need a water area of 7 acres and a land area of about 5 acres (or at least twice the space already occupied). We ‘presently have 5 members on our waiting list for berthage and expect that at the end of 1980 this figure may double or even triple. Because of this, we are presently proceeding with an application to the Recreation Facilities Assistance Program, a division of

.l.. 4.

the Recreational & Fitness Branch of the Provincial Government. With the help of the municipality, we hope to expand our facilities to meet the immediate demands.

Now that we've talked about the Yacht Club what about recreational boating in general. Well, a survey in 1979 tells us that the mumber of primary boats in the Squamish area is about 510 with 128 secondary boats, these are dinghy and cartoppers, also, 186 trailerable boats which makes a total of 824 boats

‘ in the Squamish area. That is quite a few boats, In that same survey, we find that the Squamish area has the most active boaters on weekends; 75% are on the water on weekends. The highest percentage of these boats are from 11' to 20' which makes up 72.7 percent of total number of boats. Another inter- esting fact we find is what a boater in Squamish is likely to pay for annual operating cost. Annual Moorage fees S 128.42 " Boat Insurance 138.85

Annual Maintenance & Repairs . 153.75 Total $ 421.02

Thats before he goes for a joy ride or sail and before he goes fishing which brings me to the next subject of Sport fishing. On the average, a boater on a day trip will spend $ 9.07 on fuel, $ 7.53 for food, temporary tie—up fees of $ 2.50, fishing related expenditures of $ 4.40 and $ 5.75 for other odds and ends making a total of $ 29.25per day.

These figures, of course, are higher if you are going out for more than one day, for instance the average cost rises to $ 61.88 a day.

This does not, of course, reflect the actual dollar value of fish caught by the sports fisherman. That value is in excess of $2900,000. which is roughly equal to the commercial fisheries value which is related directly to the Squamish Estuary.

In closing, the Yacht Club would like to leave all of you with our findings to this point. Squamish generally interpreted means\Valhof the Winds’andto many of you this is a meaningful description because it is a windy place. To boaters it is more than the truth — it is’a fact that we live with and dare not forget because the winds of the Squamish Valley can spell danger to recreational boaters. Squamish, also, is at the head of a fiord where shorelines are steep or in total contrast, flat, inaccessable, exposed marshes. Un?a such circumstances any bay, channel, or breakwater_that providv: shelter must be treasured and protected. We can assure the community that we have thoroughly

- 5. researched the possibilities for alternate or additional locations for recreational boating facilities and can find no other morei suitable than those which exist in the Mamquam Blind Channel.

It is conceivable that other locations could be developed but the costs are far beyond the reach of our small club. L. _,_\..as‘ meM C . 3 m magmaSaxsuaQ mumm.2- M we ma.?m‘ox w_ .

d .tc$w\....~.br ._..n>9n. OW . i

1"‘

I‘ 1...... |CI!IulIl-III|¢Ilu' -‘I.

.?O.DO .J..o van... squamish terminals ltd. 9.0. Box1520,Squamish, B.c. VON 3G0 (604, 892-3511 Te|ex:O4-53374

A BRIEFPRESENTEDTO: THEPUBLICINVOLVEMENT WORK GROUP SQUAMISH ESTUARYMANAGEMENT PLAN

RE: SQUAMISH TERMINALS DEVELOPMENT

For those that may never have heard of Squamish, I give you its location.

Location:

The Municipality of Squamish with existing SquamishTerminals is located 40 miles north west of Vancouver at 49° 40 mins. north latitude, T23015 mins. west longitude. Squamish is served by British Columbia Railway.

History:

Originally there was a master plan For port facility development at Squamish, commissioned by the then Pacific Great Eastern Railway and undertaken by Swan Wooster Engineering Co. Ltd.: "Squamish Delta Port and Land Use Study" 23 June i970. This plan called for the ultimate development of one coal berth and four unit load berths by around i985. in view of the environment concern there has been no further developmentother than Squamish Terminals.

Present Development:

Squamish Terminals Ltd. was developed in its present state in l972 on land leased from the British Columbia Railway. The development was encouraged by Federal, Provincial and Municipal authorities with capital expenditures by the Federal and Provincial Governments to make the development Feasible. The initial development was performed by Cattermole Timber Ltd. and- subsequently Star Shipping (Canada) Ltd., as a major carrier of products to and Fromthis province, was invited to join Cattermole Timber Ltd. on an equal basis. This arrangement was encouraged and done with the understanding of the landlord.

When Cattermole Timber Ltd. subsequently wanted to consolidate its resources in the forestry industry, Star Shipping (Canada) Ltd. agreed to purchase the Cattermole Timber Ltd. interest and thus became the sole owner.

Thepresent Facilities consist of one berth regularly handling vessels in excess of 40,000 LT.DW., with a large warehouse and back up areas of some 40 acres of land. Dredging has been completed for a possible second berth on the west side of the terminal. The dredging was done to 38 feet water depth at low water at bothareas. ‘-\‘.. .-e.-a.'4A..-..» ...-L? ,_-_-.<,.:._::J .«. ..‘4.ua.-IU|ot?1‘-'-V-nvnuu-vvu-m_«n——-—-—-—-

-- squainish terminals ltd. -2-

For various reasons but primarily the fact that the Squamishdevelopment is on Provincially owned and controlled land services by BritishColumbiaRailway, the development at Squamishhas received comparatively speaking, little recognition.’ However, it is important to keep in mind that the present development was committed to and completed prior to decisions to build Vanterm and Lynnterm as well as the Prince Rupert Port Development.

Theterminal company's facilities were developed to cater primarily to the forest industry needs . and has performedin that capacity. The facilities are available on a common user basisboth for shippers‘and carriers. Cargo throughput has steadily increased and reachedin excessof 500,000tons in l978 where major shipperswere, Daishowa-MarubeniInternational Ltd., Weldwoodof Canada Limited, BritishColumbia Forest Products Ltd. , Northwood Pulp & Timber Limited, Finlay Forest industries Ltd. , Prince George Pulp 8. Paper Ltd., Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd., BuckeyeCellulose Corporation, Prince Albert Pulp 8. PaperLtd. and Canadian Forest ProductsLtd. We understand this volume is similar to that handled through the port of ThreeRiversin the_St. LawrenceRiver. ' "

Today SquamishTerminalsannual payroll is in excess of $3,000,000, the company employs26 staff membersas well as 40 membersin the regular workforce, an-additional 40 men are employed in the areafor loading vessels. A large numberof men are still required to travel from Vancouver to meet peak working hoursboth on the terminal as well as on vesseis, these men are provided with transportation and paid travel time. We naturally would prefer to use local labour and that is still a point of discussion with the union today.

SCHEDULEDEXPANSlON OF B.C. RELATEDFORESTPRODUCTSFACILITIES

Northwoodto double its 800 ton a clay BleachedKraft PulpMillat Prince George at a cost of more than$l50 million.

Finlay to spend $32 million to expand its MacKenzie, B.C. operation.

West Fraser Mills, Quesnel will build a 70 M thermo-mechanical pulp mill in Quesnel to be in operation by December l98l . (Quesnel River) (Daishowa also will be partners in this operation.)

B.C.F.P.- 230 M on 2 sawmillsand a newsprint plant in Alberta.

l,l80 million BFLumberper year at Grand Cache by l98l .

l ,l00 million BFLumberperyear at Obed, 32 K east of Hinton on the Edmonton/Jasperhighway.

I ,500 tonne per day newsprint mill at Obed. Construction to commence in l984, would take 2 years.

Continued ... .-squainish terminals ltd.

LOGISTICSOF MOVING THESECARGOES

First perhapswe should ask ourselves why Squamish,why not Vancouver or Prince Rupert. Well what we already have here we can hardly change, that is a fact of life, SquamishTerminals is here and provides a gateway for Western Canada. Any future expansion of the facility would provide a stimulusfor the economy of Squamish. The present terminal already contributes a _ significant dollar amount towards the provision of schools, roads, sewers and Municipal services. An expanded Terminal would contribute even more.

Howelse are we to pay for these services that are an every dayrequirement of todays standard of living we all enioy? *

Let's examine the other alternates, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and_perhapsBritannia Beach.

Vancouver

Vancouver is alreadya heavily congested area and we can see what’happenswhen the rail link to the North Shore is severed. Just think of the added energy cost of taking cargoes past Squamish, -its naturaland logical destination. Do those West Vancouver residents that protest so loudly against development in Squamish, really want.to see added rail traffic passing their door? Do we in Squamishwant to see our main street blocked by more trains? The train that has its destination as SquamishTerminalsis one less train through our town.

PrinceRupert

Thisport is rapidly developing as a major western seaport but in the commodities it handlesbest - Grain and Coal, you may not be aware but handling forest products is entirely another matter. Firstly we as Canadians are in a very sensitive and competitive market, any additional cost to .our commoditycan make the difference as to being competitive in world marketsor not, and railing cargoes of forest products to Prince Rupert is by and large considerably more expensive thanto Squamish. To this we have to add the cost of diverting vessels to Prince Rupert. It is perfectly . _true that the distance from Prince Rupert to Japan is shorter than from Squamish. Unfortunately, it is also true that no one pulp shipperhas the capacity or the requirement to fill todays modern vessel, hence a vessel calling at Prince Rupert would still be required to call at the Port of Vancouver and Vancouver Island. This entails two or more extradays vessel steaming at a considerable additional cost, especially at todays fuel prices, notto mentionthe energy waste. One has also to take into consideration that Japan is not our only customer, Europe still consumes about 40% of BritishColumbia's exported forest products and Prince Rupert is considerably-further from London/Rotterdam/Hamburgthan is Squamish. W

Continued ... . squamish terminals ltd.

Britannia Beach '

During the meetings of the Public InvolvementWorkGroup I have heard many people suggest Britannia as a possiblePort Site.

Thismay be true if you wish to see a coal or natural gas facility on that site but consider the arena that is of SquamishTerminalsconcern, the Forest Industryand the IndustrialPark.

First, as I have already said, we are where we are today with a seven million dollar facility and it would not be in our best interest, even if the land in question was available, for us to fragment our operation, therefore incurring needless additional cost.

One hasonly to look at the geographyof the proposedsite and evaluate the factors:

I . The present highwaywould have to be rerouted. 2. B.C.R. would require additional holding trackage. 3. Theconstruction of concrete berths to permit the loading of todays modern forest products carrier would be a maiorundertaking due to the underwater terrain, a bulk.tankerwould not require such a construction. We have the exampleof Fibrecowho, in l978, were actively considering Britanniafor their chip export facility, a facility that was eventually located in North Vancouver. The logistics of Britannia do not meet the requirements of the forest industry,or of SquamishTerminals.

The other alternativeis of course that wedonot expand our industries, we do not sell our goods abroad, with a resulting reduction in our standard of living, is that what we desire?

PRESENTAND POSSIBLEFUTURECARGOES THROUGHSéUAMlSHTERMINALS

In reviewing this subiectwehave confined our study to forest products, but ignoring any consolidation of cargoes originating from other ports and cargoes generated by the Squamish lndustrialPark.

1. PULPAND PAPER

Present and possiblefuture Pulp/Paper cargoes are as follows:

Anticipated Pulp/Paper All Known Pulp/Paper Originating on B.C.R. . Cargoes Probable for Present . I982 Squamishby 1982 .

l tons 1,150,000 tons 500,000tons 1,060,000 .

Continued ... sauamishterminals _|td.

.2. LUMBER

Due to the constant changingmarket it is very difficult to put any reliable figure on lumber volumesoriginating on B.C.R. destined for overseas markets.

in our discussionswith various lumbershippersthey have all confirmed the intent of the industry to diversify from the conventional U.S. market and look for markets abroad. We at present handle some 60 million-FBMa year and a conservative estimate is to see this increase to 200 million FBMby l985.

FUTUREPROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTOF SQUAMlSH TERMINALS

At this time it would be prudent for SquamishTerminals to plan forthe future in order to properly cater to the users of the facility at Squamishwhoprefer to ship through that part. As a matter of fact if oneviewed the total situation with the prospective Squamish Industrial Park a total development would logically be to dredge for a second berth on the east side providing berthing facilities fortwo vesselsloading pulp and paper and forest products and the construction of a third berth on the west side to handle general cargoes connected with the Industrial Park Developmentand additional lumberoriginating on the BritishColumbia Railwayline for export, thus providing a port for the proposed Industrial Park, additional needed storage facilities for the forest industry and improvingberthing facilities to avoid delays to vessels. The dredged material estimated at about 500,000 cubic yards could be used for fill and providing additional land for the additional cargoes. Enclosed, please find, sketch of the facilities illustrating the present location and suggested expansion. See AppendixNumberI . Should this total expansion take place the cost at todays

' level would be about $15,000,000. '

ENVIRONMENTRESERVATION5

ln l972 the Federal-ProvincialTask Force on the SquamishEstuary HarbourDevelopmentcommented on the planned Port Developmentand expressed concern for the impact on the Estuary. Since that time the position of Environment Canada has been a repetition of the original position taken in 1972 whenthe plan for the total developmentof the area was being considered. We give below an extract from the Federal-Provincial'TaskForce dated T report October l972. "Recommendation

On the basisof the findings presented herein it is recommended that port or other industrial developmentbe confined to those portions of the SquamishDelta which do not contribute significantly to esuarine productivity."

We would comment that there are a total of l,200 acres in the Squamish Delta land considered by the Fisheriesand'Marine Department to be productive to the fish in the SquamishEstuary. Out of this total area only l0O acreshave today been developed by SquamishTerminals, the river dyke and B.C.R.fill.

Continued... squamish terminals ltd.

.6-

Over the past years we have continued to hold protracted discussion with EnvironmentCanada in an effort to obtain the area so vital if we are to serve the needs of industry. Finally January 4th, I979 we received the following clarification from that department.

"ThisService is prepared to further consider the construction of berth No. 2 on the east side of the existing terminal, and the chip berth on the west side, and would welcome the opportunity to review final plans for theseproposals. As you may recall from your copy of this Service's letter of Decemberl5, 1977 to Mr. W.E. Patton of Swan Wooster Engineering Co. Ltd., core sample testing for mercury content at berth No. 2 would be necessaryiprior to designation of a suitable dredge -material disposal site.

With reference to the proposedfill on the north side of the terminal, this Service's position remains as stated in our letter of October 26, l977, in that we must recommend against any development which would result in a permanent alienation of the brackishwater marsh, which is considered to be a highly productivefish habitat."

The full text of Environment Canada-Fisheries letter is attached as Appendix l\lo.2.

As can be seen, this letter subject to the qualification of core sample testing for mercury content to determine a suitable site for the dredge material, gave us the two additional berthsbut not the back up land necessary to sustain the volume of traffic.

Time is not on our side, unlessquick positive action is taken we will see Canadian made goods railed down to Seattle, or some other U.S. port, placing an unnecessary cost on our manufacturers that in turn will place an additional burdenon their ability to compete in world markets.

Althoughthe advantages of ‘furtherdevelopment at Squamish may be obvious we would like to underline some of the main ones for particular consideration.

l. Provide facilities where they are most logical and economical. -2. Provide facilities for the provincial railwayand in effect strengthen the railway with facilities on their line serviced direct by the railroad.

3. Provide facilities and job opportunity in the Municipality of Squamishwhich is bothpreferable and desirable, specifically under the present work opportunity situation. We anticipate that the suggested expansion will create an average numberof jobs for N0 persons, not including the construction work.

Continued... sauamishterminals‘ltd. -7.

4. Providethe Squamish Industrial Park with a necessary direct connection to the port.

5. Avoid unnecessary concentrationof traffic in the congested Vancouver area for the benefit of all users.

6. Provide WesternCanada with additional viable export facilities.

In summary we, SquamishTerminals, support the developmentof recreation facilities but along with controlled industrial development. How else are we to pay for our roads, sewers and Municipal services.

Squamish Terminals‘requirementsare to be ready tomeet the demandsof the industry we serve by providing as and when necessary:

l. Additionalwarehousestorage 2. Additionalberth facilities

3. Sufficient back up land to accommodate the volume of trafficinecessaryto sustain.the operation we foresee.

We are a clean pollution free industryand our aim is to continue to keep it that way. In that objective we have and are prepared to work together with any organization, government or ' ' otherwise. ‘

1 V?tl-6 ~ « —aV-1....-..... -v-_~ g«--- ~ ..‘ .»-.»..:-.....gvy-up-1-_g -vs-‘Q’; v1‘-9» '-»~_r v-_—v}1~—~ _'» ...u-,¢9-7 _r .‘ ._...'?,...A.- ¢,(.-,.-“gr. ,_... ' ‘~,-- ‘. .

.1 ( --, PPENDIXNo.2 1;“:Environment Environnerru.-ut- is Canada -Canada - Fisheriesand». Péches-ct _ . Marine Sciencesde la mer

January 4, 1979.

warlilo Wm rélérance Mr. T-'.W. Collard, Terminal Manager, OurIda Nam: rélérencc Squamish Terminals Ltd., 5903-85-S37 P,01 Box 1520, 0654/ .- Squamish, B.C. . dc VON 3G0

Dear Mr. Collard:

Re: Sguamish Terminals Expansion

Reference is made to your letter of April 13, 1978, our meeting

V of April 18, 1978, and the copy of the minutes of the meeting which were forwarded to you by letter of May 26, 1978.

With reference to the last paragraph of the minutes of the meeting of April 18, it has come to my attention that the letter of response identified therein has not been provided to date. Accordingly I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm this Service's recommendations regarding the proposed Squamish Terminals expansion.

This Service is prepared to further consider the construction ' of berth No. 2 on the east side of the existing terminal, and the chip berth on the west side, and would welcome the opportunity to review final plans for these proposals. As you may recall from your copy of this Service's letter of December 15, 1977 to Mr. W.E. Patton of Swan Wooster ,Engineering Co. Ltd., core sample testing for mercury content at berth No. 2 would be necessary prior to designation of a suitable dredge material disposal site. '

With reference to the proposed fill on the north side of the terminal, this Service's position remains as stated in our letter of October 26, 1977, in that we must recommend against any development which

' would result in a permanent alienation of the brackish water marsh, which is considered to be a highly productive fish habitat.

Fisheries- Pacific Region Péchos - Région du Pacifique 1090 West Punder Street 1090 rue West Pender Vancouver, B.C. Vancouver (C.-B.) V6E 2P1 V6E 2P1 F%3000(12/75) \oI'\

January4, 1979 °. 3 ~ Mr. T.W. Collard Page 2

It is my understanding that the Water Investigations Branch of the Provincial Ministry of Environment has been instructed to provide guidance to Squamish Terminals Ltd. in their undertaking of studies pursuant to proposed expansion in the Squamish River Estuary. Please be advised that this Service has recently indicated to Mr. P.M. Brady, Director, water Investi- ,gations Branch, our willingness to participate in this initiative. ‘We look forward to further discussions regarding these matters.

Yours very truly .‘ .. I. #<:f? .

' ..,/’;2()/A{;,¢,, F C Boyd Acting'Head, Habitat Protection Division, Resource Services Branch. JAMItc

‘cc: W.E. Johnson, Director-Generalg . G.E. Jones;.Chie£, Fraser River - Yukon Branch ’L.S. Freeman, District Supervisor ' F.B. Wheeler, Fishery Officer, Squamish . F.C. Withler, Director, Resource Services Branch