West Coast Environmental Law
Research Foundation Workshop

SFU Harbour Centre, Vancouver, Friday, June 14, 1996

Case Studies, Craig Orr, Steelhead Society

Speaking Notes

The agenda suggests that I'm presenting some sort of case study on urban salmon. Case study is a bit of a misnomer. The Steelhead Society has learned a few lessons in recent urban salmon campaigns, and certainly has discovered many questions.

Questions like, "Why bother?"

We must ask, "Why do governments bother to respond to citizens?"

And on a personal level, why we bother to struggle to save urban salmon? But more on that, later.

Let's get back to lessons.

Lesson 1: To prevent damage, it is often helpful to look at the costs of repairing or restoring rivers.

The extreme case in a continuum is, of course, "How much would it cost to build a river from scratch?'' It's a staggering thing to contemplate.

How much would it cost to restore lost urban salmon habitat? Certainly, the bill would be astronomical; the task, daunting.

The Steelhead Society recently billed the provincial government's Forest Renewal BC Watershed Restoration Program more than $900,000 for about 10 watershed restoration projects. We support the intent of the WRP, but its ability to repair damaged watersheds is really only a drop in the bucket, compared to the damage done by poor logging practices. This relationship must be made transparent.

Lesson 2: Government serves industry better than it serves the interests of its citizens (or environmental protection).

I submit, as an example, the lengthy delay of a document prepared by the DFO: Stewardship Bylaws: A Guide for Local Government.

I first reviewed a draft of this important document in November 1995. I subsequently learned that its publication was delayed by concerns raised by the Urban Development Institute. I was told on March 12, 1995, by Rod Bell-Irving, DFO Habitat Protection, that the "UDI letter was only a hiccup" in the release of the document. Now I'm told that the provincial government is adding an introduction, and that the document may not be published for "four or five" months. I've written several book reviews, but never one that predated the book by nearly a year!

Lesson 3: Government serves industry, growth and itself better than it serves the common best interests of its citizens.

Just explore the relation between growth and generation of new taxes.

Consider the issue of the upcoming "Fish Protection Act" which will not adequately ensure minimum flows for fish. The act will not deal with the existing 40,000 water licences. We're oversubscribed. Compensation is too touchy.

Consider the operations of BC Hydro in diverting 98 per cent of the flow from the Alouette River.

Lesson 4: Government will only serve the common best interests of its citizens (and thus the environment) when the focus of intense public scrutiny.

Examples of where BC Hydro changed its operating plans to help fish:

1. Alouette. Flows adjusted up from 20 cfs to 265 cfs after intense campaign by Steelhead Society, Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Alouette River Management Society.

2. Campbell River. Intense local media campaign after fall floods caused major damage. New operating plan promised.

3. Cheakamus. I'm a member of the public advisory board of the Habitat Conservation Fund, which sponsored a study on BC Hydro compliance with water licences. The study found that, for 40 years, BC Hydro diverted nearly 30% more water from the Cheakamus than allowed by Hydro's licence. Yet I cannot obtain a copy of the report, even though I okayed the expenditure. The government is "spin-doctoring" the release, and we should be alarmed. It appears that we have lost a run of nearly one million pink salmon in the Cheakamus, likely because of the loss of water and deviation from the natural hydrograph of the Cheakamus.

I'd like to finish by returning to the begnning question: why bother?

The introduction to the Steelhead Society's book, Writing Letters that Count, says that individuals can and do make a difference — if and when they bother to write. And that maximizes your effect, your self worth, making the battle to save urban salmon worthwhile.

Saving Your Own Backyard: Steelhead Society of BC Paper 1 (12.95.1) It's a fact that British Columbians are becoming increasingly anxious about the plight of Pacific Salmon. It's also a fact that the public can't yet thank the authorities for taking anything that can be called direct and decisive action against salmon destroyers. Nevertheless, the public can today thank the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans for doing something of indirect value — publishing a little pamphlet with big potential.

Salmon champions throughout the province will find much meat in Stewardship Bylaws: A Guide for Local Government, a 79-page booklet based on the District of North Vancouver's "Environment Protection and Preservation Bylaw". The DFO pamphlet is available from:

The Communications Branch
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
555 West Hastings
Vancouver, BC
V6B 5G3

It might well be that the DFO Guide's single biggest contribution is that it shows salmon advocates how local government can use land-use regulations to implement salmon stewardship strategies.

In its discussion of "stewardship," the Guide highlights the need to act locally, and outlines six basic steps in the "bylaw writing process."

1. Assembling relevant "enabling" legislation and regulations (bylaws are usually guided by more than one act).

2. Identifying bylaw purpose and content.

3. Developing policy through workshops and discussions with staff, politicians, other local governments, and the public.

4. Determining the bylaw structure (or the structure of a combination of bylaws).

5. Writing a detailed purpose for each bylaw section.

6. Writing bylaw enforcement provisions, "filter" and "exception" clauses, and definitions.

The Guide uses "tables" to illustrate how "alternative policy frameworks" can be used in each of three distinct jurisdictions: municipalities, regional districts and rural areas. The Guide rates Framework "A" as the more able to serve community stewardship goals and to meet "the intent of land development guidelines." The main flaws in Framework "B" are that it doesn't stop sediments and pollutants from entering storm drain systems (which ultimately end up in fish-bearing waters), doesn't guarantee sufficient tree cover, and doesn't apply to areas in which rural land-use bylaws prevail.

Specifically, Framework A explains how citizens (salmon advocates?) can use the Municipal Act to influence tree cutting, soil removal and deposition, and even to prohibit "fouling" of streams. To accomplish these ends, it's often necessary to use a "combination" of "blanket bylaws" and permits. For example, it might be necessary to use bylaws dealing with trees and soils, plus bylaws dealing with zoning regulations and setbacks, plus development permits.

Ironically enough, Framework B explains how citizens can use development permits to prevent development. It's a matter of where and why development is not encouraged — next to "hazard lands [or watercourses]" — and how to exploit that information.

The Guide provides examples of a host of helpful stewardship goals, policies, enforcement options, pitfalls and enabling legislation (p 14), and important definitions and references (p 19). The Guide's detailed examples of various bylaws will be a boon to many environmentalists: tree management bylaws (p 21), soil removeal and deposition (p 33), watercourse definition (p 43), rural land use (p 49), development permits (p 55), subdivision and servicing standards, or "rural use" (p 63), ticketing and bylaw enforcement (p 69), and various appendices (p 73).

The Guide does have its failings. There's no summary; its jargon is off-putting; its meanings often fuzzy; and its failure to include examples of existing salmon-protection bylaws (by municipality) and assessments of bylaw effectiveness downright disappointing.

Perhaps the next printing will eliminate these failings. Perhaps the next printing will also report on the various municipal councils' wide ranging concern for, and knowledge of, salmon. That the nation's prime minister, the province's premier, and most towns' mayors and councillors are pro-development merely states the obvious: our values are awry, and our salmon, in peril.

That's why salmon advocates deserve our collective praise, and why a modest booklet deserves our bold thanks.

Sierra Legal Defence Fund — Notice of Press Conference — June 27, 1996 June 28, 10:30 am, at the offices of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Suite 214, 131 Water Street (Gastown).

The Steelhead Society of British Columbia and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund will call on the provincial government to conduct an inquiry into the role of the provincial Water Management Branch, and the Comptroller of Water Rights, in regards to four decades of water mismanagement by BC Hyddro on the Cheakamus River.

The Steelhead Society and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund also call on BC Hydro to pay $15 million compensation for lost fish productin.

In a report issued on June 21, (the "Ward" report), it was shown that BC Hydro has diverted, on average, 19 to 27 per cent more water from the Cheakamus than allowed by its licence. In 1995, BC Hydro diverted 51 to 62 per cent more water than allowed in its licence (report summary attached).

The report also questions why no Comptroller of Water Rights has ever issued an order setting forth the quantity and time of water releases to maintain fish propagation, even though the Comptroller was ordered to do so in 1956, as a condition of the water licence.

Evidence suggests that more than one million pink salmon may have been lost on the Cheakamus, as a result of water mismanagement. Annual harvests of now-extinct wild pink salmon averaged nearly 500,000 fish. Based on lost production, and the commercial landed value of pink salmon, the Steelhead Society and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund are asking BC Hydro to pay $15 million in compensation.

Water Releases at the Cheakamus Power Plant: A Review of Licenced Diversion Operations — Summary We have made an analysis of the water releases and reviewed the conditional water licences at the Cheakamus Power Plant. A comparison is made with the terms of the diversion licence, CL 22284. We found that the mean annual volume of water diverted through the turbines was much larger than the volume specified in the Conditional Water Licence CL 2284 of 700,000 acre-feet per annum.

Calculations were made with two estimates of hydroelectric gross efficiencies, 74.7% (taken from BC Hydro's computer calculations), and 80% (best estimate from recent on-site measurements by BC Hydro). These showed that the volume diverted exceeded the licenced amount in 32 or 33 out of 38 years of record. In one or two years the volume may or may not have exceeded the licence, within the errors of the calculation, and in four or five years the volume was within the licence. During the 38 years between 1958 and 1995, the mean annual volume through the turbines was 1026 to 1099 Mm³ (equal to 832 to 891 thousand acre-ft), equal to a large excess (+19% to +27%) over the licenced amount. The year with the maximum excess diversion through the turbines was 1995 (+51% to +62% excess).

In summary, using the best estimate of overall hydroelectric system efficiency, BC Hydro's water diversions have significantly exceeded the licenced flow for the majority of the time since 1960. Last year (1995), the exceedences were the greatest on record (annual volume diverted 51% greater than allowed by the licence).

Discussions with Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks staff indicate that no Comptroller of Water Rights has ever issued an order setting forth the quantity and time of water releases to be made for the purpose of maintaining a flow of water in the Cheakamus River for fish propogation. This is surprising in view of the fact that this order was stated as a requirement in the conditional water licence (Clause J of licence), which was to be settled by June 1, 1996.

Storage of water at the Cheakamus project (in Daisy Lake reservoir) is controlled by conditional storage licence CL 22285. This sets out the maximum volume of water per annum that may be stored in the reservoir. Analysis of historical compliance with this licence is not included in the present report.

Prepared for: MoELP and DFO by:
Dr Peter RB Ward, P Eng, and Dr HA Yassien, P Eng, of Ward & Associates, Vancouver, BC

Summary

The first question we must ask ourselves is, "why bother?"

One way to conceptualize the value of streams is to look at the cost of restoring a stream compared to what it costs to prevent damage in the first place. How much would it cost to build a river from scratch? The Steelhead Society has received $920,000 from Forest Renewal for watershed restoration on the Squamish River and this is merely a drop in the bucket. The cost of repairing an urban stream would be astronomical. It is an awareness issue. People don't know the cost. A small survey being carried out now is questioning how people `value' salmon.

Another lesson that Craig Orr has learned is that government serves industry better than the interests of the people or the environment. Charges laid under the Fisheries Act over the last three years have been paltry. In one case at Harrison, the fine given out was only one dollar. A guide for local government on stream stewardship bylaws has been written, which he thinks is a fantastic document. It has been held up because of concerns of the Urban Development Institute.

Government also serves itself. There are currently 40,000 licences which will be grandfathered. Minimum instream flow requirements will only apply to new licences. Public scrutiny is the key to getting government to serve its citizens. For example with the Alouette River, only two cubic feet of water was being released per second, and at least one third of historical flows were necessary to maintain fish populations. With threats of legal action and public pressure, it was raised to 80 cubic feet, which cost BC Hydro one million. With the Campbell River there has been massive habitat loss. It will cost a half million but right now there is no flow, and when there is it kills salmon. Flows on the Chekamus River have been studied, but even members of the Public Advisory Board have not been able to get copies of the report. For forty years BC Hydro has been exceeding its licence by thirty percent. This is more serious than the Nechako situation. Only public scrutiny will lead to change.

The reason we should bother is that people have influence. We count.