#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 gov- ernment 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 destruc- tion. 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 protec- ting 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.