Endangered rivers    2007

Endangered rivers 2008

 

Most of the issues listed in 2006 and 2007 are still active (I have attached the 2007 list).

 

2008 Update

 

1)  Coho returns low although not a crisis yet

          The preliminary estimate for fall 2007 coho returns (from DFO counts at the fish fence on the river) is about 2,000.  While this is better than the extremely low returns of 1,000 in 2006 (1,000 may have been low enough to reduce smolt counts but we will not know this until we have the smolt number, if the census is done, in the spring of 2008) the 2007 number of 2,000 is still a great disappointment for what was projected to be a good year.  The typical counts in the last 10 years have been 4,000 to 5,000 coho.  The problem appears to be ocean survival although the lack of consistent smolt counts makes this difficult to determine (see point 2).    

           

2)  Lack of commitment and performance by DFO. 

            DFO continues to neglect field operations including stock assessment.  The Salmon River has been designated a “key stream” and an “index” river (coho smolts migrating out of the river and coho spawners returning have been trapped, tagged and counted yearly going back almost 30 years so this is one of the longest data streams in the province).  Despite this DFO abandoned the program in the fall of 2005 and the spring of 2006 citing budget problems.  It is very troubling that DFO would abandon such a long and important data stream.  This action shows once again how DFO’s commitment to field operations has deteriorated (the budget is being used to pay for expensive bureaucracy which seldom seems to produce results while important field issues such as stock assessment and habitat protection are neglected). 

            Since we do not have smolt counts for the spring of 2006 we are not sure whether the low counts in the fall of 2007 are due to low smolt numbers or other factors.  Fortunately counts have been done again since the fall of 2006 but we do not have a long term commitment from DFO to continue these counts so funding for 2008 is still uncertain. 

            The issue of commitment to field operations and abandoning an “index” river has been noted by volunteers in other areas of the province with dismay.  These sorts of issues continue to be evident all across the province and are important factors in the decline in volunteer numbers and commitment as people wonder why they should volunteer if they cannot trust DFO to do its job. 

 

3)  Dredging in the Fraser and in the Salmon.  A Ripple Effect with unfortunate consequences from DFO failures at Spring Bar on the Fraser.                         

 

            I have attached a copy of a power point put together recently (by others) about the dredging project on the Fraser at Spring Bar.  DFO’s has capitulated allowing this project to proceed despite scientific evidence showing that it will have minimal effects on flooding at the cost of significant damage to habitat.  This failure by DFO is having unintended negative consequences elsewhere notably the Salmon River .  There has been unrelenting pressure from farmers in recent years to have the river dredged despite engineering reports from the Township of Langley documenting that dredging would not reduce flooding significantly.  Now that DFO has allowed dredging in the Fraser the farmers are arguing even more strongly that the same thing should be done on the Salmon River . 

            The farmers’ argument ignores the fact that the floodplain has always flooded and even with improved drainage will continue to be useful only for hay fields and little else.  The vast amounts of money the farmers want spent by the Township (taxpayers) to minimally improve their land will have little real effect in terms of improved farming and higher value crops.             

            On the other hand dredging and other measures contemplated in the engineering reports commissioned to study flood reduction) would devastate the habitat in the river.  The engineering report even went so far as to consider dropping the water level in the river by 2 feet below present levels which would devastate the river.  It is troubling that this sort of destructive option would even be considered. 

            Dredging would likely remove the oxbows and meanders that have, until now, been undisturbed in the floodplain and make the floodplain of the Salmon River one of the best canoeing experiences in the Lower Mainland.  Several years ago Larry Pynn canoed the river starting at Trinity Western University as the river passes beside the campus and wrote an excellent article in the Vancouver Sun about the canoe trip. 

 

Nb.  The Salmon is one of the few Lower Mainland rivers that still retains its historic oxbows and meanders little changed from the days the Hudson ’s Bay Company exploration party under James McMillan first traveled to near present day Fort Langley in 1824.  The party followed the traditional aboriginal route which was the main travel corridor in and out of the Fraser Valley as the aboriginals did not like using the mouth of the Fraser due to the presence of hostile tribes.  The route started at Mud Bay near White Rock with the party paddling up the Nicomekl (the Nicomekl was much wider than now as paddle wheelers were able to get up the river to Cloverdale until approval to dam and dyke after the 1948 floods was used by farmers to place dykes well within the river banks) to the present day Milner.  From there they took a short portage to near where Trinity Western University is today and then floated down the Salmon River to the Fraser.    

 

4)  Water issues

      a)  Water quantity

            Nothing has yet been done about the dropping water table.  Langley Township was given permission by the province to address groundwater issues as a study area but the Township, rather than opening up this topic to feedback from the public, formed a “stakeholders” group by invitation only.  This group working in isolation from public input has come up with recommendations (notably a new tax and a requirement that property owners buy expensive water meters) that needed more discussion with the public before coming forth.  When the report was tabled this summer the public was surprised by its content and there was an uproar that has put the whole idea of protection of water on the back burner again. 

 

            This tendency for government at all levels to do come up with ideas and plan them out in isolation is perhaps the biggest problem we face as we frequently are presented with new ideas that are not well thought out or that surprise us and cause negative reactions.  If governments would only involve us at the “idea stage” before they start planning then the ideas would be better, the planning would be improved and there would be a much increased chance of good policy that the public is willing to “buy into”.

 

            In the meantime the failure of the groundwater stakeholder process leaves water tables in Langley dropping rapidly with some easy to fix issues, such as large water losses from artesian wells that could quickly be capped, unaddressed.  There is still no provincial legislation to effectively address groundwater issues. BC is the only jurisdiction in north America without an act to protect groundwater despite many rural and even suburban areas such as Langley largely being dependent on ground water. 

 

            We do not know at this point how much the dropping water table is affecting the river yet.  There is some evidence of low smolt counts at times but with DFO not funding the fish trap consistently in recent years we don’t have enough data to come to good conclusions.  Anecdotally there is much evidence that water levels in the stream during the dry summer months are getting to worrisome levels especially in the small feeder streams that are preferred rearing habitat during the year coho stay in the stream before migrating out as smolts.  

 

      b)  Water quality

            Manure issues continue to be a major concern.  The report of manure being dumped near the mouth of the river cited in the 2007 endangered rivers application has still not been addressed by authorities despite being reported the last three summers.  DFO abandoned the water quality field a few years ago and is now dependent on Environment Canada to attend any complaints.  Environment Canada apparently only has 6 people in the field for all of B.C.  It is very difficult to get them to attend any problems other than large industrial issues.

            Other properties (notably one property north of Aldergrove that has been reported many times over the years) continue to dump manure with seeming impunity. 

          Nitrate and phosphate levels in the river and wells near the river continue to be high.  Well water in the north part of the Hopington/Salmon River aquifer (near 232 and Highway 1) continues to show readings for nitrates above public health limits.  Fortunately the coho have been able to cope with these levels so far but the fauna in the river has changed as a result with many areas having increased problems with noxious weeds and invasive species such as reed canary grass. 

 

5)  Development

       We continue to hear of talks between landowners in and around Trinity Western University and the Township of Langley for large scale development of that area.  This is another example of the public being shut out of discussions about something that would have significant long term consequences for the area and the Salmon River .           Development would have immediate impacts on the section of the Salmon River that passes through Trinity Western and would create increased runoff that would worsen flooding in the Fort Langley floodplain and further increase pressure on the Township to dredge and further drain the floodplain.  Although there are many ideas to reduce runoff from development and to decrease environmental damage from development there are no good examples yet in North America where these ideas have been shown to minimize impacts to acceptable levels (there are still significant impacts especially for fragile runs such as coho) over the medium to long term.  If we want the Salmon River to continue to be a showpiece river with good habitat and retention of the historic environmental features in the floodplain then we must hold back on development unless and until ways are found to reduce the impacts significantly.